Chapter IV: Fourth Reason

My fourth reason for believing this proposition is, That God has never blessed and sanctified any day of the week but the seventh.

In sustaining this reason, as I occupy negative ground, I shall simply defend it against your usual scripture arguments in defense of your favorite doctrine, that God blessed and sanctified the first day of the week, in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ.

In arguing this doctrine, you do not pretend to offer _positive_, but only _inferential_ proof. You quote certain texts, and say, Hence we infer that the first day of the week is the Sabbath. Now, as there are many possible, and even plausible, inferences, that are not necessarily true, I intend to be governed, in the examination of your scripture proofs, by the following rule of interpretation:--

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or _by good and necessary consequence_ may be deduced from scripture."

Brethren, I intend, with God's help, to show that, according to the above rule, which you admit to be correct, all your inferences in favor of a first-day Sabbath are _unnecessary_, and some of them wholly inadmissible.

YOUR FIRST PROOF.

Hebrews 4:9, 10--"There remaineth, therefore, a rest (sabbatism) to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his."

Your premises consist of four assertions:--First, That the rest, or sabbatism, that remaineth, is something different from the ancient Sabbath. Second, That the person who "hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his," is the Lord Jesus Christ. These two assertions I most cheerfully admit. Third, That Christ entered into his rest on the day of his resurrection. Fourth, That the sabbatism of God's people is enjoyed in this life. These last two assertions I utterly deny.

Your inference is, That the first day of every week, that being the day of the week on which Christ rose, is the sabbatism of God's people. Of course, if I prove that the last two assertions are false, your inference will be shown to be inadmissible.

I assert, then,--

1. That Christ did _not_ "enter into his rest" on the day of his resurrection; for the following reasons:--First, Because the Scriptures do not say so. Second, Because this earth is not the place of his rest. He was, to the last day he spent here, "a pilgrim and a stranger in the earth," and had not therein "where to lay his head." But his resurrection took place on earth, and he continued on earth for "forty days" afterwards. Third, Because the scriptures plainly teach, that the Mediator _did_ "enter into his rest," when he "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." Heb. 1:3. "Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou and the ark of thy strength." Ps. 132:2. This was the prayer of David and the congregation of Israel, when they removed the ark from the house of Obed-Edom to the place "that David had pitched for it." When Solomon and the Elders of Israel brought up the ark from the city of David, and placed it in the holy of holies, in the temple "made with hands," they prayed in like manner, "Now therefore arise, O Lord God, into thy resting-place, thou, and the ark of thy strength." 2 Chron. 6:41. Now the ark was a type of Christ, while "heaven itself" is the true "holy of holies," "whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." Heb. 6:20. If, then, the ark entered into its rest, when it was placed in the holy of holies, Jesus Christ, the anti-typical ark, entered into _his_ rest when he sat down on the right hand of God, in the anti-typical holy of holies. Fourth, Because the Apostle's great design, in this epistle, was to convince the church, and especially the Hebrews, that Christ, having "by himself purged our sins," as they all admitted he had done, "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high," (ch. 1:3,) as our ever-living Intercessor. Yes, the "one idea," that runs through the whole Epistle, is to illustrate and magnify the doctrine of the glorious intercession of Christ the Mediator, who, "after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God." Do you ask proof? Take, then, the apostle's own assertion, (ch. 8:1,) "Now, of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum: We have such a high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." All that is said in the third and fourth chapters, about the rest of Christ and the sabbatism of the people of God, is included in this summary; so that it is to Christ's eternal rest in the heavens that the verses under consideration refer. Indeed, we have evidence of this fact, satisfactory enough, in the immediate context, (ch. 3:4,) "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus"--compared with ch. 4:14--"Seeing, then, that we have a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." Fifth, Because there is not, in this epistle, one solitary reference to the resurrection of Christ, except in the concluding benediction; but it abounds in references to his ascension and intercession.

2. If I have reasoned correctly above, your assertion, that the sabbatism of God's people is enjoyed in this life, scarcely needs refutation. As Christ entered into his rest, when he received the crown of glory from the Father; so believers shall enter into his rest, when they "shall be glorified with him." Moreover, as Christ did not enter into his rest on the first day of the week, your inference, that that day is the Sabbath, is not only _unnecessary_, but wholly inadmissible.

Bear in mind also, brethren, that, if Christ did not enter into his rest on the first day of the week, then your great philosophical argument for the first-day Sabbath, founded upon the fact, that the work of redemption is greater than that of creation, vanishes at once into smoke, or, at least, becomes useless for your purpose.

YOUR SECOND PROOF.

Psalm 118:22, 24--"The stone which the builders refused is become the head-stone of the corner." "This is the day which the Lord hath made, we will rejoice and be glad in it."

Acts 4:10, 11--"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner."

You premise, that "the day which the Lord hath made" is the day of the resurrection of Christ. Whence you infer, that the first day of the week is the Sabbath.

1. If what you premise were true, the inference does not follow. The prophet does not say, We will rejoice and be glad in the same day of every week; but, We will rejoice and be glad _in it_, that is, in that day, whatever it may be. Now Christ did not rise on the first day of every week, but on one single day; and we may very well rejoice and be glad in that one day, without keeping any Sabbath in connection with it. Abraham rejoiced and was glad in the day of Christ; but he kept no Sabbath in honor of it. So, doubtless, _you_ rejoice and are glad in the day of his crucifixion, though you do not celebrate it on any particular day of the week. But--

2. You are evidently mistaken in referring this language of the Psalmist to the resurrection of Christ--for the following reasons:--

First--Because "the day which the Lord hath made" is the same in which Christ went in by the gates of righteousness. Verses 19 and 20. "Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the Lord. This gate of the Lord, into which the righteous shall enter." Now, though Christ _did_ come up from "the gates of death" on the day of his resurrection, he _did not_ formally "enter" by "the gates of righteousness," till that day when he ascended from Mount Olivet, which was not the first day of the week. His almighty power and eternal Sonship were declared most gloriously on the day of his resurrection; but it was on the day of his ascension that his mediatorial righteousness was formally approved by the Father; while it was visibly manifested, in the presence of the universe, that the door of heaven had been opened to all true believers. Then shouted the seraphim, and all the host of heaven, while the door-posts of the New Jerusalem trembled at the voice, "Arise, O Jehovah, into thy rest, thou, and the ark of thy strength. Let thy priests be clothed with righteousness; and let thy saints shout for joy!" Therefore, this is not the day of Christ's resurrection, but that of his ascension.

Second--Because "the day which the Lord hath made" is the same in which "the stone which the builders refused" became "the head-stone of the corner," (verse 22.) Christ did not become "the head of the corner," till he "sat down on the right hand of God." You assert that he did, and refer to Acts 4:10, 11, quoted above, as proof. From what the apostle there sets forth, you draw the inference, that, as he was set at nought by the builders, when he was crucified, so he became the head of the corner, when God raised him from the dead. The apostle does not say, however, that this took place on the same day that he rose from the dead; and all that we must _necessarily_ infer from what he _does say_, is, that he became the head of the corner since his resurrection, which is cheerfully admitted. But whether it was on the same day, or two, or ten, or forty days after, the apostle saith not. Still your inference would be entirely natural and proper, if it were not contrary to the analogy of faith, and to the teachings of the same spirit in other parts of the Scriptures.

I suppose it will be admitted, that when Christ became the head of the corner, he became "the head over all things to the church," and that then "all things were put under his feet." Now the apostle clearly teaches, that these things took place when he sat down on the right hand of God, as appears from the following texts:--

Ephesians 1:20-22--"Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, (or, having raised him from the dead,) and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church."

Hebrews 2:8, 9--"But now we see not yet all things put under him (man;) but we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor." Observe, that the Apostle's great object in this epistle is, to show that Christ is _in heaven_, forever interceding for the church.

Now, is it not manifest from these texts, that Christ became the head of the corner when he ascended to his Father and our Father, to his God and our God? Nor is there any thing in Acts 4:10, 11, that contradicts this idea.

Brethren, the glorious building of grace has its foundation, not on earth, where we are pilgrims and strangers, but in heaven, where Jesus, the corner-stone, "elect and precious," sitteth at the right hand of God, and is constantly occupied in gathering from afar the "lively stones" of the glorious edifice. Blessed forever be his holy name!

YOUR THIRD PROOF.

John 20:19, 26--"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, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." "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."--See also Luke 24:26.

You premise, that the disciples, on the two days referred to above, one of which certainly was, and the other may have been, the first day of the week, had met together for public or social worship, when Christ appeared to them. Whence you infer, that the first day of the week is the Sabbath.

Now, what you premise _seems_ to be a mere assumption, for which there is not a shadow of proof, either in the text or context. No one of the Evangelists says that they met for worship; nor did they worship, so far as we know, when met together. In regard to the first of those occasions, we are told, that they "were assembled for fear of the Jews;" and, as to the second, we are simply informed, that they "were within," which means, probably, that they were _at home_; for Luke tells us, that, on the day of the ascension, the eleven "abode" in an upper room. Acts 1:13.

Again, your inference is not _necessary_; for the matter may be explained thus: On the day of the resurrection, the eleven, having procured a common lodging-room, "assembled for fear of the Jews;" and Christ appeared to them before the close of the same day, in order that they, who were to be witnesses of his resurrection, might have ocular demonstration of the fact, that he rose "according to the scriptures." On the other occasion, "after eight days," he met them, probably, "as they sat at meat," (Mark 16:14,) because Thomas, who had not seen him since his resurrection, was then with them.

These reasons are surely sufficient to account for his appearing on those occasions. But why demand reasons at all? Had he not a right to meet his disciples on any day of the week that he chose, without telling us why? Can you tell us why he appeared to the brethren when they were fishing? Christ has done many things for which the only reason we can give is, that it seemed good to him.

YOUR FOURTH PROOF.

Acts 2:1--"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place."

Your premises are--1. That the Feast of Pentecost fell that year on the first day of the week. 2. That the disciples were, _for that reason_, with one accord in one place. Whence you infer, that the first day of the week is the Sabbath. I reply--

Whether the Feast of Pentecost fell that year on the first day of the week, or not, the disciples did not meet to keep the Sabbath, but to celebrate Pentecost. They would have been, in like manner "with one accord in one place," if it had been the fourth day of the week, because it was the day of Pentecost. Therefore, your inference is not only _unnecessary_, but wholly inadmissible.

YOUR FIFTH PROOF.

Acts 20:7--"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

You premise, that the disciples came together, in this instance, to celebrate the Lord's Supper, and to hear the word. Whence you infer, that the first day of the week is the Sabbath.

What you premise is very uncertain; for--

1. There is no evidence that they met to hear the word. The object of the meeting was "to break bread;" and the preaching of Paul seems to have been _incidental_, and not by appointment.

2. It is not certain that "to break bread" means to partake of the Lord's Supper. The Greek word, translated, _to break_, is used very often in the New Testament in reference to ordinary meals. An instance occurs in Luke 24:35--"And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them _in breaking of bread_."

But if what you assert were true, your inference is not _necessary_; for--

1. It is entirely proper, for aught we know to the contrary, to celebrate the Lord's Supper and hear preaching on any day of the week.

2. Perhaps this meeting was held at that particular time, because the Apostle and his company were "ready to depart on the morrow." It was probably a farewell meeting, as many learned men think, and the text itself _seems_ to hint.

3. There is not one word said in the text about Sabbath-keeping; nor is there the least intimation, either in the text or context, that the disciples were _accustomed_ to meet on the first day of the week for any purpose whatever.

But you say, Paul waited there seven days, and we have no account of his preaching till the last night of his stay, which was the first of the week. We reply, This is no evidence that he did not preach during the other six days. Luke tells us, in this same chapter, verses 2 and 3, that "he came into Greece, and there abode three months;" and he does not say that he preached once during that time. But a small part, indeed, of the doings of the Apostles is recorded.

It is a remarkable fact, that this text, which is the only one in the New Testament that speaks of public religious exercises on the first day of the week, is, at the same time, the only one in the Bible that directly proves, that this day is _not_ the Sabbath. I have already proposed to give up the argument in favor of the seventh day, if you produce one apostolic example of unnecessary labor performed therein. Will you give up your argument for the first day on the same condition? I believe this verse furnishes such an example.

The text proves nothing for you, if Paul's sermon and the breaking of bread were not on the first day. The sermon was preached between evening and midnight, and the bread was broken between midnight and break of day, and then Paul set out on his journey. According to the Roman method of computing time, the breaking of bread, at least, was in the morning of the same day in which Paul traveled from Troas to Assos, and thence to Mitylene; and, according to the Jewish method, the sermon, the breaking of bread, and the journey from Troas to Mitylene, were all within the compass of the same "first day of the week." That Luke should follow the unnatural Roman method, is so unlikely as hardly to be supposable. Now, if Paul traveled unnecessarily from Troas to Mitylene, as it seems he did, on the first day of the week, surely that day was not then the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. This text, therefore, _proves positively that the first day is not the Sabbath_, on which account it is of no little value in this controversy.

YOUR SIXTH PROOF.

1 Corinthians 16:2--"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."

Your premises are--1. That the Apostle here commands the Corinthians to make public collections on the first day of the week. 2. That, therefore, public assemblies were accustomed to be held on that day. Whence you infer, that the first day of the week is the Sabbath.

I deny both your premises. The apostle simply orders, that each one of the Corinthian brethren should lay up _at home_ some portion of his weekly gains on the first day of the week. The whole question turns upon the meaning of the expression, "by him;" and I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it means "in the collection box of the congregation." Greenfield, in his Lexicon, translates the Greek term, "_by one's self, i. e. at home_." Two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that of Castellio, render it, "_apud se_," with one's self, at home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacy, "_chez soi_," at his own house, at home. The German of Luther, "_bei sich selbst_," by himself, at home. The Dutch, "_by hemselven_," same as the German. The Italian of Diodati "_appresso di se_," in his own presence, at home. The Spanish of Felipe Scio, "_en su casa_," in his own house. The Portuguese of Ferreira, "_para isso_," with himself. The Swedish, "_nær sig sielf_," near himself. I know not how much this list of authorities might be swelled, for I have not examined one translation that differs from those quoted above. Now, if your premises are false, your inference is not only _unnecessary_, but wholly inadmissible.

YOUR SEVENTH PROOF.

Revelations 1:10--"I was in the spirit on the Lord's day."

You premise, that the "Lord's day" is the first day of the week. Whence you infer, that the first day of the week is the Sabbath.

You here assume the principal point in dispute, namely, that God has appointed the first day of every week to be kept in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ. Is every Friday the "Lord's day," because he was crucified on Friday? You answer, No. Is every Thursday the "Lord's day," because he ascended on Thursday? You answer, No. So, when you ask, Is every first day of the week the "Lord's day," because he rose on the first day? I answer, No. And is it too much that I should ask you to prove your assumption? I have never yet met with an attempt to prove it.

But, were this even proved, your inference would not be _necessary_. The first day _might_ be the "Lord's day," and yet not the Sabbath. Would the bare mention of this day by the Apostle John, even if it were certain that he referred to the first day of the week, repeal or alter the fourth commandment? Certainly not. But you ask, What day did he mean? I reply, Most probably he meant the seventh, since we know from several scriptures that this _is in fact the Lord's day_. See Nehemiah 9:14, and Isaiah 58:13. But you ask again, Why did he not say "the Sabbath," if he meant it? I reply by asking you, Why did he not say "the first day," if he meant it?

Brethren, who can say, that, from any or all of the texts commented upon above, the inference is _necessary_, that the first day of the week _is_, and that the seventh _is not_, _holy_? But this is precisely what _you_ infer from them. On the sole authority of these passages, together with that one in which Christ says, that he is "Lord of the Sabbath," you have no hesitation in affirming that the first day of the week is the very Sabbath day spoken of in the fourth commandment, and that the seventh day of the week is not _now_ more holy than any other; or, in other words, that the blessing which God put upon it in the beginning, (Gen. 2:21,) has been taken from it, and given to another day. What! because "there remaineth a sabbatism to the people of God," therefore the seventh day _must_ have ceased to be the Sabbath! Because "we will be glad and rejoice" in "the day which the Lord hath made," therefore the seventh day _must_ have ceased to be holy! Because Christ showed himself to his disciples once or twice on the first day of the week, therefore the seventh day _cannot_ be the Sabbath! Because the Pentecostal effusion of the Holy Ghost happened on the first day of the week, as is clearly demonstrated by arithmetical calculation, therefore the seventh day _cannot_ claim to be the Sabbath! Because the disciples met _once_ "to break bread" on the first day of the week, therefore God _must_ have unsanctified the seventh day! Because the Corinthian and Galatian Christians were commanded to "lay by them in store" on the first day of the week, for the relief of the poor saints, therefore the seventh day _can be nothing more_ than a working day! Because John was "in the spirit on the Lord's day," therefore the seventh day _cannot_ be "the Lord's day," as it used to be! Because Jesus Christ is "Lord of the Sabbath," and has the right to change it, or even to annihilate it, (?) therefore the seventh day _must_ have ceased to be a day of rest! O brethren, you dare not say, that any of these inferences flow from the Scriptures as _necessary consequences_. But if they are not _necessary_--if there is any way of avoiding them, without doing violence either to the text or context--how _can_ you ask me to believe that the first day _is_, and that the seventh _is not_, holy?