Mission to Prussia

California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists · Oakland, California · Apr 1, 1875

Mission to Prussia.

IN last week's SIGNS we copied from the Review that portion of Elder Andrews' report from Prussia, which includes the discussion of the election question. This week we give the closing part of the report relative to the Sabbath. It is gratifying to know that Elder A. is ready to meet all forms of objections to the ancient Sabbath of the Lord. And that, while it is his nature to treat opponents with kindness and liberality of soul, he seems fired with the spirit of his mission to speak the truth of God with all confidence. Elder Andrews continues:—

As soon as the meeting closed, I returned at once to the place where we were to stop for the night, at some little distance from the hall. In a few minutes who should come in to converse, but the pastors of two of the principal national churches in that place. Indeed, one of these gentlemen is the superintendent over the national churches in this section, an office corresponding somewhat to that of bishop in the English national church. They had both been present in our meeting. This superintendent can speak English. He said he wished to know the object of our mission. I told him that I would answer his questions with the greatest pleasure; that I had come to Europe to preach to the people upon the prophecies which indicate the speedy return of the Son of man, and also to preach in behalf of the Sabbath of the Lord which the great apostasy has trodden under foot. He said in reply that there is in Germany and Switzerland an extensive association of ministers that are engaged in the study of the prophecies, and that they are generally agreed that the coming of Christ must be near. He said that he was a member of this association. I asked him if he thought I had taught the people error in what I had said in his hearing. He said, "No; I cannot deny anything you have said, but would it not have been better to preach the gospel?" I asked him if a description of the day of Judgment was not a part of the preaching of the gospel as we found it in the New Testament. He said, "Oh! yes."

Then I gave him quite a definite account of the Sabbath cause in America, and of the nature of our work. This was what he wanted to know. Then he said if we keep the Sabbath we ought to keep the Jewish feasts. I told him that we recognized the obligation of the moral law, but not that of the ceremonial, and I asked him if he did not do the same thing, and in particular if he did not believe and teach that men should keep the ten commandments. He said, "Yes." Then I added that this very position constrained us as honest men to hallow the seventh day, and that I was unable to see how he could honestly do otherwise. He replied, "Christ when he arose entered into his rest, and his rest must be our rest, and it is much superior to the seventh-day rest," etc. He spoke here at some length, and in an animated though good-natured manner.

As soon as he paused, I told him that I had only one objection to offer, and that was that nothing of this kind was said in the Bible. He smiled, and then said, "But we have the apostolic meetings upon this day to show that it is the right day." I answered that there was barely one such meeting in the book of Acts, and that though Luke is very particular when recording any act that is a custom to mark it as such (see Luke 1: 8, 9; 2: 27, 42; 4: 16; 22: 39; Acts 16: 13; 17: 2; 18: 4, and other places), he does not intimate that meetings on the first day were customary, though if they were such it was of the utmost importance that he should state the fact. It was therefore only a meeting caused by Paul's departure next morning.

To this he made no reply, only that there were some other texts which mention the first day. I referred him to 1 Cor. 16: 2, as perhaps the text he wanted. He then took out his Greek Testament to read the passage when I made this direct appeal to him: Does not "par heauto" signify that each individual was to lay apart by himself, and not to put his offerings on that day into the public treasury? He was frank enough to own, what indeed it was impossible for him honestly to deny, that this text related to what each one should do at home. But, said he, the day itself is called "one of the Sabbaths." I asked him if he would translate it thus instead of the common translation "first-day of the week"? He said, "Yes." Then said I, If you translate it thus how do you know it is the first day that is intended? He asked if I did not believe that the first day was here intended. I told him I did, but that it had no Sabbatic character in this text, for that the Hebrews spoke of all the days from one seventh-

day to another in this manner, as "the one of the Sabbaths," "the two of the Sabbaths," etc. I asked him if he was not aware that the best authorities confirmed this. He said, "Yes," and dropped the point. But, said he, there is the Lord's day, and he quoted the Greek of Rev. 1: 10. I replied, There is nothing in the connection nor in any other part of the Bible to show that Sunday is here intended, or that it has any right to that title, but there are many facts to prove that the seventh day is God's holy day, and the day which Christ claims as his own. But, said he, "We have the Christian fathers to prove that Lord's day is the proper title of Sunday." I told him that I had carefully examined all of the Christian fathers on this subject down to the Council of Nice, and that I have them now in my library at Neuchatel. I told him that no one of them gave Sunday this name till about two hundred years after the birth of Christ. And yet several of them speak of the day before that time, but only as Sunday or first-day.

He referred to Barnabas. I told him that the epistle of Barnabas was spurious, and asked him if he did not think so. He assented to that view. But I said that he would find in Barnabas no sacred title for first-day, much less that of Lord's day. "Well," he said, "there are the writings of Papias." I said, Yes; but Papias does not mention the first day, or even allude to it. "But," said he, "why was there not a violent controversy on this subject between the adherents of the two days?" I told him that the apostasy was a gradual departure from God, like that which in the lapse of years elevated the pastors of the church of the Romans to claim supreme authority. I said to him that Sunday was a day of ordinary labor during the first three hundred years. At this point it was necessary that he should leave to take the cars. He acted like a gentlemen throughout our entire interview, and never appeared in the slightest degree vexed. He invited me to call upon him, which perhaps I shall hereafter do.

The other pastor remained a little longer. I said to him, I will change the form of pastor E's question, and give it to you to answer. If the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day by Christ, why do we never find the Jews laying this change of action to the charge of the apostles? There is never a hint of controversy between them on this point. Can you explain this? He thought the seventh-day was a point of no importance. I told him in God's sight it was important enough to be put into the ten commandments. But, said he, we can call Sunday the seventh day. I said, Yes; but God has called the previous day by that name. I referred him to Luke 23: 56; 24: 1, to show him that the Sabbath according to the commandment is the day preceding the first day of the week. I also referred him to James' statement that he who violated one of the commandments becomes guilty of all. I said to him, I do not judge you, but I have very decided convictions that you and all others should keep the Sabbath of the Lord. Here our interview ended. This gentleman also was perfectly courteous throughout our entire conversation. Probably I cannot hope to lead either of them to see the truth, but I do believe they were made to see it and to feel its force.

Elberfeld, Prussia, Feb. 15, 1875.