Chapter II: Part 2

The Pharisees ask the Saviour why his disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? His answer is, "Why do ye transgress the commandment of God?" and he immediately cites them to the fifth commandment, Matt. xv: 4. Again, "the law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached," &c.--Luke xvi: 16. Jesus was three years after this introducing the gospel of the kingdom, unwaveringly holding his meetings on the Sabbath days, (which our opponents say were now about to be abolished; others say changed,) and never uttering a syllable to show to the contrary, but this was and always would be the holy day for worship. Mark says when the Sabbath (the Seventh day, for there was no other,) was come, he began to teach in the Synagogue, vi: [22]2. Luke says, "as his _custom_ was, he went into the Synagogue and taught on the Sabbath day." iv: 16, 31. Will it be said of him as it is of Paul on like occasions, some thirty years afterwards that he uniformly held his meetings on the Sabbath because he had no where else to preach, or that this day was the only one in the week in which the people would come out to hear him? Every bible reader knows better; witness the five thousand and the seven thousand, and the multitude that thronged him in the streets, in the cities and towns where they listened to him; besides, he was now establishing a new dispensation, while theirs was passing away. Then he did not follow any of their customs or rites or ceremonies which he had come to abolish.

I have already quoted Matt. 5: 17, 18, where Jesus said he had come to fulfil the law, and immediately begins by showing them that they are not to violate one of the least of the commandments, and cites them to some--see v: 19, 21, 27, 33. Again, he is tauntingly asked "which is the great commandment in the law: Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the _first_ and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." xxii: 36, 40. Here Jesus has divided the ten commandments into two parts, or as it is written on two tables of stone. The first four on the first table treat of those duties which we owe to God--the other six refer to those which we owe to man requiring perfect obedience.

Once more, "One came and said unto him, good master what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? He said, If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments. Then he asked him which. He cited him to the last part of what he called the second, loving his neighbor as himself." If he had cited him to the first table, as in the xxii, quoted above, he could not have replied "_all_ these have I kept from my youth up." Why? Because he would have already been perfect, for Jesus in reply to his question, what he should do to inherit eternal life, said he must "keep the commandments." Matt. xix: 16-20.--Is not the Sabbath included in these commandments?--Surely it is! Then how absurd to believe that Jesus, just at the close of his ministry, should teach that the way, the only way, to enter into life, was to keep the commandments, [23]one of which was to be abolished in a few months from that time, without the least intimation from him or his Father that it was to take place. I say again, if the Sabbath is abolished, we ask those who teach it to cite us to the chapter and verse, not to the law of rites and ceremonies which are abolished, for we have already shown that the Sabbath was instituted more than twenty-five hundred years before Moses wrote the carnal ordinances or ceremonies. God said, "Abraham kept _my_ charge, _my_ commandments, _my_ statutes, and _my_ laws." Gen. xxvi: 5. This must include the Sabbath, for the Sabbath was the first law given, therefore if Abraham did not keep the Sabbath, I cannot understand what commandments, statutes, and laws mean in this chapter. Jesus says, "As I have kept my Father's commandments," John xv: 10. Did he keep the commandments? Yes. Mark and Luke, before quoted--(but more of this in another place.)

In John vii: 19, Jesus speaks of "Moses law," "_your law_," x: 34. Again, "_their_ law." xv: 25. Here then we show that Jesus kept up a clear distinction between what God calls _my_ law and commandments and Moses law, "_their_ law," "_your_ law." Let us now look at the argument of the Apostles. Paul preaching at Antioch taught the brethren that by Jesus Christ all who believe in him "are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the _Law of Moses_." Acts xiii: 39.

The Pharisee said "that it was needful to circumcise them and commend them to keep the _Law of Moses_." xv: 5.

Again, when Paul had come to Jerusalem the second time, (fourteen years from the time he met the Apostles in conference where they established the decrees for the churches. See Acts xx: 19; Gal. ii: 1,) the Apostles shewed him how many thousands of Jews there were which believed and were zealous of the _law_; "And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest _all_ the Jews which are among the Gentiles, to forsake _Moses_ and the _customs_." xxi: 20, 21. Any person who will carefully read the eight chapters here included, must be thoroughly convinced that the Apostle's troubles were about the law of ceremonies written and given by Moses, and nothing to do with the ten commandments. For you see a little before he comes to Jerusalem, he had been preaching at Corinth every Sabbath for eighteen months. xviii: 4, 11. And this, be it remembered, was more than twenty years after the Jewish Sabbaths and ceremonies were nailed to the cross.--And [24]you see that Paul was the man above all the Apostles to be persecuted on account of the abolition of the Jews' law of ceremonies, for he was the "_great_ apostle to the Gentiles:" and if the "Sabbath of the Lord our God" was to have been abolished when the Saviour died, Paul was the very man selected for that purpose. It is clear, therefore, that he did not abolish the seventh day Sabbath among the Gentiles. This same Apostle tells the Romans "that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." x: 4. Again, that "sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the _law_ but under grace." vi: 14. Once more: He says the Gentiles having not the _law_, are a _law_ unto themselves.--Why? Because, he says in the next verse, it shews the _law_ written on their hearts. The law of ceremonies? No that which was on tables of stone. ii: 14-16. We might quote much more which looks like embracing the whole law. Let us now look at a few texts in the same letter, which will draw a distinguishing line between the two codes of laws. Paul, in the vii ch. 9-13v, brings to view the carnal commandment, and the one unto life, and sums up his argument in these words: "Wherefore the _law_ is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good." In the 7v he quotes from the decalogue. Again, he that loveth another hath fulfilled the _law_. How? Why thou shalt not steal, nor commit adultery, nor bear false witness, nor covet, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Therefore _love_ is the fulfilling of the law. Rom. xiii: 8, 10.--This then is what the Saviour taught the young man to do--to secure "eternal life." Matt. Once more, in concluding a long argument on the law in Rom. iii: 31 he closes with this language: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid ye, _we establish the law_."--What _law_ is here established? Not the law of rites and ceremonies. What then, for Paul means some law. It can be no other than what he calls the law of "life," of "love," the ten commandments. How could even that be established twenty-nine years after the crucifixion if one of the _greatest_ commandments had been abolished out of the code, that is the Sabbath.

Paul's letter to the Corinthians teaches that "circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the _keeping_ of the commandments of God." vii: 19. Again, in his epistle to the Galatians, his phraseology is somewhat changed, but the argument is to the same point, although [25]some passages read as though every vestage of _law_ was swept by the board when Jesus hung upon the cross. For instance, such as the following: "But that no man is justified by the _law_ in the sight of God it is evident, for the just shall live by faith, and the LAW is not of faith, but the man that doeth them shall live by them." "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the _law_, being made a curse for us." "But before faith came we were kept under the _law_, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed." "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by faith, but after that faith has come we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Gal. iii: 11-23, 23-25. Again: "For as many as are of the works of the _law_ are under the curse." 10v. Now are we to understand from these texts that whosoever continueth in the _law_ is cursed, and that the law _the whole law_, was abolished when Christ came as our schoolmaster, he being the "end of the law?" Rom. x: 4. If so, how is it possible for any man, even Paul himself, to be saved. But we do not believe that Paul taught these brethren any different doctrine than what has already been shown in the Acts, Romans, and Corinthians, and also the Eph., Phil., Col., and Heb. If he did not mean the law written by the hand of Moses, distinguishing it from the _law_ of the ten commandments, written by the finger of God on tables of stone, then pray tell me if you can, what he means (in the closing of this argument,) by saying, "For _all_ the LAW is FULFILLED in one word, even this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." v: 14. Surely he is quoting the Saviour's words in Matthew xxii: 39, relative to the commandment of the Lord our God.--To his son Timothy he says: "Now the end of the commandment is charity," (love) meaning of course the last part of the ten commandments. In vi: 2, he says: "Bear ye one anothers burdens and so fulfil the _law_ of Christ." Does this differ from the _law_ of God? Yes, a little, for it is the new commandment, (some say the eleventh.) See John xiii: 34. "A new commandment I give unto you, (what is it, Lord?) that ye love one another." And also xv: 12. The other is to love our neighbor as ourself.--John says: "And this commandment have we from him (Christ,) that he who loveth God loveth his brother also." John iv: 21, and ii: 8-11. In his letter to the Ephesians he says: "Having abolished in his flesh the _enmity_ even the law of commandments contained in [26]ordinances." ii: 15. See the reverse in vi: 2 v. To the Collossians he asks, "Why as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances which all are to perish with their using?" And says: "Touch not, taste not, handle not." (Does Paul here teach us to forsake the ordinances of God, instituted by the Saviour--Baptism and the Lord's Supper? Yes, just as clearly as he does to forsake the whole law.)

When writing to the Hebrews more than thirty years after the crucifixion, he calls these ordinances _carnal_, imposed on them (the Jews) until Christ our High Priest should come. ix: 10, 11. He also calls the law of commandments carnal too, and says: "For there is verily a disannulling of the commandments going before, for the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did." vii: 16, 18-19. "For when Moses had spoken _every precept_ to all the people according to the _law_ he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the BOOK and all the people." ix: 19. Now we see clearly that the book of the law of Moses, from which Paul has been quoting through the whole before mentioned epistles, is as distinctly separate from the tables of stone (or fleshly table of the heart,) as they were when deposited in the Ark thirty-three hundred years ago. Therefore we think that here is clear proof that he has kept up the distinction between the "handwriting of ordinances" (meaning Moses' own handwriting in his book,) and the "ten commandments writen by the finger of God."

Let us now turn to the Epistle of James, said to be written more than twenty-five years after the law of ceremonies was nailed to the cross, and see if he does not teach us distinctly, that we are bound to keep the commandments given on tables of stone. He says, "the man that shall be a DOER of the _perfect law_ of liberty shall be blessed in his deed." i: 25. "If ye fulfill the royal _law_ according to the scripture, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well." Why? Because the Saviour in quoting from the commandments, in answer to the Ruler, what he should do to inherit eternal life, taught the same doctrine. Matt. xix: 19. Further: "For whosoever shall keep the whole _law_ and yet offend in one point, shall be guilty of _all_." In the next verse he quotes from the ten commandments again, namely, Adultery and Murder (what the Saviour in the fifth chapter of Matt. calls the [27]least, that is the smallest commandment,) and says if we commit them we become transgressors of the _law_. Of what _law_? Next verse says the _law_ of _liberty_ by which we are to be "judged." ii: 8, 11.

Now will it not be admitted by every reasonable person that James has included the whole of the ten commandments, by calling them the perfect law of liberty. 2d, "The royal _law_ according to the scripture," and 3d, "the _law of liberty_ by which we are to be judged." (Royal relates to imperial and kingly.) Perfect means COMPLETE, _entire_, the WHOLE. Then I understand James thus: This _law_ emenated from the king, the Supreme Ruler of the universe, and to be perfect must be just what it was when it came from his hand, and that no _change_ had, or could take place, (and remember now, this is more than twenty-five years since the ceremonies with the Jewish Sabbaths were nailed to the cross,) for the very best of reasons, until the Judgment, because he shows we are to be judged by _that law_. Then I ask by what parity of reasoning any one can make the law of the ten commandments perfect, while they at the same time assert that the fourth one is abolished? and that on no better evidence than calling it the Jewish Sabbath. Now let us look at the Apostle John's testimony.

"And hereby we do know that we know him if we keep his commandments. He that saith I know him and keepeth not his commandments is a LIAR, and the truth is not in him." Now no man, more especially one who professes to abide by the whole truth, feels entirely easy if he is called a _liar_. Now John please explain yourself.--Hear him: "Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an _old_ commandment that ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the _word_ which ye have heard from the BEGINNING." What do you mean by _beginning_? Turn to my gospel, 1st ch. "In the _beginning_ was the word,"--"the same was in the _beginning_ with God." 1, 2. See Gen. i ch: "In the _beginning_ God created the heavens and the earth." Then you are pointing us to the seventh day of creation, in which God instituted the seventh day Sabbath of rest, for the _old_ commandment in the _beginning_. ii: 3. Certainly there is no other place to point to. Does not Jesus point to the same place for the _beginning_ when marriage was first instituted. Matt. xix: 4. In my second letter to the church, I have taught the same doctrines: viz. "This is the commandment that as ye [28]have heard from the _beginnings ye should walk in it_." (practice it.) ii: 5, 6. "A _new_ commandment I write unto you." ii: 8 v. This is the one that Jesus gave us on that memorable night in which he was betrayed, after he had instituted the sacrament and washed our feet. He said "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one to another." xiii: 34, 35. The first then teaches us, Love to God; 2d, to Love our neighbor as ourself; "on these two commandments (says Jesus) hang all the law and the prophets." Then we understand this is the essence of the ten commandments, and if we do not keep the Sabbath we do not love God. Jesus says, "If ye love me keep my commandments." We are repeatedly told that the Sabbath was changed or forever abolished, at the crucifixion of our Lord; and it is stated by the most competent authorities that John wrote this epistle about sixty years afterwards, and that about six years after this our blessed Lord revealed to him the state of the Church down to the judgment of the great day. In the xiv ch. Rev. 6-11, he saw three angels following each other in succession: first one preaching the everlasting gospel (second advent doctrine); 2d, announcing the fall of Babylon; 3d, calling God's people out of her by showing the awful destruction that awaited all such as did not obey. He sees the separation and cries out, "Here is the patience of the Saints, here are they that keep the _commandments_ of God and the faith of Jesus." And this picture was so deeply impressed upon his mind, that when the Savior said to him "Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me," he seemed to understand this, saying--"Blessed are they that _do_ his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Now it seems to me that the seventh day Sabbath is more clearly included in these commandments, than thou shalt not steal, nor kill, nor commit adultery, for it is the only one that was written at the creation or in the _beginning_. He allows no stopping place this side of the gates of the city. Then, if we do not keep that day, John has made out his case, that we are all _liars_. We say in every other case the type must be continued until it is superseded by the antetype: as in the case of the passover, until our Lord was crucified. So then, as Paul tells us, "there remaineth a keeping of the Sabbath to the people of God;" and that we believe will be in the Millenium, the seven thousandth year, so that the seventh [29]day Sabbath and no other will answer for the type, and those who keep the first or the eighth day Sabbath cannot consistently look for the antetype of rest or the great Sabbath, short of one thousand years in future.

Again: Isaiah says: "To the law and to the testimony if they speak not according to his word it is because there is no light in them." viii: 20. Now if the Gentiles are under no law, as is asserted, pray tell me what right, the Gentiles, have we to appeal to the law and testimony, or to this text.

In the xxiv. of Matt. our Saviour says to his disciples in answer to their questions, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming and the end of the world? "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place," &c. 15v. "Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day." 20v. The first question is, at what age of the world is this, where our Lord recognizes the Sabbath. 1st. It is agreed on all hands that this time to which he here refers, never transpired until the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, about 40 years after his crucifixion. 2d. Some others say down to the second Advent! The first mentioned is safe ground and sufficient for our purpose; nor need we stop to inquire why our Lord gave these directions, it is forever settled that he directed the minds of his followers to THE, not _a_ Sabbath. Keep it in remembrance, that he told the Pharisees that he was Lord, not of _a_, but of THE Sabbath, meaning that one which of course had already been established. The 2d question is, did our Lord ever trifle with or mislead his disciples? The response is No! Then it is clear that if he taught them to pray at all, it must be in faith, and he of course would hear them and mediate with the Father to change the day of their flight. I ask what kind of a prayer and with what kind of faith would his disciples have asked to have this day changed, if, as we are told, it was abolished some forty years before, and they had, contrary to the will of God, persisted in keeping up the seventh day Sabbath. Any one who has confidence in God's word, knows that such a prayer never would be answered. What if you do say the Jews always kept that Sabbath, and it was the same seventh day Sabbath that they kept when he was teaching them in their synagogues? I say so too! and that fact will be presented by and by, in its place. This does not touch the point. Jesus was here, giving instruction to his [30]followers, both Jew and Gentile, respecting _the_ Sabbath which they would have to do with. It is immaterial what kind of sophistry is presented to overthrow the point, nothing can touch it short of proving it a mistranslation. Jesus did here recognize the perpetuity of the _seventh day Sabbath_. And John will continue to make all men liars that say they know him, and refuse the light presented and disregard this commandment. If God instituted the Sabbath in Paradise and has not abolished it here, then it must be _perpetual_. If Paul's argument in iii. Rom. that the law is established through faith, is correct, then it is _perpetual_. If James' royal _perfect law_ of liberty, which we are to be doers of, and judged by, means the commandments, then is the Sabbath _perpetual_. If the Apostle John has made out a clear case by citing us back to the _beginning_ of creation, and by walking in and doing these commandments, we shall have right to the tree of life and enter in by the gates into the city; then it must be _perpetual_. If the earthly Sabbath is typical of the heavenly, then must it be _perpetual_. If not one jot or one tittle can ever pass from the law, then must it be _perpetual_. If the Saviour, in answer to the young man who asked him what he should do to inherit _eternal life_, gave a safe direction for Gentiles to follow, viz: "If thou wilt enter into _life_ keep the commandments" (and these included those commandments which his Father had given,) then, without _contradiction_ the Sabbath is _perpetual_, and all the arguments which ever can be presented against the fourth commandment being observed before God wrote it on tables of stone to prove that it is not binding on Gentiles, fall powerless before this one sentence: _If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments._ I say the proof is positive that the Sabbath was a constituent part of the commandments, and Jesus says the Sabbath was made for man. The Jews were only a _fragment of creation_.

"The principle is settled in all governments that there are but two ways in which any law can cease to be binding upon the people. It may expire by its own limitations, or it may be repealed by the same authority which enacted it; and in the latter case the repealing act must be as explicit as that by which the obligation was originally imposed." Now we have it in proof that the Sabbath was instituted in Paradise, the _first_ of all laws without any limitation, and no enactment by God to abolish it, unless what we have already referred to can be considered proof. One more passage which I have not alluded to, will show that [31]it was not abolished at the crucifixion, for his disciples kept the Sabbath while he was resting in his tomb. See Luke xxiii: 55, 56. Let us now pass to another part of the subject. The third question:

WAS THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH EVER CHANGED? IF SO WHEN, AND FOR WHAT REASON?

Here we come to a question which has more or less engaged the attention of the whole christian world, and the greater portion of those who believe in a crucified Saviour say that this change took place, and is dated from his resurrection. Some say subsequently, while a minority insist upon it that there is no proof for the change. Now to obtain the truth and nothing but the truth on this important subject, I propose to present, or quote from standard authors on both sides of the question, and try the whole by the standard of divine truth. 1st. Buck's Theological Dictionary, to which no doubt thousands of ministers and laymen appeal to sustain their argument for the change, says: "Under the christian dispensation the Sabbath is _altered_ from the _seventh_ to the _first day_ of the week." The arguments for the change are these: 1st. "The _seventh_ day was observed by the Jewish church in memory of the rest of God; so the _first_ day of the week has always been observed by the christian church in memory of _Christ's resurrection_. 2d. Christ made repeated visits to his disciples on that day. 3d. It is called the Lord's day. Rev. i: 10.--4th. On this day the Apostles were assembled, when the Holy Ghost came down upon them to qualify them for the conversion of the world. 5th. On this day we find Paul at Troas when the disciples came together to break bread. 6th. The directions the Apostles gave to Christians plainly alludes to their assembling on that day. 7th. Pliny bears witness of the first day of the week being kept as a festival in honor of the resurrection of Christ."

"Numerous have been the days appointed by man for religious services, but these are not binding because of _human_ institution. Not so the Sabbath. It is of _divine_ institution, so it is to be kept holy onto the Lord."

Doct. Dodridge, whose ability and piety have seldom or rarely been disputed, comments on some of the above articles thus: (Commentary p. 606.) "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." I Cor. xvi: 2. "Show that it was to be put into a [32]common stock. The argument drawn from hence for the religious observance of the first day of the week in these primitive churches of Corinth and Galacia is too _obvious_ to need any further illustration, and yet too important to be passed by in entire silence." Again, p. 904, "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day," &c. Rev. i: 10. "It is so very unnatural and contrary to the use of the word in all other authors to interpret this of the Jewish Sabbath, as Mr. Baxter justly argues at large, that I cannot but conclude with him and the generality of Christian writers on this subject, that this text _strongly_ infers the extraordinary regard paid to the first day of the week in the Apostle's time as a day solemnly consecrated to Christ in the memory of his resurrection from the dead." There is much more, but these are his strong arguments. I shall quote some more from the Commentaries by and by. I wish to place by the side of these arguments one from the British Quarterly Theological Review and Ecclesiastical Recorder, of Jan. 1830, which I extract from 'the _Institution of the Sabbath day_,' by Wm. Logan Fisher, of Philadelphia, a book in which there is much valuable information on this subject, though I disagree with the writer, because his whole labor is to abolish the Sabbath; yet he gives much light on this subject, from which I take the liberty to make some quotations. But to the Quarterly Review of 1830:

"It is said that the observance of the seventh day Sabbath is
transferred in the Christian Church to the first day of the
week. We ask by what authority, and are very much mistaken if
an examination of all the texts of the New Testament, in which
the first day of the week or Lord's day is mentioned, does not
prove that there is no divine or Apostolic precept enjoining
its observance, nor any certain evidence from scripture that
it was, in fact, so observed in the times of the Apostles.
Accordingly we search the scriptures in vain, either for an
Apostolic precept, appointing the first day of the week to be
observed in the place of the Jewish Sabbath, or for any
unequivocal proof that the first christians so observed
it--there are only three or, at most four passages of
scripture, in which the first day of the week is mentioned.
The next passage is Acts xx: 7. 'Upon the first day of the
week when the disciples some together to break bread, Paul
preached unto them.' All that St. Luke here tells us plainly
is, that on a particular occasion the christians of Troas met
together on the first day of the week to celebrate the
Eucharist and to hear Paul preach. This is the only place in
scripture in which the first day of the week is in any way
connected with any acts of public worship, and he who would
certainly infer from this SOLITARY INSTANCE that the first day
of every week was consecrated by the Apostles to religious
purposes, must be far gone in the art of drawing universal
conclusion from particular premises."

On page 178, Mr. Fisher says:

[33]"I have examined several different translations of the
scriptures, both from the Hebrew and Septuagint, with notes
and annotations more extensive than the texts; have traced as
far as my leisure would permit, various ecclesiastical
histories, some of them voluminous and of ancient date; have
paid considerable attention to the writings of the earliest
authors in the Christian era, and to rare works, old and of
difficult access, which treat upon this subject; I have read
with care many of the publications of sectarians to sustain
the institution; I have omitted nothing within my reach, and I
have found not one shred of argument, or authority of any
kind, that may not be deemed of partial and sectarian
character, to support the institution of the first day of the
week, as a day of peculiar holiness. But, in place of
argument, I have found opinions without number--volumes filled
with idle words that have no truth in them. In the want of
texts of Scripture, I have found perversions; in the want of
truth, false statements. I have seen it stated that Justin
Marter in his Apology speaks of Sunday as a holy day; that
Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea, who lived in the fourth century,
establishes the fact of the transfer of the SEVENTH to the
first day, by Christ himself. These things are NOT TRUE. These
authors say no such thing. I have seen other early authors
referred to as establishing the same point, but they are
equally false."

Here then is the testimony of four authors, two for the change and two against it, from the old and new world. No truth seeking, unbiassed mind can hesitate for a moment on which side to decide, after comparing them with the inspired word.

Doctor JENKS of Boston, author of the Comprehensive Commentary, (purporting to comprehend _all_ other commentators on the bible,) after quoting author after author on this subject, ventures forth with _his_ unsupported opinion in these words: "Here is a Christian Sabbath observed by the disciples and _owned by our Lord_. The visit Christ made to his disciples was on the first day of the week, and the first day of the week is the only day of the week or month or year ever mentioned by numbers in all the New Testament, and that is several times spoken of as a day _religiously_ observed." Where? Echo answers, where!

HEMAN HUMPHREY, President of Amherst College, from whose book I have already made some quotations, after devoting some thirty-four pages to the establishment and perpetuation of the seventh day Sabbath, comes to his fourth question, viz: "Has the day been changed?" Singular as this question may appear by the side of what he had already written to establish and perpetuate the seventh day Sabbath from the seventh day of creation down to the resurrection of the just, but as every man feels that it is his privilege to justify and explain, when precept and practice do not agree--so is it with President Humphrey, he can [34]now shape the scriptures to suit every one that has followed in the wake of Pope Gregory for 1225 years. He says, "The fourth commandment is so expressed as to admit of a change in the day,"--thus striking vitally every argument he had before presented. Hear him--he says the seventh day is the Sabbath; "it was so at that time (in the beginning) and for many ages after, but it is not said that it always _shall be_--it is the _Sabbath_ day which we are to remember; and so at the close, it was the _Sabbath_ which was hallowed and blessed and not the _seventh day_. The Sabbath then, the holy rest itself, is one thing. The day on which we are to rest is another." I ask, in the name of common sense, how we should know how or when to keep the Sabbath, if it did not matter which day. If the President could not see the sanctification of the seventh day in the decalogue, what did he mean by quoting Gen. ii: 3, so often, where it says "_God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it_."

Again, he says, "Redemption is a greater work than creation, hence the change." Fifthly, God early consecrated the Christian Sabbath by a most remarkable outpouring of his spirit at the day of Pentecost. And that Jesus has left us his own example by not saying a syllable after his resurrection about keeping the _Jewish Sabbath_. He also quotes the four passages about Jesus and his disciples keeping the first day of the week. Here, he says, the inference to our mind is _irresistible_--for keeping the first day of the week instead of the _seventh_. And further says, it might be proved by innumerable quotations from the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, &c. All this may be very true in itself, but it all falls to the ground for the want of one single precept from the bible. If Redemption, because it was greater than Creation, and the remarkable display of God's power at the Pentecost, and Christ never saying any thing about the _Jewish Sabbath_ after his resurrection are such _strong_ proofs that the perpetual seventh day Sabbath was changed to the first day at that time, and must be believed because learned men say so, what shall we do with the sixth day, on which our blessed Saviour expired on the cross; darkness for three hours had covered the earth, and the vail of the Temple was rent from top to bottom, and there was such an earthquake throughout vast creation that we have only to open our eyes and look at the rent rocks for a clear and perfect demonstration that this whole globe was shaken from centre to circumference, [35]and the graves of the dead were opened. Matt xxvii: 50, 53. You may answer me that Popery has honored that day by calling it good Friday, and the next first day following Easter Sunday, &c., but after all nothing short of bible argument will satisfy the earnest inquirer after truth.--The President had already shown that the _Jewish_ Sabbath was abolished at Christ's death. What reason, then had he to believe that the Saviour would speak of it afterwards.--So also the Pentecost had been a type from the giving the law at Sinai to be kept annually for about 1500 years, consequently it would be solemnized on every day of the week at each revolving year, as is the case with the 4th of July: three years ago it was on the fourth day and now it comes on the seventh day of the week. Further, see Peter standing amidst the amazed multitude, giving the scripture reason for this miraculous display of God's power. He does not give the most distant hint that this was, or was to be, the day of the week for worship, or the true Sabbath, neither do any of the Apostles, then, or afterwards, for when they kept this day the next year, it must have been the second day of the week. We must have better evidence than what has been adduced, to believe this was the Sabbath, for according to the type, seven Sabbaths were to be complete, (and there was no other way given them to come to the right day,) from the day they kept the first or from the resurrection. Here then is proof positive that the Sabbath in this year was the day before the Pentecost. See Luke xxiii: 55, 56. If President H. is right, then was there two Sabbaths to be kept in succession in one week. Where is the precept? No where! Well, says the inquirer, I want to see the bible proof for this "_Christian Sabbath observed by the disciples, and owned by our Lord_." W. Jenks. Here it will be necessary for us to understand, first how God has computed time. In Gen. i. we read, "And God said let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years." 14 v. 16 v. says "the greater light to rule the day,"--from sunrise to sunset. Now there are many modes invented for computing time. We say our day begins at 12 o'clock at night; seamen begin theirs twelve hours sooner, at noon; the Jews commence their days at 6 o'clock in the evening, between the two extremes. Are we _all_ right? No! Who shall settle this question? God! Very well: He called the light day and the darkness he called night, and the evening and the [36]morning were the first day. Gen. i: 5. Then the twenty-four hour day commenced at 6 o'clock in the evening. How is that, says one? Because you cannot regulate the day and night to have what the Saviour calls twelve hours in a day, without establishing the time from the centre of the earth, the equator, where, at the beginning of the sacred year, the sun rises and sets at 6 o'clock. At _this_ time, while the sun is at the summer solstice, the inhabitants at the north pole have no night, while at this same time at the south it is about all night, therefore the inhabitants of the earth have no other right time to commence their twenty-four hour day, than beginning at 6 o'clock in the evening. God said to Moses "_from even to even, shall you celebrate your Sabbath_." Then of course the next day must begin where the Sabbath ended. History shows that the Jews obeyed and commenced their days at 6 o'clock in the evening. Now then we will try to investigate the main argument by which these authors, and thousands of others say the Sabbath was changed. The first is in John xx: 19, "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled _for fear of the Jews_ (mark it) came Jesus and stood in their midst, and said peace be unto you." Here we understand this to be the same day of the resurrection. On that day he travelled with the two disciples to Emans, sixty furlongs (7-1/2 miles,) and they constrained him to abide with them, for it was towards evening and the _day was far spent_. Luke xxiv: 29. After this the disciples travelled 7-1/2 miles back to Jerusalem, and soon after they found the disciples, the Saviour, as above stated, was in their midst. Now it cannot be disputed but what this was the evening after the resurrection, for Jesus rose in the morning, some ten or eleven hours after the first day had commenced. Then the evening of the first day was passing away, and therefore the evening brought to view in the text was the close of the first day or the commencing of the second. McKnight's translation says, "in the evening of that day." Purver's translation says, "the evening of that day on the first after the Sabbath." Further, wherever the phrase first day of the week, occurs in the New Testament, the word day is in _italics_, showing that it is not the original, but supplied by translators. Again, it is asserted that Jesus met with his disciples the next first day. See 26 v: "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." [37]Dr. Adam Clark in referring to this 26v, says: "It seems likely that this was precisely on that day se'night on which Christ had appeared to them before; and from this we may learn that this was the weekly meeting of the Apostles." Now it appears to me that a little child, with the simple rules of addition and subtraction, could have refuted this man. I feel astonished that men who profess to be ambassadors for God do not expose such downright perversions of scripture, but it may look clear to those who want to have it so. Not many months since, in conversation with the Second Advent lecturer in New Bedford, I brought up this subject. He told me I did not understand it. See here, says he, I can make it plain, counting his fingers thus: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday--does'nt that make eight days after? and because I would not concede, he parted from me as one that was obstinate and self-willed. Afterwards musing on the subject, I said, this must be the way then to understand it: _Count Sunday Twice_. If any of them were to be paid for eight days labor, they would detect the error in a moment if their employer should attempt to put the first and last days together, and offer them pay but for seven. Eight days _after_ the evening of the _first_ day would stand thus: The second day of the week would certainly be the first of the eight. Then to count eight days of twenty-four hours _after_, we must begin at the close of the evening of the first, and count to the close of the evening of the second day; to where the Jews (by God's command) commenced their third day. But suppose we calculate it by our mode of keeping time. Our Lord appears to his disciples the first time at the close of Sunday evening. Now count eight days _after_, (with your fingers or anything else,) and it will bring you to Monday evening. Now I ask if this looks like Sunday, the first day of the week?

Father Miller also gives his reasons for the change, in his lecture on the great Sabbath: "One is Christ's resurrection and his often meeting with his disciples _afterwards_ on that day. This, with the example of the Apostles, is strong evidence that the proper creation Sabbath to man, came on the first day of the week." His proof is this: "Adam must have rested on the first day of his life, and thus you will see that to Adam it was the first day of the week, for it would not be reasonable to suppose that Adam began to reckon time before he was created." He certainly could not be able to work six days before the first Sabbath. And thus [38]with the second Adam; the first day of the week he arose and lived. And we find by the _bible_ and by history, that the first day of the week "_was ever afterwards observed as a day of worship_." Now I say there is no more truth in these assertions, than there is in those I have already quoted. There is not one passage in the bible to show that Christ met with his disciples on the first day of the week after the day of his resurrection, nor that the first day of the week was _ever afterwards_ observed as a day of worship; save only in one instance, and that shall be noticed in its place. And it seems to me if Adam could not reckon time only from his creation then by the same rule no other man could reckon time before his birth, and by this showing Christ could not reckon his time until after his resurrection. It is painful to me to expose the errors of one whom I have so long venerated, and still love for the flood of light he has given the world in respect to the Second Advent of our Saviour; but God's word must be vindicated if we have to cut off a right arm, "there is nothing true but truth!" I pray God to forgive him in joining the great multitude of Advent believers, to sound the retreat back beyond the _tarrying_ time, just when the virgins had gained a glorious victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil! Go back from this to the slumbering quarters now; nothing but treachery to our Master's cause ever dictated such a course! I never can be made to believe that our glorious Commander designed that we should leave our sacrifices smoking on the altar of God, in the midst of the enemies' land, but rather that we should be pushing onward from victory to victory, until we are established in the Capital of _His_ kingdom. Would it have been expedient or a mark of courage in General Taylor, after he had conquered the Mexican army on the 9th May last, to have retreated back to the capital of the U. States, to place himself and army on the _broad platform_ of liberty, and commence to travel the ground over again for the purposes of pursuing and overcoming his vanquished foe? No! Every person of common sense knows that such a course would have overwhelmed him and all his followers with unutterable disgrace, no matter how unrighteous the contest. Not so with this, for our cause is one of the most glorious, tho it be the most trying that the sun ever shown upon since God placed it in the heavens. Onward and victory, then, are our watchwords, and no retreating back to, or beyond the cry at _Midnight_! But to the subject. Did our Saviour ever meet with his disciples on the first day of the week after the [39]evening of the day of his resurrection? The xxi. ch. John says "they went a fishing, and while there Jesus appeared unto them." In the 14th v. he says, "This is now the third time that Jesus showed himself to the disciples after that he was risen from the dead." Now turn to 1 Cor. xv: 4-7: Paul's testimony is, "that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve, after that of above five hundred brethren at once, and then of James, then of all the Apostles." These are all that are specified, up to his going into heaven. Now pray tell me if you can, where these men got their information respecting the frequent meetings on the first day of the week. The bible says no such thing. But let us pursue the subject and look at the third text, "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in _store_, as God has prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." Now please turn back to Dr. Dodridge's authority, he says the argument is too obvious to need illustration, that the money was put into common stock, and that this was the religious observance of the first day of the week. Now whoever will read the first six verses of this chapter, and compare them with Rom. xv: 26-33, will see that Paul's design was to collect some money for the poor saints at Jerusalem, and their laying it by them in store until he came that way; for it plainly implies that they were at home, for no one could understand that you had money lying by you in store, if it was in common stock or in other hands. Again, see Acts xviii: 4, 11. Paul preaching every Sabbath day, at this very time, for eighteen months, to these very same Corinthians, bids them farewell, to go up to the feast at Jerusalem. 21 v. By reading to xxi. ch. 17 v. you have his history until he arrives there. Now I ask, if Dr. Dodridge's clear illustration can or will be relied on, when Luke clearly teaches that Paul's _manner_ was, and that he did always preach to them on the Sabbath, which, of course, was the Seventh day, and not the first day of the week. Fourth text, John says: I was in the spirit on the Lord's day. Here Dr. D. concludes with the generality of christian writers on this subject that this strongly infers the extraordinary regard paid to the first day of the week, as solemnly consecrated in Christ, &c. If the scripture any where called this the Lord's day, there might be some reason to believe their statements, but the seventh day Sabbath is called the Lord's day. See Exod. xx: 10.

Mr. Fisher, in speaking of the late Harrisburg convention of 1844-45, says, "The most spirited debate that occurred [40]at the assembly was to fix a proper name for the first day of the week, whether it should be called _Sabbath_, the _Christian Sabbath_ or _Lord's_ day. The reason for this dispute was, that there was no authority for calling the first day of the week by either one of these names. To pretend that that command was fixed and unchangeable, and yet to alter it to please the fancy of man, is in itself ridiculous. It is hardly possible in the nature of man, that a class of society should be receiving pay for their services and not be influenced thereby;--in the nature of things they will avoid such doctrines as are repugnant to them that give them bread."