BOTH SIDES OF THE SABBATH QUESTION.
By Editor
We have up to this point given from Eld. P. what constituted three of his articles in the World's Crisis, numbered one, two, and three, respectively, each paper containing an entire number; number one being in one paper, number two in another, and number three in another. To his third article he appended the following postscript: "P. S. When I sent my second No., I was in hopes I could close my argument on this subject with this No.; but I am unable to do it without making my article too lengthy for one paper. Hope the readers of the Crisis will have patience with me, and I will close with my next." Let the reader mark well the statement here made. Eld. P. had hoped to finish with number three; but to write what he then designed to write, would make that number too long for one paper, so he promised to finish in his next. Acting upon the idea here expressed as plainly as it could be, without using the very words, that one more paper would conclude his argument, that one more number, completed in one paper as each of his preceding numbers had been, would finish his articles, our review of them was at this point commenced, and the announcement made that his articles would be given entire, in connection with the reply. After a lapse of some weeks, Eld. P.'s "number four" appeared in the Crisis, and what was our surprise to see at the close of it, "To be continued." Another paper appeared with another article, and what was that? Number five? No; but number four continued. Another paper appeared with still another article, and was that as it should have been, number six? No; but "number four, concluded." Eld. P. could not write more than one "number" more after number three; for he had pledged himself to close with his "next," (?) but he could resort to the subterfuge of continuing number four through several papers; and he did so continue it, till that number which he had hoped to get into the same paper with number three, covered as much space as all three of his previous numbers put together! If the reader sees in this anything that looks like an effort on his part, after we had committed ourselves to publish his articles entire, to take advantage of that offer, and abuse our liberality, by endeavoring to worry us out, and overload our limited space with long columns of matter, he must explain it as best he can. We make no assertions and prefer no charges. We have simply stated facts, and they must carry with them their own conclusions. And we state these facts as an apology to the reader for the unwieldy length to which we thus find ourselves under the necessity of drawing out this review. In agreeing to give Eld. P.'s entire articles before they were concluded, even though their conclusion was fairly promised in one more paper, we acknowledge that we were too fast. Perhaps our past experience should have taught us to presume upon no man's honor, to use no stronger term, who believes in the abolition of God's great standard of moral rectitude. If there was no design in this, Eld. P. is certainly unfortunate in the attitude in which he has placed himself before the public. There is another item which should be brought into this digression, at this point. Eld. P., for some reason, seems not to be well pleased with the manner in which this controversy is proceeding, and hence, under date of May 13, 1864, he sent to this office the following letter, which, as it was superscribed "For the Review," will be most appropriately presented in this connection: "BOTH SIDES OF THE SABBATH QUESTION." "Bro. White: I notice in this week's Review, that you have expressed the opinion that Bro. Smith is 'now about half through' with his 'review' of my articles on the Sabbath question, as recently published in the Crisis. "I also notice that it is your opinion that 'both sides will make a splendid book on the question of the Sabbath and Law of about two hundred and twenty-five pages, which will be ready in a few weeks.' "From the above, I conclude you expect to end 'both sides' as soon as Bro. S. finishes his 'review' of what I have already written. But I hope this will not be so, as I trust you will be liberal enough to give me the privilege of correcting some mistakes which Bro. S. has committed thus far; and others, if he should commit more. "And I am quite sure of one thing; if there is not a little more caution exercised, and less errors committed in the review of the remainder of my argument, than there has been thus far, the 'book' will hardly be 'ready in a few weeks,' or 'two hundred and twenty-five pages,' contain all that may be said on 'both sides' of the question; that is, if I am permitted to speak for myself, so that I shall be fairly represented before the readers of the Review. "What say, Bro. White; do you intend I shall have a fair opportunity through your columns to review my Reviewer? and so correct some of the errors and misrepresentations which may be committed in Bro. Smith's review of my argument? I shall expect this privilege, and I do not know as I have any just reason to doubt but I shall be permitted to do so.
"T. M. PREBLE."
"East Weare, N. H., May 13, 1864." To this letter we have but a few words of reply to make. 1. We have placed ourselves under no obligations to Eld. P. by reviewing his articles. In a world like this, where the advocates of almost every species of error, compared with the advocates of truth, are more than one hundred to one, truth would stand a poor chance, if, every time she arose to defend herself against the attacks of opponents, she thereby placed herself under obligation to them to continue the controversy as long as their prejudice or passion might dictate. 2. In regard to the "misrepresentations" of which Eld. P. complains, we took the precaution to fully guard against any such charge, by giving his articles entire. We give them word for word, italics, quotation marks, and all, just as he published them; not a quotation is garbled, changed or condensed; and if we do not faithfully represent his arguments, can not the reader, with both sides before him, discern it? We fail to see the need of such suspicious sensitiveness here. Belief on either side cannot be compelled. Much must be left to the judgment and discernment of the reader. 3. These articles of Eld. P.'s were not called forth by any attack upon him. He voluntarily, we may presume, undertook to set before the people his side of the question. He has taken his own time for it, his own space, and his own manner, and been as thorough and minute as he pleased; and if his arguments are intrinsically sound, they will stand, and have their effect, however they may be treated. But if, upon their being reviewed, he finds that they are lacking in some of their essential features, a link gone here, and a length there, and he thinks he could do better upon a second trial, that is his concern, not ours. 4. We have the following fair and liberal proposition to make. If the World's Crisis, in which Eld. P.'s articles originally appeared, will publish what we have written and shall write in reply, and will also give both sides of whatever future discussion there may be between us, on this subject, small as our paper is, its columns will be open to him on these terms, to any extent. We are sometimes accused of being uncharitable and exclusive. But we have yet to see, in any of the papers which raise this charge against us, a thorough and connected article from any accredited writer on our side of the question, such as we are now giving from Eld. P. on theirs, and such as has frequently been given through the Review on both the no-sabbath and Sunday sides of this controversy. And to ask that our columns shall still be open while theirs remain closed, is asking that this inequality shall be continued. Whereas all that can justly be required of us, is that we shall be as liberal as they, conditions to which we will cheerfully accede. We turn now to a consideration of Eld. P.'s "number four." Preble.—“THE TWO COVENANTS.”— "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." In confirmation of what has been already argued in relation to the old "law" being "done away," and with it the seventh-day Sabbath, I will present the following in regard to the "old" and "new" "covenant," which embrace the plan of salvation of a lost world. But in doing so I shall confine myself mostly to the epistle to the Hebrews, where we have presented to us the most perfect analysis of the two systems of the divine arrangement by which man may escape death and obtain eternal life. While treating upon the subject of the old and new covenant, the apostle says,—"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (vii, 12.) But as he labored to convince the Hebrews, or Jews, that their system of worship, or their "ordinances of divine service" (ix, 1) were only "imposed on them until the time of reformation" (ix, 10); and that21now there had been "verily a disannulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof" (vii, 18); and that they were now under "a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God" (iv, 14), "of whom—as he said—"we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing" (v, 11.) And it is the same with me now, I "have many things to say" on this glorious subject, but they are "hard to be uttered, seeing" there are so many who "are dull of hearing." Yes, there are many now, as there were then, who love the teachings of the old dead "schoolmaster" far better than that of the LIVING JESUS! REPLY. Eld. P. now sets out to confirm what he has "already argued in relation to the old law being done away," by showing that the old covenant has passed away. What he means by the old law is, the ten commandments. Now has the old covenant anything to do with the ten commandments; that is, does the passing away of the old covenant affect the existence of the ten commandments? Not unless the old covenant was the ten commandments. But this Eld. P. has not shown and can never show. He quotes Heb. vii, 12: "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." What law? That law, of course that regulated the priesthood. Is there anything about priesthood in the ten commandments? Not a word. What was the law concerning the priesthood? The next two verses to the one quoted read: "For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." Here it is. The law concerning the priesthood was that the priests should be taken only from the tribe of Levi; but our Saviour was from another tribe; hence when God made him a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec, it is evident that he thereby changed or set aside that law which confined the priesthood to the tribe of Levi. Thus the priesthood being changed, there was of necessity a change also of the law; yet men with a marvelous obtuseness, will quote this testimony to show that the ten commandments have been changed! and that the Sabbath has given place to Sunday! There are other component parts of the old covenant brought to view in Eld. P.'s quotation, such as "their system of worship, 'ordinances of divine service,'" language which is never applied to the ten commandments; ordinances that were imposed on them only till the time of reformation; not the ten commandments; for they are moral, and are the very foundation of all reformation; but something which is declared to be weak and unprofitable. It would be blasphemy to apply such language as this to the ten commandments, the only document we have, which God ever wrote with his own finger. It is no wonder that David exclaimed with the deepest reverence in view of this fact, "The law of the Lord is perfect." But in comes the "old dead 'schoolmaster'" again. This time Eld. P. applies it to the Jewish system of worship, their ordinances of divine service, the regulations of their priesthood, &c. Here to be sure he has stumbled into the truth; but he adds, "There are many now, as there were then, who love the teachings of the old dead 'schoolmaster' far better than that of the living Jesus," thereby insinuating again that we adopt all the typical services of the former dispensation. He might as well accuse of cannibalism; for all who know anything about us, know that it is no such thing; and those who do not, will not be foolish enough to believe it, even though a minister of the gospel be father of the charge. Preble.—‘I will now spend a few moments in turning to the Old Testament, in order to prove that the old 'covenant' referred to was that which was written on 'two tables of stone,' and that only. And if this is found to be really true, it will furnish an argument which will overthrow all that can be said in favor of Judaism or the seventh-day Sabbath.’ REPLY.—Eld. P. has here outstripped the most ultra of his no-law brethren, in the assertion that the old covenant was what was written on tables of stone, and that only. We will let him introduce the testimony which he claims proves this point, and then we will show that not a syllable of what was engraven on stones was included in the old covenant at all. The quotations are lengthy, and the reader will perceive that they concern other questions a great deal more than they do the ten commandments. But we hope he will have patience to read them carefully through, considering all the while that they are from New England's champion opponent of the seventh-day Sabbath, and see how much abolition of the Sabbath he can find therein. Preble.—‘THE TWO TABLES OF STONE. What did they contain? Let the following answer: ‘And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire; ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant; which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.’ Deut. iv, 12, 13.’ Where were these tables of stone kept? ‘And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the Lord spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire, in the day of the assembly; and the Lord gave them unto me. And I turned myself, and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made, and there they be, as the Lord commanded me.’ Deut. x, 4, 5. ‘This shows that the tables were put into an 'ark' made expressly for that purpose. Where was the ark then put? ‘And thou shalt hang up the veil under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the veil the ark of the testimony; and the veil shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy. And thou shalt put the mercy-seat upon the ark of the testimony in the most holy place.’ Ex. xxvi, 33, 34. ‘And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the Lord unto his place, to the oracle of the house, into the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubims. For the cherubims spread forth their wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubims covered the ark and the staves thereof above. There was nothing in the ark save the two tables which Moses put therein at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of Egypt.’ 2 Chron. v, 7, 8, 10. ‘With this agrees the testimony of the apostle Paul: ‘Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made, the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shew-bread; which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle, which is called the holiest of all; which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy-seat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.’ Heb. ix, 1–5. ‘Now let it ever be remembered, that under the 'first covenant,' God's dwelling-place for his people—or his 'mercy-seat'—was 'between the cherubims,' as the following passage will more fully show: ‘And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy-seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy-seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. And thou shalt put the mercy-seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.’ Ex. xxv, 20–22. ‘And strange as it may appear to us, none but the high priest alone was ever permitted to approach the 'mercy-seat,' and that only once a year: ‘Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest once alone every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people.’ Heb. ix, 6, 7. Hence we see that God's ancient people had no privilege of approaching the 'mercy-seat' for themselves.’ REPLY. At the commencement of the quotation just given, Eld. P. set out to prove that the two tables of stone contained the old covenant. Having given his long quotations of scripture, he reaches the conclusion that "God's ancient people had no privilege of approaching the mercy-seat for themselves." The connection between these two points we leave the reader to discover if he can. It is true that the ten commandments are called a covenant; and because there is testimony that some covenant has been done away, and there are scriptures which speak of the ten commandments as a covenant, our opponents put these two classes of scriptures together, and declare that the ten commandments have been done away. This is a very illogical method of reasoning. Before they can offer such a conclusion, they should prove one of two things: either 1. That there was no other covenant but the ten commandments in existence, previous to the time when some covenant was done away, so that it must necessarily have been the ten commandments; or 2. That if there were other covenants in existence, the ten commandments are unmistakably the one which is pointed out as done away. But neither of these points are proved by them; and hence their conclusion is wholly illegitimate. If scripture can be used in the way they use it, Eld. P. might have proved his points without referring to the covenants at all. Thus he could have shown the abolition of the Sabbath by quoting Ex. xx, 10, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," with 2 Cor. iii, 11, "which is done away." And then he could have proved his Sunday Sabbath by quoting 1 Cor. xvi, 2, thus: Now "upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by:" But it will be seen that this would not be the most innocent way of dealing with scripture. Let us then inquire briefly into the question of the covenants. What constituted the first covenant? What the second? Are the ten commandments the first, second, or neither? There are many definitions of the word covenant, and there are various kinds of covenants. The word is defined thus: "Any disposition, arrangement, institution or dispensation; hence a testament, will; a covenant; i. e., mutual promises on mutual conditions, or promises with conditions annexed; by metonymy, a body of laws and precepts." Greenfield. What was the first covenant? Before answering this question we will offer a few words to show that it was not the ten commandments. 1. The first covenant was made with Israel when they came out of Egypt; Heb. viii, 9; but the ten commandments existed from the beginning and were binding on man from Adam down; and the principles of each one, especially the Sabbath, are revealed to us in the book of Genesis. 2. The first covenant had ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary, Heb. ix, 1; but the ten commandments say nothing about a sanctuary, or any system of worship. It must be evident to all that the covenant to which these things belong, must have something to say concerning them. The ten commandments have nothing to say, and hence are not that covenant. It matters not that the tables of stone were put into the ark, and the ark into the sanctuary; it was that system of worship of which the sanctuary and its services were a part, not the ten commandments. 3. The first covenant had a priesthood, and contained the laws regulating it, Heb. ix, 6; but the ten commandments have nothing whatever to say about priesthood. 4. The service of the first covenant "stood only in meats, and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances." Heb. ix, 10. This being true, there was not one of the ten commandments in that covenant, unless they came under the head of meats, drinks, divers washings and carnal ordinances. 5. The first covenant was dedicated with blood. Verse 18. The ten commandments were not so dedicated. 6. Moses spoke all the precepts of the first covenant; Heb. ix, 19; but the ten commandments were spoken not by Moses, but by God himself from the summit of Sinai. 7. The first covenant was written in a book by Moses. Ex. xxiv, 4, 7. The ten commandments were written with the finger of God upon two tables of stone. 8. The first covenant provided blood which could, and did, take away sins in figure, but could not take them away in fact. Heb. x, 3, 4. The ten commandments said nothing about blood whatever. We might continue this contrast to a still greater extent; and every time, we should find by what is declared of the first covenant, that the ten commandments could not be that covenant. What, then, did constitute that covenant? We have seen from the definition given of the word covenant, that it primarily signifies a mutual agreement between two parties upon mutual conditions. Do we find any agreement entered into between God and Israel when he had brought them out of the land of Egypt? We do. In Ex. xix, 5, we read that God made to Israel, through Moses the following proposition: "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people; for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation." To this the people responded, verse 8, "All that the Lord hath spoken, we will do." Here was a covenant entered into between God and the people. They made mutual pledges to each other. The people were to obey God's voice and keep his covenant, and he, on his part, was to make them a peculiar treasure, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation unto himself. Now as this covenant was to make them a distinct and peculiar people from all the rest of the world, it must include that which made them thus distinct and separate. And what was that? Answer. Their ordinances of divine service, their sanctuary and its ministration, in a word, the whole body of their ceremonial regulations. Read what Paul says in the book of Hebrews about the first covenant with this view, and there is harmony throughout, but read it with the idea that the ten commandments constituted that covenant, and we are involved at every step in utter contradiction. But the reader may be ready to inquire, what covenant the ten commandments are, or were, if they were not the first or old covenant; for they are plainly called a covenant. We answer, God's covenant, existing independently of any action on the part of man. To prove this we introduce Ex. xix, 5. When God was entering into that covenant which he made with Israel, while yet he was proposing to the people what he would do on certain conditions, one of his conditions was, that they should keep "his covenant." This shows that God's covenant antedates the covenant made with Israel at Horeb; it was already in existence when that arrangement was entered into between God and Israel; and on the condition of their keeping his covenant, the blessings of the Horeb covenant were suspended. To keep his covenant was the same as to obey his voice. To obey his voice, was to observe that law which he uttered with his voice from Mt. Sinai, the principles of which had existed and were known from Eden down. Hence we read in Deut. iv, 13: "And he declared unto you his covenant which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments." Now a covenant commanded, and a mutual agreement entered into between two parties, are two things. And this language being used in reference to the ten commandments, shows that they are an independent covenant on the part of God, owing nothing of their existence to any action on the part of man, but something which God as the creator and ruler of the race, enjoins upon them to be obeyed. Thus God's covenant, the covenant commanded, is co-extensive with moral obligation. The ten commandments are doubtless called a covenant on account of the promises annexed to their faithful observance; for in keeping them, as the Psalmist says, there is great reward. We have now seen what constituted the old covenant, and what kind of a covenant the ten commandments are. We now inquire concerning the new covenant. The terms first and second, old and new, are only relative terms. The covenant introduced by Christ22is called the second and the new, only because a covenant had preceded it, which was the first, and which having passed away is the old in distinction from the new which remains. This shows that these two covenants have reference to the same general principles; for a covenant referring to one object could not be a first or second, as related to another which referred to an entirely different object. The great blessing declared to be secured by the second covenant is, "I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." Heb. viii, 12. Then the second covenant cannot be any thing which makes known sin or unrighteousness; for unrighteousness and sin existed before it, and the object of this covenant was to take away such sin. Hence the new covenant cannot be composed of any moral law, "new code" or old, or any rule of life; but there must be such a law existing to show what sin is, independent of this new covenant, and distinct from it. This will be apparent to all minds, yet Eld. P. has here fallen into the confusion of making the new covenant the new code of laws, which he contends was given by Christ! We have seen that the old covenant consisted of the arrangement by which sins were taken away in figure; and as the new covenant results in our sins being remembered no more, the only conclusion left us is, that it is some arrangement by which our sins are taken away in fact. In other words it is the gospel, the superior sacrifice, service, and ministration of this dispensation, by which sins can be in reality pardoned. Hence Paul says of Christ, Heb. viii, 6, "He is the mediator of a better covenant, established upon better promises." Why is this covenant a better covenant than the old? Eld. P.'s arguments answer like this: Because under it we are released from keeping the seventh-day Sabbath [notwithstanding we have to keep another day, Sunday, just as strictly]; but Paul carries the idea that it is because it is established upon better promises. And what are these better promises? Answer. The promise that sins shall be taken away in fact, whereas under the former covenant they were taken away only in figure. There, remembrance was made of sins every year; Heb. x, 3; but here, sins are to be taken away so as to be remembered no more forever. A word now in reference to moral law under these two covenants. Is it the same under the second as it was under the first? The second covenant was a subject of prophecy; and the prophecy has something to say about the law that should be binding under it. Jer. xxxi, 31–34: "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people." Now what law is this, which under the new covenant was to be written in the hearts of his people? Answer. The same law, beyond controversy, which God in the days of Jeremiah could call his law; and no one can deny but that was the ten commandments. Mark also the declaration of God that he will write it in the hearts of his people. God is ever the writer of his own law. Under the first covenant he wrote it on two tables of stone; under the new he writes it on the fleshly tables of the heart. Hence the very prophecy that declared that a new covenant should be made, declared also that under that covenant, the ten commandments should be written in the hearts of the children of God. Why will not men believe this testimony, and cease their assertions that the law has been abolished, or their vain imaginings about a new code having taken the place of the former? If we are living under the new covenant, as we certainly are, here are the ten commandments in all their life and power; not shut away from us, by being enclosed in an earthly ark, as under the shadowy dispensation of old, but brought home to every true believer by being stamped with the Spirit of God upon his heart. And he who has not this law thus written in his heart, cannot be in covenant relation with the God of this new covenant. In our remarks upon 2 Cor. iii, in relation to the two ministrations, we promised to show what law it is of which we now have the ministration of the Spirit. We here see clearly enough. It is the ten commandments. Under the former dispensation the ministration pertaining to those commandments was the ministration of death, under this, it is the ministration of the Spirit. Under the old covenant there was a real law that had been transgressed, hence real guilt, demanding a real atonement; but a real atonement could not be made with the blood of beasts, which was the only blood provided by that covenant; hence the necessity of a new covenant which should provide a real atonement that could take away real guilt. Thus the old covenant had reference to the ten commandments, by taking away man's transgression of them, in figure. The new covenant has relation to the same commandments by taking away man's transgression of them, in fact.