Chapter IV: Part 4

It is admitted on all hands that Christ himself, before his death, and his disciples, up to the time of his resurrection, kept the seventh day holy. It is also admitted on both sides that after the resurrection the apostles and other followers of Christ kept holy one day in seven. While they abounded daily in the work of the Lord, the seventh-day Sabbatarians will concede with us that there was still one day marked out from the rest of the week as sacred time. What day was thus distinguished? Was it the seventh, otherwise known as the Sabbath? Let us see.

The word Sabbath occurs in the New Testament, after the close of the gospel history, twelve times. In two of these instances, viz., Acts 20:7, and 1 Cor. 16:2, the word means “week,” and not the seventh day, as also in a number of instances in the gospels. In Acts 1:12, the word is used to indicate a certain distance. The term is employed in two other places, viz., Acts 13:27, and 15:21, in incidental reference to the service of the Jewish synagogues. In Colossians 2:16, Paul mentions the seventh-day Sabbath only to deny the obligation of its observance. This important passage will be considered farther on. There remain, then, six instances, two of them in regard to one and the same day and meeting, in which the word is found in accounts of gatherings for religious purposes on that day, the seventh of the week. These meetings were as follows: 1. At Antioch, in Pisidia, Acts 13:14; 2. At the same place, the next seventh day, Acts 13:42, 44; 3. At Philippi, Acts 16:13; 4. At Thessalonica, Acts 17:2; and 5. At Corinth, Acts 18:4. At Thessalonica, there were three Sabbaths, and at Corinth, every Sabbath, it may be inferred, for several weeks, thus marked by religious meetings. We are informed that Paul went into the synagogue at Thessalonica on the Sabbath, or seventh day, “as his manner was.” And, accordingly, particularly during his first and second, or his more properly termed, missionary tours, as distinguished from his journeys in revisiting churches already organized, we may unhesitatingly infer that there were other similar meetings on the seventh day, as at Salamis, Acts 13:15; at Iconium, Acts 14:1; and at Ephesus, Acts 18:19, and 19:8.

And here we note the fact that _in not a single one of these instances was the meeting a gathering of Christians_. In no case was it the assembly of the members of a Christian church for worship. In every case, these meetings on the seventh day were in Jewish places of worship, all in synagogues regularly occupied by Jewish assemblies, except that at Philippi, which was at a _proseucha_, a Jewish place of prayer out of the city by the river’s side. In every instance, it was a gathering of Jews and Jewish proselytes, with the addition of a greater or lesser number of Gentiles, the sight of a crowd of whom at Antioch, the second day of meeting in their synagogue, excited the jealousy and rage of the Jews. And in these gatherings, in every case, Paul labored _as a missionary_, glad to avail himself of every opportunity to proclaim the saving truths of the gospel of Christ.

Can any intelligent and candid reader of the inspired records fail to understand the narrative of Paul’s missionary work? He was sent forth “to turn sinners from darkness to light.” As he himself states at Antioch, addressing the Jews: “It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you.” His “heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel was that they might be saved.” Accordingly, wherever he went, he was found going to them on the seventh day in _their_ places of worship, not in Christian houses of prayer; meeting with them in _their_ assemblies, not in assemblies of professed followers of Christ. Just as a Christian missionary, in modern times, going to a heathen land, would avail himself, if possible, of the customary assemblies of the residents, whatever day they might keep holy, so Paul and his fellow-missionaries availed themselves of the seventh-day assemblies of the Jews, that from among them, as well as from among the Gentiles, they might gather out an _ecclesia_—a body of followers of the Lord Jesus, in whom Jew and Gentile should be one.

The question, therefore, still remains to be answered: Which day of the week did the church at Jerusalem, existing at the time of Christ’s ascension, which day did the apostles in their relations with this church, which day did the churches, organized and established by the apostles, and under their example and divine authority, observe as a holy day, a Sabbath to the Lord? In all the references to the seventh day, or Jewish Sabbath, there is not, as we have seen, a particle of evidence that that day was thus observed.

On the other hand, there is positive testimony that the very congregations or churches of Christians, organized at the places where Paul performed missionary labor on the seventh day, ignored that day, and in its stead observed another day of the week as holy time. For example, at Corinth, “as his manner was,” Paul went first to the Jews and preached to them in their synagogue, the word of God, _reasoning with them_, and persuading them and the Greeks to accept of Christ. Then, when the Jews opposed themselves and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.” So he left the synagogue and the Jews, not the city, and entering into the house of Justus, received Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, with all his house, and many of the Corinthians, as converts into the Christian church. Here we have the church of Corinth. Which day of the week did it observe as the Sabbath of the Lord? the seventh? Though Paul “continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them,” there is not a word more about seventh-day services. This, it is true, would be merely negative, if it were all. But this is not all. In Paul’s direction to this same church, a few years later, he makes clear and certain, what before was probable, that their stated day for religious services was not the seventh, but the first, day of the week. 1 Cor. 16:2. The plain and most explicit teaching of this passage will be fully considered hereafter.

Again, when Paul entered into the synagogue at Ephesus, and reasoned with the Jews (Acts 18:19), and, because he could not tarry long at this time, soon returned again, and met the objections of disputatious Jews for the space of three months (Acts 19:8), his labors as a missionary are said to have been in the synagogue, no doubt on the Sabbath of the Jews, or the seventh day. But once more separating the Christian converts from the unbelieving and blaspheming Jews, and forming the Christian church of Ephesus, he continued there in incessant labors for two years. And now we hear no more of seventh-day assemblies. This, again, may be said to be merely negative, as we hear of no special honor put upon any day. But we have not done with this. Passing the last years of his life in this city of Ephesus, the apostle John writes of “the Lord’s day,” known and observed by the Christians among whom he dwelt. That this holy day of the early church, called the Lord’s day, was not the seventh, but the first, is shown by the most satisfactory historical testimony, which will be adduced in full in its proper connection.

Once more. When Paul came to Troas to preach Christ’s gospel, and a door was opened to him of the Lord (2 Cor. 2:12), whether it was on his first very brief visit (Acts 16:8), or more probably in going over “those parts,” on his way from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20:2), he no doubt, “as his manner was,” went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. A congregation of Christian disciples was formed, and the apostle departed for Greece. After an absence of some months, Paul returns to Troas, and with his companions remains there seven days, departing again on the second day of the week. Whether he departed on the first or second, however, the fact remains that, during his abode of seven days at Troas, there was one seventh day. Do we hear of any religious meeting on that day? Did the disciples then assemble for divine service? Let us hear the record: “We abode seven days. 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.” The seventh day is passed by. The day for the assembling of the Christian disciples is not the Sabbath of the Jews. Another day has taken its place. This most explicit instance at Troas of ignoring the seventh day, and honoring another in its place, as the stated day for the religious services of Christians, abundantly confirms, if confirmation were needed, the conclusions already reached in the instances at Corinth and Ephesus.

Thus the _facts_ of the records of inspired history conclusively prove that the seventh day was not observed by the apostles and early Christians as their sacred day of divine worship, or the Sabbath of the Lord. We might add here that the testimony of all the earliest Christian writers, who received from the apostles and the companions of the apostles the institutions of the Christian church, is full and explicit to the same effect. But we shall hear their evidence for the first day, and thus also against the seventh, in good time.

It will now be in place to consider how apostolic precept corresponds with apostolic example, and that of the churches, in regard to the seventh day. Colossians 2:16, a most important passage, making particular mention of the seventh-day Sabbath, yet singularly overlooked by seventh-day Sabbatarians, now claims our attention for a moment. Judaizing teachers, so busy everywhere throughout the early church, had been at work among the Christian disciples at Colosse. They had been insisting upon the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. One would think that some of these men had come down to our time and learned to use very good English. We refer these representatives of an ancient, but not honorably mentioned, class for instruction to the apostle’s words to the Colossians: “Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy day [literally, _of a feast_], or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days;” _i. e._, of yearly, monthly, or weekly Jewish celebrations. We do not wait to examine the parallel passages in Gal. 4:10, and Rom. 14:5, where the obligation of Jewish observances, including the seventh-day Sabbath, is denied, and where, in the latter case, to make the argument even stronger, the toleration of these observances as a weakness is considerately advised. Surely, it is no wonder that seventh-day Sabbatarians seem not to be aware of the existence of these portions of the divine word! It cannot be pleasant to be made to feel that, like the Judaizers of old, they bring themselves under the sharp rebuke of the inspired apostle by judging Christians in respect of the seventh-day Sabbath.

We will now sum up this part of the discussion: Admitting that the Sabbath was instituted in Eden for mankind; that it is of perpetual obligation; that it was observed by Christ himself before his death, and by his disciples until his resurrection, as by the Jews of old, on the seventh day of the week; we have gone on to see that the apostles and the early church, still having one stated day each week as a holy day, did _not_ continue the observance of the seventh day. We have seen that the seventh day, after the resurrection, is mentioned only in connection with assemblies, in Jewish places of worship, of Jews, Jewish proselytes, and, in some instances, a larger or smaller addition of Gentiles, among all of whom the apostle labored as a missionary for the conversion of souls, and the formation of Christian congregations, or churches. We have found that no instance can be adduced of the apostles in their relations to Christian churches, nor of assemblies of Christian disciples, meeting to observe the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. On the other hand, we have found them ignoring the seventh day and honoring another, in perfect harmony with the apostle Paul’s rebuke of Judaizing teachers who insisted on having Christian disciples observe the seventh day, and his condescending toleration of their weakness.

A REJOINDER.
“THE SEVENTH DAY NOT OBSERVED BY THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH.”

It is, we confess, with some degree of embarrassment, that we attempt the answering of the second article from the pen of the editor of the _Statesman_, in reply to the argument which we presented in the columns of that paper. Our difficulty does not arise from any confusion into which we have been thrown by the superior logic of our opponent; it consists, rather, in knowing just where and how to commence the work.

So far as statements are concerned, they are numerous and repeated again and again, in substance. But we have no disposition, nor have we the space, to take them up singly, in their numerical and repetitious order, for consideration. And, besides, the fallacy of nearly every one of them has been demonstrated in what we have already written. This being the case, we have determined to take the general scope of the criticism, and thus, as briefly as may be, make suggestions which, if carried out, will answer its assumptions, as well as its attempted efforts at deduction.

We remark, then, in the outset, that we are happy to meet the writer upon the common ground of a Sabbath having originated in Eden, and inserted in a law of perpetual obligation on both Jews and Gentiles.

Let the reader keep these mutual concessions continually before his eyes. They are of great significance in this debate. 1. They prove that the Sabbath is not Jewish in its origin, but was given to Adam, as their representative head, for the benefit of the whole race, more than two thousand years before there was a Jew in existence. 2. They also prove that the Sabbath institution was rendered obligatory upon all men by a divine precept, with the phraseology of which we are all acquainted. 3. That that precept is explicit in its declaration that the last and not the first day of the week was the Sabbath. 4. That before any other day can be substituted in the place of the one designated, the Power which originated it must authorize the change.

So much for the important results which necessarily flow from the principles which we hold in common, if indeed we are right in supposing that the writer _really_ means what he _actually_ says; namely, that he holds to the perpetuity of the fourth commandment of the decalogue. We shall see, hereafter, whether or not his statements are to be taken for all which they express.

We advance, now, in our examination of the criticism before us.

What direction, then, does the effort take in the main? It will be granted that the plan of defense adopted is that of attempting to prove that the early church did violate the seventh, and did honor the first, day of the week. But with what success has the effort been attended? We know that it is stated several times that the apostles disregarded what the author is pleased to call the _Jewish_ Sabbath—after he had conceded the principle that that of the commandment was _Edenic_ in its origin—but did he make out his case? So far from it, in every instance where he has found them connected in the record with the Sabbath day, it has ever been in the performance of duties _religious in their nature_. For should we concede that he is right in supposing that Paul went into the synagogues to teach on the Sabbath day, simply because he would find hearers there, this, assuredly, would not prove that Paul was a Sabbath-breaker.

Let me take the gentleman’s favorite illustration of a missionary in a foreign land, at the present time. Now suppose that his lot were cast in a country where the first day of the week, or the day of the sun, was regarded as holy by the natives, and he should be found on that day regularly teaching them in their places of assembly, would _that_ decide the question that he was necessarily a violator of the first-day Sabbath? You answer immediately in the negative. So, too, in the case of Paul. The fact that it can be shown that it was his custom to teach in the synagogues on the seventh day of the week, if it has no power to prove that he was a conscientious _observer_ of that day, cannot at least be cited as furnishing evidence that he _disregarded_ it. We ask, then, again, Has a scintilla of positive testimony been given that Paul ever broke a single Sabbath of the Lord, as contained in the divine precept? Once more it must be conceded that there has not. But is it not a little singular that in a history of thirty years, where the Sabbath is so often mentioned, not one single action has ever been discovered in the least incompatible with Paul’s veneration of the seventh day? We let the reader answer.

Furthermore, we have from the pen of our opponent himself the frank admission that, in the historic territory over which he has been passing, it has been uniformly true that both Luke and Paul have ever, when speaking of the seventh day, called it “the Sabbath.” Now let the reader remember that this confession is full and sweeping in its character. Then let him ask himself whether it is natural to suppose that men, having repudiated an old Sabbath, and zealous for the establishment of a new one, would be likely to make up the record in question in such a form that the old Sabbath, whenever spoken of, should always be styled “the Sabbath,” and the new one be mentioned merely as the “first day of the week?” In order to impress the fallacy of such an idea, we have but to call attention to the fact that men, at the present time, possessing the same natures and dispositions as formerly, would avoid such a course with the most scrupulous care. Instance the fact that seventh-day observers never allude to the Sunday as _the Sabbath_, but avoid such a reference under all circumstances; while the devotees of the Sunday, when speaking of the last day of the week, almost uniformly speak of it as the _Jewish Sabbath_, if Sabbath they will allow themselves to call it at all.

But again. We are told, very candidly, that by the word Sabbath, in Acts 13:44, where it is said that the “next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together” to hear the word of God, is meant the next seventh day succeeding the first seventh day on which Paul addressed the Jews at Antioch. This being true, it is settled beyond dispute that, in the mind of Luke, there was no Sabbath day occurring between the one on which Paul spoke to the people, and the seventh day of the next week when he addressed them the second time; for, if there had been, then it would not have been proper to call the last Sabbath mentioned the “_next_” one, since another Sabbath would have intervened between the two in question. In other words, according to the view of our friend, the Sunday, which was the next day after the first discourse of Paul, was really the next Sabbath which followed it; whereas, the inspired penman ignores it altogether, and, passing over it with silence, calls the last day of that same week “the Sabbath.”

Again, it is stated in Acts 15:21, that the “Scriptures are read in the synagogues _every_ Sabbath day.” Here, again, it is conceded that the reference is to the seventh day of the week. If this be true, however, then James, as well as Luke, had, in his lexicon of terms, the “Sabbath day” as the one which answered to the seventh day and not to the first; for no one will insist that the Scriptures were read in the synagogues of the Jews regularly on the first day of the week; but James says that they were read there _every_ Sabbath day; therefore, in his mind—as we have already remarked—the first day was not the Sabbath.

Once more: It is stated of Paul that he reasoned in the synagogues _every_ Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. Here also it is urged—admitting that the reference is to the seventh day—that Paul went into the synagogue in order to get a hearing. But this he could not do on the first day, since he would have found the synagogue closed, and no audience. Nevertheless, the statement stands unqualified that Paul preached “_every Sabbath_.” Now if this be true, and the first as well as the seventh day might, according to the view of the historian, be called a Sabbath, then we have him stating that Paul preached in the place in question on both the first and seventh days. On the other hand, if he regarded the first day as alone the Sabbath, then he meant to teach that Paul preached in the synagogue on that day, and that day only. But my opponent will not insist upon either of these positions. The only conclusion that is left us, therefore, is that the Holy Ghost, who inspired Luke in the selection of terms, employed the appellation of Sabbath as applying only to the day which had been sanctified in Eden, and had always been known by that title.

Now let us give our attention for a moment to the objection so strongly urged that in the book of the Acts, and in the epistles, there is no well-authenticated instance in which the apostles held meetings, with Christians exclusively, on the seventh day. The point of the proposition might be thus stated: If the early Christians did hold meetings on the seventh day, the record would have shown it: this it fails to do; therefore, the presumption is that they did not regard it as holy.

This is a sword that cuts _both_ ways, if it cuts at all. We do not wonder that, when our friend laid hold of its hilt, he said, tremblingly, This is a _negative weapon_; so that, when we should attempt to borrow it of him, we might find the edge, which was designed for his _own neck, dulled by his own concession_.

But let us proceed. Is it true, so far as the ancient Sabbath of the Lord is concerned, that, unless we can find historic accounts of its observance in the New Testament, we must therefore conclude that it was not regarded? We answer, No; simply because its observance is not alone taught by precedent. It rests upon a positive command of God, incorporated in a law which was brought over into this dispensation, as we have seen, and made obligatory upon Christians. It was not, therefore, necessary that a detailed account of its observance should be placed upon the record, in order to prove that it was regarded by the early church; since the very fact that they acknowledged the law of God, is in itself proof that they sanctified the Sabbath which it ordained. Until, therefore, the gentleman can shake the pillars of that law—as we shall show he has not yet succeeded in doing—it is of itself a guarantee that every seventh day was regarded with solemnity by those who were endeavoring to keep its precepts.

In proof of this, we have but to mention the fact that from Moses to David—a space covering five hundred years—the term Sabbath is not employed once in the sacred history, and yet the gentleman will agree with me that the good men of those ages hallowed it, simply because he agrees with me that they had a precept requiring them to do so.

But, again, we must be allowed to insist that the very silence of which the gentleman complains does indirectly prove, independent of the commandment, that the first generation of Christians were Sabbatarians. What we mean to be understood as saying is, that they at least did not violate the regulations concerning the strict observance of the Sabbath, as enforced among the Jews; for had they done so, a record of thirty years could not have failed to bring to light numerous collisions, which would have been inevitable between Jews and Christians, the one class despising and trampling down the Sabbath of the law, and the other following them with that vulture glance of inquisition, by which—as in the case of our Lord—they were in the habit of watching their antagonists, with a view to condemning them before the law. And, besides, with what show of consistency could Paul have stood up before them, announcing himself as one who had never violated the customs of the fathers (Acts 28:17), if he had been seen weekly transgressing the law of one of the dearest institutions handed down to them from the remotest antiquity?

Thus much for one side of the logic of our opponent. Now let us apply it to the Sunday. As we do so, it will be recollected that there has been no effort made, as yet, to place it upon a positive precept. Its existence, therefore, if such it has at all, must be attributable to precedent. Thus far, such precedent has not been cited, except by way of anticipation. When it comes up, we will consider it in order. In the meantime, let it be remembered that our friend has voluntarily taken a position which will compel him to admit that, unless he can find at least one clear and unquestionable case in which the Sunday was from beginning to end devoutly celebrated, his cause is a hopeless one. Nay, more, to make out his point, every candid mind will demand that, in the absence of positive command, he shall be able to show numerous instances in which the day, whose claims he seeks to vindicate, was intelligently honored; for, be it remembered, that, according to his own declaration, the apostle was traveling from point to point, writing and preaching, and Luke was keeping a diary of his labors, for the purpose of instructing that generation of Christians, as well as this, concerning duty and doctrine. If, therefore, Sunday sanctity came under the head of those doctrines, it was important, overwhelmingly so, that such a fact should be set forth clearly, since an habitual disregard on the part of any, of the new Sabbath, would bring upon them the condemnation of Heaven. Furthermore, the line of demarkation, which the new day would have drawn between the disciples and the Hebrews, would have been so broad, and the discussions upon those points would have been so numerous and so full, while the transition was taking place, that its existence could not have failed to become discernible in the writings of that period.

Here we must change our line of argument, and turn to the consideration of Col. 2:14-17, and of Rom. 14:5. Our opponent intimates that Sabbatarians are in the habit of evading these texts. In this remark, he does us great injustice. The statement is so far from being true that I make no doubt that, within the last twenty years, Seventh-day Adventist preachers alone have, by voice and pen, commented upon them at least a thousand times. But the best method of showing the charge to be untrue will be found in an examination of the texts themselves. The first is as follows: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; ... Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” Col. 2:14, 16, 17. Now be it remembered that he affirms that these scriptures teach the abolition of the creation Sabbath; also, that, while we concede the point that there are here mentioned sabbaths which were abolished at the crucifixion of Christ, we deny that the seventh-day Sabbath was among them, and insist that they were simply the ceremonial sabbaths of the Jews to which reference is made.

In proof of our position, we offer the following considerations: 1. That which was repealed is represented as having been “blotted out.” Now the Scriptures are remarkable for the force and propriety of the illustrations which they employ. But who will say that the terms “blotting out” could properly be applied to writing engraved in stone, as was the Sabbath law in its original copy? 2. That which was blotted out was the “handwriting of ordinances;” but the commandments were the finger-writing of God. 3. That which was blotted out was found among ordinances that were “_against_ us, and _contrary_ to us.” But Jesus says, “The Sabbath was made _for_ man.” Mark 2:27, 28. 4. That which was blotted out and taken out of the way “was nailed to his cross.” But it is inconceivable that such language could be spoken of the tables of stone, since they are not of a nature such that the work spoken of could be readily accomplished, and therefore the figure will not apply to them except when forced. 5. It must be admitted that these things concerning which we are not to allow men to judge us were either all of them shadows of Christ, or that if the _others_ were not, the _sabbath days_ were. If they were all shadows, then the sabbaths undeniably were such; for the expression, “which were a shadow of things to come,” stands immediately connected with the term “sabbath days.”

But this decides the point in controversy; for our friend has already voluntarily declared that the seventh-day Sabbath originated in Eden. This being true, it cannot be regarded as a “shadow” or type of Christ, since it was in being before man had ever fallen, and, consequently, before a Saviour was either needed or promised. It is commemorative in its character, and was calculated to carry the mind back to the creation, to the rest of Jehovah, rather than forward to the crucifixion of his Son. Do you inquire, then, what sabbaths the apostle had in view? We answer: He locates them among “commandments written in ordinances.” In other words, in the Mosaic ceremonies. Now take your Bible and turn to the twenty-third chapter of Leviticus, and you will find that the Jews had three annual feasts—the passover, the Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles—besides the new moons, and the seven annual sabbaths. The sabbaths were as follows, to wit: 1. The first day of unleavened bread. 2. The seventh day of that feast. 3. The day of Pentecost. 4. The first day of the seventh month. 5. The tenth day of that month. 6. The fifteenth day of that month. 7. The twenty-second day of the same. These are the ones, beyond all question, to which reference is here made.[3] 1. Because they were in the handwriting of Moses, and could be blotted out. 2. Because they were found in handwriting of ordinances. 3. They were among ceremonies that were against us, and contrary to us (Acts 15:10). 4. The law in which they originated might have been nailed to the cross. 5. That law was also one which shadowed forth Christ (Heb, 10:1).

To the second text we shall give but little space. In the presentation of it, our friend attempts to be _facetious_. Nor are we disposed to find fault with him for this. It is sometimes admissible, even in the discussion of the _gravest_ questions, to indulge in _harmless_ humor. That the effort in question partakes of _this character_, _i. e._, that it is _harmless_, we shall not dispute. At all events, when we read it, it amused rather than offended us. A second thought, however, suggests the possibility that if _we_ were not damaged by the sally, it might have been _pernicious_, nevertheless, since it is possible for it to _react upon its author_. Certain it is, that it will damage either him or Paul, because he represents the great apostle as making a special effort, in his general labors, to teach men that they must under _all_ circumstances keep _one_ day holy, and that under _some_ they might be allowed to regard a _second_ also in the same light. But, unfortunately, if this exegesis is correct, and if the language of Rom. 14:5, applies to the weekly Sabbath at all, Paul blundered egregiously in communicating his intentions; since he virtually told them whom he was addressing that, of the days of which _he was speaking_, they _need not_ keep them at all, or they _might_, at will. Here follows the text “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”

Now we have heard men Who believed in no Sabbath employ this text again and again to prove that there is now no holy time; we have also heard conscientious first-day observers argue forcibly and conclusively that this text proved no such thing, simply because it referred to days that were connected with meats and drinks, and not to the weekly Sabbath at all. But we confess that the position of our friend is somewhat novel. Nevertheless, we feel sure that the reputation of the great apostle for perspicuity will not suffer by this attempt, and we think that, so far as he is concerned himself, reflection will prevent him from ever seriously urging it. In conclusion on this point, we append a brief comment from the pen of Adam Clarke, whose reputation, and the fact that he was an observer of Sunday, will give him no little authority with our opponent. He says: “Reference is here made to the _Jewish_ institutions, and especially their festivals; such as the passover, pentecost, feast of tabernacles, new moons, jubilee, &c. The converted _Jew_ still thought these of moral obligation; the _Gentile_ Christian, not having been bred up in this way, had no such prejudices.”—_Com. in loco._

The only remaining text cited is that of Gal. 4:10. After what has been said, no further comment from us will be required. The reader, desirous of satisfying himself that this text also has no reference to the weekly Sabbath, and of necessity refers either to heathen festivals or Jewish ceremonial days, can read the context, and consult standard authorities, such as Clarke or Barnes.[4]

Let us now survey the ground over which we have passed. So far as we have gone, what has been done toward proving a practice of first-day observance on the part of the early church? We answer, Nothing, absolutely nothing. The only texts which have been cited for this purpose are 1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10, and Acts 20:7. So far as they are concerned, we have previously shown that the first of them does not in any way affect the question of Sunday observance; that the second relates to the seventh day of the week and not to the first; and that the third proves that Paul traveled nineteen and one-half miles on the Sunday. When our reviewer shall attempt to stir a single stone in the structure of argument which we reared in our former articles on these points, we shall be by his side, to see that he does it fairly. Until then, the intelligent reader need not be told that it is vain for him to try to make capital by quoting them as above.

Thus much for the first day. We inquire next, What has been conceded or proved, which is favorable to the seventh-day Sabbath? 1. That it originated in Eden. 2. That it was enforced by the fourth commandment. 3. That that commandment is still binding. 4. That the effort to show a change in its phraseology from Col. 2:16, Rom. 14:5, and Gal. 4:10, was a complete failure; and therefore that it reads as it did formerly, that “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord.” 5. That there is a Sabbath in this dispensation. 6. That, being enforced by positive command, it stands in need of no precedent. 7. That, while the apostles did many times preach on that day, there is not one instance in which they violated it. 8. That had they desecrated it, the conflicts which would have been thus created, must have found a place in the history of those times. 9. That in the book of Acts it is always called “the Sabbath.” 10. That it was the only Sabbath known to the apostles, since they speak of it not only as “_the_ Sabbath,” but as “the _next_ Sabbath,” and “_every_ Sabbath.”

In concluding, we suggest that we leave our reviewer in a situation which, to a man of his clearness of perception, must be a very unsatisfactory one. Having insisted upon the perpetuity of the fourth commandment, he is compelled to take one of two positions. Either, 1. That it reads the same as it did when it enforced the seventh day; or, 2. That its phraseology has been changed. We confess that we have been unable to decide which of these positions he prefers. Nor is it material here. If he adopts the first, the thoughtful reader will agree with me that it is simply absurd to argue that a statute, while reading the same, means differently from what it did formerly. On the other hand, should he adopt the latter, then we inquire why he has not given it to us as it reads since it has been changed, and thus ended the controversy by gratifying our most reasonable request.

Footnote 3:

“It is not clear that the apostle refers at all to the _Sabbath_ in
this place [Col. 2:16], whether Jewish or Christian; his σαββατων, _of
sabbaths, or weeks_, most probably refers to their feasts of
weeks.”—_A. Clarke, in loco._

Footnote 4:

“The days here referred to are doubtless the days of the Jewish
festivals.... It is not a fair interpretation of this to suppose that
the apostle refers to the _Sabbath_, properly so called, for this was
a part of the decalogue, and was observed by the Saviour himself, and
by the apostles also. It _is_ a fair interpretation to apply it to all
those days which are not commanded to be kept holy in the
Scriptures.”—_A. Barnes, in loco._

STATESMAN’S REPLY.
ARTICLE THREE.
TESTIMONY FROM THE GOSPELS FOR THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.

In a previous article it was seen that from the resurrection of Christ there is no instance recorded in Scripture of the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord by any assembly of Christians. On the contrary, it was seen that the Judaizing spirit, which in some instances insisted on such observance by Christians, was rebuked by the inspired apostle. In connection with this was noted the fact that in the case of Jews converted to Christianity, yet inclined still to regard the seventh day with other Jewish celebrations, Christians were directed to bear with such observance as a weakness in their brethren. It was also seen that while the observance of the seventh day was not continued, another day of the week, the first, took its place as the stated day for religious assemblies and services. Let us now examine the testimony from the Gospels for this day, reserving the remainder of scriptural proof for another article.

The manner in which the first day of the week is pointed out in the Gospels as the day of the Lord’s resurrection, is itself striking and significant. All four of the evangelists concur in making prominent the fact that it was on this day that Christ rose from the dead. This fact is stated by Matthew, 28:1-6; twice by Mark, 16:1-6, and again in verse 9; by Luke, 24:1-6; by John, 20:1, 2. This concurrent, particular mention of the first day of the week as the day of the resurrection, in four independent historical accounts, the earliest of which was written probably about twenty years after that event, has a significance readily overlooked, but well worth noting.

To appreciate this fully, we must distinguish between the words of the historians and the words of the persons whose sayings they record—a most important point in the study of any history. Observing this distinction, then, we note that the promise of Christ, as recorded by the historians, was, that he would rise from the dead on the third day, dating from and including the day of his crucifixion and burial. The chief priests and Pharisees, asking Pilate to have the sepulcher guarded; the angels at the sepulcher the morning of the resurrection; the two disciples, conversing with the risen Lord on the way to Emmaus, and the Lord himself, speak of it as the _third_ day. In no other way does any one whose language is recorded by the historians refer to the day of the resurrection. Now, had the historians themselves, writing after an interval of from nearly twenty to over sixty years, simply desired to state the fact of the Lord’s resurrection, it would have been sufficient for them to say that, according to His promise, he rose on the _third_ day. But instead of this, they all concur in pointing out particularly the _first_ day of the week as the resurrection day. On the supposition that, when the historians wrote, the first day was regarded precisely like the second and third days of the week, as it was at the time of the resurrection, this change of statement is singular and inexplicable. On the other hand, on the supposition that the first day had become an honored and noted day among Christians, this mention of it by all the evangelists, and that, too, in a uniform and somewhat formal phrase, and the difference between the language of the historians and that of the persons of whom they write, are naturally and satisfactorily explained. In this change of language, then, on the part of the inspired historians, and in their concurrent and prominent mention of the first day, we have strong presumptive evidence in favor of the marked character of that day at the time when the Gospel histories were written. Testimony of this kind, in the form of unstudied allusion or undesigned coincidence, though easily passed without notice, is acknowledged on all hands to be of great weight.

After showing himself probably four times to one or more of his disciples during the day of his resurrection, Christ appeared late in the evening to the disciples collectively, Thomas alone being absent. “Then the same day at evening (_opsia_, _late evening_, from _opse_, _late_), being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.” (John 20:19.) Let the facts be noted. 1. It was the evening of the first day of the week. 2. The disciples were met together, manifestly, _not_ to commemorate the resurrection, but for what purpose, or where, it does not matter. 3. The Lord came and blessed them, and, as we learn from the following verses, imparted to them spiritual instruction, and breathed on them the Holy Ghost. These facts should be borne in mind as we proceed.

We come now to the record of the first day of the following week; “And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.” (John 20:26.) This interval of eight days, from and including the resurrection day, brings us, according to the common mode of reckoning, and as no one is disposed to dispute, to the first day of the next week. The preceding first day, the disciples were met collectively. Again, this first day, they are met, and Thomas with them. It has been said that very probably the disciples met every day during the interval, and, therefore, they put no special honor upon the first day. But the question is not just here whether the disciples meant to honor the first day or not. Did the Lord himself single it out from the days of the week and honor it? This is the question at present. It may be admitted that the disciples met every day during the interval. This is exceedingly probable. The fact remains clear that the Lord did not meet with them. And this very passing by of these supposed meetings of the disciples by the Lord, during six days, the last of which was the seventh-day Sabbath, renders his actual meeting with them, as recorded, on the first day again, all the more significant. The disciples may not have designed to honor the day, but the Lord himself, passing by the seventh day along with the other five intervening, selects and homes the first day by once more meeting on it with his disciples.

Nor is it to be admitted that the disciples were destitute of all regard to the returning first day of the week as the day of the Lord’s resurrection. The very circumstances in which, by the ordering of the Master, they were placed, could not fail to teach them to look upon it with special regard. They had been assembled on the evening of the preceding first day. The Lord had met with them and blessed them, and breathed on them the Holy Ghost. Earnestly longing to enjoy his comforting and slivering presence again, we may suppose they met on the second day. But the Lord does not come. More deeply feeling their need, they assemble again the third day. Still the desired presence is withheld. So on, with ever-increasing desires, they meet, day after day. How natural would it be for them to think of the seventh day, on which they had so often enjoyed sweet counsel with the Master, going to the house of God. “Surely,” their thought might well be, “He will meet with us in our assembly to-day.” But no. The time for the special manifestation of himself to his worshiping disciples in their collective gathering had not come. Would not the disciples then remember, if they had ever forgotten it, that it was on the first day of the week the Lord rose from the dead, and on that day he had stood in the midst of them and said, Peace be unto you? And remembering this, they would meet on the return of the first day with earnest expectation of the return of the Master. Nor are they disappointed. Once more he comes, and stands in the midst, and grants his benediction.

Here then are the facts concerning sacred time, as recorded in the Gospel history, subsequent to the resurrection of Christ. The seventh day is not mentioned. If the disciples met on that day, as they probably did, the inspired penmen take no notice of the fact. There is no meeting of the risen Lord with his disciples. The seventh day is passed by. On the other hand, the first day is mentioned in a particular manner, in changed and special language, by all the evangelists, as a noted day would naturally be mentioned and marked out as the resurrection day. On it the Lord repeatedly met with his disciples, blessed them, taught them important spiritual lessons, and breathed on them the Holy Ghost, the earnest of the abundant outpouring of the Spirit. How fell of meaning these facts! On the last seventh day on which the disciples rested according to the commandment, the Lord himself is lying in the tomb. The glory of the seventh day dies out with the fading light of that day throughout the whole of which the grave claimed the body of the Redeemer. But the glory of the Sabbath of the Lord survives. It receives fresh luster from the added glories of the Lord of the Sabbath. “The stone which the builders refused is become the head-stone of the corner.” It is very early in the morning the first day of the week. Again God said, Let there be light, and there was light. The Sun of righteousness has risen with healing in his wings. This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. The first day of the week has become the Lord’s day.

A REJOINDER.
“TESTIMONY FROM THE GOSPELS FOR THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.”

Without prolonged preliminary remarks, we shall endeavor to consider the points of argument presented by our reviewer in the article entitled, “Testimony from the Gospels for the first-day Sabbath.” In entering upon our task, we feel almost as if we were doing a work of supererogation, from the fact that what we are called upon to answer is so far from being a refutation of what we had said in our positive argument, that it appears to be little more than a re-statement of positions which we believe we have once fairly met and conclusively answered. Nevertheless, we express our satisfaction at the concessions apparently made by the writer. The common plea that the disciples were assembled on the day of the resurrection in order to honor the resuscitation of the body of Christ, is seemingly ignored. The points now urged seem to be those of a disposition on the part of the Lord himself to honor the first day of the week, and of such a use of language on the part of the historians as it would be natural for them to make, provided it had become a settled thing with them to regard the Sunday as a day which Christ had set apart for holy uses.

So far as it regards the position assumed, that there is peculiar significance in the manner in which the first day is pointed out, with it we are ready most heartily to agree. But so far as the assertion is concerned, that, in the _manner_ of the pointing out, there is found strong presumptive evidence that they design to teach succeeding generation that they looked upon the first day of the week as _holy time_, we can by no means admit that it is correct. On the contrary, we believe that their language establishes, beyond controversy, the opposite position. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were blunt, straightforward, direct men in all that they said. They had nothing to disguise, nor could anything be gained by indirection in statement.

Furthermore, every motive of esteem for Christ, as well as that which would actuate them in their desire to instruct subsequent generations in regard to the estimation in which they should hold the day of Christ’s resurrection, demanded that their language should be full and explicit, and that it should state, in so many words, that it was sacred to holy uses. But have they done this? No; the gentleman does not so much as urge that they have. All his emphasis is placed upon the fact that, in speaking of it, they call it the “first day of the week,” instead of the “third after his crucifixion.” He may well say that the distinction between these two forms of expression would be readily “passed over.” Has it come to this, then, that the Holy Spirit, in enforcing important duties upon Christians, is compelled to depart from the natural, clear, and positive statement of facts, and to employ polemical niceties which, we believe, if they have any force at all, can only be discerned by minds whose susceptibilities for refinement are infinitely superior to those of common men and women, and the poor and ignorant to whom the gospel was preached.

If the _Sunday_ had become the “_Christian Sabbath_,” why not _say so_? If, indeed, it was on the “Lord’s day” that Jesus arose, why was not this asserted? Or, if the first day of the week was regarded as the Christian Sabbath, why such a studied avoidance of the application of this term to that day? Will the gentleman insist that if the evangelists had stated, in so many words, that the Lord appeared among them after his resurrection on the first “_Lord’s day_,” or the first “_Christian Sabbath_,” that it would not have been just what the facts would have warranted, if his theory be correct, and that thereby all dispute, as to which day is the Lord’s day, or Christian Sabbath, would have been forever terminated? Then why endeavor to impress the reader with the thought that there is really any peculiar significance in the form of expression employed, or that it furnishes a strong presumptive argument in favor of first-day sanctity?