Chapter V: Part 5

The language of the historians is just that which men would use when speaking of a secular day, and not that which they would naturally employ when alluding to a consecrated one. The expression, “first day of the week,” was not only the briefer—as compared to the other, that is, the “third days the crucifixion”—but was definite in every particular. Once more, therefore, we insist that the fact that the inspired evangelists persisted, twenty years after the occurrence of the events recorded, in calling the Sunday “the first day of the week”—as they have done in the six times in which they have mentioned it—if guided at all in the selection of this term by the usage and opinions of the times in which they wrote, have furnished us with a commentary which, if it proves anything at all, proves that the day now regarded as holy was not so esteemed at that time by the disciples generally, else those among them who, as historians, would have been glad to have conferred upon it this honor, would have referred to it in the use of its sacred title, “Sabbath,” or the “Lord’s day.”

As it regards the _design of Christ_, we take issue with our friend, and offer the following reasons for our confident assertion that he is wrong: 1. His conclusion is not one which is either necessary or obvious. God has shown us his method of making a holy day. That method he has set forth in clear and positive statement, and the observance of such a day he has enforced by explicit command. This being the case, we must infer that he chose that manner because it was the best. Hence we should naturally conclude that when he wished to change the day of his choice, once enforced by a law still binding, he would make known his mind in a manner so clear and impressive that there could be no room for doubt. This, however, in the action of Christ alluded to, is far from being the case, because the meeting of the Lord with the apostles did not necessarily affect the nature of the time on which it occurred. Instance the fact heretofore cited, that he met with them on a fishing day (John chap. 21), and again on Thursday, the day of the ascension, without in any way changing the character of those days, as all will admit. Now, if this could be true of those two days, might it not also be true of the first day of the week? 2. Because, as we have seen, there is not the slightest evidence that the _apostles inferred_ that it was the intention of Christ to produce the impression claimed. For, had this been the case, their convictions must have found expression for our benefit. 3. Because, manifestly, the conversation of Christ is given, so far as it inculcated any duty not elsewhere expressed; and in his words there is no allusion to any design on his part to teach them that the time on which they were assembled was holy. 4. Because there is a sufficient reason found for the meeting of Christ with the apostles on these two occasions, in his desire to establish them in the conviction of his resurrection, and to instruct them in regard to future action.

Before passing from this branch of the subject, we must be allowed to express our surprise that, in the anxiety of our friend to make out his case, he has made a declaration which we think he would not have done had he been more deliberate in his selection of facts. He says, in speaking of John 20:26—the second and only additional instance in which, after the first, he claims that Christ met with the apostles on the first day of the week—as follows: “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.” To this we reply that, if he means to be understood, by this statement, that there is no dispute as to whether the second gathering under consideration did occur just one week after the first, he mistakes greatly. It is by no means true that this is a matter about which there is no difference of opinion. In order to show the reader that we are right in this, we quote the following from many testimonies which might be introduced: “‘After eight days’ from this meeting, if made to signify only one week, necessarily carries us to the second day of the week. But a different expression is used by the Spirit of inspiration when simply one week is intended. ‘After seven days,’ is the chosen term of the Holy Spirit when designating just one week. ‘After eight days,’ most naturally implies the ninth or tenth day; but allowing it to mean the eighth day, it fails to prove that this appearance of the Saviour was upon the first day of the week.” In a note on the above remarks, the same author says “Those who were to come before God from Sabbath to Sabbath to minister in his temple, were said to come ‘after seven days.’ 1 Chron. 9:25; 2 Kings 11:5.”—_Hist. of Sabbath, by J. H. Andrews_, p. 148.

Right here, also, is the proper place to give attention to the elaborate argument which is made to produce upon the mind of the reader the impression that the presence of Christ, in the two instances mentioned, was expressly designed for the purpose of distinguishing the two first-days (?) upon which he manifested himself to his disciples. We should not do justice to our opponent, should we refuse to grant him credit for making a doubtful circumstance go as far in his favor as it were possible for any man to do. What he has said is both poetic and pathetic. Poetic, because it is purely a figment of his own imagination. Pathetic, because the spectacle here brought to view is one which appeals most forcibly to the sympathies of the generous reader. Who would not commiserate the condition of men who, for six weary days, sat in public assembly, waiting the momentary expected advent of their Lord? Who would not rejoice when finally he appeared in their midst, even if it were on the first day of the week? How natural, too, it would be for the reader, having his sympathies thus aroused, to follow him who has shown an art, at least dramatic, in playing upon their feelings, to the conclusion to which he springs—not by the route of logical deduction—but by that of a more fascinating sentimentalism.

But before he does this, let us descend for a moment from the hights of fancy to the lower grounds of prosaic fact. It strikes us that the gentleman will discover that he has paid too high a price for what he has obtained. Where did he learn that they assembled on the six days in question? Assuredly not from the record, for that is silent upon this point. Nay, more; he does not himself claim that he has any written authority for it, but simply says that he “believes” so and so, and then proceeds to his deductions. Well, with this understanding of the matter, and knowing that it is merely an inference of the writer, let us follow his conclusions to their legitimate consequences. Having done this, we perceive, 1. That at last we have reached a whole week, every day of which was one of religious meetings, and yet not one word recorded in regard to the gatherings which occurred on six out of the seven days of the week. This being true by his own concession, what has become of that argument in which he indulged so largely in his effort to prove that because there was no account of a meeting of Christians on the Sabbath, they were consequently not in the habit of meeting on that day? Does it not fall to the ground, utterly emptied of all its force, if it ever had any? 2. Where, now, is his oft-repeated declaration that there is no account of the meeting of any of the apostles with a Christian church on the Sabbath, and the conclusion therefrom, that they therefore held none? Here is the admission of the writer himself, that the apostles and the church at Jerusalem did meet on at least one seventh day after the resurrection of Christ. 3. What has become of the instructive lesson which Christ imparted to his followers on the evening of the day of his resurrection? Has it not been insisted that that visit was made for the _especial purpose_ of teaching, them, by example, and by meeting with them, that the day on which it occurred was _holy time_? If we have rightly apprehended the logic of our opponent, this was the precise moral which our Lord designed to convey by his manifestation on that occasion. How clear it is that such a conviction has rested upon the mind of the writer, and how often he has repeated it.

But how was it with the apostles? Now, certainly, they were not _more obtuse_ than _we_ are. Assuredly, they knew as much about the will and purpose of Christ in meeting with them the first time, as we do now. Did _they_ then infer that Christ met with them expressly for the purpose, not of honoring by positive precept, but by the fact of his assembling with them, the day on which that assembly occurred? If so, why should they, according to the view we are considering, have gathered themselves together every day for the whole subsequent week, expecting his presence? Would they not have discovered that _such presence_, under _such circumstances_, would have utterly _nullified_ the moral lesson of the _first visit_, since it would not afterwards be true that the first day of the week was the _only one_ which he had thus distinguished, thereby marking it out from the rest of the week?

So much for the consequences which would necessarily follow, had that occurred which the writer says he “believes” took place. But, fortunately, or unfortunately for him, the whole thing is a myth from beginning to end. The only force which it posseses lies in the assumed fact that it brings together eight meetings on consecutive days, on two of which, and two only, the Lord met with his followers, those two being first days of the weeks to which they belonged. Therefore, before the statement can possess any argumentative power, we must first grant him the privilege of assuming that six of these meetings occurred when there is not a scintilla of evidence in the sacred narrative to favor his view.

That must be a desperate cause indeed which compels its advocates to such a resort to make out their case. Nevertheless, if the conception has accomplished nothing more, it has furnished us a key by which we have been able to unlock the secret conviction of the writer, and by that means, we learn that he does not himself believe either that Christ _told_ his disciples on the day of the resurrection that that was holy time; or that they had decided _in their own minds_ that his visit necessarily pointed out this fact; or that the meeting of a Christian church on a secular day proves that they regarded that day as sacred; or that it is necessary to suppose that any church _disregarded the Sabbath_, simply because there is no _historic mention_ of their observance of it. This being true, we hope from this time forward that we shall see a line of argument pursued which will be consistent with the admissions inadvertently made above.

Finally—as we have the concession of the writer, that the mention of the term, “first day of the week,” in the texts under consideration, accorded with the use of language as employed twenty years after the crucifixion—let us glance at his proof-texts for ourselves. In doing so, the reader will bear in mind that these texts furnish all the gospel testimony in reference to the supposed repudiation of God’s ancient Sabbath and the substitution of a new one in its place, and also that the terms employed, as stated above, were used with reference to their meaning at the time they were penned.

The first is found in Matt. 28:1-6. In Matt. 28:1, the apostle says: “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.” Now which day, in the parlance of the disciples of our Lord, twenty years after his death, was styled the Sabbath? Which was mentioned by the use of a secular title, whereas, custom, reason, and religion, all warranted and would have seemed to demand the application to it of a religious title, such as Sabbath, or Lord’s day? We leave the reader to answer.

The next scripture is found in Mark 16:1, 2. Here, again, the same distinction is preserved between the holy and the profane. “When the Sabbath was past,” the women who had bought sweet spices came to the sepulcher very early in the morning, the first day of the week. The next passage is in verse 9 of the same chapter, where it is barely stated that Jesus, having risen on the first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalene. Did the historian, Mark, ruthlessly wound the feelings of his Christian brethren, by neglecting two splendid opportunities for settling the matter of a change of days for all future generations, or did he not believe in such a change? Which view is the more consistent, under the circumstances, with the manner in which he speaks?

The next test in order, with the context, will be found in Luke 23:54-56, and 24:1. Let the reader turn to these passages in his Bible and examine them carefully. In Luke 23:56, it is stated that the women “rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment;” and in the first verse of the following chapter, it is said that “upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher.” Here, again, Luke—than whom there is no sacred writer who uses terms more frequently with reference to their technical meaning—furnishes us a comment in perfect harmony with that of the others. Mark him; he is very specific. He says the women “rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment.” Observe, it is not the “_old_ commandment,” but “_the_ commandment.” But again, What day was it upon which they rested? It was the Sabbath day. How did it stand related in the order of the week to the first day? It was the day before it. Did the women, according to his statement, observe the first day? No; for they came to do that upon it which they would not do on the Sabbath, _i. e._, to embalm the body of Christ. But were they deceived, and was the day on which they came to the tomb, after all, sacred to the Lord, because of the resurrection of Christ, which had occurred early in the morning? Was this indeed the Lord’s day, the Christian Sabbath? And had the old Sabbath expired at the cross (Col. 2:16) before the deluded women rested upon it? Then we inquire again, Why should an inspired apostle pass by unimproved this magnificent opportunity for recognizing the new order of things by dropping that plain, unpretending “first day of the week,” and stating for the benefit of posterity that the day on which they repaired to the sepulcher was the Sabbath of the commandment, as changed by the authority of Christ?

The remaining passages are those of John 20:1, 19. Here, once more, it is stated that “the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early to the sepulcher,” and also in the 19th verse, that Jesus met with his disciples in the evening of the first day of the week. In these words, John, the beloved disciple, like all before him, alludes to the day as though it were a common one.

Thus we have seen that the four gospel historians all unite in ignoring the sacred title of Sunday, if it had any, and merely designate it by its proper numeral; while three of them call the seventh day the Sabbath, and locate it in the week as the day which precedes the first.

Now we appeal to the candid reader in view of these facts, and ask him to decide which day of the week was looked upon as peculiarly sacred at the time the gospels were written, provided the gentleman is _right_ in supposing that the historians used language with reference to its acceptance when they wrote, instead of what it meant when the events, which they record, transpired. We believe the verdict will not be long delayed. They call the seventh day “the Sabbath of the commandment.” That commandment, it is conceded, is still binding. If it reads the same now that it did then, the day which was the Sabbath at that time, according to that commandment, is still the Sabbath according to the same commandment. But if that commandment has been changed, we once more challenge the religious world to furnish us a copy of it as it now reads. Until they do so, we shall continue to observe the Sabbath upon which the devout women rested; on which our Lord himself rested in the tomb from his labors; and which four inspired men, twenty years later, more or less, still persisted in calling “_the_ Sabbath.”

STATESMAN’S REPLY.
ARTICLE FOUR.
ARGUMENT FOR THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH FROM THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT ON
THE DAY OF PENTECOST.

The testimony brought forward in our last number from the Gospels for the first-day Sabbath finds abundant confirmation in other portions of the New-Testament Scriptures. We shall confine ourselves in this article to the argument drawn from the beginning of the second chapter of the Acts: “And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.” There has been so much discussion of this passage that a somewhat careful consideration of it may be of interest in itself, as well as from its important connection with the subject now specially in hand. In regard to it, we note:

1. The day of the outpouring of the Spirit was the day of Pentecost—not some day preceding or following. The correct rendering of the original words is not, as Lightfoot gives it, “when the day of Pentecost had passed,” nor as Hitzig would have it, “as the day of Pentecost was approaching its fulfillment;” but, “while the day of Pentecost was being fulfilled;” that is, during the progress of that particular day, or, as our authorized English version has it, “when the day of Pentecost was fully come.”

2. This day of Pentecost, on which the Holy Spirit was given, was the first day of the week. A number of eminent authorities, chief among whom is the chronologist Wieseler, compute it to have been the seventh. This question hinges upon that of the day of the Lord’s death. It is almost universally admitted that Christ was crucified on Friday. But it is disputed whether that Friday was the fourteenth or the fifteenth of Nisan. From Leviticus 23:15, 16, we learn that Pentecost, signifying literally the fiftieth, was counted from the second day of unleavened bread. The paschal lamb was killed at the close of the fourteenth day of the month Abib or Nisan, and the next day, the fifteenth, was the first day of unleavened bread. This day was regarded as a holy Sabbath; and from the morrow following, that is, from the sixteenth of Nisan, fifty days were to be reckoned to determine the day of Pentecost.

Wieseler contends that the Lord was crucified on the fifteenth of Nisan—the first day of unleavened bread. The sixteenth of the month would therefore fall on the seventh day of the week, and fifty days, reckoned from and including this, according to the manner of the Jews, would fix the day of Pentecost on the Jewish Sabbath. It is interesting to observe that many who agree with Wieseler in regarding the Friday of Christ’s crucifixion as the fifteenth of Nisan, still reckon the fifty days so as to make Pentecost fall on the first day of the week. Prominent among these chronologists is Canon Wordsworth.

In all frankness, we would admit that Wordsworth’s reckoning will not hold. If the Friday on which the Lord was crucified was the fifteenth of Nisan, and if that day was observed as the first day of unleavened bread so that the specified fifty days would be reckoned from the following day, then Pentecost must have occurred on the seventh day of the week.

Others of our ablest scholars, such as Greswell, Elliott, and Schaff, maintain that the day on which our Lord was crucified was the fourteenth of Nisan. An exhaustive discussion of this whole question would be out of place in these columns. We give a brief, and we think conclusive, argument in favor of the view that the Friday of our Lord’s death was the fourteenth of Nisan, and that therefore the fifteenth Nisan, or first day of unleavened bread, coincided with the Jewish Sabbath. The reasons in favor of this view are the following:—

(1.) The language of John, chap. 18:28, intimates clearly that the Jews had not, on the morning of Friday, yet partaken of the passover. Friday could not therefore have been the fifteenth of Nisan.

(2.) The same day, Friday, John states that “it was the preparation of the passover.” (Chap. 19:14.) It seems next to impossible to understand this expression in any other way than as referring to that day, Friday, as the day of preparation for Passover observance, or, in other words, as the day preceding the fifteenth Nisan.

(3.) John’s statement, in chap. 19:31, that the Sabbath following the day of crucifixion was “a high day,” admits of no easy or natural explanation except that of the coincidence of the first day of unleavened bread, or the fifteenth Nisan, with the seventh-day Sabbath.

(4.) The anti-typical character of Christ, as the Paschal Lamb of God and the true Passover Sacrifice (John 1:29, 36; 1 Cor. 5:7), would lead us to expect that the very day and hour of his death would correspond with the time of the killing of the typical Passover lamb. If it be urged that Christ himself, with his disciples, in obeying the requirements of the law, killed the Passover on the evening of the fourteenth, and that the Synoptical Gospels intimate this, it may be replied that such an interpretation of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is not required, and that the exceeding difficulty, not to say impossibility, of harmonizing it with the statements already quoted from John, is quite decisive against it. It is much easier to interpret the Synoptists in the light of John’s Gospel. In this chapter, 13:1, we are informed of a supper _before_ the passover. That this was the same supper spoken of by the Synoptists, though one day before the usual time, in order that the true Passover lamb might be put to death at the time appointed, appears from the peculiar nature of the message sent by chosen apostle, to the “good man of the house”—a message of special direction, pointing out something of an unusual character. (See Matthew 28:18; Mark 14:14; and Luke 22:11.) There are also in the Synoptical Gospels a number of statements showing that the Friday on which our Lord was crucified was not marked by the Sabbatic sacredness belonging to the first day of unleavened bread. (See Matthew 27:59; Mark 15:42, 46; Luke 23:56.) This seems to be the easiest and most natural way of harmonizing the apparent discrepancies between the Synoptists and John.

(5.) Wieseler’s own chronological tables may be used against him to show that the Friday of our Lord’s crucifixion was the fourteenth of Nisan. We would speak with becoming diffidence, in any attempt to make out a system of chronology for the events recorded in Scripture. There are, however, in Wieseler’s elaborate book, tables independently proved to be accurate. By them, admitting the year of our Lord’s crucifixion to have been A. D. 30, which is regarded by most chronologists as highly probable, and admitting also that the day was Friday, which will not be disputed, it is shown, beyond all doubt, that Christ died on the fourteenth of Nisan, and must have eaten the passover with his disciples on the first hours of that day, the preceding evening. The tables referred to show, by the most minute and accurate calculations, that in the year, A. D. 30, the new moon for the month Nisan appeared on Wednesday, the next to the last day of the preceding month, corresponding to March 22, at eight minutes past eight o’clock in the evening. Hence, it would follow that the first day of Nisan commenced on Friday evening, March 24, corresponding, as to daylight, with Saturday, March 25; of course, the Friday of the next week, would be the seventh Nisan, and the same day, the following week, the fourteenth. Thus, according to Wieseler’s own tables, Friday of the week of our Lord’s passion is made out to be the fourteenth of Nisan. The fifteenth of Nisan, then, or the first day of unleavened bread, coincided at that time with the seventh day of the week, or the Jewish Sabbath; and reckoning fifty days from the morrow, that day included, we find Pentecost falling on the first day of the eighth week following our Lord’s crucifixion.

So clear and emphatic is the testimony of the primitive church to this fact that many who hold that the Friday of Christ’s death was the fifteenth Nisan still do so in cordial indorsement of that fact. They reconcile the apparent difference between John and the Synoptists by supposing that the Jewish authorities, probably because of the crucifixion, or for some other reason, did not observe the Passover at the usual time, but, passing by the fifteenth Nisan, in reality kept the sixteenth in its place; and thus counting the fifty days from the seventeenth of the month, instead of the sixteenth, Pentecost would fall on the first day of the week.

It is worth mentioning, before we pass on, that the Karaite Jews, like the Sadducces before them, understand the word “Sabbath” in Leviticus 23:11, 15, 16, to mean, not the first day of unleavened bread, which was kept as a Sabbath, on whatever day of the week it might fall, but the seventh day of the week, the regular weekly Sabbath of the Jews. According to this understanding, the fifty days would always be reckoned from the morrow after the seventh day, and Pentecost would always fall on the first day of the week.

Having thus been at some pains to establish the fundamental position in this argument a position to which scholars generally are coming with constantly increasing unanimity, we need not dwell long upon the manifest application of what has been proven. The facts here, after Christ’s ascension, are full of significance, as we have seen the facts to be concerning the days just succeeding his resurrection. After the Lord’s ascension, his disciples abode in Jerusalem, awaiting the promised gift of the Spirit. Many days passed by, including two seventh days, and still no fulfillment of the promise. On the first day of the second week after the ascension, the disciples were all with one accord in one place. Once more, the day which the Lord had singled out and honored is specially honored by the plentiful effusion of the Spirit of God. And thus the day which Christ taught his disciples to regard with special sacredness, by repeatedly appearing to them in their collective gatherings, and blessing them, is even more clearly and significantly marked out from the other days of the week by this most marvelous outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

If it be objected that it was the Jewish festival, and not the first day of the week, that was honored, it is readily replied that there is no trace of the services of the Jewish festival on that blessed day. The Holy Ghost was given, not to persons observing Jewish ordinances and keeping the Pentecost of the old dispensation with a new meat-offering and first-fruits. He was given to Christian disciples met on the Christian’s honored day; and the disciples who on that day had received important spiritual instructions from the Lord just after his resurrection, and who now, on the same day, received the promised Spirit, begin the true work of the Christian Sabbath by preaching the gospel of salvation, and three thousand souls are added to the church of Christ.

The objection, on the score that Pentecost only happened to fall on the first day that year, is unworthy of any one who believes that “not a sparrow falls to the ground, without our Heavenly Father’s notice.” It has been admitted that if the view of the Karaite Jews were true, and Pentecost occurred every year on the first day of the week, then would there be a strong argument for the first-day Sabbath in the pre-arrangements of God’s providence. But to our mind, the argument from the pre-arrangement of providence is stronger on the other and better interpretation of Leviticus 23:11, 15, 16. He who in infinite wisdom arranged everything from the beginning, so ordered all events connected with Christ’s death, as to make the day of Pentecost coincide with the Christian Sabbath, and then gathered to himself, not the first-fruits of the fields of grain, but three thousand immortal souls, the first-fruits of the ingathering of the spiritual fields white to the harvest—the harvest of all the Gentile nations yet to be brought into the church of Christ, with the restoration of the covenant people of old. This is a Pentecost worthy of the church of Him who died for sinners of every race, and of the honored day which commemorates his rising from the dead.

A REJOINDER.
“ARGUMENT FOR THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH FROM THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT ON
THE DAY OF PENTECOST.”

It is always a source of satisfaction to one, in examining opinions from which he is compelled to differ, to feel that the presentation of them which he is considering is the best which could be made under the circumstances. With pleasure, therefore, we recognize the manifest tokens of research and erudition on the part of the author of the views presented in the columns of the _Statesman_, in the communication entitled, “Argument for the first-day Sabbath from the gift of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.” We do not flatter ourselves, however, that all which has been said in that article was for our benefit. It is not a little remarkable that three-fourths of its contents are devoted to the settlement of a point, which—while indeed it affects the question at issue—is not one upon which we bestowed many words, having preferred to consider, for the sake of argument, that the Pentecost did, on the year of our Lord’s crucifixion, fall upon the first day of the week; and then, having done this, to prove that this coincidence in no way affected, necessarily, the nature of that day.

Nevertheless, we must beg leave here to express our gratitude that, notwithstanding the concession in question, the readers of the _Statesman_ are at last instructed by an abler pen than our own in reference to the diversity of opinion which exists among the learned as to whether, indeed, it is safe to conclude that the Sunday, to the exclusion of the Sabbath, was the day upon which the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles. Be it remembered, also, that the learned men who stand as the advocates of the seventh day as the one which God thus honored were not observers of that day as the Sabbath. All the authorities quoted are men who, if they regarded any Sabbath at all, gave their preference to the first, and not to the last, day of the week. This being the case, they certainly cannot be charged with any bias in favor of the creation Sabbath. Not only so, but all their predilections were doubtless against that day, and favorable to its rival. Hence we see that when, under these circumstances, it is admitted that such distinguished men as Lightfoot, Weiseler, and Hitzig, have agreed that the last day of the week was the one on which the Pentecost occurred at the time in question, they did so—not in the interest of preconceived notions, nor for the purpose of bolstering up a theory which was in desperate need of help—but because there was, to their minds, at least, much which compelled a conclusion they would gladly have avoided.

Right here, also, in order to widen the breach in the wall of evidence, we beg leave to act in harmony with the plan pursued by the writer, and to present a note from the pen of one no less distinguished than Professor Hackett, which will make it manifest beyond dispute that the scholars who at the present time sympathize with those cited above, who regard the seventh day of the week and not the first as having been the day of the Pentecost, are both numerous and celebrated: “It is generally supposed that this Pentecost, signalized by the outpouring of the Spirit, fell on the Jewish Sabbath, our Saturday.” Quoted in “Hist. of Sab.,” by J. N. A., page 150. Let the reader bear in mind that we are not assuming to decide between these long lines of doctors who differ so widely upon a very important point, as regarded by some; but that our purpose is simply to call attention to the fact of this discrepancy, and to show its bearing upon the subject under discussion.

The first query which should be propounded, therefore, is this: Has God ever declared that the day of the Pentecost, which we are trying to locate, was identical with the first day of the week? The answer is in the negative. There is not one word in the text (Acts 2:1, 2), or in the Testament, in regard to the day of the week on which these events occurred. It is simply stated that they took place “when the day of Pentecost was fully come,” How remarkable, if the object was not to honor a feast which occurred annually, but especially for the purpose of distinguishing the first day of the week! Before, however, that day could be illustrated by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon it, it must first he decided—and that, too, from Bible evidence—that such outpouring did occur on the day specified. Can this be done? We appeal for a response to the average Christian men and women of this time. Tell me, after having read the three-column argument of the gentleman, has not the effect of what he has said been to unsettle, rather than to establish, your convictions upon the point before our minds? If never before, is it not now true that you feel somewhat shaken in regard to the identity of the Sunday with the Pentecost, on the year of the crucifixion? In view of what has been written, would you undertake to establish your faith from any deduction which you yourself could make from plain Scripture declarations? Is it not true that your opinion in the promises depends entirely upon the faith of the one or the other class of scholars who have ranged themselves on both sides of this subject? Has the religion of Jesus Christ then changed? Is it no longer true that its great and important practical truths are withheld “from the wise and prudent, and revealed unto babes”? Has God left the important question of first-day sanctity, not upon the solid basis of explicit command, but upon the doubtful inference which is to be derived from certain transactions which occurred on a certain day, and then left the day of their occurrence to occupy a position in the week so doubtful that the most learned of those who had a desire to keep it should be honestly divided in opinion as to which day it was? We believe not. To our mind, it is simple presumption to intimate that God—who is not willing that any should perish, and who has said that he will do nothing but he will reveal it to his servants the prophets—should deal with his creatures in a manner at once so indirect and so obscure.

Having seen that there is a wide divergence of views among the very men who are the observers of the modern Sunday, in regard to its claims to distinction on the score of its having been first honored by the outpouring of the Spirit on the fiftieth day after the resurrection, let us look for a moment at the situation with reference to the possible effect upon the seventh day, of the logic employed. Taking it for granted that our friends would not fly from their favorite deduction provided it should prove to be true that they are mistaken in regard to the time of the Pentecost, let us concede, for the time being, that the long line of celebrities, headed by such men as Lightfoot, Weiseler, and Hitzig, were right in arguing that Saturday, and not Sunday, was the day on which the great Jewish festival occurred; then, beyond all dispute, it must be conceded by our opponents that this was but another effort on the part of Jehovah to illustrate, for the benefit of succeeding generations, the day which he had previously made memorable by his resting, his blessing, and his sanctification. In other words, with this view of the design of the outpouring of the Spirit, the effect upon the ancient Sabbath would be the same as it is now claimed to have been upon the first day of the week. The point, therefore, of the identity of the days is to _them_ a _vital_ one. If they are wrong in this, they are wrong in all. We appeal to them, therefore, in view of the infinite consequences which hang upon the proper celebration of the right Sabbath, to at least make their logic so plain that it will be accepted by men of their own faith, before they speak of its strength with great assumption of confidence. Before any person has a right to employ the events which transpired at the time of the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit in the interest of Sunday sanctity, he must be able to solve, at least to the satisfaction of his own mind, all the difficulties which complicate this question. As God has never seen fit to say that the Jewish feast, at the time under consideration, transpired on the first day of the week, he must be able to establish that proposition independently of an explicit _thus saith the Lord_.

There are two ways by which this may be attempted. (1.) By proving that the Pentecost always took place on the first day of the week; or, (2.) By demonstrating that Christ was crucified on Friday, the fourteenth day of Nisan, and that consequently the Pentecost must have fallen upon a Sunday following, and separated from that day by about fifty days. But, so far as the first proposition is concerned, which would be by far the easier of demonstration, if it were true—should the reader be inclined to favor it—he must convince himself that he could establish it against the conviction and the learning of the writer in question; for he rejects it as being untenable. Should he therefore turn to the second, then, as remarked above, he must be able to prove, not merely that Christ died on the fourteenth day of the Jewish month Nisan, but that likewise that fourteenth day of the month was also the sixth day of the week. When we say that this will be a task which few minds are capable of performing, and from which those who are best informed will the most readily turn away, We but assert what the writer in question has very distinctly shadowed forth in the facile manner in which he disposes of the obscurity of the statements in the three Synoptical Gospels by arbitrarily deciding that they must be interpreted by that of John.

What the real object of the writer was in making the statement that the Karaites and the Sadducees hold to the first theory stated above, we are at a loss to decide, since he himself concludes that they were wrong in their hypothesis. But let us suppose for a moment that they were right, and that the Pentecost always followed the weekly Sabbath; would that prove that it occurred on Sunday? We answer, Yes. But would it prove that Sunday was therefore holy time? We answer, No; it would not so much as touch this independent question. Or rather, it should be said, if it affected it at all, it would increase the strength of the seventh-day Sabbath argument. Do you ask, How? We answer that, according to their theory, you must first have a weekly Sabbath before you could decide when you had reached the Pentecost Sunday. The direction in Leviticus was, that they should count to themselves seven Sabbaths from the day that they brought the sheaf of the wave-offering, which would bring them to the feast in question.

Now let it be supposed that the crucifixion answered to the ancient Passover, and that the apostles proceeded to the determination of the time when the Pentecost would be reached, according to the theory of the Karaites. The first thing which would have been necessary was, the weekly Sabbath, which immediately followed the crucifixion of Christ. Having found it, they would have numbered seven Sabbaths, and have decided that the day immediately following the last of these answered to the feast. But unfortunately for them they would have discovered—had they believed in the modern doctrine that the law of the Sabbath was nailed to the cross, Col. 2:16(?)—that they were deprived of a starting point; for the Sabbath institution is a thing of commandment. Take away the commandment, and the institution is gone. Therefore, as the cross had accomplished its work, and had been taken down on Friday, God had removed the landmark from which they were commanded to measure the time which should bring them to the Pentecost at the very period when they needed it most. In reality, there was left them no Sabbath which answered to the one in Leviticus.

Should it be replied, however, that the Sabbath, though gone in fact, existed nevertheless in name, it might be responded that this would indeed be an anomalous condition of things. Mark it: it is not the incidental mention, by its proper name, of an institution which had ceased to be, which we are considering; but it is the deliberate action of that God who knows the end from the beginning, in compelling the disciples to treat the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, in order to the decision of an important fact; for eight weeks after, as is claimed, it had lost its Sabbatic character.

Again; should it be urged, as a means of escape from the embarrassments of the situation, that God did not actually require them to count the seventh day as the Sabbath, since there was really no day of Pentecost which they were obliged to keep on the year of our Lord’s crucifixion, we answer, Very good. Then, of course, we shall hear nothing hereafter from the argument for Sunday sanctity which is based upon the hypothesis that the day of Pentecost fell on the first day of the week in the year in question, since it will have been admitted that there was no Pentecost that year, and consequently that it could not properly be said to have fallen upon any day.

Once more; should it be insisted that though the Pentecostal feast was not binding in the year of our Lord 30, or thereabout, but that the antitype of the feast was the thing of importance, then, in reply, it may be said that God rendered it necessary for them, in order to locate that antitype according to the Karaite view, to count the Sabbath which followed the crucifixion as the Sabbath of emotion, a thing which certainly will be very difficult of explanation by those who can speak as becomingly of the providence of God as did the gentleman in the article which is passing under review.

Finally, we repeat, therefore, that, if indeed there were a legal Pentecost this side of the death of our Lord, and if the Karaite system for locating it were the right one, then the seventh day which followed the death of Christ was distinguished by three very significant facts. 1. It was honored by the women (and therefore by the disciples) by their resting upon it. 2. Luke, in speaking of it thirty years subsequent to its occurrence, mentions it as the Sabbath, “according to the commandment.” 3. God made it necessary that the whole Jewish nation should keep the Pentecostal feast fifty days after the crucifixion of the Lord; and, in doing so, that they should count the seventh day of the week as still continuing to be the Sabbath.

In passing to the last branch of the subject, which will be treated in this article, we invite the reader to note the following facts, as we shall have occasion to employ them hereafter: 1. That the writer proceeds with his reasoning upon the hypothesis that the months at the time of the crucifixion were Jewish months, commencing with the new moon. 2. That the days were Jewish days, commencing and ending with the setting of the sun. These points we have previously urged, and are happy to see that they are conceded as being correct.

In conclusion, we turn our attention to the remaining feature of the communication in the _Statesman_, _i. e._, that portion of the article which relates to the real matter in dispute, namely—granting, for the sake of argument, that the first day of the week was the one on which the Pentecost fell in the year under consideration—whether that fact necessarily affected the character of that day so as to mark it out as one which God had chosen as peculiarly his own. For, be it remembered, that—though the whole argument which has been made respecting the identity of those two days should be conceded—we should then simply be prepared to decide whether the facts agreed upon would prove what is claimed, or not.

We ask, therefore, the candid attention of all to the use which has been made of the elaborate argument which we have been carefully considering, point by point. We would naturally have expected—if the gentleman felt that he had proved what he desired to, namely, that the Pentecost fell upon the first day of the week—that the real sinews of a masterly logic would have been discovered in an effort to show that it followed of necessity that it must therefore have been holy time. But has he done this? Or, in other words, if he has, in what manner has he brought it about? Has it been by fair logical deduction? We believe that there are very few who will insist that he has attempted such a deduction, with any measure of success, at the very point where it should have been expected most.

What he has said in the connection is very _pretty_. Yes, pretty is the word which precisely expresses it. How handsomely he alludes to the analogy between the natural harvest and the in-gathering of souls. But who does not know that such analogies are cheap things, and that one gifted with a prolific fancy can multiply them indefinitely? What was expected, and what we had a right to demand, was something which partook of the nature of certainty. How great was our disappointment at learning that the writer did not even _pretend to have any authority from the Lord_, so far as written statements are concerned. The whole thing he thought was fairly _deducible_ from the coincidence of days, since nothing ever merely “happens” to occur in the providence of God.

What has been gained, then? Manifestly, simply the point that God had some object in view in having the Pentecost fall on the first day of the week in the year of our Lord 30, or thereabout. The next question to be decided is, What was that object? Right here is where we _need help_. _God could have given_ it to us, had he _seen fit_ so to do. He has not done so, therefore it is safe to conclude that it was not important that we should know what his purpose was.

But if any gentleman can be found who is _wise above what is written_, and who is able to decide with unerring certainty as to the motives of God at all times, and under all circumstances, we should like to propound a few questions to him. First, what did God mean when, in his providence, he allowed the Pentecost to fall upon Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, or Saturday? It is said that God _had a purpose_ in it; but can any one tell us _what_ that purpose was? When he has answered this, then we have a list of similar interrogatories, to the solution of which his wisdom will be invited. In the meantime, we shall adopt the suggestions of men in regard to plans of Deity with great caution, for, if it should fall out in the day of Judgment that we had followed their fallacious inferences, to the disregard of a positive, written law of God, we know not what defense could be made for our course of conduct, since we had been previously informed that “his judgments are _unsearchable_,” “and his ways _past finding out_.”

Now let us look at the proposition concerning the outpouring of the Spirit. It is agreed on all hands that the manifestation occurred as written. It is inferred by the writer in question that it was done with reference especially to the honoring as sacred of the day of the resurrection. Here, again, is the assumption of knowledge which has never been imparted by divine authority. God has never _said_ that he meant any such thing. Not only so, but it cannot even be fairly inferred that such was his purpose. First. Because he does not so much as mention, in the record, the first day of the week by name, an omission which can never be explained satisfactorily by those who insist that the events which occurred on the day of Pentecost transpired with especial reference to the honoring above all others, on the part of Jehovah, of the first day of the week. Secondly. Because, were we to judge at all in the matter, as he passed over six first-days, waiting for the arrival of the Pentecost, we must conclude that there was something in connection with that feast which induced him to act when he did, and as he did. Thirdly. Because the Pentecost furnished an opportunity for the display of the power of the ascended Christ before thousands of Jews and proselytes from all parts of the habitable globe, more advantageously than could be done at any other time; thus rendering it unnecessary that any other reason should be sought in explanation of its selection from among the other days of the year for the great outpouring of the Spirit. Fourthly. Because, in apostolic times, it was not an uncommon thing for the Holy Ghost to fall upon men on all days of the week; thus proving that God is not restricted in the outpouring of his Spirit to holy times and places, and that it is not safe to conclude that any display of his power in this direction was made at any one time because of a special regard for the particular hours on which it took place.