BOTH SIDES OF THE SABBATH QUESTION.
By Uriah Smith
A NUMBER of articles have lately appeared in the World's Crisis, from the pen of T. M. Preble, under the title of "The seventh-day Sabbath—The Law. The Old 'Dead Schoolmaster!' The Living Jesus." It is well known that Eld. Preble first called the attention of Adventists to the Sabbath, by some essays in its favor, in 1845; and though he soon gave it up, others commenced its advocacy, and the work has moved steadily on until fourteen or fifteen thousand Seventh-day Adventists are now, in obedience to the command of the Lord by the prophet, Isa. lviii, 13, calling "the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, and honorable." It will interest such to learn by what means Eld. P. came to consider it a yoke of bondage which he was not able to bear. The subject is confessedly one of importance. The Sabbath is introduced to us on the opening page of revelation. It bears a prominent place in all the instructions which God has given his people in any age or dispensation, touching their duties to himself. It is an institution that he has ever claimed as peculiarly his own, committing it to man only as a heavenly keepsake, and a memorial of his great and glorious name. He is jealous of his praise and glory, and has declared that his honor is involved in the keeping of his Sabbath. Thus says the prophet: "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable, and shall honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words, then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord, and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." Isa. lviii, 13, 14. Aside from the gracious promise contained in this scripture for the faithful Sabbath-keeper, we learn that to refrain from our own ways, finding our own pleasure, or speaking our own words, on the Sabbath, was, anciently, at least, to honor the Most High. We should beware, therefore, how we hastily decide against this institution, lest haply we be found to fight against God; for no amount of honor bestowed upon the Son, no amount of professed reverence for the living Jesus, will compensate for the least dishonor offered to the great Jehovah, inasmuch as our Saviour has expressly declared that he and his Father are one. We propose, therefore, to carefully and candidly consider Eld. Preble's present position; and in doing this, we shall let him speak for himself, giving his entire article, simply dividing it into such portions as are convenient for reply. He enters upon his subject as follows: "MY EXPERIENCE. TO THE SAINTS SCATTERED ABROAD, GREETING:—MY BRETHREN: I have once been an observer of the seventh-day Sabbath." This was from about the middle of the year 1844, to the middle of 1847; when, becoming convinced that I was wrong, I gave it up, and returned to the observance of the 'first-day' again. "As I wrote and published some upon this subject, and a few of the 'tracts' are yet in being, Sabbatarians are making what use they can of them to advance their cause. Wishing to atone in part, or as far as I am able, for the evils I may have done in publishing so far as I did this error; and especially as many have solicited my reasons for the change of my views, and what scriptural grounds I have for my present position; I deem it my duty to publish still more; but now on the right side of the question." "Where it is deemed good policy, I learn that some are trying to make all the capital out of my old tract on the seventh-day Sabbath they can, and sometimes appear to place about as much confidence in reading it to their hearers, to establish the doctrine of Sabbatarians, as they do in reading from the Bible; and say that I am now a 'backslider,' and 'going to perdition,' because of my return to the observance of the 'first day!'" "As I have several letters now on hand, soliciting my views on the Sabbath question, which I have been unable to answer of late, in consequence of sickness in my family, and other cares and labors: I deem it my duty to prepare an article for the paper, and if the Crisis will have the goodness to speak for me on this vexing or 'bewitching' question, I hope it will prove to be a satisfactory answer to my friends; and others, who are interested in this subject, be benefited by it, in these last days of temptation and trial. Amen." REPLY.—The interest of others whose attention has been called to this subject, has not proved so transient as Eld. P.'s, but on the other hand has deepened with their increasing experience and further light. The 'evil,' if such it be, is increasing. The prospect before the Sabbath cause was never more encouraging, nor the halo of light that encompasses the subject more bright and glorious. The ball has been set in motion; and it bids fair to be even like the barley leaf that tumbled into the camp of the Midianites, laying prostrate their tents and leading on to perfect victory. To arrest this work will require more than his present effort. He will need to send forth publications which can cope with such works as the History of the Sabbath by J. N. Andrews, which not only has not been answered, but remains to be even attacked. We would not however counsel him to any such effort; for we sincerely regard him as laboring under a deception, and pursuing a course, in which if he continues, he will suffer loss in the day that cometh, which shall try every man's work of what sort it is. He cannot plead like many who are now keeping the first-day, that he has never had the light on the subject, although it may be proper to add that the light that had come forth upon this question at the time he bade farewell to God's great memorial, was not a tithe of what it is now. Still it is not without something of marvel that we behold a man turning away from a position on which the light gleamed however faintly, to one which could boast of nothing but total darkness. He speaks of this 'bewitching' question. If by this he would imply that people are ever bewitched into the keeping of the seventh instead of the first-day, we would suggest that he has applied the term to the wrong side of the question. Neither revelation nor experience furnish an instance of a person's being bewitched into a practice that calls for increased sacrifice, self-denial, and separation from the world, which are more or less involved in the keeping of the Sabbath, while we do have instances of just the reverse. Paul reproved his Galatian converts for being bewitched that they should not obey the truth. The witchery always operates in behalf of a lower standard and an easier position; hence it would not be strange if Sunday, complacently arraying itself in the robe of popular favor, and popular practice, and pointing to a broad and easy way in which the multitude travel, should beguile the ease-loving and unstable. May God save his people from being dazzled with the tinsel and glitter of the false and the counterfeit. But our friend has a confession to make to which we will now listen: Preble.—"MY CONFESSION.—Here let me now confess, that if there is any one day mentioned in the Scriptures which is now more 'holy' than another, made so by the express or direct command of Almighty God, then the 'seventh day' is the one. And as I have often said, within the last fifteen years, to those who have questioned me on this subject, that if they would point out one single text to me in the New Testament that will show that the seventh day is now more 'holy' than another, and that it thus proves that Christians should observe it as 'holy' time, then I will observe with them the next seventh day; and will preach and practice after that, the observance of the 'seventh-day Sabbath,' as in former years. But not a man of them has yet, neither can they show this. Many, both in public and in private, have been silenced in this way, and have never opened their mouth to me on the seventh-day Sabbath question, after this statement. This statement stands good against me yet, and if any Sabbatarians wish me to observe with them again the seventh day, let them just comply with the above request, and they will find me true to my word. This puts the laboring oar into their hands. Let them use it if they can." REPLY.—In the above, Eld. P. has indeed 'witnessed a good confession,' in the admission that if any one day is now more holy than another, 'the seventh day is the one.' No day can be holy except made so by the command of Almighty God; hence if the seventh138day is not now holy, there is no holy time in this dispensation. Let the reader set this down as Waymark No. 1. We shall have more or less occasion to refer to it as we proceed. The remainder of the paragraph is occupied with the stale and incessant clamor for testimony from the New Testament that the seventh day is now holy, or for a repetition of God's command for its observance. He adroitly endeavors to put the laboring oar into our hands. We beg leave, however, to decline said oar, and think we can show him that it is still in his charge. Prove to him, he says, that the seventh day is now holy, and he will observe it; to which we might respond, Prove to us that it is not holy, and we will immediately cease its observance. The commandment must be repeated in the New Testament before he can believe it to be binding. But we would ask him to give a moment's serious thought to this one question. Why should the commandment be repeated in the New Testament, or why should we expect it? We know that the seventh day was once to be regarded as holy time by the express command of God; we know that its observance was once binding. Now it must be apparent to all that there is no need of reasserting its holiness, or repeating the law for its observance, unless it can be shown to have been abolished. But if he asserts that it has been abolished, then we say, Let him prove it; for here we deny and he affirms. It is an established principle, and all logicians will sustain it, that all the presumption lies "in favor of the old opinion and established usage;" and any institution which is known to have been once firmly established, is presumed to be still in existence, unless it can be shown why and when it was to cease, or did cease, to exist. Again we say, if he would have us turn with him from the seventh day to the first day, let him show (and no man is better able to show) where the former has been done away. But when he has done this, the work is only half accomplished; for a law yet remains to be found enforcing the new institution. Thus a double burden of proof is found resting upon his shoulders; let him dispose of it if he can. When he will prove what we have shown to be incumbent on him to prove, we will join him in his present position, and again observe the first-day Sabbath as in former years. His objection goes upon the ground that all our duty is enjoined in the New Testament, which we will set down as Fallacy No. 1, and shall consider it in another place. Preble.—"WE SHOULD BE NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANS. For any one to start a subject founded upon the Old Testament Scriptures, and then try to make the New Testament conform to it, instead of taking their starting-point in the New, and then see that the Old is made to harmonize with this, that is putting a 'yoke' upon their own 'necks,' and upon the necks of others who are made to believe them, 'which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.' And as the apostle says to the Corinthians: "But their minds were blinded; for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their hearts. Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away." 2 Cor. iii, 14–16. "And I will repeat that at 'this day,' many 'minds are blinded,' because 'the same veil' remains 'untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; and it is a great pity that men will not turn their 'hearts' to the Lord Jesus; then 'the veil shall be taken away,' and thus be no longer 'upon their hearts.' But if men are determined to go it 'BLIND,' the 'ditch' must take them up." REPLY.—With the statement that we should be New Testament Christians, we heartily sympathize. "The faith of Jesus" is by no means a small item of our belief. But do we fall from grace, or come under the curse, because we connect therewith that great rule of moral rectitude, the commandments of God? "The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus," this same New Testament holds up together as the characteristics of the true people of God, just before the coming of Christ. Rev. xiv, 12. But must we, to be New Testament Christians, reject the Old Testament? If the New Testament is a complete standard in itself, and the Old is only something which is to be "made to harmonize" with it, we might just as well cast it one side at once. But so far is this from being the case that we will lay down the proposition that there is not a single new principle of morality introduced in the New Testament, not one. They are all found in the Old, and from that are quoted into the New. Christ and his apostles appealed to the Old as their authority. By it they enforced the claims of their mission. By it they established the truths of the gospel. The Old Testament is the very foundation of the New. Without it the New never could have had an existence. Separate the New from the Old, and the New dies, as surely as a branch when detached from its parent stock. With every New-Testament writer, an appeal to the Old is an end of all controversy. Far be it from us to esteem or treat it any less lightly. It is a part of God's infallible revelation of his will to man. It is the testimony of holy men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The words of the Lord in the Old as well as the New Testament, are pure words, and from Genesis to Revelation they are dear and precious unto us. In regard to the veil that Paul told the Corinthians was upon the hearts of the children of Israel, 2 Cor. iii, the testimony had reference to the ministration of the law, not to any moral principle whatever. Here he falls into Fallacy No. 2. The law, and the ministration of the law, are two things. There is no sane man living that we know of, except the Jews, who believes that the former ministration is still in force. We have turned our hearts unto the Lord Jesus, and we behold him enjoining obedience to all his Father's commandments, declaring that not one jot or tittle should pass from the law till all (not all the law, but all things, Greek,) should be fulfilled. We find him throughout his whole ministry laboring to vindicate the Sabbath from Pharisaic abuse, defining what was lawful, or according to the Sabbath law, to be done on that day. We find him commanding it to the peculiar affection of his disciples by styling himself the Lord. If we love the Lord of the Sabbath, we should also love his Sabbath. And finally, we behold him dying upon the cross, for our transgressions of the law, and not for ours only, but for those also under the former dispensation. Man had sinned; but the law that he had violated could not be set aside. He, or a substitute, must die. God could give up his only son to death, but he could not violate the integrity of his government, by abrogating or relaxing in the least degree, the claims of his holy law. And to him who reads revelation aright, no scene could more impressively set forth the immutability and perpetuity of the law of God, than the darkened heavens, the trembling earth, and the expiring agonies of the Lord Jesus, on the day of his crucifixion. "It is a pity that men" should take such derogatory views of our Saviour and his mission, as to suppose that he came down to do the unnecessary, yea, blasphemous, work of dying to abolish his Father's law. Preble.—"DIFFERENCE OF DAYS. I think it will be safe for us to take our position with the apostle Paul, as found in Rom. xiv, 5, 6." "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it." "If any one believes otherwise, let him be 'fully persuaded in his own mind;' and I, for myself, intend to be fully persuaded, or assured, as the margin reads, in my own mind; so, if any one thinks he ought to observe the seventh day for the Sabbath, I do not wish to have contention with him about it; for if he can regard the day 'unto the Lord,' let him do so; but as for myself, I do not now so regard it. I carried that 'yoke' as long as I think I could regard the day 'unto the Lord.' If others wish to esteem the seventh day above another, let them try it until they are satisfied, as I have been. I now regard the 'first day' 'unto the Lord'" REPLY.—This is plain; that is, there is no mistaking the position of the writer. It is that the observance of one day above another is a matter of complete indifference. It is no matter if we do, and it is no matter if we don't. This comports well with his previous argument that there is no holy time in this dispensation, and we will set it down as Waymark No. 2. Before dismissing this point, however, we will just remark that it is fortunate for Eld. P. that he was not among the Israelites when they came out of Egypt. They were told to go out and gather manna every day. Ex. xvi, 4. Every day, Eld. P. would have reasoned, means of course every day; and hence we should have seen him with the disobedient ones, out of his tent upon the Sabbath day, searching for the manna. Would he have retired abashed and confounded before the withering rebuke of the Lord, "How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath." Here, then, we have the expression "every day," and still the Sabbath is excepted, that expression referring only to the working days. Just so in Rom. xiv; for the apostle is there speaking of a class of days with which the Sabbath is in no wise connected. The chapter opens thus: "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye." What faith? The faith of the gospel which Paul was laboring to establish; the change from the meats, drinks, carnal ordinances, and feast days of the Jewish ritual to the spiritual worship of the Lord Jesus. That system had its distinctions of meats and drinks and its yearly sabbaths. It was connected together as a whole; and when the apostle, in remarking upon that system, speaks of days, he means the days connected therewith, and those only. So he says in verse 2, "For one believeth that he may eat all things; another who is weak eateth herbs." And so also in reference to the same system, "one man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike." And the observance of these things was a matter of indifference so long as they did not seek justification through them, and thus be led to reject the sacrifice of the Saviour. But did God ever utter anything with his own voice concerning meats and drinks, in like manner as he spoke the Sabbath? Never. Did he write anything about them on the tables of stone where he engraved the commandment for the observance of his rest-day? Not a word. The Sabbath belongs to entirely another system, to which the 14th chapter of Romans makes no sort of reference whatever. U. S.