Both Sides on the Sabbath and Law

“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. BSSL 136.2

“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.’ BSSL 136.3

“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. BSSL 136.4

“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. BSSL 137.1

“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. BSSL 137.2

“T. M. PREBLE. — “East Weare, N. H., May 13, 1864. To this letter we have but a few words of reply to make. BSSL 137.3

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. BSSL 137.4

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 manifest sensitiveness here. Belief on either side cannot be compelled. Much must be left to the judgment and discernment of the reader. BSSL 138.1

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. But BSSL 138.2

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. BSSL 138.3

We turn now to a consideration of Eld. P.’s “number four.” BSSL 139.1

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 covenants, the apostle says, — “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” (7:12.) But as he labored to convince the Hebrews, or Jews, that their system of worship, or their “ordinances of divine service” (9:1) were only “imposed on them until the time of reformation” (9:10); and that now there had been “verily a disannulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof” (7:18); and that they were now under “a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God” (4:14), “of whom — as he said — “we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing” (5:11). And it is the same with me now, I “have many things to say” on this glorious 140 subject, but they are ‘hard to be uttered, seeing’ there are so many who ‘are dull of hearing.’ Yea, 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!” BSSL 139.2

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 Hebrews 7:12: “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 Melchizedec, 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! BSSL 139.3

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.” BSSL 141.1

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, etc. 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. BSSL 141.2

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. BSSL 141.3

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. BSSL 142.1

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.’ Deuteronomy 4:12, 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.’ Deuteronomy 10:4, 5. BSSL 142.2

“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.’ Exodus 26:33, 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 Chronicles 5:7, 8, 10. BSSL 142.3

“With this agrees the testimony of the apostle Paul: ‘Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a wordly 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.’ Hebrews 9:1-5. BSSL 143.1

“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.’ Exodus 25:20-22. BSSL 143.2

“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.’ Hebrews 9:6, 7. Hence we see that God’s ancient people had no privilege of approaching the ‘mercy-seat’ for themselves.” BSSL 144.1

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. BSSL 144.2

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 Exodus 20:10, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” with 2 Corinthians 3:11, “which is done away.” And then he could have proved his Sunday Sabbath by quoting 1 Corinthians 16:2, 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. BSSL 144.3

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. BSSL 145.1

What was the first covenant? Before answering this question we will offer a few words to show that it was not the ten commandments. BSSL 145.2

1. The first covenant was made with Israel when they came out of Egypt; Hebrews 8:9; 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. BSSL 145.3

2. The first covenant had ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary, Hebrews 9:1; 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. BSSL 145.4

3. The first covenant had a priesthood, and contained the laws regulating it, Hebrews 9:6; but the ten commandments have nothing whatever to say about priesthood. BSSL 146.1

4. The service of the first covenant “stood only in meats, and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances.” Hebrews 9:10. 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. BSSL 146.2

5. The first covenant was dedicated with blood. Verse 18. The ten commandments were not so dedicated. BSSL 146.3

6. Moses spoke all the precepts of the first covenant; Hebrews 9:19; but the ten commandments were spoken not by Moses, but by God himself from the summit of Sinai. BSSL 146.4

7. The first covenant was written in a book by Moses. Exodus 24:4, 7. The ten commandments were written with the finger of God upon two tables of stone. BSSL 146.5

8. The first covenant provided blood which could, and did, take away sins in figure, but could not take them away in fact. Hebrews 10:3, 4. The ten commandments said nothing about blood whatever. BSSL 146.6

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 Exodus 19:5, 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. BSSL 147.1

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 Exodus 19:5. 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 Deuteronomy 4:13: “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. BSSL 148.1

We have now seen what constituted the old covenant, and what kind of a covenant the ten commandments are. We next inquire concerning the new covenant. The terms first and second, old and new, are only relative terms. The covenant introduced by Christ is 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.” Hebrews 8:12. 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! BSSL 149.1

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, Hebrews 8:6. “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 [not withstanding 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; Hebrews 10:3; but here, sins are to be taken away so as to be remembered no more forever. BSSL 149.2

A word now in reference to moral law under these two covenants. Is it the same under the second that 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. Jeremiah 31:31-34: “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. BSSL 150.1

In our remarks upon 2 Corinthians 3, 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. BSSL 151.1

Preble. — “But let us here pause a moment, and inquire, Where are now the ‘two tables of stone’? And echo must answer, WHERE! For that once holy place, where those tables were kept, is now destroyed; and the vail which kept all but the high priest from the mercy-seat, has been ‘rent in twain from the top to the bottom;’ and the ark and the two tables of stone have also been destroyed. The priesthood, which made atonement for the people at that altar, has been changed; and as the apostle says, there has been a change also of the law, or of the covenant. If therefore the tables of stone which contained the law, or the covenant, for keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, — the most holy place where the tables and covenant were kept, the mercy-seat above them, — and God’s ancient dwelling-place ‘between the cherubims’ all destroyed; and a new and living way, which the living Jesus ‘hath consecrated (or new made — margin) for us, through the vail, that is to say, his flesh’ (10:20); I say, if all this change has taken place, WHERE IS THERE NOW ANY LAW OR COVENANT TO BE FOUND FOR KEEPING THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH? Let the man who is able point it out if he can!” BSSL 152.1

REPLY. — Eld. P. may not be aware of the fact, but he has here proposed no very hard task; for he only calls upon the “man who is able” to point it out “if he can;” but the man “who is able,” certainly “can” do it without any difficulty. He asks “Where are now the two tables of stone? and echo, he says, must answer, “Where!” The Sabbath question is a very singular question, exciting such opposition to itself, Romans 8:7, that even “echo” can scarcely give a correct response concerning it. In reply to the question, “Where in the New Testament do we find any command to keep the seventh day?” echo once answered, “No where!” See Review of Fillio, p. 41. Eld. P.’s echo is a little more within bounds as it does not supply words not found in the question; yet it is a little singular that echo which usually deals with the closing portion of an exclamation should patiently wait till the sentence is finished, and then go back and repeat the first word, with such emphasis, dropping all the rest. BSSL 152.2

But we return to the question, Where are now the two tables of stone? In answering this question, we shall show that it matters not what has become of the tables that existed in the sanctuary of old; for there are tables of that law, still existing, as superior to those as the heavens are higher than the earth. BSSL 153.1

We therefore turn from the ghostly visions of the “old dead schoolmaster,” which have thus far seemed to haunt Eld. P., to give a moment’s attention to the subject of the sanctuary. The sanctuary has ever been to us, since we received the light on it, a delightful subject. Neither is it so foreign to the Sabbath as might at first sight be supposed; for it throws around the perpetuity and immutability of the great law of ten commandments, bulwarks of adamant, which will stand fast forever. BSSL 153.2

The tables of stone, as they existed on earth under the former dispensation, were written by God and delivered to Moses on Mt. Sinai. They were carefully deposited in an ark, not “made expressly for the purpose,” as Eld. P. asserts; for it had other uses besides being a mere receptacle of the law; but a very sacred part of the furniture of the sanctuary. This ark was then placed in the most holy place of the earthly sanctuary, into which no man was to enter, but the high priest once every year. These distinguishing honors bestowed upon the law, its being spoken with God’s own voice, written with his own finger, placed in the ark, and that placed in the holy of holies, all go to show that the law engraven upon the tables, in the very bosom of which rested the Sabbath commandment, was the most sacred object connected with that dispensation. The ark, on account of its containing the tables of the law, was called the ark of the covenant, and the tables, the tables of the covenant; for, as we have seen, God declared his ten commandments to be his covenant; and the ark could not, and would not, have been called the ark of the covenant, had it not contained the tables of the ten commandments. Bear this fact in mind till we make the application. BSSL 153.3

Into a description of the sanctuary, the building erected by Moses, with its holy and most holy places, we need not enter. It will be found in great minuteness in Exodus 25-31; of the ark as the furniture of the most holy place, we have already spoken. In the holy place there were the table of show-bread, the candlestick with its seven lamps, and the altar of incense. The service connected with the sanctuary was briefly this: The man who had sinned brought his victim to the door of the tabernacle, placed his hand upon the victim’s head, and confessed over him his sin, thus transferring to him his guilt, and by giving him up to be slain, acknowledging himself to be worthy of death. The blood of the victim was taken, and by the priest carried into the sanctuary and sprinkled before the vail. This service went on daily through the year. At the close of this yearly service, the high priest went into the most holy place, with the blood of a sin-offering, before the ark containing the law of God which the people had transgressed, and sprinkled that blood upon the mercy-seat which was the cover of the ark, and before the mercy-seat to make atonement for the sins of the people, and to cleanse the sanctuary. BSSL 154.1

Let the reader now seriously ask himself what the object of this singular arrangement could be. As Eld. P. has said, that once holy place is now destroyed. The earthly sanctuary is gone, and its service discontinued. Was it a mere arbitrary arrangement which has failed of its purpose, and passed away? or did it possess some significance which is meeting its accomplishment in this dispensation? BSSL 155.1

That the ministry of those ancient priests, typified the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, none will deny. Did it ever occur to you that the place where those ancient priests ministered, the sanctuary, built at the express direction of God, was also designed to be a type or figure of the place where Christ performs his priestly office? Yet this is stated in the Scriptures, no less distinctly than the former. Listen to a few of the numerous instances in which the earthly sanctuary is declared to be but a pattern of the true; “Let them make me a sanctuary,” said the Lord to Moses, “according to all that I show thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.” Exodus 25:8, 9. Then the tabernacle and its instruments made by Moses, were not the original. They were but duplicates, made according to some great original which existed somewhere else. Again: “And thou shalt rear up the tabernacle according to the fashion thereof which was showed thee in the mount.” Verse 40. See also chap. 26:30; 27:8. We read in Acts 7:44, “Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness, in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.” And Hebrews 9:24, says, “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true.” BSSL 155.2

From this testimony but one conclusion can be drawn; namely, that there is a true or original sanctuary, which constituted the pattern from which the earthly tabernacle was erected. What is this true sanctuary or tabernacle, and where is it located? Paul definitely answers both these questions in Hebrews 8:1, 2. He has been showing the transfer of the priesthood from the house of Aaron to the everlasting priesthood of Christ, after the order of Melchizedec, and says, “Now of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum: We have such an high priest who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens, a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man.” There can be no question but that Paul is here speaking of the antitype of the earthly sanctuary; for he contrasts it with that built by man. That was built by human instrumentality, this by the Lord. And Paul here states positively that the true sanctuary is in Heaven, and that Christ is our High Priest, ministering for us in that Heavenly building. He then goes on in the remainder of the chapter to argue that as the priests on earth had a ministry to perform and sacrifices to offer, so Christ should minister in the sanctuary above; that the earthly building was made after the pattern of the Heavenly; and that the priests who served therein, served unto the example and shadow of Heavenly things. And he then proves that this change has taken place from the earthly to the Heavenly, by what? Nothing less than an application of Jeremiah’s prophecy that the days should come when a new covenant should be made with the house of Israel. BSSL 156.1

Then this arrangement, this Heavenly sanctuary, and the superior priesthood of Christ is established by, and exists under, the new covenant. Paul says of the first covenant, Hebrews 9:1, “Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary.” This word, worldly, must have been introduced to express a contrast; for if no other covenant was to have a sanctuary, or if that was the only sanctuary that ever had existed, or was to exist, Paul would simply have said that that covenant had a sanctuary, without any qualifying word; but that was not sufficient; the idea must be expressed by way of contrast, that it was a worldly sanctuary. Paul is contrasting in the book of Hebrews, the two covenants, the old and the new, and the contrast expressed on the sanctuary must be respecting the sanctuaries of these two covenants. The first was a worldly or earthly sanctuary, that is, built by man; and what is the other? Answer, a heavenly sanctuary as Paul has shown, built by the Lord himself. To express it in full, it would then read like this: Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary; the second covenant has a “more excellent” system of service, and a heavenly sanctuary. Paul makes this subject clear, beyond misapprehension, to those who will carefully study his language. BSSL 157.1

The book of Hebrews having clearly given us the theory of the Heavenly sanctuary, John in the Revelation gives us a view of the thing itself. In chap 4:1, he says that “a door was opened in Heaven;” not Heaven itself opened, but some building, some apartment, in Heaven, opened. In verse 5 he says that there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God, corresponding to the candlestick with its seven lamps in the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary. In chapter 8:3, 4, we read that an angel “came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer” and offered much incense, etc. Then here we have a view of the altar of incense, and a censer; but these were instruments of the sanctuary, the altar of incense being located, with the candlestick in the first apartment. All this shows clearly that John is looking into the first apartment of the Heavenly temple which the Lord pitched, and not man. We come down still further, to chapter 11:19, and read, “And the temple of God was opened in Heaven,” not the first apartment for that we have seen opened already, but the second apartment, as is proved by what John beheld therein, “and there was seen in his temple,” he says, “the ark of his testament.” BSSL 158.1

We have now reached the point where the application of the foregoing remarks can be seen. It matters not to our present argument at what particular time the event here brought to view, the opening of the temple in Heaven, takes place, as all will agree that it transpires sometime in the present dispensation, which is sufficient for our purpose. And now we ask the reader to look again at the fact that there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament. What was the ark? The chest in which the tables of the ten commandments were deposited. And is there such an ark under this dispensation, in the temple in Heaven? John says it was seen there, and hence we believe it is there. What is there in that ark in Heaven? John says it is the ark of his testament; and the word rendered testament is diatheke, the very same word that is in other places rendered covenant; the word which is rendered covenant in Deuteronomy 4:13, “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments.” And as the ark of old, was called the ark of the covenant, only because it contained God’s covenant of ten commandments, so when John beholding the ark in Heaven, calls it the ark of his [God’s] testament or covenant, it is proof positive that that ark contains the same commandments. And that ark is connected with the sanctuary of this dispensation. It contains the law for this dispensation; and that law, just as it was when spoken by Jehovah from Sinai, is still called his covenant. BSSL 158.2

Thus we see that as the earthly sanctuary and its instruments, were but figures or patterns of the true, built after that great original, so the law given to Israel to be kept in that sanctuary, was but a copy, duplicate, or transcript of the original tables which he still retained in the ark in the sanctuary above. And this is our answer to Eld. P.’s question, “Where is there now any law or covenant for keeping the seventh-day Sabbath?” There it is, safely deposited in the archives of Heaven, beneath the eye of its great Author, who slumbers not nor sleeps. If Eld. P. had not lost sight of this great original, he never would have asked this question; but having lost sight of it, and seeing nothing but the earthly arrangement, when that came to an end, when the sanctuary, and, so far as we know, the ark and those duplicate tables of stone, were destroyed, he seems to think that everything went by the board, and that God rubbed all out, and began anew. But nothing then perished that had not subserved its purpose, nothing failed of accomplishment; that sanctuary and that system had answered the end for which it was designed, and then what? No abolition of moral law, no break in the plan of salvation, no cessation of the work, but simply a transfer from the type to the antitype, from the shadow to the substance; and now we look away from earth to Heaven, and behold in the true tabernacle, the plan of salvation still going on, and our great High Priest there ministering for us; and there we behold the ark of his testament, and God’s great moral law, reposing in security and glory beneath the mercy-seat, safe from all the opposition of men, or the malice of devils. The poet has well expressed it, BSSL 159.1

“For God well knew perdition’s son,
Would ne’er his precepts love,
He gave a duplicate alone,
But kept his own above.” BSSL 160.1

And as God so dealt with his law in the former dispensation, as to show that it was the most sacred object connected with that system of worship, does he not, by revealing it to us in the sacred ark in the holy of holies of the Heavenly temple, show that it is the most sacred of all inanimate objects even in the Heaven of heavens? And can that law be changed or abolished? Oh, the infinite presumption of the thought! Vain man! Mount up to Heaven, drive the angels from your august presence, burst into the heavenly temple, remove Christ, dethrone Jehovah, clothe yourself with omnipotence, and then change that holy law! but never before that, never! BSSL 160.2

It will now be still more clearly seen that the law of God occupies the same position in both dispensations, or under both covenants. Under the former, a copy of that law was deposited in the typical sanctuary, and transgressions of it were typically atoned for by the blood of beasts; under the present, the original of that law exists in the ark in the sanctuary in Heaven, and transgressions of it, are in reality pardoned through the blood of Christ. But reader, can you approach the mercy-seat which covers that Heavenly ark, before which Christ pleads his blood, while beneath that mercy-seat lies the holy law you have transgressed, — we say, can you approach there with confidence, unless you are conscious that you are trying to keep every precept of that law just as it is written? And mark that the fourth precept reads, “Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” BSSL 161.1

This little digression on the subject of the sanctuary has been rendered necessary in order to answer Eld. P.’s question, Where is there now any law or covenant for keeping the seventh day Sabbath; and we trust we have made this matter plain to every one however skeptical he may have been. We are now prepared to listen again to Eld. P. BSSL 161.2

Preble. — “But, says the objector, ‘I do not believe the new covenant is now in force; neither do I believe it can be until God writes his laws upon the heart, and all shall know him from the least to the greatest; and that, of course, cannot be until Christ comes the second time; and hence the law, or covenant, which contains the law for the Sabbath, will hold good until the end of the world, or until Christ comes. But if it can be shown that the new covenant is now in force, then I will give up that you are right.’ Very well. Now in regard to this objection and admission, we will test the whole matter by the word of truth.” BSSL 161.3

REPLY. — Eld. P. here seems to be making huge preparations to demolish a man of straw. We have never heard the objection raised by any Sabbath-keeper, that the new covenant is not now in force. We know of none who hold that position. But if Eld. P. has found such a curiosity in the way of an opponent, we find ourselves under the necessity of listening to his answer, as we have promised to give his articles entire, though it has no application to seventh-day Adventists. BSSL 162.1

Preble. — “The particular prophecy in relation to this new covenant is found in Jeremiah 31:31-34. But as the apostle quotes this in Hebrews 8:10-13, I trust all will be candid enough to take the same view of it as is given in the New Testament; and hence we proceed:— BSSL 162.2

“‘For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.’ BSSL 162.3

“The objection to my view, as has just been raised, consists in this:— When this new covenant is in force, the Lord is to put his laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts, and ‘all shall know the Lord, from the least to the greatest.’ Now the first question to be settled is this, — To whom, or to what class of persons does this ‘all’ refer? Does it refer to all mankind living at that time? Or does it refer to all of that particular class who believe in or observe this covenant? I will now show that it must refer to a particular class, and not to every body, as will be seen by the passage just quoted that the covenant is made ‘with the house of Israel.’ Now let it be remembered, that the Lord has nowhere even intimated that he will ever make a covenant with the Gentiles, as such, and then bring in the ‘house of Jacob’ under such a covenant as that. But, as we see by the passage under consideration, he has promised to make a covenant ‘with the house of Israel;’ and all candid minds will see that the Gentiles will be brought in under this. This great truth is clearly presented in the 11th of Romans. The apostle inquires; — ‘What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded,’ (or hardened — margin), and then adds, — ‘through their fall salvation is come to the Gentiles.’ (Romans 11:7, 11.) Hence we see that Israel is not grafted in among the Gentiles, but the Gentiles are grafted in among them, the natural branches.” BSSL 162.4

REMARKS. — We say remarks; for we have nothing to “reply” to here, inasmuch as we endorse it all; but we cannot forbear reminding the reader, of Eld. P.’s previous reasoning on this point. When speaking of the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles that had been broken down, in his zeal to show that the Gentiles had nothing to do with the law by which the Jews were governed, he asked the following question: “Was the middle wall of partition broken down that the Gentiles might go in where the Jews had been! or were the Jews to come out where the Gentiles were?” He was then arguing that the Jews, leaving all the institutions committed to their charge, were to come out to the Gentiles; we are glad to find him now turned square about, and arguing on the right side of this question, namely that the Gentiles were admitted into the commonwealth of Israel to be partakers with them of their blessings. We submit to the reader that his present argument sounds much better than his former. BSSL 163.1

Preble. — “Therefore Israel proper are the natural branches of ‘their own olive tree,’ and the Gentiles are grafted in among them. Hence the blindness — or hardness — is happened to Israel, ‘until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved.’ The apostle then immediately adds, — ‘For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.’ (Romans 11:25-27.) Now if we can find when God shall take away their sins, then we find when his new covenant shall be with them. We have now reached a point where I will propose to my objector above alluded to the following question:— BSSL 164.1

WHEN WILL THE LORD TAKE AWAY, OR FORGIVE MEN THEIR SINS? — Will it be in this world, while Christ is the ‘mediator between God and men’? Or will it not be until after Christ comes the second time, to ‘judge the quick and the dead’? O, says the objector, in this world, certainly. Very well. This shows us that if men’s sins are forgiven them in this world, (Matthew 12:31, 32), then the new covenant is for this world; for we are now considering the passage which says: ‘This is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.’ But again, the Greek word here rendered ‘take away,’ is aphaireo; and it is found elsewhere in the New Testament but once, when it is applied to sins; and this will be found in Hebrews 10:4: “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away (aphaireo) sins.’ So of the passage in Romans: ‘This is my covenant unto them when I shall take away (aphaireo) their sins.’ By this, then, we learn that it was impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins under the first covenant, and therefore those who lived under the first covenant must have their sins forgiven by virtue of the ‘mediator of the New Testament,’ or covenant, as we learn by the following passage: BSSL 164.2

“‘And for this cause he is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.’ Hebrews 9:15. BSSL 165.1

“But a few words here in relation to this word which is translated testament in this last quotation. In the Greek this word is diatheekee; and it is found in the New Testament thirty-three times. It is rendered covenant twenty, and testament thirteen times. Its meaning according to Greenfield’s Greek Lexicon, is ‘any disposition, arrangement, institution, dispensation,’ etc. Thus we are to understand this word diatheekee in the sense of covenant; and to mean the Lord’s institution, or arrangement, to save men, whether it was under the old or the new dispensation. The first diatheekee, or covenant, written upon ‘tables of stone,’ is disannulled’ (Hebrews 7:18); but the diatheekee, or covenant, written ‘in fleshly tables of the heart,’ is now for the benefit and salvation of men. BSSL 165.2

REMARKS. Eld. P. has here given us a good definition of the word covenant; it is “the Lord’s arrangement to save men,” whether “under the old or new dispensation.” Now if, in speaking of the first covenant, he would be careful to confine it, according to his definition of that covenant, to the arrangement that then existed to save men, he would save himself and his readers much confusion. But here we find him saying that the first covenant was written on tables of stone. But there was no “arrangement to save men” written on the tables of stone. Nothing of the kind. But under that arrangement, God’s law was written on the tables of stone, and that only. Hence, the tables of stone do not constitute the covenant which has been disannulled. But that typical arrangement has been disannulled, and a better one instituted in its place; and under this new arrangement, the law, not the arrangement or covenant, is written in the hearts of God’s people, the same law which under the former arrangement was written on the tables of stone. BSSL 165.3

Preble. — “We have already seen that sins could not be taken away under the first covenant. Let us now examine and see if sins can be taken away, or forgiven, under the ‘new covenant.’ The apostle explains this by saying: BSSL 166.1

“‘The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing; which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?’ Hebrews 9:8-14. BSSL 166.2

“But the apostle continues and says: “‘For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above, when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offering and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.’ Hebrews 10:1-10. BSSL 166.3

“And again he says: ‘Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us; for after that he had said before, this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord. I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having, therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he has consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having an High Priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.’ Hebrews 10:15-22. BSSL 167.1

“By these three portions of scripture we are shown how and when sins are taken away. In the first it is said, ‘The Holy Ghost this signifying’; that ‘gifts and sacrifices’ under the first covenant ‘could not make’ any one ‘perfect, pertaining to the conscience.’ But under the new covenant, Christ being come an High Priest of good things to come by his own blood, through the eternal Spirit, could purge the conscience; so we can serve the living God. Hence we see that our sins can be taken away by the blood of Christ, and not merely carried into the wilderness on the head of a ‘live goat,’ as was the case under the first covenant. BSSL 167.2

“In the second it is said, The law, being a shadow of the good things to come, can never with those sacrifices make the comers thereunto perfect. For if this could have been done, the worshipers once purged would ‘have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins EVERY YEAR.’ Because it was not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. But when Jesus Christ came, he said, ‘Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.” And so Jesus, our High Priest, took away the first covenant, that he might establish the second covenant, And by this will, or covenant, we are sanctified. Praise God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. BSSL 168.1

“In the third it is said, The Holy Ghost also is a witness to us, as it had been said before, This is the covenant that the Lord promised unto our fathers; and under it, brethren, we have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a NEW and living way, which has been ‘consecrated for us.’ Then ‘let us draw near with a true heart,’ ‘having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.’” BSSL 168.2

REMARKS. — The word here rendered “holiest,” into which we enter by the blood of Jesus, is in the original “holy places,” meaning the holy places of the sanctuary above. Think, reader, what that sanctuary is for, and what it contains. But for what purpose could this imaginary objection, about the new covenant’s not being now in force, have been raised, and then these ponderous quotations of scripture introduced to rebut it? We call it an imaginary objection; for Eld. P. must have known that such was not our position; at least he had no excuse for not knowing it, for a few moment’s examination of any of our publications touching that point, would have satisfied him that we held no such view. BSSL 168.3

Eld. P. continues his argument to show that the new covenant is now in force. Had what he has written been relevant to the question in hand, we had not had so much to say about its length and the tedious quotations from scripture in connection with it. All scripture is good in its place; but one would not like to be compelled to read the first chapter of Chronicles in the midst of an argument for baptism, nor the thirty-eighth of Ezekiel on the doctrine of repentance. There is such a thing as being too prolix on any subject, even though what is said be measurably to the point; but to be treated to long columns of matter that have no bearing whatever on the question, is a tax upon the reader for which we feel constrained continually to apologize to him, and request him to have patience to follow to its close this novel argument against the seventh-day Sabbath. We have this consolation, however, in the matter: When Eld. P. is treating on the subject of the new covenant’s being now in force, he is not taking up our time with the subject of the washing of the saints’ feet, or the sanctuary; and the whole range of subjects which can possibly be connected with the seventh-day Sabbath, will soon be exhausted. BSSL 169.1

But Eld. P. seems to think the prophet Isaiah has something to say which proves the abolition of the seventh-day Sabbath. We will patiently listen. BSSL 169.2

Preble. — “But again we inquire, who are the ‘all’ referred to, who are to know the Lord? Let Isaiah the prophet answer:— BSSL 169.3

‘Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate, than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.’ ‘For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.’ ‘For this is as the waters of Noah unto me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.’ ‘And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord: and great shall be the peace of thy children.’ ‘No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper: and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord: and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.’ — Isaiah 54:1, 3, 9, 10, 13, 17. BSSL 169.4

“This says ‘thy seed’ (Israel’s seed) shall inherit the Gentiles, and all thy children shall be taught of the Lord. Now what says Mr. Objector? Does the ‘all’ mean all mankind or does it mean ‘all thy children’? It must mean all thy children, I think.” BSSL 170.1

REPLY. — We think so too. BSSL 170.2

Preble. — “But I have still more to present to prove that the ‘new covenant’ is now in force. And in doing so I will continue to contrast the condition of the church, or people of God, under the BSSL 170.3

“TWO DIFFERENT COVENANTS. BSSL 170.4

“1. We inquire, Where were the two covenants written? The first was written on ‘two tables of stone.’ — The second is written ‘in fleshy tables of the heart.’ (2 Corinthians 3:3.) 2. We inquire, How were these two covenants written? The first ‘with the finger of God.’ (Exodus 31:18.) The second ‘with the Spirit of the living God.’ (2 Corinthians 3:2.) BSSL 170.5

REPLY. — The fallacy into which Eld. P. has here fallen has already been pointed out. It was the law, not the covenant, which under the first covenant was written on the tables of stone; and it is the law, Jeremiah 31:33, not the covenant, which under the new covenant is written in the heart. On a distinction so plain as this, confusion is inexcusable. BSSL 170.6

Preble. — “A few passages will now be presented to prove that BSSL 171.1

“THE WORK OF THE SPIRIT IS NOW IN THE HEART. BSSL 171.2

“‘For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing, or else excusing, one another.’ ‘Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God, and who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.’ ‘For God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.’ ‘And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.’ — Romans 2:14, 15; 2 Corinthians 1:21, 22, 46; Galatians 4:6.” BSSL 171.3

REPLY. — It is very evident that “the work of the Spirit is now in the heart.” But does this testimony quoted by Eld. P., say that the Spirit writes the covenant in the heart? Not an intimation of any such thing. But what is it? Why, in plain term, “the work of the law written in their hearts.” This corresponds with the prediction of the new covenant, which was that under it, the law should be written in the hearts of God’s covenant people. BSSL 171.4

Preble. — “3. Under the first covenant, did ‘all’ have the privilege of knowing the Lord for themselves? That is, did all have the privilege of approaching God for themselves? BSSL 171.5

COULD EACH FOR HIMSELF COME TO THE ‘MERCY-SEAT’? Let the following answer: ‘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 alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people.’ — Hebrews 3:6, 7. BSSL 171.6

REPLY. — Well, suppose each one could not, under the former dispensation, approach God for himself, suppose they had to come to him through the medium of an outward priesthood, and suppose each one can now come for himself boldly to the throne of grace, how does this affect the existence of the moral law of God? In no degree whatever. BSSL 172.1

But Eld. P. argues that each one can now come for himself to the mercy-seat. We are happy to find him thus arguing, for it gives us an opportunity to inquire what the mercy-seat is. The mercy-seat was the cover of the ark. Had there been no ark there would have been no mercy-seat; and wherever a mercy-seat is, there must be an ark. Now if there is a mercy-seat in this dispensation for men to approach to, then there is an ark in this dispensation; and if there is an ark, there are ten commandments in that ark, constituting the law for this dispensation, exactly such as existed in the typical ark of old. If men will abolish the law, they must dispense with the ark, and if they dispense with that, they must give up all ideas of a mercy-seat in this dispensation, and if they give up that, then they must yield all the blessings of the gospel, and the whole plan of salvation. This is what goes by the board, when the “law goes by the board,” about which we hear so much; for the law of God, whether in the old dispensation or the present, is the heart and center of the whole arrangement. BSSL 172.2

We often hear the expression, that “Christ is still upon the mercy-seat.” The great fact thus recognized that there is a mercy-seat in this dispensation, is correct; but the figure is wrong; for it was never the prerogative of the high priest to take his seat upon the top of the ark; but Christ pleads his blood before the mercy-seat (the place where mercy sits, not the high priest), blood shed to make atonement for man’s transgression of a certain law that lies in the ark beneath the mercy-seat. Reader, has your heart ever been made glad that there is still a mercy-seat above, a place where “mercy and truth are met together, and righteousness and peace have kissed each other;” a place where you may trustingly come for the forgiveness and pardon of your sins? Then do not quarrel with the law that reposes in living majesty beneath it. In vain will that man come to the mercy-seat for pardon, who is knowingly violating any one of the precepts of the royal law over which the mercy-seat is placed; for our Saviour in the very opening sermon of his mission, was careful to give utterance to this solemn truth, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven.” Matthew 7:21. The original word here translated “will,” is thelema which Greenfield in this instance defines, “precept, statute.” Our Lord’s declaration, then, is simply this, that only those who, in addition to calling him, Lord, that is, acknowledging his authority and heeding his teachings, should also do the precepts of his Father, could enter into the kingdom of Heaven. BSSL 173.1

And so important does the Lord apparently deem this fact that he does not leave it with being once stated. In the closing verses of the closing chapter of the closing revelation of the sacred volume, it is again solemnly announced: “Blessed are they,” says Christ, “that do his [the Father’s] commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gate into the city.” — Revelation 22:14. BSSL 173.2

Preble. — “The only person who was permitted to approach the ‘mercy-seat,’ was the high priest alone once a year. And hence no one knew whether he was accepted of God, only as the high priest performed the service for him. And this was done in the following very odd way, viz:— BSSL 174.1

“‘And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat; and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.’” — Leviticus 16:20-22. “And thus it appears that all those who lived under the old covenant never knew whether they were accepted of God only as they learned it from the high priest. And so it was, as the thing strikes one at this late day, that a live goat was their Saviour. And so it rather strikes me that those who are determined to hold on to the old law, or the old covenant, have for their teacher — instead of the LIVING JESUS — an ‘old dead SCHOOLMASTER,’ and for a Saviour, a live goat.” BSSL 174.2

REPLY. — What the object can be, of these remarks about the “very odd way” and the “live goat” being their “Saviour,” we do not know, unless it be to cast a little ridicule upon that ancient typical service. But Eld. P. has fallen into error in supposing that the live goat was their Saviour. The live goat did not at all typify the coming Saviour. It was the blood of the goat which was slain on the day of atonement, which was used to remove the sins of Israel from the sanctuary, and which typified the sacrifice which the Saviour was to make on Calvary. BSSL 174.3

Eld. P. then speaks of “those who are determined to hold on to the old law,” meaning thereby, of course, the ceremonial law; for that was the law which regulated the service of the sanctuary; and Eld. P. has once acknowledged that the ceremonial law, and the moral law, or ten commandments, were separate and distinct. Now we know of no professor of the Christian religion who is holding on to the ceremonial law of old, and depending on a live goat for a saviour. If there are any such we should be happy to have Eld. P. point them out to us. BSSL 175.1

Preble. — “O that the Spirit of the living God might write upon the hearts of every seventh-day Sabbath keeper this important truth, that the same system of religious ordinances, or ceremonies, which required a live goat to take away man’s sins into the wilderness on his head, was also the same system of service which required the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath. And the entire system was established upon that old covenant which was written upon tables of stone, as will appear to any student of the Bible who will carefully examine the books of Exodus and Leviticus, as compared with the epistle to the Hebrews.” BSSL 175.2

REPLY. — If this writing upon the heart was left to men to do, what a scrawl we should have! What blurs, blots, scratches and contradictions! But, thank God, this work is committed to the Holy Spirit, which writes nothing but what is according to the mind of God. However fervently, therefore, Eld. P. may desire the Spirit to write upon our hearts that the same system that required the live goat to take away sins, required the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, it never will write it, for the Holy Spirit never writes lies! Besides, it is not the province of the Spirit to write in our hearts ecclesiastical histories or theological commentaries. BSSL 175.3

But if that system of ceremonies was the one that required the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, it was the one also that forbade our having other Gods besides Jehovah, worshiping images, taking his name in vain, killing, committing adultery, stealing, bearing false witness, and coveting; and if the seventh-day Sabbath has gone, these others have also gone; as no re-enactment of them can be found any more than of the Sabbath. They all rest on the same basis. — There are thousands of lawless villains all over the land who from the blackness of their hearts would rejoice at the reasoning of Eld. P., which leads to such results. But the prophet says that it is a “horrible thing,” to “strengthen the hands of evil doers.” — Jeremiah 23:14. BSSL 176.1

Preble. — “It may be seen at a glance, by noticing the few portions of Scripture which follow, that the whole system was to cease with their generations, — seventh-day Sabbath and all; as they were only given to the children of Israel, “throughout their generations.” I will now give a few instances, and my readers can satisfy themselves by examining them. BSSL 176.2

“THE PASSOVER. ‘And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations: ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever.’ — Exodus 12:14. BSSL 176.3

“BURNT OFFERING. ‘This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord, where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee. And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory. And I will sanctify the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar: I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister to me in the priest’s office. And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God.’ — Exodus 29:42-45. BSSL 176.4

“SEVENTH WEEK SABBATH. ‘And he shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may be a holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.’ — Leviticus 23:21. BSSL 177.1

“DAY OF ATONEMENT. ‘Ye shall do no manner of work: it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. It shall be unto you a Sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath.’ — Leviticus 22:31, 32. BSSL 177.2

“SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH. ‘And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.’ — Exodus 31:12-18.” BSSL 177.3

REPLY. — Of the Sabbath as a sign to Israel, throughout their generations, we have already spoken, and would refer the reader to our previous remarks on pp. 16-22. And concerning this imposing display of parallelism between the Sabbath, passover, day of atonement, etc., we also refer the reader to what we have already said on this point. See pages 95-97. BSSL 177.4

But Eld. P. seems disposed to continue his chivalrous attacks upon his man of straw, that is, the objection that the new covenant is not now in force. — The whole system, he says, was demolished under the first covenant. We have shown that the former system was distinct from the moral law, and hence its passing away does not affect that law, or the Sabbath which is a part of it. In the light of what has been written, the reader can judge for himself what bearing the quotations introduced by Eld. P. have on the question of the Sabbath. And as there is no particular point of controversy here involved, no further special reply will be called for from us on this part of the subject. BSSL 178.1

Preble. — “If any one is disposed to examine this particular question still further, he can look at Exodus 27:20, 21; 30:8, 10; 40:15; Leviticus 10:8, 9. BSSL 178.2

“The Lord Jesus Christ not permitted to enter the holy places made with hands. Although Christ was a high priest fitted to pass into ‘heaven itself,’ yet he was not permitted to enter the holy places in the temple; for he was not ‘after the order of Aaron.’ but was of the ‘tribe of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood.’ But although Christ could not enter ‘within the veil’ of the temple, to view the ‘mercy-seat’ there; yet when he expired upon the cross, by the power of God the Father ‘the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom’; and thus was demolished the whole system under the first covenant; and a ‘new and living way’ was then opened up, whereby all might ‘know the Lord from the least to the greatest’; as the following passages will prove, taken from the three important witnesses, Jesus, Paul and John! BSSL 178.3

“FIRST. ‘All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest, Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.’ ‘And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.’ — Matthew 11:27-30; 28:18-20. BSSL 179.1

“SECOND. ‘But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.’ ‘For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.’ ‘Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.’ ‘Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. By a new and living way which he hath consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having an high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.’ ‘For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard, entreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: but ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels. To the general assembly and church of the first-born, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.’ — Romans 8:9, 14, 15, 16; Hebrews 4:14-16; 10:19-22; 12:18, 19, 22-24. BSSL 179.2

“I hope not to be tedious to my readers by my lengthy quotations. But fearing the real point under consideration may be overlooked, I will again say, remember that I am proving that all can know the Lord for themselves now, under the new covenant; and not simply through an earthly priest, as it was under the first covenant; and the only way to get rid of sins, to have them carried into the wilderness on the head of a live goat. No! Praise the Lord, now, under the new covenant, all can know for themselves whether they are the children of God or not. Hear, then, the third witness, JOHN:— BSSL 180.1

“‘And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment. That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. — And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.’ BSSL 180.2

‘Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.’ — 1 John 3:19-24; 4:13.” BSSL 181.1

REPLY. — Eld. P.’s “third witness” talks very strongly about “the commandments of God.” He says that whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments. These commandments of God are spoken of in distinction from the teachings of Christ. Now what commandments are these? The same writer speaks of the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Revelation 14:12. The faith, or teachings and instruction, of Jesus, is one thing, the commandments of God are another and entirely different thing. What are these commandments? Every candid mind will confess that they are the ten commandments. Eld. P. has brought on to the stand a very unfortunate witness for him; for he uses language which completely demolishes the no-law-of-God theory. BSSL 181.2

Preble. — “But my objector continues and says, ‘There is another point which has not been taken up yet, which is mentioned in the new covenant, and I don’t believe it can be reconciled with your view of the subject. It is this:— And their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more; and this cannot take place in this world surely.’ We will let the word of the Lord settle this objection also:— ‘But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.’ This shows us that under the first covenant it was impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins; therefore, there was a remembrance made of them again every year. (Hebrews 10:3, 4.) But, praise God, it is not so now under the new covenant, as the following Scripture will prove: ‘For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.’ ‘And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where the remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.’ — Hebrews 10:14, 17, 18. 182 BSSL 181.3

‘But my closing argument in favor of the ‘new covenant’ now being in force is this:— Christ is now mediator of the new covenant, as is clearly demonstrated by the following Scripture! — ‘But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.’ ‘And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.’ — ‘And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.’ — Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24. BSSL 181.4

The words of truth just quoted, prove beyond all cavil that we are now living under the new covenant. The Greek word here rendered mediator is mesitees, and its meaning, according to Donnegan’s Greek Lexicon, is ‘one who is in the middle; one who intervenes, mediates, or arranges affairs between parties.’ Now by turning to the book of Exodus, we shall find that there was a difference between God and the children of Israel, growing out of the affairs of the golden calf, while Moses was in charge of the first covenant; and the Lord said unto Moses, ‘Let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them.” But Moses as a mediator, stepped in between God and the people, and made this memorable plea in their behalf:— BSSL 181.5

“‘And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swearest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it forever.’ See Exodus 32. BSSL 181.6

“The Lord heard this petition of Moses, so far as not to destroy all of the people; but still he was displeased with them; ‘and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.’ And again Moses intercedes:— ‘And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the Lord; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin. — And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.’ BSSL 183.1

“Hence we see that where this covenant is ‘written in tables of stone,’ and then shut away from the people, Moses, as mediator, goes to the Lord on their behalf. But under the new covenant, which is ‘written in fleshly tables of the heart,’ ‘all’ can approach unto God, through the LIVING JESUS, as their mediator. BSSL 183.2

“Now let my objector speak, and say whether I have proved that we are now living under the “new covenant” or not. If I have, let him own up. But if he still believes I have not, then let him meet me fairly, and show a better argument if he can.” BSSL 183.3

REPLY. — We don’t know whom Eld. P. is talking to here. BSSL 183.4

Preble. — “But to bring this argument to a close, which relates to a change of covenant, — of priesthood, — yea, of all things, at the time of Christ’s first advent, including the time of his ministry, his death, and his resurrection; I will present a few texts to show that Christ was lawgiver, prophet, chief corner-stone, etc.” BSSL 183.5

REPLY. — Eld. P. seems to have a wonderfully accommodating system. There must have been some point of time when the change took place from the old covenant to the new; but Eld. P.’s system, probably on the ground that necessity knows no law, has it include “the time of his ministry, his death, and his resurrection.” The reader will remember from his previous arguments that he includes also the ministry of John the Baptist. If he was pressed upon the subject, we doubt not he would include the ministry of the apostles. But all this will do him no good; for before he can establish his position he will have to include the ministry of the “man of sin.” He promises a text “to show that Christ was law-giver.” We shall wait with interest for that text, for we have never yet been able to find it. BSSL 183.6

Preble.— “It was therefore his right to make this change, with the aid of his Father. But first I will present one text to prove that all things have become new; and also, it will fix the point of time when this change took place:— ‘And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.’ 2 Corinthians 5:15-17. Mark this, — Jesus died and rose again, wherefore, from henceforth, know we no man after the flesh; therefore from this point,’old things are passed away,’ ‘behold all things are become new.’” BSSL 184.1

REPLY. — Eld. P.’s use of 2 Corinthians 5:15-17, to show that a new Sabbath has been instituted in place of the old, is absolutely ludicrous. This is the second time it has been brought up, and it is urged even a third time, as good sound argument to prove the point. Any theory that compels men to use Scripture in this way, gives evidence of being in great straits. In Revelation 21:4, 5, we read of a time when God shall wipe away all tears from the eyes of his people, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.” Here old things passing away, and all things being made new, refers to the destruction of this old earth, and the present constitution of things, and the creation of a new heaven, and new earth. Does it refer to the same thing in 2 Corinthians 5? According to Eld. P.’s interpretation it does; for he says that from the resurrection of Christ, old things, without qualification, are passed away, behold all things, without qualification, are become new. — Such is the folly into which we are liable to run, if we will not heed the qualification which the apostle has expressed in plain language before us: “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature:” old things to him are passed away, behold to him all things are become new, and to him only. And how does it happen that it is so to him? Ans. Because on being converted to Christ, his heart was changed, the whole current of his affections, purposes, hopes and desires, took a new direction, and fastened themselves upon new objects. If Eld. P. will refer back to the time of his own conversion, he will doubtless be able to see in his own experience the force of this illustration of Paul’s. BSSL 184.2

Preble. — “A few texts now to prove that our LIVING JESUS was and is a being of great authority and power; and also a prophet, the greatest of all prophets, and chief corner-stone, etc.” BSSL 185.1

REPLY. — ‘Had we been present when Eld. P. thought of introducing the point here mentioned, we should have expostulated with him something like this: “Eld. P., remember that you are professedly arguing against the seventh-day Sabbath. Now please do not spend your time, quoting long texts of scripture to prove that ‘Jesus was and is a being of great authority and power;’ for besides having no bearing on the question, there is no dispute on that point; nobody doubts it.” But he has thought it necessary to prove this point for somebody’s benefit, we don’t know whose; and here is his testimony: BSSL 185.2

Preble. — On this point I will introduce three witnesses: Jesus, Peter and Paul. First witness, Jesus, at the commencement of his ministry: ‘Therefore, whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock.’ ‘And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand.’ ‘And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.’ — Matthew 7:24, 26, 29. Jesus after his resurrection:— ‘And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.’ — Matthew 28:18. BSSL 186.1

“Second witness. Peter:— ‘For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things, whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul which will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed from among the people.’ ‘Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, if we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand before you whole. This was the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which has become the head of the corner. Neither is their salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.’ — Acts 3:22, 23; 4:8, 12. BSSL 186.2

“Third witness, Paul:— ‘For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and came and preached peace to you which were afar off and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.’ ‘God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.’ ‘By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this man, because he continueth ever hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.” — Ephesians 2:14-20: Hebrews 1:2-4; 7:22-28. BSSL 187.1

REPLY. — The text which Eld. P. promised, to show that Christ is a lawgiver, we have not yet found, unless he considers it proved by the words of Christ, “Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine,” etc. But all Christ’s teachings, so far from proving himself a lawgiver, only show that he was enforcing the law, and carrying out the will, of another. He referred to a law existing before his time, and declared that he came not to destroy or supersede it. He affirmed that only those who kept the precepts of his Father should enter into the kingdom of Heaven. He repeatedly assured the people that the words that he spake, and the doctrines that he taught, were not his own, but His that sent him. John 7:16; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10, 24. And on the back of this, James declares, chap. 4:12, that “there is one lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy.” If Christ is a lawgiver in addition to his Father, there are two instead of one; but John, to free this matter from all doubt, comes forward and says that Christ, instead of being lawgiver himself, is the advocate between the lawgiver, the Father, and guilty man who has transgressed the Father’s law. 1 John 2:1. No, Christ is not a lawgiver. He claims no such office. He gave, to be sure, directions and rules for the government of his church, but concerning the duties which man as the creature owes to God the Creator, and to his fellow-creatures, he did not legislate, but simply enforced the law of his Father. BSSL 188.1

Preble. — “Who can doubt for one moment, after thoroughly studying the truths contained in the foregoing portions of scripture from the New Testament, that there was an entire change in the system of divine worship at the first advent of our Saviour, or as has been shown above, that ‘old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new,’ even a new Sabbath, or Lord’s day.” BSSL 188.2

REPLY. — “A new Sabbath, or Lord’s day,” is not essential to a new system of worship; and while we admit that the system of worship was changed from the typical to the antitypical, we might add that from that time there was a new God, a new Heaven, a new earth, or a new race of beings, just as consistently as Eld. P. can add that there was a new Sabbath. But as men can easily persuade themselves to believe that which they inordinately desire to be true, he is very positive that this means at least a new Sabbath or Lord’s day. Very well, then we must have new regulations touching the other duties that are associated in the decalogue with the Sabbath. And these regulations must differ from the old, else they would be a part of the same “old dead schoolmaster” (?) not a new law. But according to Eld. P., all has become new. And as the new Sabbath is kept on another day from the original, and for a different reason, being thus an entirely different institution, perhaps the other new regulations will permit us to worship graven images, swear, kill, lie, and steal, at least a little. Who knows? BSSL 189.1

Preble. — “This brings me once more to speak on the subject of the ‘first day of the week’ as the Sabbath. In the closing part of my last number I referred to the fact that neither of the apostles ever attended another seventh-day meeting after the one mentioned in Acts 18:4. And I will now add, that this is the last time the word Sabbath is found in our version of the New Testament, except in Colossians 2:16. And no Sabbatarian will admit for one moment that that refers to the seventh-day Sabbath. Hence, it is proved that when Paul 190 said, ‘From HENCEFORTH I will go unto the Gentiles,’ (Acts 18:4-6,) he did do it; and after that there is an entire silence in the New Testament in regard to the seventh-day Sabbath as a day of worship.” BSSL 189.2

REPLY. — We are happy to find Eld. P. coming back to the subject of the Sabbath. He speaks of the “first day of the week as the Sabbath.” To the institution of the Sabbath the idea of holy or sacred time is inseparably attached; but if Sunday is the Sabbath, there is, according to Eld. P.’s own confession, nothing sacred about it; for he distinctly admitted in the first part of his article, that “if there is now one day more holy than another, made so by the express or direct command of Almighty God, then the seventh day is the one.” Page 7. BSSL 189.3

The statement which Eld. P. has here repeated about Paul’s turning to the Gentiles, and after that keeping silent about the Sabbath, will be found more at length, and the reply to the same, on pp. 127-129. BSSL 189.4

Preble. — “After this, the disciples held their meetings on the ‘first day of the week,’ as the following will prove: BSSL 189.5

“‘And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow.’ Acts 20:17.” BSSL 189.6

REPLY. — The original argument on this passage, and the reply, will be found on pp. 131-133. BSSL 189.7

Preble. — “‘Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.’ 1 Corinthians 16:2.” BSSL 189.8

REPLY. — For an exposition of this passage of Scripture, see pp. 133,134. BSSL 189.9

Preble. — “‘I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day. Revelation 1:10.” 191 BSSL 189.10

REPLY. — For a reply to the argument usually based on this Scripture, and proof that the Sabbath of the Lord is here unmistakably referred to, see pp. 98-100. BSSL 189.11

Preble. — “What was the practice of the early Christians in regard to the Sabbath? The following unanswerable testimony is here presented in proof that the first day of the week was observed by the early Christians as the Sabbath, or Lord’s day.” BSSL 189.12

REPLY. — We now leave the unerring record, the firm ground, of the Holy Scriptures, and take our way into a region where the bogs and mire of error, corruption, and superstition, surround us on every side. Into this region the advocates of first-day sacredness almost invariably deem it necessary to go, for the support of their darling institution. With how much safety they can appeal to the records of a time when the inspired writers had all left the stage of action, may be determined from the fact that Paul declared that even in his day the mystery of iniquity already worked, and that after his departure grievous wolves should enter in, not sparing the flock, and that men of their own selves should arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 2 Thessalonians 2:7; Acts 20:29-30. Without the most careful discrimination, those who appeal to this age, are liable to receive as honest Christians some of those “grievous wolves,” and take as the genuine records of truth, those “perverse things,” against which Paul has warned us. BSSL 189.13

Discerning writers have often cautioned us against the use that is made of the pretended testimony of the fathers. Says Bower, in his History of the Popes, Vol. I, p. 1: “To avoid being imposed upon, we ought to treat tradition as we do a notorious and known liar, to whom we give no credit, unless what he says is confirmed to us by some person of undoubted veracity... False and lying traditions are of an early date, and the greatest men have, out of a pious credulity, suffered themselves to be imposed upon by them.” BSSL 189.14

Dowling, in his History of Romanism, book 2, chap.1, says: “‘The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants.’ Nor is it of any account in the estimation of the genuine Protestant how early a doctrine originated, if it is not found in the Bible.” BSSL 192.1

Dr. Adam Clarke in his life, p. 134, uses the following strong language: “We should take heed how we quote the fathers in proof of the doctrines of the gospel; because he who knows them best, knows that on many of these subjects, they blow hot and cold.” In commenting upon Proverbs 8, he says: “But of these we may safely state that there is not a truth in the most orthodox creed that cannot be proved by their authority: nor a heresy that has disgraced the Romish church, that may not challenge them as its abettors. In point of doctrine, their authority is, with me, nothing. The WORD of God alone contains my creed. On a number of points I can go to the Greek and Latin fathers of the church to know what they believed, and what the people of their respective communions believed; but after all this, I must return to God’s word to know what he would have me to believe.” For a further statement concerning the authority of the fathers, and how their writings have been corrupted by the Romish church, the reader is referred to the History of the Sabbath pp. 193-204. BSSL 192.2

This is plainly the principle to ever bear in mind, respecting the testimony of the fathers: If they found in the word of God, what they taught, we can find it there too; if they did not find it there, of course it is no authority with us. How much Eld. P. has found in the word of God to sustain his position, the reader can judge from the examination of his theory thus far, and also, whether any amount of testimony from the scaly ages that succeeded the days of the apostles will be able to save it. But Eld. P. completes his array of evidence in behalf of Sunday by bringing in what purports to be the testimony of the Christian Fathers. What Eld. P. has given us under this head is simply a slice from the Sabbath Manual. Unfortunately, Eld. P. has quoted the Manual, not always the most reliable authority, without taking the trouble to test the correctness of the quotations. Had he done this, he never would have endorsed as “unanswerable testimony,” that which turns out to be, principally, but the fossil remains of a few contemptible forgeries. The first witness is Ignatius, as follows: BSSL 192.3

Preble. — “Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, A. D. 101, who died only about half a dozen years after the death of the apostle John, speaks of the Lord’s day familiarly and without explanations, as if everybody understood it. And he gives this title to the first day of the week exactly after the manner of the apostle himself. ‘Let us (Christians) no more sabbatize,’ he says, (that is, keep the seventh day, as the Jews did), ‘but let us keep the LORD’S DAY.’ ‘Let every one that loves Christ keep holy the LORD’S DAY, the queen of days, the resurrection day, the highest of all days.’” BSSL 193.1

REPLY. — Ignatius says no such thing. The epistle from which this quotation is taken is the “Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians.” And what is the character of that epistle? It is spurious. It is a forgery. Ignatius never wrote it. The writers who bear witness to this fact are Calvin, Dr. Killen, Sir Wm. Domville, Robinson, and C. F. Hudson. The testimony of these persons, and a reference to the sources from whence it is taken, the reader will find in the History of the Sabbath, pp. 211-214. BSSL 193.2

But more than this: This passage in this forged epistle of Ignatius would say nothing about the Lord’s day whatever, had not the word day been fraudulently inserted by the translator. The words “Lord’s day” are not found in the original at all. It speaks of Lord’s life,” but says nothing about “Lord’s day.” Our authorities on this point are Kitto in his Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, Morer, and Domville. See Hist. Sab., pp. 214-216, where the facts are stated at length. BSSL 194.1

Thus, this “unanswerable” testimony of Ignatius, which has bolstered up thousands in the false idea that the first Christians kept Sunday in place of the Sabbath, is found to rest only upon a two-fold forgery. In some of the earlier centuries of the Christian age, persons of mean abilities fell into the very laudable and innocent (?) habit of writing shallow treatises, and then, to give them notoriety, ascribing them to some great names in the church. This will account for the number of such works that originated in that period. BSSL 194.2

Preble. — “Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, about A. D. 162, says: ‘Both custom and reason challenge from us that we should honor the LORD’S DAY, seeing on that day it was that our Lord Jesus completed his resurrection from the dead.’” BSSL 194.3

REPLY. — Kitto, in his Cyclopedia of Religious Literature, Art. “Lord’s Day,” says that the earliest authentic instance in which the name of Lord’s day is applied to Sunday is not till it is so used by Tertullian, A. D. 200. And the celebrated historian, Neander, says that perhaps at the end of the second century a false application of the Sabbath law to Sunday had begun to take place, and quotes the words of Tertullian to prove it. If this is correct, that the earliest authentic instance of its use is A. D. 200, the assertion that Theophilus so used it in A. D. 162 cannot be authentic. For this latter statement, no authority is given. For the other, we have the authority of Kitto and Neander, and hence we choose this. Our opponents can take that which they think most creditable to their candor and honesty. BSSL 194.4

Preble. — “Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, who had been the companion of the apostles, A. D. 167, says, ‘On the LORD’S DAY every one of us Christians keep the Sabbath, meditating on the law, and rejoicing in the works of God.’” BSSL 195.1

REPLY. — Irenaeus says no such thing. Sir Wm. Domville, an able, English, anti-Sabbatarian writer, speaks as follows concerning this quotation from Irenaeus: “I have carefully searched through all the extant works of Irenaeus, and can with certainty state that no such passage, or any one at all resembling it, is there to be found. The edition I consulted was that by Massuet (Paris, 1710); but to assure myself still further, I have since looked to the editions by Erasmus (Paris, 1536), and Grabe (Oxford, 1702), and in neither do I find the passage in question.” BSSL 195.2

Dr. Dwight is referred to as authority for this language of Irenaeus’, whenever any reference is given. On this point, Domville remarks: BSSL 195.3

“Where, then, did Dwight obtain this testimony, which has so many times been given as that of Irenaeus? It is recorded in a biographical memoir, prefixed to his theology, that by some disease in his eyes he was deprived of his capacity of reading and study from the early age of twenty-three. The knowledge which he gained from books after the period above mentioned was almost exclusively at second hand, by the aid of others.” BSSL 195.4

The same writer states another fact which unquestionably gives us the origin of this quotation. BSSL 196.1

“But although not found in Irenaeus, there are in the writings ascribed to another father, namely, in the interpolated epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians [that forgery which we have just noticed], and in one of its interpolated passages [forgery upon forgery], expressions so clearly resembling those of Dr. Dwight’s quotation, as to leave no doubt of the source from which he quoted.” BSSL 196.2

On this testimony no better remarks can be made than those found in the History of the Sabbath, pp. 235, 236: “Such, then, is the end of this famous testimony of Irenaeus, who had it from Polycarp, who had it from the apostles! It was furnished the world by a man whose eye-sight was impaired; who in consequence of this infirmity took at second-hand an interpolated passage from an epistle falsely ascribed to Ignatius, and published it to the world as the genuine testimony of Irenaeus. Loss of eye-sight, as we may charitably believe, led Dr. Dwight into the serious error which he has committed; but by the publication of this spurious testimony, which seemed to come in a direct line from the apostles, he has rendered multitudes as incapable of reading aright the fourth commandment, as he, by loss of natural eye-sight, was of reading Irenaeus for himself. This case admirably illustrates tradition as a religious guide: it is the blind leading the blind until both fall into the ditch!” BSSL 196.3

Preble. — “Tertullian, who died A. D. 245, says: ‘The LORD’S DAY is the holy day of the Christian church. We have nothing to do with the Sabbath (that is, the Jewish Sabbath). The LORD’S DAY is the Christian’s solemnity.’” BSSL 196.4

REPLY. — We should have been glad if Eld. P., or Justin Edwards, had told us in what part of Tertullian’s writings this extract was found. It is certain, from what testimony can be found from him, that appears to be genuine, that he did not base the observance of Sunday on the fourth commandment, nor believe in spending the day in devotion altogether. Milman, in his notes on Gibbon, speaks thus of Tertullian: “It would be wiser for Christianity, retreating upon its genuine records in the New Testament, to disclaim this fierce African, than identify itself with his furious invectives, by unsatisfactory apologies for their unchristian fanaticism.” And Dr. Heylyn says: “Tertullian tells us that they did devote the Sunday partly unto mirth and recreation, not to devotion altogether; when, in a hundred years after Tertullian’s time, there was no law or constitution to restrain men from labor on this day in the Christian church.” It also appears that the great reason he assigned for keeping Sunday was opposition to those Christians who kept the Sabbath. See Hist. Sabbath, pp. 238-241. BSSL 197.1

Preble. — “Barnabas, who, if not a companion of the apostles, lived in the apostolic age, says, ‘We (christians) keep the eighth day’ — that is, the first day of the week — ‘as a joyful holy day, on which day also Jesus arose from the dead.’” BSSL 197.2

REPLY. — And here is Barnabas; the epistle of Barnabas, the most barefaced forgery of all! Barnabas, whose epistle, or the one ascribed to him, contains things too indecent for public print! The very ink should blush that is used to write down this Barnabas as a genuine Christian father. A few sentences will serve to show the sweeping condemnation passed by standard authorities on this unworthy epistle. BSSL 197.3

“The epistle of Barnabas was the production of some Jew of mean abilities and superstitious attachment to Jewish fables, ... a very different person from the true Barnabas who was St. Paul’s companion.” — Mosheim. BSSL 198.1

“Impossible that it could ever have proceeded from the pen of a man divinely instructed.” — Id. BSSL 198.2

Neander, Dr. Killen, and Prof. Stuart speak in a similar strain. BSSL 198.3

“The letter still extant which was known as that of Barnabas, even in the second century, cannot be defended as genuine.” — Prof. Hacket. BSSL 198.4

“The so-called epistle of Barnabas, probably a forgery of the second century.” — Kitto. BSSL 198.5

Eusebius says, “Among the spurious must be numbered ... the epistle of Barnabas.” BSSL 198.6

Domville says, “The epistle was not written by Barnabas; it would be a disgrace to him, ... a disgrace to Christianity.” BSSL 198.7

Coleman says, “The epistle of Barnabas ... is evidently spurious. It abounds in fabulous narratives, mystic, allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament, and fanciful conceits, and is generally agreed by the learned to be of no authority.” BSSL 198.8

And Robinson speaks of it as the contemptible revery of a wild and irregular genius. See Hist. Sabbath, pp. 206-209,214. BSSL 198.9

With great pity for the cause that is dependent upon the support of such weak impositions, we pass on. BSSL 198.10

Preble. — “Athanasius, who died A. D. 326, says, ‘The Lord transferred the Sabbath to the LORD’S DAY.’” BSSL 198.11

REPLY. — Like all the rest, there is no reference given us to the chapter and verse where this testimony from Athanasius can be found. He is represented as saying “The Lord transferred the Sabbath to the Lord’s day.” If so, when did he do it, or where has he inspired any of his servants to record the fact. Point us to the testimony and it sufficeth us. BSSL 199.1

It will be noticed that the date of this testimony is A. D. 326. As this was subsequent to the days of Constantine, a statement of a few facts may here be in place. BSSL 199.2

1. Up to the time of Justin Martyr A. D. 140, more than a hundred years after the resurrection of Christ, no authentic testimony can be found that Sunday was observed in any manner in the Christian church. BSSL 199.3

2. The first authentic instance of the application of the term Lord’s day to Sunday, was not till A. D. 200. BSSL 199.4

3. No law existed enforcing Sunday observance previous to the edict of Constantine, A. D. 321. Constantine’s edict is the fourth commandment for Sunday keeping. BSSL 199.5

4. Until the days of Constantine, Sunday had not been devoted to rest from labor, even by those who did in some measure regard that day; for Constantine’s law did not prohibit husbandmen from laboring on that day, but restrained only those who dwelt in the cities, yet Mosheim tells us that this law caused Sunday to be observed with greater strictness than it had formerly been. BSSL 199.6

5. But this edict of Constantine’s, this fourth commandment for Sunday, was issued by him while he was yet a heathen, and was in behalf of Sunday as a heathen festival; for the date of this edict is A. D. 321, and it was not till A. D. 323, two years later, that his nominal conversion to Christianity took place. BSSL 199.7

6. After his conversion, and when, as it is expressed, the empire had become Christian, this edict remained unrepealed; whereupon, Sylvester, who was bishop of Rome, while Constantine was emperor, formally gave to Sunday the imposing title of Lord’s day, and the unrepealed heathen edict of Constantine was seized upon as a Christian ordinance, by which to enforce it. BSSL 200.1

Heathenism had thus prepared the institution of Sunday from ancient time; a heathen emperor had raised it by an imperial edict to the highest pitch of power, and now the bishop of Rome, the embryo pope, seizes it and changes it into a Christian institution, and puts it into the place of the ancient Sabbath of the Lord. From henceforth, Sunday became the peculiar foster-child of popery; and the constant efforts of that apostate church, and the man of sin, have been directed to the suppression of the Sabbath, and the higher and higher elevation of Sunday, until the two institutions occupy the relative positions that they now do in the world. Let us be thankful that the time draws near when God will arise to vindicate the honor of his own name and law; when the man of sin who has thought to change times and laws, shall be consumed with the spirit of Christ’s mouth, and destroyed by the brightness of his coming; and when, alas! all who have willfully made themselves drunk with this wine of the mother of harlots, will be involved in the fearful ruin. BSSL 200.2

Concerning the secular history of the Sabbath, we will just add that an unbroken succession of observers of the true Sabbath can be traced from the church of Jerusalem to the present time. BSSL 200.3

Reliable authorities for the facts above stated, and multitudes of others equally to the point, the reader will find in the History of the Sabbath, by J. N. Andrews, to which reference has already so frequently been made. BSSL 201.1

In the light of these facts, what matters it how much testimony can be found in behalf of Sunday this side of Constantine? We have seen that the institution, historically considered, is entirely detached from the church in the apostles’ days, and from the church subsequent to those days, so long as she maintained her primitive purity, no trace of it being found till more than a hundred years after the resurrection of Christ. BSSL 201.2

Preble. — “Ambrose, bishop of Milan, who died A. D. 397, says: ‘The LORD’S DAY is sacred, or consecrated, by the resurrection of Christ.’” BSSL 201.3

REPLY. — We are not told where this language of Ambrose can be found; neither does Ambrose, if this be his language, tell us where any authority for this change is found in the Bible. BSSL 201.4

Preble. — “Augustine, who died A. D. 430, says: ‘The LORD’S DAY was by the resurrection declared to Christians; and from that very time it began to be celebrated as the Christian festival.’” BSSL 201.5

REPLY. — See the genuine version of Augustine’s testimony in Hist. Sabbath, p. 268, the substance of which is, not that Christ or his apostles changed the day, or that they kept it, but that the “holy doctors [?] of the church” did it. The bishop of Ely thus testifies concerning St. Jerome, who was the contemporary of Augustine: “In St. Jerome’s days, and in the very place where he was residing, the devoted Christians did ordinarily work upon the Lord’s day, when the service of the church was ended.” BSSL 201.6

Preble. — “The persecutors of these Christians were accustomed to put to them this question: ‘Dominicum, servasti?’ — ‘Hast thou kept the LORD’S DAY?’ If they had, they were marked as Christians. This was the badge of their Christianity. And if they said they had, and would not recant, they must be put to death. And when they continued steadfast, what was their answer? ‘Christianus sum; intermittere non possum’ — ‘I am a Christian; I cannot omit it. It is a badge of my religion, and the man who assumes it must of course keep the LORD’S DAY, because it is the will of his Lord; and should he abandon it, he would be an apostate from his religion.’” BSSL 201.7

REPLY. — About all that need be said to this quotation is, that there is not a word of truth in it. It was not till the early part of the seventeenth century that this story was brought forward. Dr. Andrews, bishop of Winchester, England, then produced it to refute Thraske, who was contending for the seventh day. He claimed to have taken it from the “Acta Martyrum.” But Sir Wm. Domville states that he has carefully consulted the most complete edition of that work, and he affirms that no such question as that can be found as having ever been put to the martyrs. Forgery. But what about this work called “Acta Martyrum?” Is it an authentic work? Mosheim states that it is spurious, entitled to no sort of credit whatever. Another forgery. So here we have it again, forgery upon forgery. Surely the prophet used appropriate language when he spoke about a “refuge of lies.” Isaiah 28:17. BSSL 202.1

Preble. — “Eusebius, ‘one of the most learned and eloquent men of the Christian church,’ and called the ‘Father of Ecelesiastical History,’ and who died about A. D. 339, in his ‘Commentary on the Psalms,’ in commenting on the ninety-second Psalm, says: ‘The Word (Christ) by the new covenant, translated and transferred the feast of the Sabbath to the morning light, and gave us the true rest, viz., the saving LORD’S DAY; the first (day) of the light, in which the Saviour of the world, after all his labors among men, obtained the victory over death.’ ‘On this day, which is the first of the light and of the true Sun, we assemble, after an interval of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual Sabbaths — even all nations redeemed by him throughout the world — and do those things, according to the spiritual law, which were decreed for the priests to do on the Sabbath; for we make spiritual offerings and sacrifices, which are called sacrifices of praise and rejoicing.’” BSSL 202.2

REPLY. — Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, book 1, chap.4, distinctly affirms himself to be a no-Sabbath man. He may have borne the testimony relative to the first day of the week here ascribed to him; for he was but the flatterer and satellite of the emperor Constantine. See testimony concerning him in Hist. Sabbath, p. 263. BSSL 203.1

Preble. — “Theodoret, another Ecclesiastical Historian, who died about A. D. 460, speaking of the Ebionites, a party of Judaizing Christians, says: ‘They keep the Sabbath according to the Jewish law, and sanctify the LORD’S DAY in like manner as we do.’ Haeret. Fab.2:1. ‘This,’ says Prof. Stuart, ‘gives a good historical view of the state of things in the early ages of the church. The zealots for the law wished the Jewish Sabbath to be observed as well as the LORD’S DAY; for about the latter there appears never to have been any question among any class of christians, so far as I have been able to discover. The early christians, one and all of them, held the first day of the week to be sacred.’” — Sabbath Manual, No. 2, pp. 3-126. BSSL 203.2

REPLY. — It seems that, since Prof. Stuart penned the above, others “have been able to discover” further testimony relative to this question. Some of this has already been laid before the reader, and reference given him where more may be found. Enough has been given to show that so far from the early Christians, one and all of them, holding the first day to be sacred, not one of them held it to be sacred previous at least to the heathen edict of Constantine, A. D. 321. BSSL 203.3

Preble. — “Says Mosheim: ‘All christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week on which the triumphant Saviour arose from the dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship. This pious custom, which was derived from the example of the church of Jerusalem, was founded upon the express appointment of the apostles, who consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose, and was observed universally throughout all the christian churches, as appears from the united testimony of the most credible writers.’ — Mclaine’s Mosheim, Cent. 1, part II, chap.4,Sec.4.” BSSL 204.1

REPLY. — Mosheim was a writer of the eighteenth century. Of course then, he was dependent on the writings of the early ages of the gospel dispensation, for the facts which he here states. The only writings that are extant previous to the time of Justin Martyr A. D. 140, are the epistle of Barnabas, Pliny’s letter to Trajan, and the epistle of Ignatius. The epistles of Barnabas and Ignatius are both forgeries, as we have seen. The letter of Pliny speaks of a “stated day” but says nothing of what day it was. Hence there is nothing to support Mosheim’s statement. On the contrary all history sustains the statement of Neander who was a writer of the nineteenth century, and equally credible with Mosheim. He says, “The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the law of the Sabbath to Sunday.” — Rose’s Neander, p. 186. BSSL 204.2

Preble. — “Enough of such testimony has been presented to prove that TWO SABBATHS were observed in the days of the apostles and early christians. The ‘party of Judaizing christians’ kept the seventh day. Those who followed Christ and the apostles kept the first day. And thus it has been and is now; those who follow the Jews, or the teaching of the old dead ‘school-master,’ will of course contend for the seventh-day Sabbath. But those who have followed, and still do follow, the teachings of the LIVING JESUS and the apostles, will observe the first-day Sabbath.” BSSL 205.1

REPLY. — From the few brief facts which we have thus far introduced into this reply, it will be evident that those who adhere to the word of God, and reverence the testimony of the Father and the Son, will adhere to the Sabbath which God instituted, blessed and sanctified for man; while those who choose to follow the “mother of harlots,” will bow to the offspring of paganism and papacy, which she has chosen to adopt as the badge of her authority and power, and keep the first-day Sabbath. We agree with Eld. P. that “enough of such testimony,” as he has adduced, has been presented; for on matters which pertain to our eternal interests, we want testimony that is reliable and true, not that which is born of corruption and fraud, and handed down to curse future generations, through the medium of a “pious credulity.” BSSL 205.2

Preble. — “TWO OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. — The first is founded on Matthew 24:20: ‘But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day.’ The Sabbatarian contends that by this passage the Saviour recognized the sacredness of the seventh-day Sabbath up to this time, surely. But we shall see. Two distinct things Jesus told the disciples to pray for. This is plain. All, I presume, understand that Christ had told the disciples that Jerusalem was to be destroyed by the Roman army; and when they, the disciples, should ‘see Jerusalem compassed with armies,’ then they must ‘flee to the mountains.’ But, in doing so, they were liable to meet with two obstacles, and only two. Therefore they must pray. Pray for what? Pray that your ‘flight be not in the winter, neither on the SABBATH DAY.’ If their flight should happen in the winter, it would be difficult for the disciples, with their families, to live in the mountains. If their flight should happen on the Sabbath day, they would find it extremely difficult to ‘flee’ out of Jerusalem, as the gates would be closed, according to Jewish law and custom. (See Exodus 16:29; Nehemiah 13:13-22). This being the case, Jesus knew well that those who were so tenacious of their traditions of the Sabbath as to lead them to condemn him as a Sabbath-breaker for restoring the withered hand, so that it was made ‘whole, like as the other,’ and for making a woman straight whom Satan had bound and bent over, or bowed together, so that she could in no wise lift up herself for eighteen years, and all this just because Jesus had done these acts of mercy on the Sabbath. I say, Jesus knew well that such hypocrites would be a great hindrance to the disciples if their flight should take place on the Sabbath. Now consider, Christ had told the disciples to leave Jerusalem when they should see it compassed with armies. Was Christ Lord also of the Sabbath? So he had once said. Why, then, should he direct his disciples to pray that their flight might not occur on the Sabbath day? The just inference is this: Christ really being ‘Lord of the Sabbath,’ the disciples would have a perfect right to leave Jerusalem at any time when Christ told them to. And, therefore, if the Jews would not let them leave when Christ had ordered it, it proves that those old hypocrites had so monopolized all the privileges of that day by their traditions, that even the disciples could not obey the Lord Jesus without praying to God to prevent them from falling into the hands of such wicked men, who were so outrageously bigoted in regard to the Sabbath that they would neither let Christ or his followers do that which was right on that day. Hence, the Sabbatarian finds nothing here to prove a sacred regard for the seventh-day Sabbath, but a wicked perversion of all its rights, by a class of men who were enemies to God, and violent opposers of his people.” BSSL 205.3

REPLY. — This labored attempt to prove that Christ, in Matthew 24:20, did not recognize the existence of the Sabbath at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, shows that it rests with some weight upon the mind of Eld. P., and must in some way be disposed of. He avails himself of the usual and only method of attempting to evade its force. Now, if his explanation should turn out to be not in any wise valid, it follows that the testimony must stand as an express recognition on the part of the Saviour of the existence of the Sabbath, and a declaration to his disciples of his tender regard for that sacred institution. Had Eld. P. made himself acquainted with a few facts connected with the siege and fall of Jerusalem, we think he never would have offered the explanation of this language that he has here given us. The subject is so well and briefly set forth in the History of the Sabbath, that we can do no better than to quote from that work, pp. 134-138: BSSL 207.1

“But it is replied that this last petition has reference only to the fact that the Jews would then be keeping the Sabbath strictly, and, as a consequence, the city gates would be closed that day, and those be punished with death who should attempt to flee; and, hence, this petition indicates nothing in proof of Christ’s regard for the Sabbath. An assertion so often and so confidently uttered, should be well founded in truth; yet a brief examination will show that such is not the case. 1. The Saviour’s language has reference to the whole land of Judea, and not to Jerusalem only: “Let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains.” The closing of the city gates could not therefore affect the flight of but a part of the disciples. 2. Josephus states the remarkable fact that when Cestius was marching upon Jerusalem, in fulfillment of the Saviour’s token, and had reached Lydda, not many miles from Jerusalem, ‘he found the city empty of its men, for the whole multitude were gone up to Jerusalem to the feast of tabernacles.’ (Jewish War, book 2, chap. 19.) The law of Moses required the presence of every male in Israel at this feast, in Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 16:16); and thus, in the providence of God, the disciples had no Jewish enemies left in the country to hinder their flight. 3. The Jewish nation being thus assembled at Jerusalem, did most openly violate the Sabbath a few days prior to the flight of the disciples; a singular commentary on their supposed strictness in keeping it at that time. Thus Josephus says of the march of Cestius upon Jerusalem, that BSSL 207.2

“‘He pitched his camp at a certain place called Gabao, fifty furlongs distant from Jerusalem. But as for the Jews, when they saw the war approaching to their metropolis, they left the feast, and betook themselves to their arms; and taking courage greatly from their multitude, went in a sudden and disorderly manner to the fight, with a great noise, and without any consideration had of the rest of the seventh day, although the Sabbath was the day to which they had the greatest regard; but that rage which made them forget the religious observation [of the Sabbath] made them too hard for their enemies in the fight.’ Jewish War, book 2, chap. 19. BSSL 208.1

“Thus, it is seen that on the eve of the disciples’ flight the rage of the Jews toward their enemies made them utterly disregard the Sabbath! 4. But after Cestius encompassed the city with his army, thus giving the Saviour’s signal, he suddenly withdrew it, as Josephus says, ‘without any reason in the world.’ This was the moment of flight for the disciples, and mark how the providence of God opened the way for those in Jerusalem: BSSL 208.2

“‘But when the robbers perceived this unexpected retreat of his, they resumed their courage, and ran after the hinder parts of his army, and destroyed a considerable number of both their horsemen and footmen: and now Cestius lay all night at the camp at Scopus, and as he went off farther next day, he thereby invited the enemy to follow him, who still fell upon the hindermost and destroyed them.’ Jewish War, book 2, chap.19. BSSL 209.1

“This sally of the excited multitude in pursuit of the Romans was at the very moment when the disciples were commanded to flee, and could not but afford them the needed facility of escape. Had the flight of Cestius happened upon the Sabbath, undoubtedly the Jews would have pursued him upon that day, as under less exciting circumstances they had, a few days before, gone out several miles to attack him upon the Sabbath. It is seen, therefore, that whether in city or country, the disciples were not in danger of being attacked by their enemies, even had their flight been upon the Sabbath day. BSSL 209.2

“There is, therefore, but one view that can be taken relative to the meaning of these words of our Lord, and that is, that he thus spake out of sacred regard for the Sabbath. For, in his tender care for his people, he had given them a precept that would require them to violate the Sabbath, should the moment for flight happen upon that day. For the command to flee was imperative the instant the promised signal should be seen, and the distance to Pella, where they found a place of refuge, was at least sixty miles. This prayer which the Saviour left with the disciples would cause them to remember the Sabbath whenever they should come before God. It was, therefore, impossible that the apostolic church should forget the day of sacred rest. Such a prayer that they might not at a future time be compelled to violate the Sabbath was a sure and certain means of perpetuating its sacred observance for the coming forty years, until the final destruction of Jerusalem, and was never forgotten by that early church, as we shall hereafter see. The Saviour, who had taken unwearied pains during his whole ministry to show that the Sabbath was a merciful institution, and to set aside those traditions by which it had been perverted from its true design, did, in this, his last discourse, most tenderly commend the Sabbath to his people, uniting in the same petition their own safety and the sacredness of the rest-day of the Lord.” BSSL 209.3

Preble. — “The second objection is, ‘THE THIRD ANGEL’S MESSAGE.’ What is this third angel’s message? Why, a late theory has been started, which claims that Revelation 14:12, has special reference to a particular class of persons who believe in keeping ‘the commandments of God,’ as mentioned in this verse; and that these commandments have special reference to the ‘Seventh day-Sabbath.’ The passage reads:— ‘Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.’ It will be seen by the passage itself that it refers to the ‘commandments of God’ — all of them — and not to any particular one. How, then, shall we determine what commandments are referred to? Please notice the last clause in the verse, ‘and the faith of Jesus.’ This proves that the commandments referred to are those of the New Testament; for there was no ‘faith of Jesus’ before Christ came the first time. Be not alarmed, kind reader, this will be proved by the word of truth, an unerring guide. Hear:— ‘But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterward be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.’ Galatians 4:23-25.” BSSL 210.1

REPLY. — Eld. P. has scarcely succeeded in concealing the latent feeling of contempt with which he speaks of the “third angel’s message.” Says he, “What is this third angel’s message? Why, a late theory has been started,” etc. But one thing is certain. There is an angel brought to view in Revelation 14, the third of a series, who has the most terrific warning to utter that can anywhere be found in the word of God. It signifies something, and the nature of the warning renders it of the utmost importance that we should understand it. Sneers will not set it aside nor destroy its signification. It would be better for Eld. P. to have told us what it does mean, if our exposition of it is not correct, than to have treated it as he has. One singular misstatement needs correcting on the start. This “late theory,” he asserts claims that “these commandments have special reference to the seventh-day Sabbath.” Where did he learn this? He certainly did not get it from any Seventh-day Adventist writings. It would be agreeable if our opponents would not manufacture so many positions for us. We believe it has no more special reference to the Sabbath than to the other nine commandments. But we do believe that the commandments there referred to, mean specifically the ten commandments of God, all of them, Sabbath with the rest. We have more to say, of course, about the Sabbath commandment than about the others; because that is the one which the world has been taught to violate, and on which consequently, light needs to be given. BSSL 211.1

In connection with this misstatement in fact we must mention a misstatement in logic, which Eld. P. has made in putting forth his effort to prove that the commandments referred to are the commandments of the New Testament. The clause “and the faith of Jesus,” he says, “proves that the commandments referred to, are those of the New Testament; for there was no faith of Jesus before Christ came the first time.” We would fain believe that from some cause Eld. P. overlooked the little word “and;” for certainly no one who gets a clear idea of the construction of the language, can draw from it the conclusion presented by Eld. P. It does not read, Here are they that keep the commandments of God — the faith of Jesus; but the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. The commandments of God are one thing, the faith of Jesus another. Now what is this faith of Jesus? We affirm that it embraces all the precepts and teachings of Christ given us in the New Testament; and if this be so, the commandments of God spoken of in connection, are not the same thing, but commandments brought over from the Old Testament. Let any one apply it to any other than the ten commandments if he can. BSSL 212.1

Preble. — “No one need be surprised to see men, and women too, run into error when they will keep themselves ‘shut up unto the faith,’ but never come to it. Why will men be so blinded as to have faith in the visions of women instead of the visions of John? Why follow the teachings of the old dead ‘schoolmaster’ instead of following the LIVING JESUS? They thus give countenance to the system for taking away sins on the head of a live goat! I would exhort all such to — ‘BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD, WHICH TAKETH AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD.’ John 1:29. BSSL 212.2

REPLY. — When Eld. P. commenced his articles against the Sabbath of the Lord, we had hoped he would be able to go through with them without descending to the contemptible practice so common with a certain class of our opponents, of appealing to the prejudice of narrow minds, by heaping slurs upon the visions. But it seems he has not succeeded. The intense desire to give the “visions of women” at least one thrust, before closing his argument against the Sabbath, overcame him, and hence this exhibition of himself. It only confirms our opinion that it is scarcely possible for the opponents of the law of God, to write to any length against the Sabbath, without betraying the spirit spoken of in Revelation 12:17. At least we have yet to see such an article where this spirit did not in one part or another unmistakably crop out: The text referred to says that the dragon was wroth, and went to make war with the remnant of the church “which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” And the testimony of Jesus Christ is defined in chap. 19:10, to be the “spirit of prophecy.” BSSL 213.1

There are those who are constantly watching for just such things as Eld. P. has here thrown out, and great is their glee when they can find a morsel over which to gloat. Accordingly no sooner had the above remark appeared in the Crisis from the pen of Eld. P. than the Millennial Harbinger announced in a most jubilant strain that Eld. Preble had written through the World’s Crisis, a series of articles against the Sabbath, and the visions of E. G. White. So soon did this one remark against the visions become expanded into a series of articles! We hope Eld. P. will not feel flattered at this appreciation of his efforts. We would that it might open his eyes to the nature of the work in which he is engaged. BSSL 213.2

But again the “old dead schoolmaster” is brought on to the stage and a new application made of his mortal remains. This time he is set forth to represent “the visions of women!” BSSL 214.1

Preble. — “THE CONTRAST. The objector may ask, why there is such a contrast between my present views and those advocated by me when I observed the seventh day? as strong grounds are taken in both instances; and both arguments are drawn from the Bible. The answer is obvious. In my former argument, in favor of the seventh day, I had for my basis the Old Testament. And as my premises were false my conclusions were wrong! But in my present position my basis is the New Testament; consequently, as my premises are now true, my conclusions are therefore right.” BSSL 214.2

REPLY. — Eld. P. should not be quite so fast here. It is true that false premises lead to wrong conclusions; but it is by no means as certain that, if a person’s premises are correct, his conclusions will be right, for conclusions are often drawn as wide of the premises as the cast is from the west, and the reader has had sufficient evidence that Eld. P. sometimes draws conclusions with quite a rapid hand. But what does he mean about his basis being the Old Testament, and consequently his premises false? Is the Old Testament false? Is it opposed to the New? We had supposed that the Bible was one harmonious whole, not two parts arrayed in antagonism to each other. Then we repeat a question or two which we have already asked: Where, except in the Old Testament, do we find any law prohibiting the worship of images; or where else any regulations prohibiting consanguinity in marriage? BSSL 214.3

But in looking at Eld. P.’s former argument, we fail to see that his basis was the Old Testament. We have his tract before us. The first part of the tract is an extract from the writings of Wm. Miller, in which there are eight references to the Old Testament and four to the New. In what Eld. P. himself wrote we find twenty-two references to the New Testament, and only two to the Old. One of these was to the fourth commandment, which he quoted on his title-page, and the other was to Daniel 7:25, to show that the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, by the papal power, was in fulfillment of that prophecy. BSSL 215.1

What his basis was, will still further appear from a couple of extracts from the tract referred to, which the reader will be pleased to see in this connection. In a prefatory note to the reader he says: BSSL 215.2

“A FEW QUESTIONS FOR THE READER TO ANSWER, BEFORE READING THE FOLLOWING PAGES. — What authority have you in the Old or New Testament to keep any day as a Sabbath, or day of rest? Do you find any command in the New Testament? If not, why do you not observe the day that is appointed in the fourth commandment? Has the day ever been changed? If so, when and where? Please point to the chapter and verse.” BSSL 215.3

Yes, we would like the chapter and verse. We will let the reader decide whether Preble of 1864 is able to answer the questions of Preble of 1845. Again, he says, p. 7: BSSL 215.4

“In relation to the practice of the apostles, there is but one meeting of the disciples on the first day of the week mentioned in the New Testament, and that is in Acts 20:7. But there are many meetings recorded which they held on the Sabbath. I know 1 Corinthians 16:2, is considered proof respecting the first day; but when examined, I think it proves the contrary. It says, ‘Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him,’ etc. The expression, ‘lay by him in store,’ I think plainly implies that they were at home, rather than at meeting. Revelation 1:10, is the only other place that can be construed to favor the first day. John says, ‘I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.’ Now, who knows whether he meant the first or the seventh day? I think the latter, because it is called ‘the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,’ but the first is nowhere called so!! In regard to the Sabbath, Christ says, ‘The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.’ Not a Sabbath, but the Sabbath. He says also, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.’ Mark 2:27, 28. He does not say, the Sabbath was made for the Jews, and a Sabbath for the Gentiles, but ‘THE Sabbath was made for man’ — all mankind.” BSSL 215.5

It will be seen from the above that Eld. P. once occupied a position for which he could give a valid reason. He has exchanged it, alas! for one for which no just ground can be found, either in nature, reason, history or revelation. BSSL 216.1

Preble. — “In conclusion. I now propose to all Sabbatarians, as I have spoken once more upon the subject of the Sabbath, that if they think my present position is unscriptural, and can be shown to be such, I will just say, without bigotry or vanity, that if they desire, and will present a man well qualified to defend their side of the question, I will, by the Lord’s permission, meet him at any proper time and place, and we will have this matter tested.” BSSL 216.2

REPLY. — With this closing paragraph, a reviewer, of course, has not much to do. Sincerely believing his present position to be unscriptural, we have endeavored to present a few reasons for so regarding it. If Eld. P. is not satisfied, men will not be wanting, at any proper time and place, to further test this matter with him. BSSL 217.1

We are thus brought to the conclusion of Eld. P.’s effort against the Sabbath. The reader now has before him, from the pen of a representative man, arguments which have been set forth with all confidence as sufficient to overthrow the seventh-day Sabbath. Let us, in a brief retrospect, look at some of their main features in connection. BSSL 217.2

1. In the first place, the Sabbath is set forth as a type. But to make this position even appear plausible, the question of its origin must be kept out of sight; for the Bible distinctly places the origin of the Sabbath in Eden; but it is impossible that any type should originate before the fall. And further, the Sabbath as a type is said to foreshadow the future thousand years of millennial rest and glory. But the idea must be maintained that the Sabbath was abolished at the cross; hence, we have a break, a great gulf of over eighteen hundred years, between the shadow and the substance! BSSL 217.3

2. The Sabbath is incorporated into the very bosom of the decalogue, one of those precepts which God distinguished above all others by speaking them with his voice, and writing them with his finger, thus showing that, one and inseparable, they were in their nature moral, immutable, and perpetual. But the Sabbath must be abolished, hence the whole decalogue must be abolished; for it is impossible to show any action in regard to one commandment which does not equally affect them all. This is the reason we hear so much about the ten commandments being abolished. It is simply and exclusively to get rid of the Sabbath, which is such a trouble to the lawless and disobedient. And having abolished the decalogue, mark the dilemma they are in, and the work they make in trying to extricate themselves from it. The law must be re-enacted, or a new one given. When? Some say by Christ, during his public ministry; but this was before the crucifixion, where only the abolition of the old can be placed; hence, we have a re-enactment some years before the old was abolished. Others, therefore, contend that the apostles gave the new law; but this was many years this side the crucifixion, leaving a large space in which God had no law for the government of his creatures! And the thought also occurs that for the former age, an age, as they hold it, of comparative darkness, God gave his law himself; but for this age of further light and glory, he retires upon the background, and leaves the giving of his law to men! — positions, all of them, too absurd for sane and sensible men to give them a moment’s adherence. BSSL 217.4

3. Christ is also, in reality, set forth as dying to abolish his Father’s law, which, if it could by any means have been abolished, he need not have died. BSSL 218.1

4. The original decalogue is denounced as a yoke of bondage, the letter that killeth, a curse, the old law of works, the “old dead school-master,” etc.; but their law of the New Testament, which they must contend is exactly identical with it, only the obligation of the Sabbath is transferred to another day, — that is the law of faith, the law of liberty, the Spirit that giveth life, more glorious! etc. Such is the consistency of their theory. BSSL 218.2

5. The arguments they use destroy each other. Being compelled to admit that the Sabbath is a moral law, that nullifies the argument that it is a type; for moral laws have nothing typical in their nature. Then Paul’s language is applied to the Sabbath, “Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind,” to show that the observance of days is a matter of entire indifference; which, interpreted in accordance with their theory, must mean that we must observe Sunday, but need not keep the seventh day. We shortly find that if we observe the seventh day, we fall from grace, and will surely be accursed; and, finally, that by so doing we tread under foot the Son of God, and count the blood of the covenant wherewith we were sanctified an unholy thing, and do despite unto the spirit of grace! Thus it becomes the most heinous crime against God, to keep a command under this dispensation, which under the former was the delight of both God and man, and for a violation of which, God visited his ancient people with frequent and severest wrath! And more than this, while we must not keep the seventh day, the divine law for which never has been repealed, we must keep Sunday, for which no divine law or command ever has been given! BSSL 219.1

Such are a few of the crooks and contradictions which attach to any theory devised to overthrow the Sabbath. They are inherent in the system, if it may be called a system, and no man, however able and sound in other respects, who undertakes to defend such views, can run clear of them. And if the reader, in following the arguments of Eld. P., has often been surprised at the inconsistency and weakness of his positions, attribute it not to the man, but the unfortunate side of the question upon which he labors. For no man of his age and ability, of his fairness and candor in every other respect, of his experience in the things of God, and especially in connection with the great truth of the second coming of the Saviour, — no such man, we say, with truth on his side, would advance the incongruous positions, and the lame and halting arguments which he has presented. But error disarms the strongest, and renders him who would be a host, if battling for the right, weak and impotent in its unworthy defense. For this reason, we are sorry to see Eld. P. where he is, and for his own sake, and the good he would be able to do, we would that he might return to his first love, and again take up his position in the stronghold of truth. BSSL 219.2

Says the apostle, “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” In the spirit of this injunction, Eld. P. will suffer us to address a few words to him. BSSL 220.1

Permit us, Eld. P., to point out to you the nature of the work in which you are engaged. It is a negative work, akin to that of the skeptic and infidel. It is tearing down, not building up. And you well understand that it is vastly easier to hurl an objection here and there against any system than it is to present another harmonious system to take its place. And such is the opposition to the seventh-day Sabbath, whether it take the form of no-Sabbath, or of a first-day Sabbath. It consists principally in throwing out objections, one text here and another there, which is supposed to bear against the great system which sustains the seventh day from Genesis to Revelation. And it matters not if these objections contradict and devour each other, as there is no harmonious system on that side to build up; but if they work confusion in the mind of the reader or hearer, and shake his confidence in the Sabbath, the object is gained. And who are the persons, Eld. P., who especially delight in your effort against the Sabbath? Answer. Those who believe in no-Sabbath. What care they for a poor apology for Sunday? They know that if the seventh day is not the Sabbath, there is none. Hence, they seize upon every objection that you raise against the Sabbath as sustaining them in their position. Thus are you confirming men in this species of infidelity; bolstering them up in the idea that the holy and beneficent institution of a day of rest has ceased to exist. And while this negative work is so easily accomplished, it is not so easily counteracted; as it is well known that an objection may be stated in one line, which it would require pages to answer. To illustrate: One man can tear up more railroad track than ten men can lay down; one incendiary can burn more buildings than a hundred men can build; and it requires only a few hours’ work of the club and torch of the Goth and Vandal, to deface or ruin the stately edifice, which it has cost years of toil, and the mightiest efforts of art, to rear. Such, Eld. P., and we say it with all kindness, is the nature of your opposition against the Sabbath. But amid all the controversy and excitement which this subject is producing with various classes, we are happy to be able to say that BSSL 220.2

Like some fair monument of towering form,
The Sabbath stands unmoved amid the storm;
While round it fierce the noisy rabble crowd
With tumult wild, and imprecations loud;
Their missiles at it hurl with venomed spite,
To mar its beauty and obscure its light;
And “More Confusion,” is their proper label,
“Than ever babbled ‘round the tower of Babel.” BSSL 221.1

You must not, therefore, be surprised if in some portions of our reply to your remarks, we have manifested more than wonted earnestness, and if our words may have seemed sharp and severe. Be assured that nothing has been set down in unkindness or malice. While we have endeavored to expose faithfully wrong premises and wrong conclusions, it has been with no hard or bitter feelings against their author. We have spoken only as the occasion seemed to demand. For when we saw you yielding to a class of ideas which led you to apply to Seventh-day Adventists, those who are endeavoring to regulate their lives by the highest moral code yet known on earth, — to apply to this class the language of Paul to the Philippians, “Beware of dogs, beware of evil-workers, beware of the concision,” etc., it seemed to us time that the inherent falsity and unsoundness of such positions should with an unsparing hand be laid open to public view. BSSL 222.1

With no less sincere feelings of regard for your position, age and experience, have we reviewed your arguments, than we felt when, at the home of the writer, in West Wilton, N. H., twenty years ago, you made known in clearness and power the doctrine of the Lord’s soon coming; or when you laid your hand upon his head, and said, “Bub, do you love the Lord Jesus?” We can now answer that question. We do love him. We take him for our Saviour. And while endeavoring to keep the law of God, we rely upon the merits of Christ’s atoning blood for the forgiveness of our sins. And the more we love him, the less consistent can we make it appear that by obeying the law of the Father, we thereby ignore or trample under foot the atoning work of the Son. BSSL 222.2

In contrast with the lack of harmony involved in the opposition to the Sabbath, look at the few following harmonious facts connected with the view we hold of this sacred institution. BSSL 223.1

1. The Sabbath was given to man in Eden, ere yet he had fallen from his innocence. BSSL 223.2

2. A law for its observance was given to Adam, and through him, as he then stood in Eden, of course for all his posterity. BSSL 223.3

3. When the moral law was given to the world in tangible form, we behold the Sabbath, in its very bosom, the golden clasp to bind together the two tables of the decalogue. BSSL 223.4

4. God declared to Israel that he would take the Sabbath commandment above all others to be the badge or sign of his loyal people. BSSL 223.5

5. We see the Sabbath, with the other nine commandments, everywhere kept distinct from the ceremonial law, which regulated, not obedience to God, but the way to approach unto him for pardon. BSSL 223.6

6. And when Christ came and introduced a new and better way of approach to God, he was careful to hold up the law of his Father, unchanged in the slightest particular, as still the great rule of rectitude, and the condition of everlasting life. If thou wilt enter into life, said he to the young man, keep the commandments. And he then pointed him to the decalogue to show him to what commandments he referred. BSSL 223.7

And 7. When the prophet Isaiah looks beyond this present evil world, beyond the reign of corruption and error, beyond the dominion of sin and sinners, when he looks forward to a new earth reposing in untold loveliness and beauty beneath a new heaven, he gives us a final view of the Sabbath in that glorious and eternal state: “For as the new heavens and the new earth which I will make shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. BSSL 223.8

And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.” Isaiah 66:22, 23. BSSL 224.1

Thus while the Sabbath was placed like a bright coronet upon the brow of the first creation, ere Paradise was lost, while it has been, and still is, “the song of the church in the house of her pilgrimage,” in Paradise restored it again appears, prominent among the blessings of the great restitution, and the prophet points to it as a season of hallowed repose and worship for the saints of God forever and ever. BSSL 224.2

We trust you still adhere to the noble sentiment expressed in your tract of 1845: “Truth is what I am after; and if I had but one day on this earth to spend, I would give up error for truth as soon as I could see it.” We therefore pray you to review carefully your present position, and, as you then prayed, “May the Lord give you wisdom and help you to keep all ‘his commandments, that you may have right to the tree of life.’ Revelation 22:14.” BSSL 224.3

And when the faithful servants of God shall have finally entered into rest, as they look back upon their journey through this revolted world where disloyalty to the government of Heaven was the prevailing sin, and where opposition to God’s law was the malignant principle which the enemy labored hardest to instill into the hearts of men, and as they think that then they tried to show their loyalty to God by loving his law and reverencing his Sabbath, that thought will be to them an exceeding joy. BSSL 224.4