diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/61071-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/61071-0.txt | 10177 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 10177 deletions
diff --git a/old/61071-0.txt b/old/61071-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 1396331..0000000 --- a/old/61071-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,10177 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Constitutional Amendment: or, The -Sunday, the Sabbath, the Change, and , by Wolcott H. Littlejohn - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - - -Title: The Constitutional Amendment: or, The Sunday, the Sabbath, the Change, and Restitution - A discussion between W. H. Littlejohn, Seventh-day - Adventist, and the editor of the Christian Statesman - -Author: Wolcott H. Littlejohn - -Release Date: January 1, 2020 [EBook #61071] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CONSTITUTIONAL *** - - - - -Produced by Brian Wilson, Bryan Ness, David King, and the -Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. -(This file was produced from images generously made -available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.) - - - - - - - THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: OR, THE SUNDAY, THE SABBATH, THE CHANGE, - AND RESTITUTION. - - - - - THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: - - OR - - THE SUNDAY, THE SABBATH, - - THE - - CHANGE, AND RESTITUTION. - - - A DISCUSSION BETWEEN - - W. H. LITTLEJOHN, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST, - - AND THE - - EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN STATESMAN. - - - STEAM PRESS - OF THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION, - BATTLE CREEK, MICH.: - - 1873. - - - - -Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1873, by the - -S. D. A. P. ASSOCIATION, - -In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. - - - - - PREFACE. - - -As it has been thought best that the following articles, which, with the -exception of the Replies and Rejoinders, have already been published in -the _Christian Statesman_, the _Sabbath Recorder_, and the _Advent -Review_, should have a still wider circulation, it has been at last -decided to present them to the public in the form of the present volume. - -The occasion of their first appearance was as follows: Within the last -few years, a party has been organized in this country, whose especial -aims are the amendment of the Constitution, so that the names of God and -Christ may appear in it; the recognition in the same instrument of the -Bible as the fountain of national law; the securing of the reading of -the Bible in the common schools; and the enforcement by law of the -observance of Sunday, as the Christian Sabbath. Slowly, but steadily, -the friends of this movement are bringing it to the public notice and -enlarging the circle of its active supporters. A single glance at the -existing state of affairs reveals the fact that, at no distant date, the -issues which these men are making up will be the ones over which -contending parties will wage fierce contest. Already the press of the -country, by the drift of events which they find themselves incapable of -controlling, are compelled, almost daily, to record transactions which -are not only calling the attention of the people to a conflict which is -both imminent and irrepressible, but which are also continually adding -fuel to a flame which even now burns with a fierceness and volume -indicative of its future scope and power. - -In view of these facts, the writer of the subjoined articles, while -taking no particular interest in party politics, merely as such, -nevertheless felt a profound conviction that the time had come, in the -providence of God, when Christian men should offer a solemn protest -against a state of affairs which, while ostensibly inaugurated in the -interest of the kingdom of Christ, will ultimately prove most -destructive of religious liberty. This, he therefore attempted to do, -purely from the stand-point of the Bible. Through the courtesy of the -editor of the _Christian Statesman_, which paper is the organ of the -amendment party, the first seven of the following communications were -permitted to appear in the columns of that periodical. Subsequently, the -editor of that paper felt it incumbent upon him to take issue with what -was thus published, and to answer the same in a series of editorial -articles. To these again, the author of the original communications -published a series of rejoinders, in defense of the positions assumed by -him in the outset, and in controversion of those of the reviewer. These -articles, the replies of the editor, and the rejoinders thereto, having -been grouped together in the present volume, are offered to a candid -public for serious consideration. - -The reader will readily perceive that the whole discussion turns upon -the Sabbath question. Fortunately, also, he will discover that the -ground covered in the debate by the respective disputants is that -generally occupied by the classes of believers whom they represent. -Leaving him, therefore, to decide for himself as to which of the views -presented has the sanction of the divine mind, the writer of the present -preface can do no more than to give expression to his earnest desire -that the God of all truth will vouchsafe his Spirit for the illumination -of every mind which comes to the consideration of this subject with an -honest purpose to ascertain his will in the matter under consideration. - -W. H. L. - -_Allegan, Mich._ - - - - - TABLE OF CONTENTS - - -Article I. 5 - -Article II. 16 - -Article III. 28 - -Article IV. 36 - -Article V. 48 - -Article VI. 57 - -Article VII. 71 - -Explanatory Remarks. 86 - -Replies and Rejoiners. 87 - -Article I. 87 - -Rejoinder. 93 - -Article II. 107 - -Rejoinder. 116 - -Article III. 133 - -Rejoinder. 139 - -Article IV. 154 - -Rejoinder. 161 - -Article V. 177 - -Rejoinder. 182 - -Article VI. 202 - -Rejoinder. 207 - -Article VII. 225 - -Rejoinder. 231 - -Article VIII. 254 - -Rejoinder. 261 - -Article IX. 280 - -Rejoinder. 287 - -Article X. 313 - -Rejoinder. 321 - -Article XI. 351 - -Rejoinder. 355 - -Index of Points Discussed. 379 - - - - - ARTICLE I. - - -One of the marked features of our time is the tendency toward the -discussion of the Sabbath question. Nor can this subject be treated with -more indifference in the future than it is at the present. Agitation, -ceaseless, unrelenting, excited, and finally severe, is rendered certain -by the temper of all the parties to the controversy. On the one hand, -the friends of Sunday observance are dissatisfied with the laxity of the -regard which is paid it, and are loud in their demands for statutory -relief; denouncing upon the nation the wrath of God, in unstinted -measure, should their petition be set at naught. On the other hand, the -enemies of the Sabbath institution, in all of its phases, are becoming -bold in their protestations against a legalized Sabbath, as something -extremely oppressive and inexpressibly intolerable in its very nature. - -In all parts of the country, activity characterizes the camps of both -these contending hosts. Everywhere the elements of strength—hitherto -unorganized, and inefficient to the accomplishment of great results -because of that fact—are being brought out and employed in effective -service. - -Cincinnati, Chicago, New York, Boston, San Francisco, in their turn, -become the theaters where the skirmish lines of future combatants, on a -larger scale, are brought into occasional collision. The ordinary -appliances of dinners, processions, national and State conventions, -city, town, and district societies, are rapidly becoming the order of -the day, while those who are brought within the range of their influence -are stimulated and aroused, on the one hand, by earnest appeals to the -Bible and religion, and on the other, to natural rights and individual -conscience. So far has the matter now proceeded, so much has already -been said, so fully has the contest been opened, that retrogression -means defeat to either the one or the other party. And as to compromise, -this can never be attained, from the fact that the position from which -both parties are now seeking to emerge is that of toleration. Why, says -the ardent advocate of the Sunday law, it is not sufficient that I -observe the day of rest with strictness and fidelity in my own family. I -owe a duty to the public; I am a member of a great Commonwealth, which -God treats as a personality, and if I do not see to it that the statute -laws of the land are in harmony with, and enforce the requirements of, -the law of God, this nation, like all others which have ignored their -obligation to legalize and enforce his will in matters of this nature, -will be devoted to a ruin for which I shall be accountable, and in which -I shall be a sharer. Moved by such considerations as these, his purse is -open and his labors untiring for the accomplishment of that which now -appears to him to be in the line of both individual interest and -religious duty. - -Again, his neighbor across the way being, perhaps, of the free-thinking -order, and an ardent admirer of the complete separation of Church and -State, wonders that he has so long consented to that abridgment of his -personal liberty which has been made by statutory provision, and which -has hitherto compelled him to surrender much of what he calls natural -right to the whims and caprices of those with whom he differs so widely -on all questions bearing upon the relation of man to his God. -Henceforth, says he, I pledge my means, my influence, and my untiring -effort, to a revolution which, if need be, shall shake society to its -very center, rather than to consent to the legalized perpetuation of an -institution which requires on my part an acknowledgment of a faith which -I have never held, and of doctrines which I detest. - -Of course, all do not share alike, either in the enthusiasm or the -animosity which characterizes certain individuals when entering upon a -conflict like the one in question. In every party is found more or less -of the aggressive and the conservative elements. Especially is this true -in the incipient stages of its history. Some men are necessarily more -earnest than are others in everything which they undertake. Some are -bold, headlong, defiant; others, cautious, slow, and timid. One class -leaps to its conclusions first, and looks for its arguments afterward; -the other moves circumspectly, and, while it gives a general assent to -the desirability of results, finds a world of trouble in deciding upon -what means ought to be employed in securing them. One is forever foaming -because of delay, and fears defeat as the result of hesitation; while -the other protests against too rapid and ill-considered action. - -Such is, at present, the condition more especially of the positive side -of the Sunday movement in this country. The strong men and the weak men, -the resolute men and the undecided men, are struggling for the mastery -of the policy in the camp. One sort discovers no difficulties in the way -of immediate and complete success. Lead us to the front, say they, our -cause is just, and all that is necessary to success is the courage and -inspiration of battle. But hold, say the others, not too fast; public -sentiment is not prepared for the issue. And besides, we are not so -clear in our minds as are you respecting the lengths to which this -controversy should be carried, and the line of argument which ought to -be pursued. Why, say the first, what need can there be of more delay? -Nothing is more manifest than the means which we ought to employ for the -accomplishment of our purpose. Our work is simply that of enforcement. -Has not God said in so many words, in the decalogue, “Six days shalt -thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of -the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work”? Is not this -language explicit? Is it not a part of that law which nearly all -Christians acknowledge to be binding? Do we not enforce the observance -of the remaining commandments by statutory provision? And is it not -equally clear that this should be treated in like manner? Why delay, -then? Why not move upon the enemy’s works with the inspiring battle-cry -of “God in the Constitution?” Why not at once clamor for the amendment -of that instrument, and for the passage of statutes by which the better -observance of the Christian Sabbath can be secured? Give us these, and -our victory is won. Our Sunday mails, and trains, and travel, and public -amusements of every name and nature, can be removed at a single stroke. -As a result, the nation will stand higher in the estimation of God; and -the people, having acknowledged his supremacy, will have taken a long -step in the direction of final renovation and conversion. - -But wait, says another, not too fast in matters of so great moment. -Please bear in mind the fact that this contest is to be one of words and -arguments. Your danger is that of underrating the capacity and -intelligence of our opponents. If you expect to meet them successfully, -it must be by a logic which will bear criticism and examination. - -As an individual, I am by no means certain that the Bible authority for -our movement is so clear and abundant as you seem to imagine. - -The law which you quote in justification of our course is truly a -Sabbath law, and its import is unmistakable; but, unfortunately, instead -of making for our cause, it is diametrically opposed to your efforts, -and plainly declares that the _seventh day_ of the week is the Sabbath -of the Lord, whereas you are unmistakably occupying before the world a -position no less awkward than that of insisting that the first, and not -the seventh, is the one which should be enforced by legal enactment. -While, therefore, I am in full sympathy with the general purposes of -this movement, I am convinced that, before we shall succeed, we must -rest it upon a different basis than the fourth commandment. So far as my -individual preferences go—in order to avoid the difficulties which lie -along the line of Scripture justification for our conduct—I suggest that -we rest it upon the broad principle of social necessity, relying for our -success upon the generally conceded fact that _rest_ upon one day in -seven is indispensable to the well-being of individuals and communities. - -But, says a third party, while I agree with you in condemning the -proposition that the fourth commandment, as originally given, furnishes -us warrant for the observance of the first day of the week, I can never -consent to the idea of its unconditional repeal; for without it in some -form we are entirely without a Sabbath law; a condition of things which -would be deplorable indeed. I therefore conclude that that law has been -brought over into our dispensation, and so far changed as to adapt it to -the enforcement of the observance of the first day of the week, -agreeably to the example of Christ and the apostles. With this view, I -can safely predict power and triumph for the grand scheme upon which we -have entered. Give us a Sabbath of divine appointment and backed by a -sacred precept, and victory is certain. But so sure as we lower the -controversy to one which is merely corporeal in its nature and results, -and pecuniary in its considerations, defeat is written upon our banners, -since you have taken from us all the inspiration of the contest, and -dried up the very springs of our enthusiasm and courage. - -What the final result of such discussions will be, there is little room -for doubt. That a revolution is fairly inaugurated in the minds of the -people, it is now too late to question. What remains to be done, -therefore, is simply to execute the grand purpose for which it has been -instituted. - -That this cannot be accomplished by a merely negative policy, has been -illustrated too many times in history to require further demonstration. -Men, having once entered the field of conflict, universally become less -and less scrupulous in regard to the means employed to secure the -desired object. In the primary meetings of a great movement, the voice -of the conservative may be listened to with attention and respect; but -should he give expression to the same prudent counsel upon the battle -field, when the sword of the enemy is red with the blood of his -compatriots, his utterances would be silenced in a storm of indignation -such as would threaten his very existence, and consign his name to the -list of those whose fidelity was at least questionable, and whose -sympathy with the common foe was far from being impossible. - -So, likewise, with the half-way men in this incipient struggle, which is -about to throw open the gates of controversy upon one of those religious -questions which, above all others, is sure to be characterized, first, -by uncharitableness, and finally, by bitter hate and animosity. With -each advancing month, their hold upon the confidence of their associates -will grow less and less, and the counsels of their party will come more -and more fully under the control of those positive, nervous spirits, who -are swept along by convictions so deep and strong that they will bear -down everything before them. - -Nevertheless, candid reader, it is by no means certain that there may -not be much of truth in the positions assumed by the more moderate men -in the existing issue. At all events—since we have not as yet entered -into that impassioned state of the public mind from which calm -deliberation is banished by the necessity of immediate action—let us -pause here for a moment, and carefully weigh the correctness of the -suggestions presented above. - -Is it worth the while to enter the lists in the approaching struggle, in -order to secure the results proposed? - -I say proposed, because, of course, the result is as yet more or less -uncertain; nevertheless, we incline to the opinion that the end desired -will be substantially realized, so far as appearance is concerned. Yet -this will not be brought about in a moment, nor will it be accomplished -without a hard fight. It must, from the very necessity of the case, be a -contest which will enter, divide, and distract families, and which will -alienate a large portion of the community from the other. But, with a -united and well-drilled ministry, on the one band, backed by the compact -organization of their respective churches, and opposed by a -heterogeneous mass of discordant elements, there can be little doubt as -to final success. - -First, then, let us suppose that the policy inaugurated shall be that of -the class represented above as desiring to strip the subject of its -religious garb, and to array it in the habiliments of mere policy and -temporal considerations. Are the benefits reasonably to be expected from -such a course such as would warrant the enthusiasm now manifested by the -advocates of the proposed reformation? We believe not. In fine, so -certain are we of it, that we should not hesitate to predict immediate -and perfect paralysis to their efforts, so soon as they should inscribe -this doctrine upon their banners. How many of the gentlemen in question -are really so profoundly interested in the social status of the -working-man that their zeal in his behalf could be wrought up to the -point of sacrificing time and money, and of devoting voice and pen to -the mere work of giving him a septenary day of physical rest? What -satisfaction would be afforded them by the reflection that, as the -result of legal enactment, the carefully appointed police in our great -cities should be able to meet each other on the boundary lines of their -respective beats, on the morning of Sunday, with the accustomed -salutation, All is quiet! and cessation from labor is complete in all -parts of the great metropolis? Who would highly prize a coerced rest of -this sort? What particular gratification would be afforded to the -religious world, as they gather, in their costly churches, by the -thought that the great mass of the people were quietly sleeping, or -lazily lounging in the various places of their retirement? Certainly -there is nothing in such a state of things which offers results -sufficiently desirable either to reward them for the great sacrifices -with which it would be necessary that they should be purchased, in the -first instance, or to secure that patient continuance in vigilant -perseverance which would be required to insure the perpetuity of an -order of things at once so compulsory and so precarious. We say, -therefore, that to rest the contest upon this issue would be simply to -falsify the facts. It is not the physical consideration of rest, in any -large degree, which animates the mind and strengthens the resolve of -those engaged in the newly organized reform. No; there is something -behind all this. The informing soul, that which electrifies, stimulates, -and nerves to action, is the profound conviction that this is a -religious movement; that which is sought is the honoring of God by the -observance of a Sabbath such as is found in his word. If this be not so, -if the higher idea of Christian worship as the primary one is not -paramount in this matter, then the whole thing is a farce, from -beginning to end. Not only so; if what is sought is merely the -improvement of bodily condition, then the plan suggested is, in many -cases, far from being the best which might be offered. Take, if you -please, our over-populated cities, with the dense masses of human beings -who are there crowded together, under most unfavorable circumstances, -many of them perishing for lack of pure air, and others pale and sickly -for want of exposure to the vivifying rays of the sun, which is -continually shut out from their gaze by the massive piles of masonry by -which they are inclosed; who will not say that, leaving the spiritual -out of consideration, and setting aside the idea of the sanctity of the -day, it would be a blessing incalculably greater for them, should -provision be made whereby this should become to them a day of -recreation, while wandering amid flowers, and over hills, and through -groves, instead of one in which, either from necessity or choice, they -should still perpetuate the confinement which has already nearly proved -fatal in their cases? - - - - - ARTICLE II. - - -Turning from the secular phase of this subject, let us regard it for a -moment from the religious stand-point. - -Is there anything in the purpose itself which is worthy of the cost at -which alone it can be realized? In other words, since the object aimed -at is ostensibly that of bringing the nation up to the point of a -general regard for the first day of the week as a Sabbath, would such a -result be one which should be profoundly desired? - -We reply that this will depend altogether upon circumstances. In this -case, as in the first, mere cessation from labor on that day, which is -not prompted by a regard for the will and approval of Jehovah, could -afford no relief to a nation, which is seeking to avert divine -displeasure since there is no element in the act itself calculated to -recommend it to the favor of Heaven. To illustrate: The individual -sentenced to solitary confinement in the State’s Prison is precluded -from the possibility of laboring on the Sunday; will any one therefore -argue that there is any merit in his inaction on that day? Again: The -heathen nations, in common with the majority of the Christian world, -have many of them regarded the Sunday as a sacred day; should we -presume, therefore, that they are looked upon by the Almighty more -complacently on this account? You answer, No; and urge, as a reason for -this reply, that they have been engaged in a false worship, and have not -been actuated by any regard for the true God. Where, then, is the line? -Manifestly, right here: The men who honor God by the keeping of any day -must be prompted by the conviction that they are doing it in strict and -cheerful obedience to a divine command. - -Here, then, is the crucible in which we will try the metal of this -modern movement. If, when their grand design shall be accomplished—as -the result of many labors and toils—and, even though before their -purpose is attained, it shall be found necessary for them to reach their -object through a conflict intensely bitter and impassioned on the part -of the opposition, we shall witness the spectacle of a nation bowing -submissively to the _law_ and _will_ of _God_ in the humble and fervent -observance of a weekly rest of _divine appointment_, it will be the -grandest triumph which history has recorded. No treasure of gold—we were -about to say no sacrifice of life—would be too great a price to pay for -so glorious a victory. Let it be understood, however, that this must be -a voluntary and intelligent worship on the part, at least, of the mass -of the people. - -But will this be true, should our friends compass the great object of -their ambition? Let us inquire once more after their intentions. What is -it they advocate? The answer is, A universal regard for the first day of -the week, as the Sabbath of the Lord. - -But what is the authority upon which the majority of them rest their -argument for the proposed observance? Is it merely pecuniary advantage? -No, say they, it is out of a sincere regard for the God of Heaven, and a -conscientious desire to fulfill his law. But this implies religious -duty. So far, so good. It also clearly sets forth the fact that God has -a law, and a Sabbath which it enforces. The appeal, therefore, must -inevitably be to that law, as the proper instrument from which to -instruct the people. - -To that they must be brought, again and again. Its import must be -patiently taught, its sacredness must be thoroughly inculcated. Let them -but be satisfied by _sound logic_ that the divine statute is explicit in -its demands for a strict observance of the first day of the week, let -them be thoroughly educated into the idea that they are under its -jurisdiction, and let them be instructed that this whole movement -proceeds upon this religious conviction, and you have laid a foundation -which will uphold a structure of imposing dimensions and enduring -character, the cornerstone whereof is the fear of God, and an -acknowledgment of his presence in the affairs of men. But how is it in -the case in question? Is the commandment of a nature such as to support, -in every particular, the tenets presented by the reform under -consideration? This is really the vital point. Let it speak for itself. -It is the fourth of the decalogue which is urged: “Remember the Sabbath -day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; -but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt -not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, -nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within -thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and -all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord -blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” If this is not a Sabbath law, -then there is none in existence; for, _mark it_, this is the only -instance in all the Scriptures in which it will be claimed by any one -that we have a positive command for the observance of the Sabbath. So -far, therefore, as the first day of the week is concerned, its friends -have this advantage, that, if they but succeed in resting it upon this -commandment, their labor is ended; for it—_i. e._, the commandment—has -no rival. All that is needed, consequently, is a clear, pointed exegesis -showing that the day in question is the one, the observance of which the -divine Lawgiver has required. But, unfortunately, such an exegesis would -be beset with difficulties. To begin with, Who shall be able to -harmonize the declaration which the commandment contains in these words, -“The _seventh day_ is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt -not do any work,” with the utterance of those who, on the contrary, say -that the _first day_ is the Sabbath of the Lord, and must be observed as -such? The divine Lawgiver—as if determined that there shall be no room -for debate in regard to the day which he had in his mind—has identified -it in a manner such as to leave no room for dispute. In the first place, -he announces his willingness that six days of the week should be devoted -to secular employment, “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work:” -then follows the disjunctive, “but—the seventh day is the Sabbath of the -Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work.” Here it is made plain -that it is the “Sabbath of the Lord” upon which we are to rest. Again, -passing over the intermediate space, we come to the close of the -commandment, in which he sets forth three important transactions by -which that was constituted the Sabbath, and by which it may ever be -recognized. He says, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, -the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore -the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” That is, the day -which we are to keep as the Sabbath of the Lord is the one upon which he -_rested_, which he _blessed_, and which he _hallowed_. Therefore, before -the first day of the week can, with any show of reason, be kept in -fulfillment of this commandment, _i. e._, before it can be regarded as -the “Sabbath of the Lord,” it must be shown that, at some time, God has -rested upon it, blessed, and hallowed it. But this would be a difficult -task; for not only are the Scriptures silent, so far as the affirmation -of this fact is concerned with reference to the first day of the week, -but, on the contrary, they positively declare that it was the very day -upon which Jehovah _entered upon the stupendous undertaking of making a -world_. Should additional evidence be required on this point, _i. e._, -that the last day of the week, and not the first, is the one which -Jehovah intended to sanctify, we have but to cite the intelligent reader -to the fact that Moses, the prophets, the Lord himself, the holy women -after his death, and the whole Jewish nation—in whose language the -decalogue was given—are, and have been, unanimous in placing this -construction upon the Sabbatic law. - -Should any, however, perceiving the dilemma into which they are thrown -by the effort to enforce their view in the use of the law, as it was -originally given, seek relief in the position that it was so far amended -in the days of Christ as to admit of the substitution of the day of his -resurrection for that of God’s rest at the end of creation week, we -reply, If such a fact can be clearly made out, it would certainly -furnish the very help which is needed just at this juncture, and without -which confusion must inevitably characterize the movements of those who -feel the necessity of a Sabbatic law for the keeping of Sunday. - -Let us, therefore, carefully investigate this most important point. Is -it true that the Son of God did so change the phraseology of the -commandment of the Father that, from his time forward, its utterances -have not only justified the secularizing of the last, but have also -enforced, by the penalty of eternal death, a strictly religious regard -for the first day of the week, on the part of both the Jewish and the -Gentile world? Now this, if accomplished, was no trifling affair, and -could not have been done in a corner; since it involved the guilt or -innocence, the life or death, of countless millions of men and women, -whose condemnation in the day of Judgment for the violation of Sunday -sanctity would turn, of necessity, upon the words of one who both had -the power to change, and had brought the knowledge of that change -clearly before them. Certain it is, therefore—since God does not first -judge, and legislate afterward—all the light which is necessary for the -proper elucidation of this subject is now to be found in his written -word. To this, then, we turn; and with a profound conviction that the -language of Christ was true in its largest sense, “If any man will do -his will he shall know of the doctrine,”—we inquire, Where is it stated, -_in so many words_, that God made the amendment in question? - -Should the response be returned, as it certainly must be, that such a -statement is not to be found within the lids of the Bible, we answer -that this is a concession which, most assuredly, will greatly embarrass -our friends in the proposed reform. Sagacious men will not be slow in -discovering its bearing upon the subject, and it will be very difficult -to explain such an omission to the satisfaction of cautious and -reflecting minds. Should it be suggested, however, that—notwithstanding -the fact the change has not been set forth in so many words—it has -nevertheless occurred, and is therefore binding, we answer: Although the -transaction upon the face of it, to say the least, would be a singular -one, if an alteration has really been made, the next thing to be -ascertained is its precise nature. We have already seen that the first -law was very explicit in its statements; and all are conversant with the -fact that to it was given the greatest publicity, and that it was -uttered by the voice, and written by the finger of God, under the most -imposing circumstances. Now, if Christ—whose power to do so we shall not -question here—has really undertaken the task of adding to, or taking -from, this most sacred precept, will some one furnish us with an -_authentic copy_ of the statute, as amended? Now this is a reasonable -and just request. To declare simply that a change has occurred, without -making known precisely what that change is, is but to bewilder and -confuse. Conscious of this fact, the State is always extremely careful -to give to its citizens—in the most public manner—every variation which -is made in its enactments, lest the loyal man should be incapable of -proving his fidelity by obedience, or the disloyal justify his violation -upon the plea of necessary ignorance. Shall man be more just than his -Maker? Shall Christ—who, in every other respect, has, in matters of -duty, furnished us with line upon line, and precept upon precept—be -found, at last, upon this most important point, to have been unmindful -of the highest interests of his followers? Most assuredly not. He that -never slumbereth nor sleepeth, He that knoweth the end from the -beginning, He who hath said, “Where there is no law there is no -transgression,” has certainly never required his people to occupy a -position in the face of their enemies so extremely embarrassing as that -in which they would be compelled to ignore the plainest dictates of -reason and Scripture, by seeking to condemn in the world a practice -which is not necessarily immoral in itself, and against which there is -no explicit denunciation of the Bible. Who, then, we inquire again, will -furnish us from the sacred page the precept so remodeled as to meet the -exigences of this case? Is it _larger_ or more _condensed_ than before? -Does the first clause read, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy?” -If so, it is well. Is the second in order expressed in these words, “Six -days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work?” This, again, is good. But -how is it with the third, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord -thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work?” Here, unquestionably, the -change must begin. Who among us, therefore, can produce the divine -warrant for a reading of this passage which shall make it harmonize with -the keeping of Sunday? Who dare declare, upon his veracity, that he has -ever discovered in the sacred word an instance in which it has been so -rewritten as to read, “But the _first_ day is the Sabbath of the Lord -thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work?” - -Furthermore, passing over the instructions in regard to sons, daughters, -servants, the stranger, etc., what has the pen of the divine remodeler -done with the _reason_ of the commandment as found in the words, “For in -six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them -is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath -day, and hallowed it?” Has that been stricken out altogether? Or, is -there a glaring inconsistency in the remodeled statute, by which it is -made to state that the _first_ day of the week, instead of the -_seventh_, is now the Sabbath of the Lord our God, because of the fact -that, in the creation of the world, God rested upon, blessed, and -hallowed, the latter? These are weighty questions. Upon them, virtually, -turns the issue of an amended law. For, to amend, is so to change or -alter as to vary the duty of a subject; and if no one is capable of -informing definitely and particularly in regard to the precise -variations of the phraseology, then, of course, no one is able to decide -just how far our course of action should deviate from what it has been -hitherto, in order to meet the demands of the divine will as now -expressed, in a rule which has never been seen, and which no hand would -venture to trace with any claim to exactitude. Who, then, we inquire -again, is sufficient for this task? Not one among the millions of -Protestants who are so earnestly clamoring for the sanctity of the day -in question will seriously lay claim to the ability to perform that -which would at once elevate him to a position—in view of the relief -which it would bring to thousands of troubled minds—more exalted than -that of any saint or martyr who has ever lived. - -Nor is this all; behind all this pretentious claim for an amended law -are very many indications of a wide-spread conviction—though undefined -and hardly recognized by the individuals themselves—that the fact upon -which they place so much stress is, after all, one in regard to which -there are serious doubts in their own minds. As an illustration of this, -we have but to call attention to two things. First, on each Lord’s day, -so-called, thousands of congregations—after devoutly listening to the -reading of the fourth commandment of the decalogue, word for word, -syllable for syllable, letter for letter, precisely as it was written -upon the table of stone by the finger of God—are in the habit of -responding with solemn cadence to the utterances of the preacher, “O -Lord, incline our hearts to keep this law.” Now this prayer means -something, or nothing. It is either an expression of desire, on the part -of those employing it, for grace to enable them rightly to observe the -commandment as it reads—seventh day and all—or else it is a solemn -mockery, which must inevitably provoke the wrath of Heaven. These -people, therefore, judging from the most charitable stand-point, are -witnesses—unconscious though they may be of the fact—of a generally -pervading opinion that the verbiage of the fourth commandment has not -been changed, and that it is as a whole as binding as ever. Second, nor -is it simply true that those only who have a liturgy have committed -themselves to this idea. It is astonishing to what extent it has crept -into creeds, confessions of faith, church disciplines, and documents of -a like nature. But among the most striking of all evidences of its -universality, when properly understood, is the practice of nearly all -religious denominations of printing, for general distribution among the -Sunday-school scholars, verbatim copies of the decalogue, as given in -the twentieth chapter of Exodus. Yet this practice would be a pernicious -one, and worthy of the most severe censure, as calculated to lead astray -and deceive the minds of the young, if it were really true that this -code, in at least one very important particular, failed to meet the -facts in the case, as it regards present duty. - -In view of these considerations, a change of the base of operations -becomes indispensable. A commandment, altered in its expressions so as -to vary its import, and yet no one acquainted with the exact terms in -which it is at present couched—and all, in reality, being so skeptical -upon the point that even its most ardent advocates reason as if it had -never occurred—would certainly furnish a foundation altogether -insufficient for the mighty superstructure of a great reform, which -proposes, ere the accomplishment of its mission, to revolutionize the -State. - - - - - ARTICLE III. - - -Where, then, shall we turn for relief? There is one, and but one, more -chance. - -Acknowledging that the law, as originally given, will not answer the -purpose, and that its amendment cannot be made out with sufficient -clearness to warrant the taking of a stand upon it, we turn, for the -last time, to examine a position quite generally advanced; namely, that -of Sunday observance inaugurated, justified, and enforced, by the -resurrection and example of Christ. Is it true, then, that such is the -fact? Have we, at last, found relief from all our difficulties in the -life and career of no less a personage than the divine Son of God? Let -us see. - -The point of the argument is briefly this:— - -Our Lord—by rising from the dead, and by his practice of meeting with -his disciples on that day—both introduced, and made obligatory upon his -followers, the necessity of distinguishing between the first and the -remaining days of the week, as we would between the sacred and the -profane. Now, if this be a case which can be clearly made out, then we -are immediately relieved in one particular; that is, we have found -authority for the observance of the Sunday. But how is it as it regards -the seventh day? This, we have seen, was commanded by God the Father. -The obligation of that command is still recognized. Now, consequently, -if Christ the Son has, upon his own authority, introduced another day -immediately following the seventh, and clothed it with divine honors, is -it a necessary inference that the former is therefore set aside? To our -mind, it is far from being such. If God has a law for the observance of -a given day, and Christ has furnished us with an example for that of -another also, then the necessary conclusion is, that the first must be -kept out of respect for God the Father, and the last through reverence -to Christ the Son. Three facts, therefore, must be clearly made out, or -our situation is indeed one of perplexity. - -First, it must be shown, authoritatively, that the resurrection effected -the change which is urged, and that the practice of Christ was what it -is claimed to have been. - -Second, that that practice was designed to be exemplary; in other words, -that what he did in these particulars was of a nature such that we are -required to imitate it. - -Third, it must also be shown that he not only sanctified the first, but, -also, that he secularized the seventh day of the week. - -But can this be done? Let us see. First, then, we will consider the -matter of the resurrection. Now, that it was an event of surpassing -glory, and one ever to be held in grateful remembrance, there is no room -for dispute among Christians. But shall we, therefore, decide that it -must of necessity be commemorated by a day of rest? This would be -assuming a great deal. It seems to us that it would be better, far -better, to leave decisions of such importance as this entirely with the -Holy Spirit. Protestants, at least, warned by the example of Roman -Catholics, should avoid the danger of attempting to administer in the -matter of designating holy days; since, manifestly, this is alone the -province of God. Hence, we inquire, Has the Holy Ghost ever said that -the resurrection of Christ imparted a holy character to the day upon -which it occurred? The answer must, undeniably, be in the negative. No -such declaration is found in the Holy Word. Nor is this all; even from -the stand-point of human reason, every analogy is against it. It were -fitting that, when God had closed the work of creation, and ceased to -labor, he should appoint a day in commemoration of that rest. The -propriety of such a course, all can see. But, on the contrary, is it not -equally manifest that to have remained inactive on that glorious -morning, when the Son of God had burst the bands of death, and the news -was flying through all parts of the great city of Jerusalem, “Jesus has -risen to life again,” would have been a condition of things wholly out -of the question? Both the enemies and the friends of Christ—the one -class stimulated by hate, and the other released by the mighty power of -God from the overwhelming gloom and crushing despondency of three -terrible days—were, by the very necessities of the case, moved to action -by an energy which would cause them to overleap every barrier and to -break away from every restraint. Everything, everywhere, animated by the -new aspect which affairs had suddenly assumed, demanded immediate, -ceaseless, and untiring activity. And such it had. From the early -morning, until far into the hours of the succeeding night, scribe and -Pharisee, priest and Levite, believer and unbeliever, were hearing, -gathering, and distributing, all that could be learned of this most -mysterious event. We say, consequently, that so far is it from being -true that the day of the resurrection is one which should be hallowed, -either exactly or substantially as that of the decalogue, the very -opposite is the fact; and, if it were to be celebrated at all, every -consideration of fitness demands that it should be done by excessive -demonstrations of outward and uncontrolled joy, rather than by quietude -and restraint. - -Passing now to the other branches of the subject, we inquire, finally, -What was there in the _example_ of Christ and the apostles which in any -way affects the question? If they are to be quoted at all upon this -subject, it is but reasonable that their history should be examined with -reference both to the seventh and the first day; for, if precedent, and -not positive enactment, is to be the rule by which our faith is to be -decided, in a point of this significance, it is at least presumable that -the historic transactions by which this question is to be determined -will be ample in number, and of a nature to meet and explain all the -phases of the subject. That is, the Gospels and the Acts of the -Apostles—covering, as their history does, a period of about thirty -years—will afford numerous and conclusive evidences that both Christ and -the apostles did actually dishonor the old, and invest with peculiar -dignity and authority the new, Sabbath. First, we inquire then, Is -there, in all the New Testament, the record of a single instance in -which Jesus or his followers transacted, upon the seventh day of the -week, matters incompatible with the notion of its original and continued -sanctity? The answer is, of necessity, in the negative. The most careful -and protracted search has failed to produce a single case in which the -son of Joseph and Mary departed in this particular from the usages of -his nation, or in which his immediate representatives, during the period -of their canonical history, failed to follow, in the most scrupulous -manner, the example of Him of whom it is said that, “as his custom was, -he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to -read.” (Luke 4:16.) Nor is this all; it is a remarkable fact, and one -well calculated to stagger the investigator at the very threshold of his -researches into the data for the modern view, that, whereas the Sabbath -is mentioned fifty-six times in the New Testament, it is in every -instance, save one (where it refers to the annual Sabbaths of the Jews), -applied to the last day of the week. So far, therefore, as the negative -argument is concerned, which was based upon the presumption that the -claims of the old day were constructively annulled by the appointment of -a new one, its force is entirely broken by the record, which, as we have -seen, instead of proving such an abolition, is rather suggestive of the -perpetuity of the old order of things. Hence, we turn to the positive -side of the subject. - -How do we know that Christ ever designed that his example should produce -in our minds the conviction that he had withdrawn his regard from the -day of his Father’s rest, and placed it upon that of his own -resurrection? Did he, in laying the foundation for the new -institution—as in the case of the Lord’s supper—inaugurate the same by -his own action, and then say to his disciples, As oft as ye do this, do -it in remembrance of me? Did he ever explain to any individual that his -especial object in meeting with his followers on the evenings of the -first and second Sundays (?) after his return from the dead was designed -to inspire in the minds of future believers the conviction that those -hours, from that time forward, had been consecrated to a religious use? -If so, the record is very imperfect, in that it failed to hand down to -us a most significant fact. I say significant, because, without such a -declaration, the minds of common men, such as made up the rank and file -of the immediate followers of Christ, were hardly competent to the -subtile task of drawing, unaided, such nice distinctions. How natural, -how easy, by a single word, to have put all doubt to rest, and to have -given to future ages a foundation, broad and deep, upon which to ground -the argument for the change. - -But this, as we have already seen, was not done! and after the lapse of -eighteen hundred years, men—in the stress of a situation which renders -it necessary that they should obtain divine sanction, in order to the -perpetuity of a favored institution—are ringing the changes of an -endless variety of conjectures drawn from transactions, which, in the -record itself, were mentioned as possessing no peculiar characteristics, -which should in any way affect the _mere time_ upon which they occurred. - -Let us, therefore, with a proper sense of the modesty with which we -should ever enter upon the task of deciding upon the institutions of the -church, when there is no divine precept for the guidance of our -judgment, examine for ourselves. As we do this, it will be well, also, -to bear in mind the fact that our prejudices will be very likely to lie -entirely upon the side of life-long practice and traditionary -inheritance. In fact, nearly every consideration, political, financial, -and social, will be found, if not guarded with the strictest care, -wooing us to a decision which—though it might dishonor God, and do -violence to the principles of a clear, natural logic—would exempt us, -individually, from personal sacrifice and pecuniary loss. - - - - - ARTICLE IV. - - -First, then, we suggest that it would be well to collate all the texts -in the New Testament in which the first day of the week is mentioned. -They are as follows: “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.” Matt. 28:1. - -“And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of -James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and -anoint Him. And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, -they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun.” Mark 16:1, 2. - -“Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared -first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.” Mark -16:9. - -“And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the -Sabbath day, according to the commandment. Now upon the first day of the -week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing -the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.” Luke -23:56, and 24:1. - -“The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet -dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the -sepulcher.” John 20:1. - -“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.” John 20:19. - -“Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in -store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I -come.” 1 Cor. 16:2. - -“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.” Acts 20:7. - -Doubtless the reader is not a little surprised, provided he has never -given his attention to the subject before, at discovering the -meagerness, so far as numbers at least are concerned, of the passages -alluded to above. Nevertheless, let us take the data, thus furnished, -and from them endeavor to derive all the information which they can -legitimately be made to afford. At first glance, it will be discovered -that six of the passages of Scripture under consideration relate to one -and the same day, which was that of the resurrection. Written as they -were from five to sixty-two years this side of that occurrence, and -penned by men who were profoundly interested in everything which was -calculated to throw light upon matters of duty and doctrine, we would -naturally expect that they would seize these most favorable -opportunities for instructing those whom they were endeavoring to -enlighten in regard to the time of, and circumstances connected with, -the change of the Sabbath. Let us observe, therefore, how they discharge -this most important responsibility. It will not be urged by any that -John 20:1, and Mark 16:9, furnish anything which in any way strengthens -the Sunday argument. The statements which they contain are merely to the -effect that Mary Magdalene was the one to whom Christ first presented -himself, and that she visited the tomb very early in the morning. -Neither will it be insisted that the declaration found in Matt. 28:1, -and Mark 16:1, 2, and Luke 23:56, and 24:1, afford any positive -testimony for the sanctity of the first day of the week. On the -contrary, we think that every candid person will concede that the -bearing which they have upon the subject is rather against, than -favorable to, the case which our friends are so anxious to make out. To -illustrate: In Matt. 28:1, we read that “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.” Again, in Mark 16:1, 2, the -same general fact is stated, with the simple variation that, instead of -the expression, “in the end of the Sabbath,” are substituted the words, -“when the Sabbath was passed,” while in Luke 23:56, and 24:1, it is -declared that these things transpired on the first day of the week, the -context carefully setting forth the fact that the women had “rested upon -the Sabbath, according to the commandment,” and that it being past, they -came to the sepulcher, bringing with them the spices which they had -prepared. - -Now, putting all these things together, what have we learned? -Manifestly, the following facts: First; when the events transpired which -are set forth in these scriptures, there was a Sabbath; since it is -stated, by way of locating them in point of time, that the Sabbath had -ended before the affairs spoken of were transacted. Secondly; that the -Sabbath, to which reference was made, was the seventh day of the week, -since it preceded the first, and was that of the commandment. Thirdly; -that, if the first day of the week was a Sabbath, as is now claimed, the -women were ignorant of it, since it is clear that they did not go to the -tomb on the seventh day to embalm the body, because of its being holy -time; whereas, upon the first day of the week their scruples were gone, -and they came to the sepulcher, bearing their spices with them, to -accomplish a work which they would not have regarded as legitimate on -the Sabbath. Fourthly; that the seventh day was not only the Sabbath at -the time mentioned, but also that, according to the convictions of the -historians, it was the Sabbath at the time of their writing—since they -apply to it the definite article “_the_;” whereas, if there had been a -change of Sabbaths, it would have been natural to distinguish between -them in the use of explanatory words and phrases, such as are now -applied, as, for instance, “the Jewish Sabbath,” “the Christian -Sabbath,” &c., &c. Fifthly; that, while Matthew, Mark, and Luke do, in -every instance cited above, honor the seventh day of the week in the -most scrupulous manner, by applying to it the Bible title of the -Sabbath, they do, nevertheless, make mention of the day of the -resurrection in each case, in the same connection, in the use of its -secular name, “the first day of the week.” A slight which is utterly -inexplicable, provided the latter had really put on a sacred character; -since, that being true, it was much more important that its new claims -should be recognized and inculcated by those who could speak with -authority, than it was that they should perpetuate the distinction of a -day whose honors had become obsolete. Having now examined five of the -six texts under consideration, there remains but one more to occupy our -attention. This reads as follows: “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.” John 20:19. Here, again, we are -struck with the manifest disposition on the part of John, in common with -the other evangelists, to avoid the application of any sacred title to -the first day of the week. Twice, in this chapter, he makes mention of -that which is now regarded as the “Queen of days,” but in both -instances, he avoids, as if with studied care, attaching to it any -denomination by which its superiority over other days should be -indicated. How perfectly in keeping, for instance, it would have been -with the facts as they are now claimed to have existed—as well as with -the interests and desires of millions who have since lived—had he in the -text before us so varied the phraseology of the first clause that it -would read as follows: “And the same day at evening, being the -_Christian Sabbath_, when the disciples were assembled,” &c. This, -however, he did not do, and we inquire of the reader, right here, -concerning his _motive_ in omitting that which now appears to us so -desirable, and which would have been perfectly legitimate were the views -of our friends correct. Did he intentionally omit an important fact? Was -it left out because of an oversight on his part? Or, would it be safer -to conclude that perhaps, after all, the difficulty lies, not with the -apostle, or with the Holy Spirit, which dictated his language, but with -the theory, which seems to be out of joint with his utterances? - -Nevertheless, as it is still urged that, in the absence of a positive -declaration, this, the only remaining text, does furnish abundant -evidence of the sacred regard in which the day of the resurrection was -held—since it gives an account of a religious meeting held upon it, -manifestly for the purpose of recognizing its heavenly character—let us -examine more critically into the nature of the claims which are based -upon its record. That those with whom we differ should be tenacious in -their efforts to rest their cause very largely upon the account found in -John 20:19, is not at all surprising. It is the only chance, as we have -seen, which is left them of basing their argument upon a passage of -Scripture which relates to the day of the resurrection. So far as 1 Cor. -16:2, and Acts 20:7, are concerned, it will not be disputed by any that -their testimony is merely collateral evidence. If Sunday has become the -Sabbath, it was by virtue of transactions which occurred immediately in -connection with the rising of Christ. In other words, it was on the -third day after the crucifixion that Christ, if at all, began to impress -upon the minds of his disciples the Sabbatic character which had already -attached to, and was henceforth to continue in, the day which saw him a -conqueror over death and the grave. - -Nay, more; if the change occurred at all, it must have dated from the -very moment that the angel descended, the guard was stricken down, and -the Son of God, glorified, came forth. This being the case, from that -time forward it would naturally be the effort of Christ to produce in -the minds of his followers the conviction of this most momentous fact. -Every action of his would necessarily be—if not directly for the purpose -of imprinting the peculiar sacredness of the hours upon those by whom he -was surrounded—at least of a character such as to impart no sanction -either to a deliberate, or even an unintentional disregard, on the part -of any, of their hallowed nature. Hence, our friends, seizing upon the -fact that he met with them while assembled together in the after part of -the day, have endeavored to clothe the incident with great interest, and -have largely elaborated their arguments to show that this was not an -accidental occurrence, but rather partook of the nature of a religious -meeting, Christ himself honoring these instinctive efforts on the part -of the disciples to act in harmony with the spirit of the hour, by his -own personal presence. - -Before we sanction this view of the subject, however, let us give our -attention for a moment to the manner in which the previous portion of -the day, then closing, had up to that point been spent. Certain it is, -that Jesus had not, during its declining hours, been suddenly moved by a -newly created impulse for the accomplishment of an object which had been -just as desirable for twelve hours as it was at that moment. Sunday -sanctity had already become a fixed fact, and its knowledge as essential -to the well-being of the disciples in the morning, as at the evening. We -naturally conclude, therefore, that the very first opportunity for its -disclosure would have been the one which Christ would embrace. This was -afforded in his conversation with Mary. But, while there is no evidence -that it was imparted, it is at least presumable that she was left -entirely ignorant of it. - -The second occasion was presented in that of the journey of the two -disciples from Jerusalem to Emmaus, a distance of seven and a half -miles. Jesus walked with them and talked with them by the way, reasoned -with them about the resurrection, made as though he would have gone -farther, discovered himself to them in the breaking of bread, and -disappeared, leaving them to retrace the seven and a half miles to the -city, with no word of caution against it on his part. Nay, more; his -marked approval of the propriety of the act might properly have been -inferred from the fact that he himself accompanied them in the first -instance, in the garb of a wayfaring man; at the same time acting the -part of one who was so far convinced of the rectitude of his own and of -their action, that he was ready to continue his journey until night -should render it impracticable. (Luke 24:28.) Following these men now, -as they retrace their steps to the city from which they had departed, -and to which they were now returning—manifestly all unconscious that -they were trespassing upon time which had been rescued from that which -might properly be devoted to secular pursuits—let us observe them, as -they mingle once more with their former companions in grief. How does it -happen that they are congregated at this precise point of time? Is it -because they have at last discovered the fact that it has been made in -the special sense a proper day for religious assemblies? If so, whence -have they derived their conviction? Certainly not from Mary, or the two -disciples just returning from Emmaus. Assuredly, also, not from Christ -himself. - -But, again, is it not really from an induction on their own part, by -which they have themselves discovered the fitness of making the day of -resurrection also that of worship? Listen a moment. Hear their excited -remarks as, at this juncture, they are joined by the two. Do you catch -these words, “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon”? -(Luke 24:34.) Does not this establish the fact of their confidence in -the previous report? Unfortunately, the historian adds, “Neither -believed they them.” Here they are, then, manifestly still doubting the -very fact which some have thought they were convened to celebrate. - -But, again, what is the _place_ of their convocation? Unquestionably, -neither the temple nor the synagogue. The record states that where they -were assembled, “the doors were closed for fear of the Jews.” Evidently, -they were in some place of retirement and comparative safety, hiding -away from the fury of a people who, in their madness and cruel hate, had -crucified even the Lord of glory. We ask again, Where were they? Let -Mark explain. Certainly he is competent to the task. When describing the -very transaction we are considering, he says: “Afterward he appeared to -the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief -and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him -after he was risen.” Mark 16:14. Here, then, is the clue to the whole -matter. It was not a religious meeting, because they were in a frame of -mind to be censured, rather than applauded, because of unbelief. It was -merely the body of the apostles, gathered in their own quarters for the -purpose of partaking of an evening meal, where they were in the habit of -eating, and drinking, and sleeping—and where, at this time, they kept -particularly close, because of the perils which surrounded them on every -hand. That this is true, is further sustained by two additional -considerations. - -First; it was a place where Christ expected to find meat, and where he -requested such for his own use, and was supplied from their bounty with -broiled fish and an honeycomb, which, the record states, “he took and -did eat before them.” (Luke 24:41-43.) - -Secondly; that they were in possession of just such a rendezvous, is -clearly stated in John 20:10, where, speaking of Peter and John when -going from the sepulcher, it says, “They went away unto their own home.” -A few days later, Luke declares (Acts 1:13,) that when they came in from -the ascension, they “went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, -and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas; Bartholomew, and -Matthew, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the -brother of James.” - -Thus, by a natural and easy combination of the facts brought to view by -the inspired penman, the whole matter has been reduced to a simple -transaction, such as might have been repeated many times during the -forty days, and such as—in and of itself—fails to disclose any evidence -that the occurrences narrated, either necessarily or presumptively, -afford the slightest justification for the supposition that Christ -himself either designed, or that the apostles might legitimately -conclude that he intended, by joining them under these familiar -circumstances, to authorize one of the mightiest innovations upon the -practice of ages which the world has ever seen. - - - - - ARTICLE V. - - -Nor is this matter at all relieved by the statement found in John 20:26, -that after eight days, Thomas being present, he appeared unto them a -second time under similar circumstances. For even should we grant that -this was on the next Sunday evening—a matter in which there is, at -least, room for a difference of opinion—the subject is merely -complicated the more, so far as the view of our friends is concerned, -since here a second opportunity, and that a most excellent one, for -calling the attention of the disciples to the new character which a once -secular day had assumed, was entirely neglected. In this also, as in the -first instance, the conversation was of a nature to show that the object -of the interview was to give additional evidence (because of the -presence of Thomas) of the re-animation of the body of Christ, without -any reference to its effect upon the character of the day upon which it -occurred. But such silence, under _such_ circumstances, in regard to so -important a matter, is in itself conclusive evidence that the change -claimed had not really taken place. Furthermore, it will not be urged -that more than two out of the five first-days which occurred between the -resurrection and the ascension were days of assembly. Had they been—as -it had been decided, according to the view of those urging the -transition, that the Sunday should not be hallowed by positive -declaration, but simply inaugurated by quiet precedent, then the -presumption is, that this precedent, instead of being left upon the -insufficient support of two Sabbaths out of five, would have been -carefully placed upon the whole number. Nor would the precaution have -ended here. In a matter vital in its nature, certain it is that the -honest seeker after truth would not be left to grope his way through a -metaphysical labyrinth of philosophic speculation in regard to the -effect of certain transactions upon the character of the time upon which -they occurred; or the bearing of certain meetings of Christ and the -apostles upon the question as to whether Sunday had assumed a sacred -character, when at the same time his perplexity was rendered -insupportable by the fact, that the historian states, that like meetings -occurred on days for which no one will claim any particular honor. - -Take, for instance, the meeting of Jesus with the apostles at the sea of -Galilee (John 21), while they were engaged in a fishing excursion. -Assuredly, this did not take place on Sunday; else, according to the -view of our friends, they would not have been engaged in such an -employment. Just what day it was, no one is able to decide; but all -agree that its character was in no way affected by the profoundly -interesting interview which occurred upon it between the Master and his -disciples. If it were, then there is at least one holy day in the week -which we cannot place in the calendar, since no one can decide whether -it was the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth. - -If, however, you would have a still more forcible illustration of the -fact that religious meetings, were they never so solemn, can in nowise -alter the nature of the hours on which they occur, let me call your -attention to the day of the ascension (Acts 1). Here is an occasion of -transcendent glory. If the statements in the sacred narrative of events, -which transpired during its hours, could only be predicated of either -one or the other of the first-day meetings of Christ with his disciples, -it would at least be with an increased show of reason that they could be -woven into the tissue of a Sabbatic argument. Here are found many of the -elements essential to the idea of religions services, of which the -instances in question are so remarkably destitute. - -In the first place, those who followed our Lord to the place of meeting -were intelligent believers in the fact of his resurrection. - -In the second place, the assembly was not confined to a mere handful of -individuals, seeking for retiracy within an upper room where they were -in the habit of eating, drinking, and sleeping; but it transpired in the -open air, where Jesus was in the habit of meeting with his followers. - -In the third place, the congregation was made up of persons whom the -Holy Spirit had thus brought together for the purpose of becoming the -honored witnesses of the resurrection and ascension of Christ. - -In the fourth place, it was graced by the visible forms of holy angels -in glistering white, who participated in the services. - -In the fifth place, Jesus himself addressed them at length, lifted up -his hands to heaven, and brought down its benediction upon them, and in -the sight of the assembled multitude, steadily and majestically rising -above them, he floated upward, until a cloud received him out of their -sight. - -In the sixth place, it is said, in so many words, that the “_people -worshiped_ him there.” - -Now, suppose, for the sake of the argument, that some modern sect should -endeavor to transform our unpretending Thursday, which was really the -day of the ascension, since it was the fortieth after the resurrection, -into one of peculiar dignity, claiming, in defense of their position, -the example of Christ, and urging that the course which he pursued could -only be satisfactorily explained on the ground that he was laying the -foundation for its future Sabbatic observance, how would our friends -meet them in such an emergency? Deny the facts, they could not, for the -record is ample. There would, therefore, be but one alternative left. - -If transactions of this character are of a nature such that they -_necessarily_ exalt the days upon which they occur to the rank of holy -days, then Thursday is one, and should be treated as such. No line of -argument, however ingenious, could evade this conclusion, so long as the -premises in question were adhered to. Planting himself squarely upon -them, with the consent of modern Christendom, the advocate of the newly -discovered holy day, finding the record perfectly free from -embarrassments in the nature of transactions which would appear to be -incompatible with the notion that everything which Christ and his -apostles did was in harmony with his view, if possessed of that skill -and ability which has marked the efforts of some modern theologians in -such discussions, could weave a web of inference and conjecture almost -interminable in its length. - -All the facts connected with the meeting could be expanded, and turned -over and over, and exhibited from innumerable stand-points, so as to -yield the largest amount of evidence possible. Having dwelt at large -upon everything which was said and done at Bethany, he might return with -the solemn procession to the great city. Having done this, he would not -fail to call our attention to the fact that they did not conduct -themselves in a manner such as men might have been expected to do under -the circumstances on a common day, but that, on the contrary, impressed -with the sacredness of the hours which had witnessed the glorious -ascension of the Son of God, they immediately repaired to a place of -assembly, manifestly for the purpose of continued worship. Again, -scrutinizing with polemic eye every syllable of the history, in order to -extract from it all the hidden testimony which it might contain, his -attention would be arrested by these words, “A Sabbath day’s journey.” -Immediately, he inquires, Why employ such an expression as this—one -which occurs nowhere else in the sacred volume? Certainly it cannot be -the result of accident. The Holy Spirit must have designed to signify -_something_ by such a use of the term in the connection under -consideration. A Sabbath day’s journey! What importance could be -attached to the fact that the particular point from which Christ -ascended was no more than a Sabbath day’s journey from Jerusalem? The -expression is not sufficiently definite to designate the precise spot, -and must, therefore, have been employed to express some other idea. What -was it? Undeniably, it was introduced into this connection because of -the _nature_ of the _time_ on which the journey occurred. It was a -_Sabbath day_, and, as such, it was important that succeeding -generations should not be left to infer from the account given, that it -was a matter of indifference to the Lord how far travel should be -carried on such an occasion; but, on the contrary, that he was jealous -on this point, and that the expression in question was employed to show -that the procession of Christ’s followers, and Christ, himself, bowed -reverently to the national regulation respecting the distance to which -it was proper for one to depart from his home during the continuance of -holy time. - -But this line of argument, though plausible in itself, and superior in -fact to that which is many times used to support the tottering fabric of -first-day observance, would not, we fancy, persuade an intelligent -public to introduce a new Sabbath into their calendar. The verdict which -even those with whom we differ would be compelled to render would be -that which both reason and piety would dictate; namely, that the fatal -defect in the logic was the want of a thus saith the Lord. - -Passing now from the first six of the eight texts which relate to the -first day of the week, let us give to 1 Cor. 16:2, and Acts 20:7, a -consideration of sufficient length only to enable us to assign to them -the proper place which they should occupy in this controversy. While it -will be observed that they present the only mention of the first day of -the week after leaving the gospels, and while it is remembered that they -are separated from the occurrences there narrated by the space of -twenty-six years, it is a remarkable fact that the first of them, if not -in itself clearly against the conception of Sunday sanctity, at least, -affords no strength for the argument in its favor. It reads as follows: -“Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in -store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I -come.” 1 Cor. 16:2. - -Now, bear in mind that the inference here is, that the gatherings spoken -of were to be made in the assemblies of the Corinthians, the presumption -following that, as they must have been in the habit of convening on the -first day of the week, the apostle took advantage of this fact in order -to secure the desired collections for the saints at Jerusalem. You will -observe, consequently, that the postulate, or assumed point in the -discussion, is that the Corinthians were at the church, or place of -meeting, when the “laying by,” which was ordered above, took place. If, -therefore, this be not true, the whole logical superstructure which -rests upon it necessarily falls to the ground. - -Let us inquire after the facts. Does the apostle say, Let every one of -you lay by himself at the church? or, does he command that his pro-rata -donation should be placed in the contribution box of the assembly? We -answer: There is not a word to this effect. Nor is this all; the very -idea of the text is diametrically opposed to this notion. Before the -contrary can be shown to be true, it will be necessary to demonstrate -that which is absurd in itself; namely, the proposition that what an -individual has voluntarily placed beyond his own reach and control by -putting it in a common fund, can, at the same time, be said to be “laid -by him in store.” - -Furthermore, Mr. J. W. Morton, a gentleman who has given the subject -mature reflection and careful investigation, by a comparison of the -different versions and the original, has demonstrated the fact that, if -properly translated, the idea of the passage is simply that, for the -purpose of uniformity of action, and to prevent confusion from secular -matters when the apostle himself should arrive, each person should lay -by himself _at home_ the amount of his charities according to his -ability. We give the following from his pen: “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 -German. The Italian of Diodati, ‘_appressio di se_,’ in his own -presence, at home. The Spanish of Felipe Scio, ‘_en su casa_,’ in his -own house. The Portuguese of Ferrara, ‘_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.”—_Vindication of the True -Sabbath_, p. 61. - -The simple fact is, therefore, that while the text in question yields no -proof that Sunday was then regarded as a day of convocation, it was one -which might he encumbered with matters which would necessarily call -attention to the pecuniary affairs of individual Christians, and so -avoid the necessity of their giving thought to such things when Paul -himself should arrive; thereby preventing delay on his part, and leaving -them free to devote their whole time to the consideration of religious -themes. Thus much for 1 Cor. 16:2. - - - - - ARTICLE VI. - - -Advancing now to the remaining scripture, which is found in Acts 20:7, -we append its words as follows: “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.” By reading that which immediately follows the above, we shall -learn the following facts: First, that here is indeed a record of a -religious meeting upon the first day of the week (verse 7). Second, that -it was held in that portion of the day when the darkness prevailed, -since it was necessary to employ many lights (verse 8). Third, that Paul -preached unto them, and that, while he was speaking, Eutychus fell to -the ground; and Paul, having restored him to life, returned to his labor -(verses 7-11). Fourth, that he broke bread, or administered the Lord’s -supper (verse 11). Fifth, that he preached until break of day (verse -11). Sixth, that Luke, and the other disciples, preceding him, sailed -the vessel to Assos (verse 13). Seventh, that Paul, having preached all -night, until the dawning of the day, crossed the country on foot, -stepped aboard of the vessel, and went on his journey toward Jerusalem -(verses 13, 14). Now let it be borne in mind, that Troas was a city on -the west coast of Asia, located at the base of a peninsula, on the -opposite side of which lay the city of Assos; distant about nineteen and -a half miles in direct line from the former place. Let it also be -remembered that the promontory in question, projecting as it did into -the sea for some miles, made it necessary for a vessel, passing from -Troas to Assos, to traverse a much greater distance, and to consume more -time than one would be compelled to do in passing from one of these -points to the other by the overland route. This explains the reason why -Paul, who was exceedingly anxious to spend all the time he could with -the brethren, consented to perform the journey on foot; thus being -enabled to spend several additional hours with them, while Luke and his -associates were toiling to bring the boat around the headland to the -place of the apostle’s final embarkation. - -Returning now to the consideration of the meeting in question, it -becomes important to know just when it was entered upon. Did it answer -to what we would call a Sunday-evening meeting? If so, then Paul resumed -his journey on Monday morning. But, before we give an affirmative -response to this question, would it not be well to inquire in relation -to the system for computing time which ought to be followed in this -case? We moderns have generally adopted that of the Romans. With it, -beginning the day, as it does, at midnight, we would naturally answer -the interrogatory above in the affirmative. Should we do this, however, -we should unquestionably fall into a grievous error. The days of the -Bible commenced invariably with the setting of the sun. - -That this is so, the following quotation from the American Tract -Society’s Bible Dictionary is sufficient to demonstrate: “The civil day -is that, the beginning and end of which are determined by the custom of -any nation. The Hebrews began their day in the evening (Lev. 23:32); the -Babylonians at sunrise, and we begin at midnight.” Art. Day, p. 114. - -Reasoning, therefore, upon this hypothesis, the bearing of the text is -immediately reversed. As the meeting was held in that portion of the -first day of the week in which it was necessary that lamps should be -lighted, it follows that it commenced with the setting of the sun on -Saturday evening, and continued until daylight on what we call Sunday -morning. It is consequently clear that we have at last found one first -day in the Scriptures, the first half of which was observed in a manner -compatible with the idea of its being regarded as a Sabbath. But, as a -Sabbath day is twenty-four, and not merely twelve, hours long, it is -indispensable that those who seek to avail themselves of the record -before us, should be able to establish the point that there is nothing -in it which would go to show that the remaining portion of the day was -devoted to purposes, and employed in a manner, irreconcilable with the -hypothesis of its sanctity. Can they do this? Let us see. Would it be -legitimate for believers at the present time to traverse on foot a -distance of nineteen and a half miles between the rising and the setting -of the sun, on the first day of the week, in order to pursue a journey -toward a point of destination hundreds of miles in the distance? Would -it be admissible for others, prosecuting the same journey, to weigh -anchor and hoist sail in a friendly port, and coast along the shore for -a much greater distance? - -Who, among the friends of Sunday observance at the present time, would -venture to answer these questions in the affirmative, without putting on -the record some qualifying or explanatory clause? We hazard the -assertion that few of them, conscientious as we believe many of them -are, would be willing, by such a response, to place themselves on the -category of those who, to say the least, may have very lax views in -regard to what may be done upon holy time. And yet this is precisely the -situation in which Luke has left Paul, himself, and his associates, -before the generations of Christians who were to follow them. - -We ask, therefore, again, Can it be true that the great apostle to the -Gentiles, standing as a representative man in the great work of -transferring the religious world from the observance of the seventh, to -that of the first, day of the week, and this not by positive precept, -but, as it is claimed, simply by precedent and example, should have -allowed himself to throw that example, as in the case before us, against -the very work which he was seeking to accomplish? In other words, is not -the obvious import of the text such that the average reader, with no -favorite theory to make out, and a mind unbiased by the effect of -education and early training, would naturally come to the conclusion -that Paul and the disciples with him, and those from whom he parted at -Troas, looked upon the day of that departure as but a common one? - -We believe that if any other meaning can be drawn from the history -before us, it will be reached through constraint, and not through the -easy process of obvious reason. It is useless to talk about inability to -control the vessel, and the urgent necessity of occupying every hour in -order to reach Jerusalem in time for the feast. So far as the first of -these points is concerned, if it were well taken, is it not to be -presumed that, for the vindication of the course pursued, and for the -benefit of posterity, it would have found a place in the sacred record? -And as to the matter of limited time, the question of twelve hours -longer or shorter, was immaterial in a journey of the length of the one -under consideration. Besides, upon following the account as given, we -have from Luke himself that, before they reached their destination, they -stopped at Tyre for seven days (chap. 21:4), and at Cesarea, many days -(chap. 21:10), and yet had ample time to accomplish their object in -reaching Jerusalem before the feast. - -We say again, therefore, that these considerations, in the absence of -any allusions to them in the context, are simply gratuitous, or, at -least, are far-fetched. The narrative still remains. The great fact that -Paul and his followers did travel upon the first day of the week is made -conspicuous, and the only legitimate conclusion to be drawn therefrom is -that which alone harmonizes with the consistency of Paul’s life and that -of his brethren, as well as the wisdom and beneficence of the great God, -namely: That he did so because of his conviction that it was a day which -might properly be devoted to labor and travel. With this understanding, -the story is relieved of all embarrassment, and becomes a simple and -highly interesting account of a meeting convened on the first day of the -week, because of the approaching departure of a beloved brother and -apostle, and rendered also worthy of record by the miracle which was -performed upon Eutychus. But with such a decision, our labor is ended, -and with it the whole theory in regard to the Sabbatic character of -Sunday is exploded; for, not only does the scripture which we have been -investigating fail to yield the doctrine which it was supposed to -contain, but, on the contrary, it presents Paul as standing emphatically -against it. This being true, it belongs to a faith which he never -proclaimed, and which, consequently, was associated in his mind with -that which should not be received, though it were “preached by an angel -from Heaven.” - -Nevertheless, that we may not appear to have overlooked the two -remaining texts, which are generally quoted as affording additional -proof of the distinguished regard in which the first day of the week was -held, we turn our attention for a moment to Acts 2:1, and Rev. 1:10. - -As it regards the first of these scriptures, the claim is, that the -outpouring of the Spirit occurred with reference to a divine disposition -to honor the day of the resurrection. To this we reply, first, that if -this were so, it is a remarkable fact that there is nothing in the -connection to show it. The name of the day, even, is not so much as -mentioned. The inspired annalist, were this supposition true, would most -assuredly have given prominence to an idea which, it is claimed, was the -governing one in the mind of the Spirit, in order to enable succeeding -generations to extract from the facts narrated the true moral which they -were intended to convey. But mark his words. Is the declaration, “When -the first day of the week was fully come”? If so, we might say that this -day was foremost in his own mind, and in that of the Spirit. - -But such was not his language. On the contrary, his statement is, “When -the day of Pentecost was fully come.” Hence, it was the day of -Pentecost, or the great Jewish feast, which is here made to stand out -conspicuously upon the sacred page. If, therefore, we are to decide that -the transaction in question was intended to hallow any particular -twenty-four hours, undeniably they were those within which the Pentecost -fell. But those did not occur regularly upon the first day of the week, -nor was the institution one of weekly recurrence. It was annual in its -return, transpiring one year upon the first, and perhaps the next year -upon the second, and so on, through every day of the week. To reason, -consequently, that, because it happened to take place at this time upon -Sunday, the fact is necessarily significant of a change in the character -of the day, is altogether inconclusive. - -That were a cheap logic indeed, which would argue that the Pentecost, -which was mentioned expressly, and the return of which was waited for -with patience, was in no-wise affected, illustrated, or perpetuated, by -the outpouring of the Spirit upon it, whereas, a septenary division of -time—not thought worthy of mention by its peculiar title—was thenceforth -rendered glorious. Stand together, however, they cannot; for, if it were -the Pentecost which was to be handed down in this way to those who -should come after, then it would, of necessity, be celebrated annually, -and not each week; but, if it were the first day of the week which alone -was made the object of divine favor, then why wait until the arrival of -the great annual Sabbath at the end of the fifty days? Why was not some -other first day taken—say one of the six which had already occurred -between the resurrection and that time—in this manner avoiding the -possibility of confusion as to which event was thus honored? - -Should it be replied that the Spirit could not be poured out until the -great antitype of the fifty-day feast had been met in Heaven, we answer: -Then it was _this_ event, and not the resurrection, which furnishes the -occasion for the remarkable demonstrations which were manifested before -the people. We repeat again, therefore, that from whatever stand-point -we look at the text, it is the _Pentecost_, and not the first day of the -week, to which, if to anything, it attaches special importance. This is -further demonstrated by the fact that it is to this hour a matter of -grave discussion between theologians whether the day of Pentecost, at -the time under consideration, did really fall upon the first day of the -week or upon some other. Leaving to them, therefore, the delicate and -arduous task of adjusting questions of this nature—which are neither -important in themselves, nor easy of decision—we hasten to glance at -Rev. 1:10. It reads as follows: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, -and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet.” - -Here is something which certainly has a bearing upon the subject. The -language employed is of thrilling interest. Says the apostle, “I was in -the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” This being uttered about A. D. 95, -determines the point that God has a day in this dispensation, and also -proves that he has but one; since the language would be very indefinite -were there two or more days of such a nature. But by what system of -reasoning is the conclusion reached that this must of necessity be the -first day of the week? Assuredly, it can only be by inference. If it can -first be proved that the day of the resurrection has, by divine -authority, been anywhere styled the “Lord’s day,” then the point is -unquestionably gained. When those words were penned, more than sixty -years had passed since it is claimed that Sunday had been clothed with -divine honor. The whole canon of the New Testament, save the gospel of -John, had been written within that time. Ample opportunity had been -afforded for the work of placing upon record the sacred appellation -which was to be given to that period of time, which, having been -separated from everything of a secular nature, had been elevated to the -dignity of a holy rest. But had this ever occurred? The facts are -briefly these: The first day of the week, as we have seen, being -mentioned eight times in the New Testament, is always spoken of as plain -first day of the week; John himself, writing his gospel after the -appearance of the Apocalypse, everywhere applies to it this unpretending -title. Whenever the term Sabbath is used, on the other hand—as we have -seen that it is fifty-six times in the New Testament—it is applied, with -one exception, to the Sabbath of the commandment, or the seventh day of -the week. - -In view of these facts, take a common man, without bias or predilection, -one, if you please, who has never heard of the controversy in question, -place in his hands the Bible without note or comment, let him read the -following texts which confessedly refer to the seventh day of the week, -and we think the verdict which he would render would be decidedly in -favor of the venerable Sabbath of the Lord; of which it is true, as it -is of no other day, that he has again and again claimed it as his own. -The italics are our own. “If thou turn away thy foot from the _Sabbath_, -from doing thy pleasure on _my holy day_; and call the Sabbath a -delight, the _holy of the Lord_, honorable; and shalt honor him, not -doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine -own words; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord.” Isa. 58:13, 14. - -“But the seventh day is the _Sabbath of the Lord thy God_: in it thou -shalt not do any work:” “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, -the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore -the Lord _blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it_.” Ex. 20:10, 11. - -“And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for -the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Mark -2:27, 28. - -If such a decision be a just one, however, where are we in the matter -under examination? What has become of the modern Sabbath reform for -which we have been seeking justification in the word of God? First, we -sought to place it upon the commandment; this, we found to be out of the -question. Second, we investigated the claim of an amended law; that, we -discovered to be entirely without authority, and against even the -conviction and practice of the very men who urged it. Third, we turn, as -a last resort, to the precedents of Bible history; these, we found, so -far as they affect the question at all, to be overwhelmingly against a -movement which, while it claims to be in the interest of the God of -Heaven, is confronted by the following astounding facts: First, the day -whose observance it seeks to enforce by statute law is one, the keeping -of which, God has never commanded. Second, Christ has never commanded -it. Third, no inspired man has ever commanded it. Fourth, God himself -never rested upon it. Fifth, Christ never rested upon it. Sixth, there -is no record that either prophets or apostles ever rested upon it. -Seventh, it is one upon which God himself worked. Eighth, it is one -which, during his lifetime, Christ always treated as a day of labor. -Ninth, it is one upon which, after his resurrection, he countenanced, by -his own personal example, travel upon the highway. Tenth, it is one upon -which the two disciples, in going to and returning from Emmaus, traveled -a distance of fifteen miles. Eleventh, it was on that day that Paul -walked from Troas to Assos, a distance of nineteen and one-half miles. -Twelfth, it was on that day that Luke and his associates passed from one -to the other of these places by a longer route, working their vessel -round the promontory. - -That all these things could be true, and yet our friends be right in the -supposition that they are engaged in a work which commands the approval -of Heaven, is too absurd to require further discussion. A movement -pushed forward in the face of these facts may succeed, so far as -political success and legal enactment are concerned, but when the logic -for its Scriptural character is scrutinized as closely as it will be -before it shall plant its banners upon the capitol of the nation, all -conscientious convictions in regard to its heavenly birth will give -place to an inspiration, the source of whose strength will be found in -the superiority of party drill, and the overwhelming power of mere -numbers. Who shall say that the God of Heaven has not permitted it to -come to the surface for the very purpose of calling the attention of -honest men and women, as it only could be done by the debate which will -arise in controversy, to the scantiness of that Sunday wardrobe by -which, as with it our friends attempt to clothe a favorite institution, -we are so forcibly reminded of the bed and covering spoken of by the -prophet Isaiah: The first of which was “too short to stretch one’s self -upon,” and the last, “too narrow to wrap one’s self within?” So sure as -investigation is provoked upon this subject, so certain is it that, -sooner or later, thinking men and women will discover—as we have already -done in this article—that there is indeed a crying demand for a Sabbath -reform. Not one, however, which rests merely upon the power of -Congressional enactment, and Presidential sanction, but one which shall -find its authority in the highest of all laws, and which shall have the -approval of the King of kings and Lord of lords. - - - - - ARTICLE VII. - - -The conflict is finally open. The spirit of inquiry has lifted itself in -the nation; and all eyes will be turned toward the Bible, as really the -only source from which can be derived authority for a Sabbath reform -which shall be worthy of the name. - -Commencing with its opening pages, they will trace the Sabbatic -narrative until they have been able to verify the following summary of -history and doctrine:— - -1. The Sabbath, as the last day of the week, originated in Eden, and was -given to Adam, as the federal head of the race, while he yet retained -his primal innocence. Proof: “And on the seventh day God ended his work -which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work -which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; -because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and -made.” Gen. 2:2, 3. - -2. That, though the history of the period, stretching from the creation -to the exodus, is extremely brief, it is manifest, even from that -period, that the good of those ages had not lost sight of it; since the -children of Israel were acquainted with its existence thirty days before -reaching Mount Sinai. “And He said unto them, This is that which the -Lord hath said, Tomorrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord; -bake that which ye will bake to-day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and -that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.” -Ex. 16:23. “Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which -is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none.” Ex. 16:26. - -3. That God, unwilling to commit the interest of so important an -institution to the keeping of tradition, framed a command for its -perpetuity, which he spoke with his own voice and wrote with his own -finger, placing it in the bosom of the great moral law of the ten -precepts: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt -thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of -the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, -nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, -nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made -heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the -seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed -it.” Ex. 20:8-11. - -That this law has been brought over into our dispensation, and every jot -and tittle of it is binding now, and will continue to be, so long as the -world stands. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the -prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say -unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no -wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, -shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he -shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall -do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of -Heaven.”—JESUS, Matt. 5:17-19. “Do we then make void the law through -faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.”—PAUL, Romans 3:31. -“Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and -good.” Romans 7:12. “If ye fulfill the royal law according to the -scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well; but if -ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law -as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend -in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit -adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if -thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.”—JAMES, Jas. -2:8-11. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is -the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take -away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth -not; whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.”—JOHN, 1 -John 3:4-6. - -5. That, agreeably to this view, Christ—of whom it is said, “Thy law is -within my heart”—was a habitual observer, during his lifetime, of the -Sabbath of the decalogue. “And he came to Nazareth, where he had been -brought up; and, _as his custom was_, he went into the synagogue on the -Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.” Luke 4:16. “If ye keep my -commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s -commandments, and abide in his love.” John 15:10. - -6. That the women, whose religious conceptions had been formed under his -teachings, carefully regarded it. “And they returned, and prepared -spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day, according to the -commandment.” Luke 23:56. - -7. The Lord instructed his disciples that it would exist at least forty -years after his death, since he taught them to pray continually that -their flight, at the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred A. D. 70, -might not take place on that day. “But pray ye that your flight be not -in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day.” Matt. 24:20. - -8. That the great apostle to the Gentiles was in the habit of making it -a day of public teaching. “And Paul, as his _manner was_, went in unto -them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.” -Acts 27:2. “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and -persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” Acts 18:4. - -9. That, in the year of our Lord 95, John still recognized its -existence. “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a -great voice, as of a trumpet.” Rev. 1:10. - -10. That God has never removed the blessing which he placed upon it in -the beginning, or annulled the sanctification by which it was at that -time set apart to a holy use. - -11. That, in perfect keeping with the above propositions, it is, equally -in the New with the Old Testament, scores of times denominated the -Sabbath; and that, while God, and Christ, and prophets, and apostles, -and inspired men, unite in applying to it this sacred title, they never, -in any single instance, allow themselves to speak of any other day in -the week in the use of this peculiar appellation. - -12. That it is not only to continue during the present order of things, -but that, in the new earth, clothed in all the freshness and beauty of -its Edenic glory, creation, more than ever before, will be the subject -of devout gratitude, and weekly commemoration on the part of the -immortal and sinless beings who shall worship God therein forever. “For -as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make shall remain -before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And -it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one -Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the -Lord.” Isa. 66:22, 23. - -Putting all these facts together—connected, consistent, and unanswerable -as they are—men will discover that a great departure has taken place -from the original practice of the church, and against the explicit -command of God. Should they ask, as assuredly they will, when, and by -whom, it was inaugurated, it will not be a fruitless effort on their -part to obtain needed information. God has made ample provision for the -instruction of those who would do his will, and for the condemnation of -those who refuse so to do. Referring to prophecies given centuries ago, -mapping out beforehand the history of the world, they will find the -prophet Daniel—while describing the work of the “little horn,” which -arose among the ten horns of the great and terrible beast, and which -little horn nearly all Protestant commentators agree in applying to the -papal church—stating of it, by way of prediction, that it should “wear -out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws,” -and that they should “be given into his hand until a time and times and -the dividing of time.” (Dan. 7:25.) Consulting history, they will -discover that, so far as the saints are concerned, these terrible words -have been so completely fulfilled that this power has actually put to -death, in one way or other, at least fifty millions of the people of -God. - -Again, perceiving, as they will readily, that the “laws,” which this -presumptuous power should blasphemously claim to be able to change, are -the laws of God, what will be their astonishment at learning, from the -representatives of this great oppressive system—which alone has extended -through a period sufficiently long to cover the “time, times and half a -time,” or the 1260 years of Daniel’s prophecy—that it actually boasts -that it has done the very work in question. Nay, more; what limit can be -put to their surprise when they find these men absolutely pointing with -exultation to the practice of the Christian world in the observance of -Sunday, as an evidence of the ability of the Roman Catholic church to -alter and amend the commands of God! That they do this, however, in the -most unequivocal terms, will be abundantly proved by the following -quotations from their own publications:— - -“_Question._ Is it then Saturday we should sanctify, in order to obey -the ordinance of God? _Ans._ During the old law, Saturday was the day -sanctified; but _the church_, instructed by Jesus Christ, and directed -by the Spirit of God, has substituted Sunday for Saturday; so we now -sanctify the first, not the seventh, day. Sunday means, and now is, the -day of the Lord. _Ques._ Had the church power to make such a change? -_Ans._ Certainly; since the Spirit of God is her guide, the change is -inspired by the Holy Spirit.”—_Cath. Catechism of Christian Religion._ - -“_Ques._ How prove you that the church has power to command feasts and -holy days? _Ans._ By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, -which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict -themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts -commanded by the same church. - -“_Ques._ How prove you that? _Ans._ Because, by keeping Sunday, they -acknowledge the church’s power to ordain feasts, and to command them -under sin; and by not keeping the rest by her commanded, they again -deny, in fact, the same power.—_Abridgment of Christian Doctrine._ - -“It is worth its while to remember that this observance of the -Sabbath—in which, after all, the only Protestant worship consists—not -only has no foundation in the Bible, but it is in flagrant contradiction -with its letter, which commands rest on the Sabbath, which is Saturday. -It was the _Catholic church_ which, by the authority of Jesus Christ, -has transferred this rest to the Sunday in remembrance of the -resurrection of our Lord. Thus the observance of Sunday by the -Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the -authority of the church.”—_Plain Talk about Protestantism of To-day_, p. -225. - -Instinctively anticipating some providential mode of escape from the -terrible consequences of that great apostasy, out of which the religious -world has for centuries been endeavoring to work its way, conscientious -men and women will catch the notes of warning which for twenty-five -years have been sounding through the land, in these words: “Here is the -patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, -and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12. - -Inquiring into the origin of the message which is thus being given to -the world, they will find that, for a quarter of a century, God has been -calling attention to the subject of his law and his Sabbath, and that a -denomination of earnest men and women, but little known as yet among the -learned and mighty of the land, have been devoting themselves with zeal -and a spirit of self-sacrifice to the tremendous task of restoring God’s -downtrodden Sabbath to the hearts and judgments of the people. They will -find, also, that these persons have not entered upon this labor because -they anticipated an easy and speedy victory; nor, indeed, because they -ever believed that the great mass of mankind would so far shake off the -trammels of tradition and the fear of reproach as to be able to venture -an unreserved surrender to the teachings of the Bible; but simply -because they saw in it that which was at once the path of duty, and that -of fulfilling prophecy. - -Having accepted Dan. 7:25, in common with the religious world, as -applying to the papacy, and learning, as the result of investigation, -that the days of the great persecution were to reach from the decree of -Justinian (A. D. 538,) giving authority to the Bishop of Rome to become -the corrector of heretics, to A. D. 1798—when the pope was carried into -captivity, having received a wound with the sword agreeably to Rev. -13:10—these students of God’s word at once perceived that the next thing -in order would be the completion of the restitution, which had begun in -the taking away of his ability to put the saints to death, by a work -equally called for in the inspired prediction; namely, that of rescuing -from his hands the “times and laws” which he thought to change. Or, in -other words, that the effort of the pope to remove the Sabbath of the -Lord from the seventh to the first day of the week should be made to -appear in its true light; namely, as the work of a blasphemous power -which had held the world in its grasp for centuries. - -But, while they were clear in those convictions which led them in 1846, -under the title of Seventh-day Adventists, to claim that they were -fulfilling the prophecy of Rev. 14:9-12, they discerned that the same -facts which brought them to this conclusion also compelled the -conviction that theirs was to be the road of persecution: hardship, and -privation. They read in Rev. 12:17, in these words, “The dragon was -wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, -which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus -Christ,” the history of the last generation of Christians; and saw that, -in God’s inscrutable providence, it was to be their fortune to be the -object of diabolic hate, because of the commandments of God and the -testimony of Jesus Christ, to which they cling with determined -perseverance. - -Once more: In studying the 11th to the 18th verses inclusive of the 13th -chapter of the same book, they saw that—if their view of the work which -was assigned them was correct—that portion of the Scriptures was applied -to the United States of America, and indicated that this country was to -be the theater of a mighty contest between those who “keep the -commandments of God and the faith of Jesus,” and the government under -which they live, from which they could only be delivered by the coming -of Christ. This view they unhesitatingly proclaimed. For twenty years, -they have announced it as a part of their faith. When they first -declared it to be such, they brought upon themselves ridicule and -contempt, for, humanly speaking, every probability was against them. The -government was ostensibly republican in form, and professedly tolerant -to the very extreme, in all matters of religious opinion. The -Constitution had even provided that “Congress should make no law -respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free -exercise thereof.” - -Nevertheless, so firm were they in the conviction that they had the -right application of the prophecy, that they unhesitatingly walked out -upon their faith; and for a fifth of a century they have talked it, and -published it everywhere, notwithstanding the odium it has brought upon -them. Lest we might appear to be drawing upon our own imagination in a -matter of such importance, we append the following extracts from their -works. The words in parentheses are our own, and serve to explain that -which a larger quotation from the context would make clear of itself: - -“When the ‘beast’ (the papacy) had the dominion, all in authority must -be Catholics. The popular sentiment then was that none should hold -offices in the government, except they professed the Catholic faith. The -popular religion at that period was Catholicism. They legislated upon -religious subjects, and required all men to conform to the popular -institutions and dogmas of the papacy, or suffer and die. The image must -be made in the United States, where Protestantism is the prevailing -religion. Image signifies _likeness_; therefore Protestantism and -Republicanism will _unite_; or, in other words, the making of laws will -go into the hands of Protestants, when all in authority will profess the -popular sentiments of the day, and make laws binding certain religious -institutions (_i. e._, Sunday observance, &c.), upon all, without -distinction.”—_Advent Review and Sabbath Herald_, Vol. 6, No. 6, 1854. - -“It seems to me, even to look at the subject in the light of reason, -that a conflict must in time come between commandment-keepers and the -United States. This, of course, will lead those who find that they -cannot sustain their Sunday institution by argument to resort to some -other means.”—_Advent Review and Herald_, Vol. 10, No. 11, 1857. - -“When all concur upon this question (Sunday-keeping), except a few who -conscientiously observe the fourth commandment, how long before their -constancy would be attributed to obstinacy and bigotry? And how long -before the sentence would go forth, as it did in the days of Pliny, -‘that for this, if for nothing else, they deserved to be -punished.’”—_Review and Herald_, Vol. 19, No. 15.[1] - -How changed the political sky to-day from what it was when these words -began to be spoken! Now, thoughtful men are pondering whether, after -all, these things may not be so. They see a powerful organization -looming up in the country, which appends to the call for their -conventions the names of some of the most influential men in the land. -They hear them declaring in so many words, that what they are determined -to do is to sweep away the constitutional barrier between them and a -coerced observance of Sunday, so that all may be compelled to regard it -as sacred. What we want, say they, and what we are determined to have, -is such an amendment of the Constitution, 1. That it shall recognize God -and Christ; 2. That it shall enable us to secure the reading of the -Bible in the common schools; 3. That we may be enabled to enforce the -better observance of the Christian Sabbath, _i. e._, Sunday. - -These declarations, a few years since, would have appalled every lover -of constitutional liberty. Every man and woman imbued with a proper -sense of the genius of our institutions would have been struck with -horror at the very thought of pursuing the course in question. But a -change has come over the spirit of the land. Steadily, the advocates of -a day which has no authority in the word of God are drifting where all -before them have done who have sought to maintain a human institution -upon the claim of divine authority. It is idle for them to say at this -stage of the proceedings that they propose to regard the rights of those -who have conscientious scruples on this subject. God has said that the -matter will culminate in oppression; nay, even though this were not so, -reason itself would prove that this would be the case. Without -questioning the sincerity of the men who at the present make these -statements, we appeal to that very sincerity for the evidence that this -matter will end just where the Seventh-day Adventists have claimed that -it would. - -They have convinced themselves that they are called of God to a mighty -work. They believe that they have a noble mission. They are men of mind -and nerve. But, when a few months shall have revealed the insufficiency -of their logic, when Seventh-day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists -shall have confronted them with a plain “Thus saith the Lord,” against -their favorite scheme, they would be more than human if—refusing to -yield to arguments which they cannot answer—they should continue to look -with complacence upon the very men who, after all, will prove to be -their most formidable antagonists in the great conflict. In fact, it -would be a denial of both nature and history to say that they would not -at last come to regard them in the light of enemies of God, really more -worthy of condemnation and coercion than those who were simply -unbelievers in any Sabbath at all, and so incapable of standing before -the systematic effort which they have set in motion.[2] - -But, candid reader, the facts are before you, and between us and these -events there will be ample time for calm reflection, and deliberate -decision. Where do you choose to stand in this final conflict between -the venerable Sabbath of the Lord and its modern papistic rival? Will -you keep the commandments of God, as uttered by his voice and written by -his finger? or will you henceforth pay intelligent homage to the man of -sin, by the observance of a day which finds its authority alone in the -mutilated form of the commandments, as they come from his hand? May God -help you to make a wise choice. - -Footnote 1: - - For further information upon this subject, the reader is referred to - “The Three Angels’ Messages” and the “United States in Prophecy,” - published at the _Review and Herald_ Office, Battle Creek, Mich. - -Footnote 2: - - Persons desiring to investigate this question still further, by - addressing the author of these articles, will receive by mail, without - charge, a tract in which he has discussed at length a branch of this - subject merely alluded to in this communication. - - - - - EXPLANATORY REMARKS. - - -Immediately on the publication of the foregoing articles in the -_Christian Statesman_, the editor of that paper announced his purpose to -review them in the columns of that periodical. This purpose he -subsequently carried out in the publication of eleven communications, in -which various strictures were offered upon the positions taken by me in -my original contributions. I immediately requested the privilege of -replying to these criticisms in the columns of the _Statesman_, so that -those who had read my argument in the beginning, and the replies of the -editor of the _Statesman_ thereto, might have an opportunity to see the -relative strength of the positions occupied by that gentleman and myself -tested in fair and open debate. My petition, however, was denied, and I -was compelled either to remain silent or seek elsewhere for an -opportunity to make my defense. Fortunately, at this juncture, the -columns of the _Advent Review_, which is the organ of the Seventh-day -Adventists, were freely offered me for the purpose in question, and in -them the Replies of the editor of the _Statesman_, and my Rejoinders -thereto, have since been published. To these Replies and Rejoinders, as -they appeared therein, the remainder of the present volume is devoted. -To them, the reader is earnestly invited to give his most serious -attention, since they present, side by side, the lines of argument -usually employed for and against the Sabbath of the Lord. - -W. H. L. - - - - - REPLIES AND REJOINDERS. - - - - - Reply of the Editor of the Christian Statesman. - ARTICLE ONE. - SEVENTH-DAY SABBATARIANS AND THE CHRISTIAN AMENDMENT. - - -We have given not a little space to the argument against the Christian -Amendment of our National Constitution from the stand-point of the -advocates of the seventh-day Sabbath. This argument, in brief, is this: -The proposed amendment, in its practical working, is intended to secure -the better observance of the first day of the week, as the civil -Sabbath. But the Bible, the revealed law of God, it is affirmed, -contains no warrant either for individual or national observance of the -first day of the week. The amendment, therefore, it is maintained, -should not be favored, but earnestly opposed, by those who acknowledge -the supreme authority of the law of the Bible. - -This, it will be seen at a glance, is no argument against the principle -of the proposed amendment. On the other hand, it bases itself on that -very principle, viz., that it is the bounden duty of the nation to -acknowledge the authority of God, and take his revealed word as the -supreme rule of its conduct. The argument, therefore, instead of being -directed against the amendment itself, is directed almost entirely -against that interpretation of the divine law of the Scriptures which -fixes the Christian Sabbath on the first day of the week. We consented -to admit to our columns a short series of brief articles presenting an -argument against the amendment. Pressing the lines of courtesy and -fairness far beyond the limits of our agreement, we have, in fact, -admitted many long articles, the burden of which has been to show that -there is no warrant in the word of God for the observance of the first -day of the week as the Sabbath of divine appointment. We shall expect -equal generosity from the journals of our seventh-day Sabbatarian -friends. - -The amendment proposed is in substance as follows: An acknowledgment of -God as the ultimate source of all power and authority in civil -government; of Jesus Christ as ruler of nations; and of the Bible as the -fountain of law, and the supreme rule of national conduct. Let this be -distinctly borne in mind. We have here a clear assertion of the very -principles for which the seventh-day Sabbatarian most strenuously -contends. - -Just here, we would take occasion to say that even if the proposed -amendment contained an express acknowledgment, in so many words, of the -first-day Sabbath, and if the argument for the seventh-day Sabbath were -a perfect demonstration, there would still be, on that account, as -matters actually stand in our land at present, no valid objection -against such explicit Constitutional acknowledgment of the first day. - -Suppose a company of the advocates of the seventh-day Sabbath, going -forth as missionaries, should discover, in a distant sea, an island -inhabited by a people in many respects highly civilized, possessing a -portion of the Bible, and observing one day in seven, say the fourth day -of the week, as a day of rest and worship of the true God, and -acknowledging it as such in their Constitution of government. Suppose -that in the same island should be found a large and active minority, -thoroughly infidel and atheistic, striving in every way to overturn the -Sabbath. The missionaries, perceiving much room and opportunity for -doing good to the people, settle among them, and seek, among many -things, to change the Sabbath to what they regard as the proper day. In -what way would they attempt to accomplish this? Would they permit -themselves for a moment to be classed with the infidel and atheistic -opponents of the Sabbath? Would they not stand side by side with those -who defended the Sabbath observances of the country against the attacks -of immoral and unbelieving enemies of all Christian institutions? - -If these missionaries were advocates of the first-day Sabbath, and we -were of the number, for our part, this is what we would do: We would -practice for ourselves the observance of what we are persuaded is the -Christian Sabbath. We would multiply and scatter abroad copies of the -entire Bible, and seek to convince the people and the nation that God’s -law requires the observance of the first day. In the meantime, confident -that, by the blessing of the Head of the church, the circulation of the -divine word and the proclamation of its truths would at length change -the conviction of the islanders, we should say to them: “Do not cease to -observe a day of rest and worship. To have one such a day in every seven -is right. Do not blot out its acknowledgment from the Constitution. You -need its legal safe-guards. True, there is no divine warrant for the -observance of the fourth day of the week instead of the first. But a -fourth-day Sabbath is better than no Sabbath at all. We will help you to -preserve from the assaults of our common enemies the observances of the -Sabbath, that you may have them to transfer, as we urge you to do, to -the first day of the week.” Would the advocates of the seventh-day -Sabbath do otherwise, except in substituting the seventh day for the -first? And now let us take the actual, corresponding case in our own -land. The great mass of Christians here, as elsewhere, regard the first -day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord. Admit, for the sake of the -illustration, that they have no better ground for their opinion than the -islanders mentioned above. Is it not right for them to have a day of -rest and worship? Is it not right for them to observe one such a day in -seven? Is it maintained that, because the day is not the proper one, -there is and can be nothing right about these Sabbath observances? Then, -if all is wrong, it must be better to have no Sabbath at all, and -utterly secularize the week. This, our seventh-day friends cannot and -will not admit. They gladly testify that our first-day Sabbath, poorly -as it may be observed, is infinitely to be preferred to the unbroken -current of the worldliness of the week. A Sabbathless week; successive -rounds of equally secularized days, marked, if marked at all, by the -recurrence of unusual worldly gayety and dissipation; this is what -infidelity and atheism would give us for the existing Sabbath. Do the -friends of the seventh-day Sabbath desire any such substitution? Their -argument against the proposed amendment on the ground that it expressly -or impliedly contains an acknowledgment of the first-day Sabbath, is, -that it will enforce existing Sabbath laws, and strengthen first-day -Sabbath observances. But is it not better to do this than accept the -dread alternative? Even from this point of view, then, we claim for the -proposed amendment, what in some cases it has actually, and, we believe, -most consistently, received, the approval and support of seventh-day -Sabbatarians. - -But we return to the form of the proposed amendment. It expresses, as it -should, only the most fundamental principles. It asserts the duty of the -nation to acknowledge God in Christian relations. It recognizes the -Bible as the fountain of the nation’s laws, and the supreme rule of its -conduct. Now, if we were among either the first-day or the seventh-day -missionaries, in the case of the islanders already referred to, such a -national acknowledgment of the authority of the Bible is just exactly -what we would desire. If the islanders had this principle, as has been -supposed, incorporated into their written Constitution, we could ask for -nothing more advantageous for our missionary work. If they had it not, -and certain citizens were laboring to secure its insertion by an -amendment of the instrument, we would most assuredly accord these -laborers our heartiest encouragement and support. We should suspect -ourselves of prejudice, or rather of a deficiency in good common sense, -if we found ourselves inclined to pursue an opposite course. Believing -that God’s law requires the observance of another day than the fourth, -how could we reasonably do anything else than co-operate and rejoice in -the work of leading such a people to acknowledge the supreme authority -of that law, and to register their purpose in the fundamental instrument -of their government, to adjust all national affairs according to its -requirements? - -And now, what can be said of our seventh-day Sabbatarian brethren? Are -they not inconsistent? They proclaim the duty of the nation to -acknowledge “the highest of all laws.” So far, we are agreed. They -maintain that the Bible is that law. Here, too, we are at one. And yet -they—not all of them, we are happy to state—oppose a movement which aims -to secure in the organic law and life of the nation a sincere, reverent, -and obedient acknowledgment of the authority of the Bible—an -acknowledgment which forecloses discussion on no question on which -Christians or others may differ, but which brings the final appeal in -all national controversies to the tribunal of the unerring word of God. - -The inconsistency of this attitude of opposition to the Christian -Amendment cannot but create unfavorable presumptions in regard to the -soundness of judgment of any who may occupy it. An attack from so weak a -point, upon the Constitutional acknowledgment of the Christian -Scriptures, it will be generally felt, does not betoken a very -formidable assault upon the Sabbath of the Christian church. And yet, -notwithstanding this, to our mind, exceedingly unfortunate connection, -we would bear cheerful testimony to the fact that the articles we have -inserted, so far as they are an argument against the first-day Sabbath, -and this is manifestly the point which the writer had principally in -view, contain a clear, calm, courteous, and attractively written -presentation of one side of a very important subject. We shall present -the other side of the question in succeeding issues of this journal. - - - - - REJOINDER, BY W. H. LITTLEJOHN. - “SEVENTH-DAY SABBATARIANS AND THE CHRISTIAN AMENDMENT.” - - -We have debated for some time in our own mind the propriety of -attempting an answer to the strictures, if such they may be called, upon -our articles on the Constitutional Amendment. Having decided, however, -that they contain a show of logic which might deceive the careless -reader, we have at last determined to give them a notice commensurate -with the importance they assume, if not from their intrinsic merit, at -least from the distinguished source whence they emanate. - -Before doing this, we take pleasure in acknowledging the generosity of -their author in allowing us to discuss in the columns of his paper the -subject from a stand-point of a nature calculated to dampen rather than -stimulate the ardor of his readers in the work in which, with him, they -are engaged. From the outset, we have discovered no disposition to take -any advantage by which the full effect of what we had to say might in -any way be lessened. On the contrary, attention has several times been -called to our communications, as being worthy of perusal by all. - -Having said thus much in reference to the treatment we received at the -hands of the editor of the _Statesman_ up to the time of the completion -of the publication of our articles, we shall be pardoned for expressing -our surprise at finding ourselves, in his first reply, standing somewhat -in the attitude of one who had taken advantage of indulgence shown him -to present a line of argument different from that proposed at the -beginning. - -It is possible that we have mistaken the design of the statements to -which we allude. This we hope may prove to be the case; for, so far as -we are concerned, individually, we have covered the precise ground which -we designed to at the first. If the editor of the _Statesman_ has found -himself disappointed, either in the nature or the length of the -argument, he is to blame, and not we. - -1. Because, so far as the matter of length is concerned, we stated to -him that we should leave that entirely “with his magnanimity, convinced -that he would not cut us short in our work so long as what we had to say -was pointed, gentlemanly, and of such a nature as to bear forcibly upon -the question at issue between us.” - -2. As it regards the scope of the articles, we stated, unqualifiedly, -that we should treat the subject from the stand-point of an observer of -the seventh day, appealing to the Bible for our authority. Nor were we -content with declaring our plan of opposition by _letter_, but we went -so far as to give, in the caption of our articles themselves, an outline -of the order in which we should treat the subject. It was as follows: -“The Constitutional Amendment; _or_, the Sunday, the Sabbath, the -Change, and the Restitution.” In it, as will be observed, is exactly set -forth the manner in which we discussed the propriety of the amendment; -(1) Showing the emptiness of the claims of the Sunday. (2) The force and -obligation of those of the seventh day. (3) The manner in which the -change of days occurred, and (4) The work which God has inaugurated for -the purpose of bringing about the Restitution. - -Thus much by way of personal acknowledgment and explanation. - -We turn now to the criticism proper upon our argument. - -First, there is an attempt to state the positions which we assumed to -prove. - -In reply, it is sufficient to say that it is deficient in one very -important particular. That particular relates to our proposition that -God himself has inaugurated a movement _entirely outside of, and opposed -to_, the Constitutional Amendment party, for the purpose of bringing -about a Sabbath reform in his own way. For proof of this, we appeal to -our last article in full. It is, to say the least, not a little -remarkable that the editor of the _Statesman_ should have overlooked -this point in our communications, since a perception of it would have -saved him the perpetration of the great mistake which he has made, as we -shall see hereafter. - -Secondly, It is intimated that the proposed amendment is not necessarily -connected with the Sabbath question; and that, therefore, observers of -the seventh day should unite with those of the first in securing its -passage, which, being done, the differences between them could be -settled at leisure. - -Now we confess to not a little surprise that such a position should be -taken by a gentleman of so much candor and penetration as the editor of -the _Statesman_. Have we then been deceived up to this point? Is it true -that Sunday observance has not heretofore been represented as something -of vital importance to the nation, to be secured, and only secured, by -the alteration of the Constitution as proposed? Have these gentlemen not -been really in earnest when they have appealed to the strong love of the -people for the strict observance of what they have been pleased to call -the Sabbath, in their endeavors to arouse them to the significance of -their movement? If they have not, then they are unworthy of public -confidence, and should henceforth be cast down from the leadership of a -great party, which boasts, not only its morality, but also its -Christianity. - -Let us see, then, whether the amendment, which is now in their hands, -is, or is not, by their own confession, to be employed in the interest -of Sunday observance. - -That the _Christian Statesman_ is a fair exponent of the opinions and -intentions of the leading spirits in the movement for the amendment, we -think no one will have the hardihood to deny. What it advocates and -favors, then, is destined to stand or fall with the triumph or defeat of -the men who speak through it. Turning to the prospectus of the identical -copy of the _Statesman_ which contains the criticism which we are -reviewing, we find the following statement: “The design of this paper, -as its name suggests, is the discussion of the principles of civil -government in the light of Christianity. It has been established to -advocate the proposed Religious Amendment to the Constitution of the -United States. At the same time, it will aid in maintaining all existing -Christian features in our civil institutions, in particular, laws -against the desecration of the Christian Sabbath,” &c. - -We might pause here, but, in a matter of this importance, let us make -certainty doubly certain. - -It was _strange_ that the writer should have made the assertion which he -did, with the prospectus from which we have quoted before him. It is -_passing strange_ that—as if guided by a Providence which had doomed him -to make a complete exposure of his real sentiments, although in so doing -his own consistency should be involved—he should, within two weeks from -the penning of the above assertion, go back upon the files of his -periodical for two years, and reprint, by way of _emphasis_, according -to his own statement, the following editorial, which forever settles the -point that he believes and knows that the amendment and Sunday-keeping -are destined to be joined together in a common victory. As the reader -peruses this editorial, let him bear in mind the fact that it is not the -effusion of an excited and exasperated man, but the expression of a deep -and settled conviction which has once found utterance, and which so -perfectly expresses the real sentiments of its author that, after years -of deliberate reflection, he felt the truth of what he had said so -forcibly that he was constrained to give it fresh utterance. Let him -also note the fact that the italics are not our own, but those of the -editor. We regret that we have not space to give it in full, and invite -those who can do so, by all means to turn to the copy of the _Statesman_ -which contains it, and read it for themselves. - -“Time for the meeting of Congress, ... Two years ago we printed the -following telegram, dated at Washington, on Sabbath, Dec. 4, and -commented on it in the following terms, which we now emphatically -repeat: ‘The trains yesterday and _to-day_ brought large accessions to -the number of Congressmen and visitors already here, and _by to-morrow -morning_ it is expected that nearly every Senator and member will have -arrived.’ Thus the fact is heralded over the whole country that a large -number of the members of the National Congress openly and wantonly -indulge in common travel on the Sabbath.... And there are other -reflections suggested by their conduct. - -“1. _Not one of those men who thus violated the Sabbath is fit to hold -any official position in a Christian nation...._ The interests of a -nation can never be safe in the hands of Sabbath-breakers, and every one -of these Congressmen has done that for which, if our laws were right, he -ought to be impeached and removed. - -“2. _The sin of these Congressmen is a national sin_, because the nation -has not said to them in the Constitution, the supreme rule for our -public servants, ‘We charge you to serve us in accordance with the -higher law of God.’ These Sabbath-breaking railroads, moreover, are -corporations created by the State, and amenable to it. The State is -responsible to God for the conduct of these creatures which it calls -into being. It is bound, therefore, to restrain them from this, as from -other crimes; and any violation of the Sabbath, by any corporation, -should work immediate forfeiture of its charter. And the Constitution of -the United States, with which all State legislation is required to be in -harmony, should be of such character as to prevent any State from -tolerating such infractions of fundamental moral law. - -“3. Give us in the National Constitution the simple acknowledgment of -the law of God as the supreme law of nations, _and all the results -indicated in this note will ultimately be secured_. Let no one say that -the movement does not contemplate sufficiently practical -ends.”—_Christian Statesman_, Vol. 6, No. 15. - -Now let it be borne in mind that the question at issue is one of -_practical bearing_, and not of mere technical distinction. We are not -splitting hairs as to what _consistency would demand_ under certain -circumstances; but the matter in dispute is, Is it not in the highest -degree probable that a party, represented by men who express, -beforehand, sentiments like those contained in the above editorial, -would, when having vaulted into the seat of power, attempt the coercion -of all into a strict observance of the Sunday? Is not the line of -argument employed above that which would _compel them to this action_, -since it is there insisted that God holds the nation and the State -responsible for any dereliction in duty in this direction? Furthermore, -is it not _promised_, in so many words, that if the amendment is -carried, the end desired shall be secured by statutes so relentless that -all offending corporations shall have their charters taken away, and by -a public opinion so uncompromising that no man who presumes to violate -the Sabbath law shall be thought worthy of any position of trust? - -Thirdly, Waiving, for the time being, the point that the Sunday and the -amendment stand together, it is urged that, though they do, this should -not prevent seventh-day observers from supporting the latter, since it -is better to submit to Sunday laws than to have the nation pass into the -hands of atheists. - -Before debating this proposition at length, it will be well to bear in -mind that what I have said in the _Statesman_, as well as what I now -say, is spoken simply with reference to one occupying the position of a -Seventh-day Adventist. - -So far as our Seventh-day Baptist friends are concerned, we have no -disposition to hold them responsible for the views which we, as -Adventists, hold. But so far as it regards our relation to this subject, -it is materially affected by these considerations. A failure to discern -this has led the gentleman into very absurd positions. When he attempts -to make a _Seventh-day Adventist conscience_, he must form it upon a -_Seventh-day Adventist model_. Before he can do this, all his bright -visions of a temporal millennium and good days to come, must vanish into -thin air. To say, as he does, that common sense would teach him to -pursue a certain line of conduct, is one thing; to say that, did he -occupy the position which we hold, common sense would teach him to do -the same thing, is another, and entirely different, thing. Let it be -borne in mind, therefore, that we are not now discussing the proposition -whether we _ought to be Seventh-day Adventists_, but, taking the ground -which he has _chosen_, whether, _as Adventists_, we ought to support the -proposed amendment. This being done, we are ready to inquire, What is -the peculiar faith of the people in question? - -We answer, 1. They believe that Jesus Christ is about to come in the -clouds of heaven. 2. That they represent a body of believers which the -Lord is raising up in order that they may lift the standard of his -downtrodden law and Sabbath, as one around which those who will be ready -to hail him at his appearing, though few in numbers, will ultimately be -gathered. 3. That, in the light of prophecy, those who thus break away -from the errors of the papacy are in danger of persecution, not from -infidels and atheists, bad as they may be, but from those who, in the -guise of religion, shall, without warrant from God, endeavor to enforce -by statute law the observance of a day which finds no authority in the -word of God, but has for its support simply the _dictum_ of the man of -sin. 4. That the very body of men whose appearance in this country they -have for twenty years so confidently predicted, as being the ones who -should do the work in question, have actually appeared, and are -inaugurating the campaign which is very soon to be waged with -unrelenting fury against those who keep the commandments of God and the -faith of Jesus. - -All these features of their faith were shadowed forth in our -communications in the _Statesman_. - -With this understanding, how utterly empty and infelicitous is the logic -of our friend. Take, for example, his chosen illustration of the -islanders. There is in it hardly a single point _appropos_ to the case -in hand. - -1. The island to which the missionaries are supposed to go is one in -which, according to his statement, the fourth-day Sabbath is already -acknowledged as such in their Constitution of government, and therefore -carries with it the sanction and authority of statute law; whereas, with -us there is no such Constitutional acknowledgment. - -2. In the case of the islanders, their mistake in the selection of the -day is evidently attributed wholly to ignorance, since they were in -possession of only a _part_ of the Bible, and their remedy was to be -found in furnishing them with copies of the complete work; but our -opponents, on the contrary, are in possession, and have been from -childhood, of the Scriptures in full. Nor can the ministry, who are -leading the movement in question, plead ignorance of the line of -argument by which the seventh-day Sabbath is supported, since, for at -least two hundred years, it has been iterated and reiterated, until -their familiarity with it and their complete rejection of it is proved, -not only by what they say, but also by what they do. Instance the fining -and imprisonment, at sundry times, even in this country, of men who, -having conscientiously observed the seventh day, have attempted to enjoy -the privilege which God has given them, both by precept and example, of -working on the first day of the week. - -3. In the case cited, the infidel minority is supposed to be on the -point of mounting the throne of power, and of sweeping away every -vestige of the Sabbath institution; whereas, in our case, as seen above, -the danger which threatens the people of God in these last days, is not -to be apprehended alone from those who scoff at God and the Bible, but -from those who, according to Paul, having “a form of godliness,” shall -“deny the power thereof.” In other words, who, while accepting the -Scriptures, if you please, shall disregard their explicit statements, as -in the case of the commandments, substituting in the place of the -seventh day, which God has styled his Sabbath, the first, which he has -never claimed as his own, nor enjoined on any man. - -With this statement of our views, further remark is uncalled for. We -think that even our reviewer will now perceive that, before he could -bring us to accept as logical the proposition numbered three, above, it -would be necessary for him to overturn the very foundations of the -system of truth which we now hold. This, however, we fancy is a task -which our opponent judging from the line of argument which he has thus -far pursued, would not undertake with much prospect of success, until he -has become more thoroughly conversant with the scope and nature of the -work in which we are engaged. - -Fourthly. It is suggested that we are in danger of being classed with -infidels and atheists. - -So far as this peril is concerned, we simply remark that it is generally -found to be best in the long run to do right for the sake of right, -regardless of what men may say concerning you, leaving the result with -God. The individual who would desert sound principles because some -wicked man or set of men might, for the time being, be confounded with -him, is destitute of true morality. Besides, in the matter in question, -who is it from whom Seventh-day Adventists need apprehend that such an -erroneous impression will receive publicity? We trust not from our -friend, because, in the article in question, he frankly acknowledges -their devotion to the Bible in its strict construction. - -Is it, then, from the infidels themselves? Well, if it should be, we -think we can undeceive them. I will tell you what we will do. Whenever -they attempt to “fawn upon us overmuch,” we will preach to them the _law -of God, Sabbath and all_, and my word for it, they will themselves -shortly draw a line of demarkation between them and us, so broad and -distinct that all who are not willfully blind will have no difficulty in -discerning it; for it is a remarkable fact that it is as true now as it -formerly was, that the “carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, -neither indeed can be.” The infidel of the present day hates that law -with a hatred, the intensity of which is only equalled by that of the -large body of first-day observers—we are happy to say not of the -_Statesman_ school—who have abolished the ten commandments in order to -dispose of one of them, and whose special delight seems to consist in -berating the law which David pronounced “perfect,” and Paul declared to -be “holy, just, and good.” - -Finally, we submit that when it can be shown, 1. That God would be -better pleased with a nation having a Constitution which contained his -printed name, while wielding the whole power of that Constitution -against the only Sabbath which he has ever commanded, than he would be -with one which—while his name would fail to appear in its fundamental -law—was nevertheless administered in the interests of civil and -religious liberty; and 2. That the best method of converting atheists is -one by which they would be exasperated by fines and imprisonments -inflicted in the name of the God of the Bible for the desecration of a -day which they know that it nowhere commands; and 3. That it would be -reasonable to expect that men should, by their votes, elevate to place -and authority those who are destined to put manacles upon their wrists, -and padlocks upon their tongues; then, and not till then, can -Seventh-day Adventists be expected to support an amendment which, though -in many respects desirable, will inevitably be employed against God, his -people, and his law. - - - - - STATESMAN’S REPLY. - ARTICLE TWO. - THE SEVENTH DAY NOT OBSERVED BY THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH. - - -Having shown in our last article that seventh-day Sabbatarians, to be -consistent with themselves in appealing to the Bible as of supreme -authority, should be among the earnest friends of the Religious -Amendment, we come now to consider their argument against the first-day -Sabbath. - -On many points dwelt upon in the articles we have published, there is no -difference of view. We believe that the Sabbath was instituted, not in -the wilderness, for Israel; but in Eden, for mankind. We maintain, also, -that the law of the Sabbath is an essential part of the great moral code -of the ten commandments, spoken by God’s voice amid the awful -manifestations of Sinai, and written by the finger of God on tables of -stone as a law of perpetual obligation for the whole human family. -These, and other points admitted on both sides, need not occupy time and -space in this discussion. We are concerned here, and now, simply with -the transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the -week. Our readers have had before them an argument, of considerable -length, to show that God never authorized a change of day. We proceed to -prove that the transfer was made by divine authority and approval. - -In doing this, we shall first have to inquire into the facts of history. -We shall have to ask, Was the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, -acknowledged as binding up to the resurrection of Christ, continued by -the apostles and the early church after that event? Was any other day -substituted by them in its place? For an answer to these questions, we -must appeal to _facts_. We make our appeal to the records of the New -Testament. A careful and thorough examination of these authoritative -records shows conclusively that _the seventh day was not observed as the -Sabbath after the resurrection of Christ by the apostles and the early -church_. - -It is admitted on all hands that Christ himself, before his death, and -his disciples, up to the time of his resurrection, kept the seventh day -holy. It is also admitted on both sides that after the resurrection the -apostles and other followers of Christ kept holy one day in seven. While -they abounded daily in the work of the Lord, the seventh-day -Sabbatarians will concede with us that there was still one day marked -out from the rest of the week as sacred time. What day was thus -distinguished? Was it the seventh, otherwise known as the Sabbath? Let -us see. - -The word Sabbath occurs in the New Testament, after the close of the -gospel history, twelve times. In two of these instances, viz., Acts -20:7, and 1 Cor. 16:2, the word means “week,” and not the seventh day, -as also in a number of instances in the gospels. In Acts 1:12, the word -is used to indicate a certain distance. The term is employed in two -other places, viz., Acts 13:27, and 15:21, in incidental reference to -the service of the Jewish synagogues. In Colossians 2:16, Paul mentions -the seventh-day Sabbath only to deny the obligation of its observance. -This important passage will be considered farther on. There remain, -then, six instances, two of them in regard to one and the same day and -meeting, in which the word is found in accounts of gatherings for -religious purposes on that day, the seventh of the week. These meetings -were as follows: 1. At Antioch, in Pisidia, Acts 13:14; 2. At the same -place, the next seventh day, Acts 13:42, 44; 3. At Philippi, Acts 16:13; -4. At Thessalonica, Acts 17:2; and 5. At Corinth, Acts 18:4. At -Thessalonica, there were three Sabbaths, and at Corinth, every Sabbath, -it may be inferred, for several weeks, thus marked by religious -meetings. We are informed that Paul went into the synagogue at -Thessalonica on the Sabbath, or seventh day, “as his manner was.” And, -accordingly, particularly during his first and second, or his more -properly termed, missionary tours, as distinguished from his journeys in -revisiting churches already organized, we may unhesitatingly infer that -there were other similar meetings on the seventh day, as at Salamis, -Acts 13:15; at Iconium, Acts 14:1; and at Ephesus, Acts 18:19, and 19:8. - -And here we note the fact that _in not a single one of these instances -was the meeting a gathering of Christians_. In no case was it the -assembly of the members of a Christian church for worship. In every -case, these meetings on the seventh day were in Jewish places of -worship, all in synagogues regularly occupied by Jewish assemblies, -except that at Philippi, which was at a _proseucha_, a Jewish place of -prayer out of the city by the river’s side. In every instance, it was a -gathering of Jews and Jewish proselytes, with the addition of a greater -or lesser number of Gentiles, the sight of a crowd of whom at Antioch, -the second day of meeting in their synagogue, excited the jealousy and -rage of the Jews. And in these gatherings, in every case, Paul labored -_as a missionary_, glad to avail himself of every opportunity to -proclaim the saving truths of the gospel of Christ. - -Can any intelligent and candid reader of the inspired records fail to -understand the narrative of Paul’s missionary work? He was sent forth -“to turn sinners from darkness to light.” As he himself states at -Antioch, addressing the Jews: “It was necessary that the word of God -should first have been spoken to you.” His “heart’s desire and prayer to -God for Israel was that they might be saved.” Accordingly, wherever he -went, he was found going to them on the seventh day in _their_ places of -worship, not in Christian houses of prayer; meeting with them in _their_ -assemblies, not in assemblies of professed followers of Christ. Just as -a Christian missionary, in modern times, going to a heathen land, would -avail himself, if possible, of the customary assemblies of the -residents, whatever day they might keep holy, so Paul and his -fellow-missionaries availed themselves of the seventh-day assemblies of -the Jews, that from among them, as well as from among the Gentiles, they -might gather out an _ecclesia_—a body of followers of the Lord Jesus, in -whom Jew and Gentile should be one. - -The question, therefore, still remains to be answered: Which day of the -week did the church at Jerusalem, existing at the time of Christ’s -ascension, which day did the apostles in their relations with this -church, which day did the churches, organized and established by the -apostles, and under their example and divine authority, observe as a -holy day, a Sabbath to the Lord? In all the references to the seventh -day, or Jewish Sabbath, there is not, as we have seen, a particle of -evidence that that day was thus observed. - -On the other hand, there is positive testimony that the very -congregations or churches of Christians, organized at the places where -Paul performed missionary labor on the seventh day, ignored that day, -and in its stead observed another day of the week as holy time. For -example, at Corinth, “as his manner was,” Paul went first to the Jews -and preached to them in their synagogue, the word of God, _reasoning -with them_, and persuading them and the Greeks to accept of Christ. -Then, when the Jews opposed themselves and blasphemed, he shook his -raiment, and said unto them, “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am -clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.” So he left the -synagogue and the Jews, not the city, and entering into the house of -Justus, received Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, with all his -house, and many of the Corinthians, as converts into the Christian -church. Here we have the church of Corinth. Which day of the week did it -observe as the Sabbath of the Lord? the seventh? Though Paul “continued -there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them,” there -is not a word more about seventh-day services. This, it is true, would -be merely negative, if it were all. But this is not all. In Paul’s -direction to this same church, a few years later, he makes clear and -certain, what before was probable, that their stated day for religious -services was not the seventh, but the first, day of the week. 1 Cor. -16:2. The plain and most explicit teaching of this passage will be fully -considered hereafter. - -Again, when Paul entered into the synagogue at Ephesus, and reasoned -with the Jews (Acts 18:19), and, because he could not tarry long at this -time, soon returned again, and met the objections of disputatious Jews -for the space of three months (Acts 19:8), his labors as a missionary -are said to have been in the synagogue, no doubt on the Sabbath of the -Jews, or the seventh day. But once more separating the Christian -converts from the unbelieving and blaspheming Jews, and forming the -Christian church of Ephesus, he continued there in incessant labors for -two years. And now we hear no more of seventh-day assemblies. This, -again, may be said to be merely negative, as we hear of no special honor -put upon any day. But we have not done with this. Passing the last years -of his life in this city of Ephesus, the apostle John writes of “the -Lord’s day,” known and observed by the Christians among whom he dwelt. -That this holy day of the early church, called the Lord’s day, was not -the seventh, but the first, is shown by the most satisfactory historical -testimony, which will be adduced in full in its proper connection. - -Once more. When Paul came to Troas to preach Christ’s gospel, and a door -was opened to him of the Lord (2 Cor. 2:12), whether it was on his first -very brief visit (Acts 16:8), or more probably in going over “those -parts,” on his way from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20:2), he no doubt, -“as his manner was,” went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. -A congregation of Christian disciples was formed, and the apostle -departed for Greece. After an absence of some months, Paul returns to -Troas, and with his companions remains there seven days, departing again -on the second day of the week. Whether he departed on the first or -second, however, the fact remains that, during his abode of seven days -at Troas, there was one seventh day. Do we hear of any religious meeting -on that day? Did the disciples then assemble for divine service? Let us -hear the record: “We abode seven days. And upon the first day of the -week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached -unto them, ready to depart on the morrow.” The seventh day is passed by. -The day for the assembling of the Christian disciples is not the Sabbath -of the Jews. Another day has taken its place. This most explicit -instance at Troas of ignoring the seventh day, and honoring another in -its place, as the stated day for the religious services of Christians, -abundantly confirms, if confirmation were needed, the conclusions -already reached in the instances at Corinth and Ephesus. - -Thus the _facts_ of the records of inspired history conclusively prove -that the seventh day was not observed by the apostles and early -Christians as their sacred day of divine worship, or the Sabbath of the -Lord. We might add here that the testimony of all the earliest Christian -writers, who received from the apostles and the companions of the -apostles the institutions of the Christian church, is full and explicit -to the same effect. But we shall hear their evidence for the first day, -and thus also against the seventh, in good time. - -It will now be in place to consider how apostolic precept corresponds -with apostolic example, and that of the churches, in regard to the -seventh day. Colossians 2:16, a most important passage, making -particular mention of the seventh-day Sabbath, yet singularly overlooked -by seventh-day Sabbatarians, now claims our attention for a moment. -Judaizing teachers, so busy everywhere throughout the early church, had -been at work among the Christian disciples at Colosse. They had been -insisting upon the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the -Lord. One would think that some of these men had come down to our time -and learned to use very good English. We refer these representatives of -an ancient, but not honorably mentioned, class for instruction to the -apostle’s words to the Colossians: “Let no man judge you in meat or in -drink, or in respect of a holy day [literally, _of a feast_], or of the -new moon, or of the Sabbath days;” _i. e._, of yearly, monthly, or -weekly Jewish celebrations. We do not wait to examine the parallel -passages in Gal. 4:10, and Rom. 14:5, where the obligation of Jewish -observances, including the seventh-day Sabbath, is denied, and where, in -the latter case, to make the argument even stronger, the toleration of -these observances as a weakness is considerately advised. Surely, it is -no wonder that seventh-day Sabbatarians seem not to be aware of the -existence of these portions of the divine word! It cannot be pleasant to -be made to feel that, like the Judaizers of old, they bring themselves -under the sharp rebuke of the inspired apostle by judging Christians in -respect of the seventh-day Sabbath. - -We will now sum up this part of the discussion: Admitting that the -Sabbath was instituted in Eden for mankind; that it is of perpetual -obligation; that it was observed by Christ himself before his death, and -by his disciples until his resurrection, as by the Jews of old, on the -seventh day of the week; we have gone on to see that the apostles and -the early church, still having one stated day each week as a holy day, -did _not_ continue the observance of the seventh day. We have seen that -the seventh day, after the resurrection, is mentioned only in connection -with assemblies, in Jewish places of worship, of Jews, Jewish -proselytes, and, in some instances, a larger or smaller addition of -Gentiles, among all of whom the apostle labored as a missionary for the -conversion of souls, and the formation of Christian congregations, or -churches. We have found that no instance can be adduced of the apostles -in their relations to Christian churches, nor of assemblies of Christian -disciples, meeting to observe the seventh day as the Sabbath of the -Lord. On the other hand, we have found them ignoring the seventh day and -honoring another, in perfect harmony with the apostle Paul’s rebuke of -Judaizing teachers who insisted on having Christian disciples observe -the seventh day, and his condescending toleration of their weakness. - - - - - A REJOINDER. - “THE SEVENTH DAY NOT OBSERVED BY THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH.” - - -It is, we confess, with some degree of embarrassment, that we attempt -the answering of the second article from the pen of the editor of the -_Statesman_, in reply to the argument which we presented in the columns -of that paper. Our difficulty does not arise from any confusion into -which we have been thrown by the superior logic of our opponent; it -consists, rather, in knowing just where and how to commence the work. - -So far as statements are concerned, they are numerous and repeated again -and again, in substance. But we have no disposition, nor have we the -space, to take them up singly, in their numerical and repetitious order, -for consideration. And, besides, the fallacy of nearly every one of them -has been demonstrated in what we have already written. This being the -case, we have determined to take the general scope of the criticism, and -thus, as briefly as may be, make suggestions which, if carried out, will -answer its assumptions, as well as its attempted efforts at deduction. - -We remark, then, in the outset, that we are happy to meet the writer -upon the common ground of a Sabbath having originated in Eden, and -inserted in a law of perpetual obligation on both Jews and Gentiles. - -Let the reader keep these mutual concessions continually before his -eyes. They are of great significance in this debate. 1. They prove that -the Sabbath is not Jewish in its origin, but was given to Adam, as their -representative head, for the benefit of the whole race, more than two -thousand years before there was a Jew in existence. 2. They also prove -that the Sabbath institution was rendered obligatory upon all men by a -divine precept, with the phraseology of which we are all acquainted. 3. -That that precept is explicit in its declaration that the last and not -the first day of the week was the Sabbath. 4. That before any other day -can be substituted in the place of the one designated, the Power which -originated it must authorize the change. - -So much for the important results which necessarily flow from the -principles which we hold in common, if indeed we are right in supposing -that the writer _really_ means what he _actually_ says; namely, that he -holds to the perpetuity of the fourth commandment of the decalogue. We -shall see, hereafter, whether or not his statements are to be taken for -all which they express. - -We advance, now, in our examination of the criticism before us. - -What direction, then, does the effort take in the main? It will be -granted that the plan of defense adopted is that of attempting to prove -that the early church did violate the seventh, and did honor the first, -day of the week. But with what success has the effort been attended? We -know that it is stated several times that the apostles disregarded what -the author is pleased to call the _Jewish_ Sabbath—after he had conceded -the principle that that of the commandment was _Edenic_ in its -origin—but did he make out his case? So far from it, in every instance -where he has found them connected in the record with the Sabbath day, it -has ever been in the performance of duties _religious in their nature_. -For should we concede that he is right in supposing that Paul went into -the synagogues to teach on the Sabbath day, simply because he would find -hearers there, this, assuredly, would not prove that Paul was a -Sabbath-breaker. - -Let me take the gentleman’s favorite illustration of a missionary in a -foreign land, at the present time. Now suppose that his lot were cast in -a country where the first day of the week, or the day of the sun, was -regarded as holy by the natives, and he should be found on that day -regularly teaching them in their places of assembly, would _that_ decide -the question that he was necessarily a violator of the first-day -Sabbath? You answer immediately in the negative. So, too, in the case of -Paul. The fact that it can be shown that it was his custom to teach in -the synagogues on the seventh day of the week, if it has no power to -prove that he was a conscientious _observer_ of that day, cannot at -least be cited as furnishing evidence that he _disregarded_ it. We ask, -then, again, Has a scintilla of positive testimony been given that Paul -ever broke a single Sabbath of the Lord, as contained in the divine -precept? Once more it must be conceded that there has not. But is it not -a little singular that in a history of thirty years, where the Sabbath -is so often mentioned, not one single action has ever been discovered in -the least incompatible with Paul’s veneration of the seventh day? We let -the reader answer. - -Furthermore, we have from the pen of our opponent himself the frank -admission that, in the historic territory over which he has been -passing, it has been uniformly true that both Luke and Paul have ever, -when speaking of the seventh day, called it “the Sabbath.” Now let the -reader remember that this confession is full and sweeping in its -character. Then let him ask himself whether it is natural to suppose -that men, having repudiated an old Sabbath, and zealous for the -establishment of a new one, would be likely to make up the record in -question in such a form that the old Sabbath, whenever spoken of, should -always be styled “the Sabbath,” and the new one be mentioned merely as -the “first day of the week?” In order to impress the fallacy of such an -idea, we have but to call attention to the fact that men, at the present -time, possessing the same natures and dispositions as formerly, would -avoid such a course with the most scrupulous care. Instance the fact -that seventh-day observers never allude to the Sunday as _the Sabbath_, -but avoid such a reference under all circumstances; while the devotees -of the Sunday, when speaking of the last day of the week, almost -uniformly speak of it as the _Jewish Sabbath_, if Sabbath they will -allow themselves to call it at all. - -But again. We are told, very candidly, that by the word Sabbath, in Acts -13:44, where it is said that the “next Sabbath day came almost the whole -city together” to hear the word of God, is meant the next seventh day -succeeding the first seventh day on which Paul addressed the Jews at -Antioch. This being true, it is settled beyond dispute that, in the mind -of Luke, there was no Sabbath day occurring between the one on which -Paul spoke to the people, and the seventh day of the next week when he -addressed them the second time; for, if there had been, then it would -not have been proper to call the last Sabbath mentioned the “_next_” -one, since another Sabbath would have intervened between the two in -question. In other words, according to the view of our friend, the -Sunday, which was the next day after the first discourse of Paul, was -really the next Sabbath which followed it; whereas, the inspired penman -ignores it altogether, and, passing over it with silence, calls the last -day of that same week “the Sabbath.” - -Again, it is stated in Acts 15:21, that the “Scriptures are read in the -synagogues _every_ Sabbath day.” Here, again, it is conceded that the -reference is to the seventh day of the week. If this be true, however, -then James, as well as Luke, had, in his lexicon of terms, the “Sabbath -day” as the one which answered to the seventh day and not to the first; -for no one will insist that the Scriptures were read in the synagogues -of the Jews regularly on the first day of the week; but James says that -they were read there _every_ Sabbath day; therefore, in his mind—as we -have already remarked—the first day was not the Sabbath. - -Once more: It is stated of Paul that he reasoned in the synagogues -_every_ Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. Here also it is -urged—admitting that the reference is to the seventh day—that Paul went -into the synagogue in order to get a hearing. But this he could not do -on the first day, since he would have found the synagogue closed, and no -audience. Nevertheless, the statement stands unqualified that Paul -preached “_every Sabbath_.” Now if this be true, and the first as well -as the seventh day might, according to the view of the historian, be -called a Sabbath, then we have him stating that Paul preached in the -place in question on both the first and seventh days. On the other hand, -if he regarded the first day as alone the Sabbath, then he meant to -teach that Paul preached in the synagogue on that day, and that day -only. But my opponent will not insist upon either of these positions. -The only conclusion that is left us, therefore, is that the Holy Ghost, -who inspired Luke in the selection of terms, employed the appellation of -Sabbath as applying only to the day which had been sanctified in Eden, -and had always been known by that title. - -Now let us give our attention for a moment to the objection so strongly -urged that in the book of the Acts, and in the epistles, there is no -well-authenticated instance in which the apostles held meetings, with -Christians exclusively, on the seventh day. The point of the proposition -might be thus stated: If the early Christians did hold meetings on the -seventh day, the record would have shown it: this it fails to do; -therefore, the presumption is that they did not regard it as holy. - -This is a sword that cuts _both_ ways, if it cuts at all. We do not -wonder that, when our friend laid hold of its hilt, he said, -tremblingly, This is a _negative weapon_; so that, when we should -attempt to borrow it of him, we might find the edge, which was designed -for his _own neck, dulled by his own concession_. - -But let us proceed. Is it true, so far as the ancient Sabbath of the -Lord is concerned, that, unless we can find historic accounts of its -observance in the New Testament, we must therefore conclude that it was -not regarded? We answer, No; simply because its observance is not alone -taught by precedent. It rests upon a positive command of God, -incorporated in a law which was brought over into this dispensation, as -we have seen, and made obligatory upon Christians. It was not, -therefore, necessary that a detailed account of its observance should be -placed upon the record, in order to prove that it was regarded by the -early church; since the very fact that they acknowledged the law of God, -is in itself proof that they sanctified the Sabbath which it ordained. -Until, therefore, the gentleman can shake the pillars of that law—as we -shall show he has not yet succeeded in doing—it is of itself a guarantee -that every seventh day was regarded with solemnity by those who were -endeavoring to keep its precepts. - -In proof of this, we have but to mention the fact that from Moses to -David—a space covering five hundred years—the term Sabbath is not -employed once in the sacred history, and yet the gentleman will agree -with me that the good men of those ages hallowed it, simply because he -agrees with me that they had a precept requiring them to do so. - -But, again, we must be allowed to insist that the very silence of which -the gentleman complains does indirectly prove, independent of the -commandment, that the first generation of Christians were Sabbatarians. -What we mean to be understood as saying is, that they at least did not -violate the regulations concerning the strict observance of the Sabbath, -as enforced among the Jews; for had they done so, a record of thirty -years could not have failed to bring to light numerous collisions, which -would have been inevitable between Jews and Christians, the one class -despising and trampling down the Sabbath of the law, and the other -following them with that vulture glance of inquisition, by which—as in -the case of our Lord—they were in the habit of watching their -antagonists, with a view to condemning them before the law. And, -besides, with what show of consistency could Paul have stood up before -them, announcing himself as one who had never violated the customs of -the fathers (Acts 28:17), if he had been seen weekly transgressing the -law of one of the dearest institutions handed down to them from the -remotest antiquity? - -Thus much for one side of the logic of our opponent. Now let us apply it -to the Sunday. As we do so, it will be recollected that there has been -no effort made, as yet, to place it upon a positive precept. Its -existence, therefore, if such it has at all, must be attributable to -precedent. Thus far, such precedent has not been cited, except by way of -anticipation. When it comes up, we will consider it in order. In the -meantime, let it be remembered that our friend has voluntarily taken a -position which will compel him to admit that, unless he can find at -least one clear and unquestionable case in which the Sunday was from -beginning to end devoutly celebrated, his cause is a hopeless one. Nay, -more, to make out his point, every candid mind will demand that, in the -absence of positive command, he shall be able to show numerous instances -in which the day, whose claims he seeks to vindicate, was intelligently -honored; for, be it remembered, that, according to his own declaration, -the apostle was traveling from point to point, writing and preaching, -and Luke was keeping a diary of his labors, for the purpose of -instructing that generation of Christians, as well as this, concerning -duty and doctrine. If, therefore, Sunday sanctity came under the head of -those doctrines, it was important, overwhelmingly so, that such a fact -should be set forth clearly, since an habitual disregard on the part of -any, of the new Sabbath, would bring upon them the condemnation of -Heaven. Furthermore, the line of demarkation, which the new day would -have drawn between the disciples and the Hebrews, would have been so -broad, and the discussions upon those points would have been so numerous -and so full, while the transition was taking place, that its existence -could not have failed to become discernible in the writings of that -period. - -Here we must change our line of argument, and turn to the consideration -of Col. 2:14-17, and of Rom. 14:5. Our opponent intimates that -Sabbatarians are in the habit of evading these texts. In this remark, he -does us great injustice. The statement is so far from being true that I -make no doubt that, within the last twenty years, Seventh-day Adventist -preachers alone have, by voice and pen, commented upon them at least a -thousand times. But the best method of showing the charge to be untrue -will be found in an examination of the texts themselves. The first is as -follows: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against -us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to -his cross; ... Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or -in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: -which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” Col. -2:14, 16, 17. Now be it remembered that he affirms that these scriptures -teach the abolition of the creation Sabbath; also, that, while we -concede the point that there are here mentioned sabbaths which were -abolished at the crucifixion of Christ, we deny that the seventh-day -Sabbath was among them, and insist that they were simply the ceremonial -sabbaths of the Jews to which reference is made. - -In proof of our position, we offer the following considerations: 1. That -which was repealed is represented as having been “blotted out.” Now the -Scriptures are remarkable for the force and propriety of the -illustrations which they employ. But who will say that the terms -“blotting out” could properly be applied to writing engraved in stone, -as was the Sabbath law in its original copy? 2. That which was blotted -out was the “handwriting of ordinances;” but the commandments were the -finger-writing of God. 3. That which was blotted out was found among -ordinances that were “_against_ us, and _contrary_ to us.” But Jesus -says, “The Sabbath was made _for_ man.” Mark 2:27, 28. 4. That which was -blotted out and taken out of the way “was nailed to his cross.” But it -is inconceivable that such language could be spoken of the tables of -stone, since they are not of a nature such that the work spoken of could -be readily accomplished, and therefore the figure will not apply to them -except when forced. 5. It must be admitted that these things concerning -which we are not to allow men to judge us were either all of them -shadows of Christ, or that if the _others_ were not, the _sabbath days_ -were. If they were all shadows, then the sabbaths undeniably were such; -for the expression, “which were a shadow of things to come,” stands -immediately connected with the term “sabbath days.” - -But this decides the point in controversy; for our friend has already -voluntarily declared that the seventh-day Sabbath originated in Eden. -This being true, it cannot be regarded as a “shadow” or type of Christ, -since it was in being before man had ever fallen, and, consequently, -before a Saviour was either needed or promised. It is commemorative in -its character, and was calculated to carry the mind back to the -creation, to the rest of Jehovah, rather than forward to the crucifixion -of his Son. Do you inquire, then, what sabbaths the apostle had in view? -We answer: He locates them among “commandments written in ordinances.” -In other words, in the Mosaic ceremonies. Now take your Bible and turn -to the twenty-third chapter of Leviticus, and you will find that the -Jews had three annual feasts—the passover, the Pentecost, and the feast -of tabernacles—besides the new moons, and the seven annual sabbaths. The -sabbaths were as follows, to wit: 1. The first day of unleavened bread. -2. The seventh day of that feast. 3. The day of Pentecost. 4. The first -day of the seventh month. 5. The tenth day of that month. 6. The -fifteenth day of that month. 7. The twenty-second day of the same. These -are the ones, beyond all question, to which reference is here made.[3] -1. Because they were in the handwriting of Moses, and could be blotted -out. 2. Because they were found in handwriting of ordinances. 3. They -were among ceremonies that were against us, and contrary to us (Acts -15:10). 4. The law in which they originated might have been nailed to -the cross. 5. That law was also one which shadowed forth Christ (Heb, -10:1). - -To the second text we shall give but little space. In the presentation -of it, our friend attempts to be _facetious_. Nor are we disposed to -find fault with him for this. It is sometimes admissible, even in the -discussion of the _gravest_ questions, to indulge in _harmless_ humor. -That the effort in question partakes of _this character_, _i. e._, that -it is _harmless_, we shall not dispute. At all events, when we read it, -it amused rather than offended us. A second thought, however, suggests -the possibility that if _we_ were not damaged by the sally, it might -have been _pernicious_, nevertheless, since it is possible for it to -_react upon its author_. Certain it is, that it will damage either him -or Paul, because he represents the great apostle as making a special -effort, in his general labors, to teach men that they must under _all_ -circumstances keep _one_ day holy, and that under _some_ they might be -allowed to regard a _second_ also in the same light. But, unfortunately, -if this exegesis is correct, and if the language of Rom. 14:5, applies -to the weekly Sabbath at all, Paul blundered egregiously in -communicating his intentions; since he virtually told them whom he was -addressing that, of the days of which _he was speaking_, they _need not_ -keep them at all, or they _might_, at will. Here follows the text “One -man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. -Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” - -Now we have heard men Who believed in no Sabbath employ this text again -and again to prove that there is now no holy time; we have also heard -conscientious first-day observers argue forcibly and conclusively that -this text proved no such thing, simply because it referred to days that -were connected with meats and drinks, and not to the weekly Sabbath at -all. But we confess that the position of our friend is somewhat novel. -Nevertheless, we feel sure that the reputation of the great apostle for -perspicuity will not suffer by this attempt, and we think that, so far -as he is concerned himself, reflection will prevent him from ever -seriously urging it. In conclusion on this point, we append a brief -comment from the pen of Adam Clarke, whose reputation, and the fact that -he was an observer of Sunday, will give him no little authority with our -opponent. He says: “Reference is here made to the _Jewish_ institutions, -and especially their festivals; such as the passover, pentecost, feast -of tabernacles, new moons, jubilee, &c. The converted _Jew_ still -thought these of moral obligation; the _Gentile_ Christian, not having -been bred up in this way, had no such prejudices.”—_Com. in loco._ - -The only remaining text cited is that of Gal. 4:10. After what has been -said, no further comment from us will be required. The reader, desirous -of satisfying himself that this text also has no reference to the weekly -Sabbath, and of necessity refers either to heathen festivals or Jewish -ceremonial days, can read the context, and consult standard authorities, -such as Clarke or Barnes.[4] - -Let us now survey the ground over which we have passed. So far as we -have gone, what has been done toward proving a practice of first-day -observance on the part of the early church? We answer, Nothing, -absolutely nothing. The only texts which have been cited for this -purpose are 1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10, and Acts 20:7. So far as they are -concerned, we have previously shown that the first of them does not in -any way affect the question of Sunday observance; that the second -relates to the seventh day of the week and not to the first; and that -the third proves that Paul traveled nineteen and one-half miles on the -Sunday. When our reviewer shall attempt to stir a single stone in the -structure of argument which we reared in our former articles on these -points, we shall be by his side, to see that he does it fairly. Until -then, the intelligent reader need not be told that it is vain for him to -try to make capital by quoting them as above. - -Thus much for the first day. We inquire next, What has been conceded or -proved, which is favorable to the seventh-day Sabbath? 1. That it -originated in Eden. 2. That it was enforced by the fourth commandment. -3. That that commandment is still binding. 4. That the effort to show a -change in its phraseology from Col. 2:16, Rom. 14:5, and Gal. 4:10, was -a complete failure; and therefore that it reads as it did formerly, that -“the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord.” 5. That there is a Sabbath -in this dispensation. 6. That, being enforced by positive command, it -stands in need of no precedent. 7. That, while the apostles did many -times preach on that day, there is not one instance in which they -violated it. 8. That had they desecrated it, the conflicts which would -have been thus created, must have found a place in the history of those -times. 9. That in the book of Acts it is always called “the Sabbath.” -10. That it was the only Sabbath known to the apostles, since they speak -of it not only as “_the_ Sabbath,” but as “the _next_ Sabbath,” and -“_every_ Sabbath.” - -In concluding, we suggest that we leave our reviewer in a situation -which, to a man of his clearness of perception, must be a very -unsatisfactory one. Having insisted upon the perpetuity of the fourth -commandment, he is compelled to take one of two positions. Either, 1. -That it reads the same as it did when it enforced the seventh day; or, -2. That its phraseology has been changed. We confess that we have been -unable to decide which of these positions he prefers. Nor is it material -here. If he adopts the first, the thoughtful reader will agree with me -that it is simply absurd to argue that a statute, while reading the -same, means differently from what it did formerly. On the other hand, -should he adopt the latter, then we inquire why he has not given it to -us as it reads since it has been changed, and thus ended the controversy -by gratifying our most reasonable request. - -Footnote 3: - - “It is not clear that the apostle refers at all to the _Sabbath_ in - this place [Col. 2:16], whether Jewish or Christian; his σαββατων, _of - sabbaths, or weeks_, most probably refers to their feasts of - weeks.”—_A. Clarke, in loco._ - -Footnote 4: - - “The days here referred to are doubtless the days of the Jewish - festivals.... It is not a fair interpretation of this to suppose that - the apostle refers to the _Sabbath_, properly so called, for this was - a part of the decalogue, and was observed by the Saviour himself, and - by the apostles also. It _is_ a fair interpretation to apply it to all - those days which are not commanded to be kept holy in the - Scriptures.”—_A. Barnes, in loco._ - - - - - STATESMAN’S REPLY. - ARTICLE THREE. - TESTIMONY FROM THE GOSPELS FOR THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH. - - -In a previous article it was seen that from the resurrection of Christ -there is no instance recorded in Scripture of the observance of the -seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord by any assembly of Christians. On -the contrary, it was seen that the Judaizing spirit, which in some -instances insisted on such observance by Christians, was rebuked by the -inspired apostle. In connection with this was noted the fact that in the -case of Jews converted to Christianity, yet inclined still to regard the -seventh day with other Jewish celebrations, Christians were directed to -bear with such observance as a weakness in their brethren. It was also -seen that while the observance of the seventh day was not continued, -another day of the week, the first, took its place as the stated day for -religious assemblies and services. Let us now examine the testimony from -the Gospels for this day, reserving the remainder of scriptural proof -for another article. - -The manner in which the first day of the week is pointed out in the -Gospels as the day of the Lord’s resurrection, is itself striking and -significant. All four of the evangelists concur in making prominent the -fact that it was on this day that Christ rose from the dead. This fact -is stated by Matthew, 28:1-6; twice by Mark, 16:1-6, and again in verse -9; by Luke, 24:1-6; by John, 20:1, 2. This concurrent, particular -mention of the first day of the week as the day of the resurrection, in -four independent historical accounts, the earliest of which was written -probably about twenty years after that event, has a significance readily -overlooked, but well worth noting. - -To appreciate this fully, we must distinguish between the words of the -historians and the words of the persons whose sayings they record—a most -important point in the study of any history. Observing this distinction, -then, we note that the promise of Christ, as recorded by the historians, -was, that he would rise from the dead on the third day, dating from and -including the day of his crucifixion and burial. The chief priests and -Pharisees, asking Pilate to have the sepulcher guarded; the angels at -the sepulcher the morning of the resurrection; the two disciples, -conversing with the risen Lord on the way to Emmaus, and the Lord -himself, speak of it as the _third_ day. In no other way does any one -whose language is recorded by the historians refer to the day of the -resurrection. Now, had the historians themselves, writing after an -interval of from nearly twenty to over sixty years, simply desired to -state the fact of the Lord’s resurrection, it would have been sufficient -for them to say that, according to His promise, he rose on the _third_ -day. But instead of this, they all concur in pointing out particularly -the _first_ day of the week as the resurrection day. On the supposition -that, when the historians wrote, the first day was regarded precisely -like the second and third days of the week, as it was at the time of the -resurrection, this change of statement is singular and inexplicable. On -the other hand, on the supposition that the first day had become an -honored and noted day among Christians, this mention of it by all the -evangelists, and that, too, in a uniform and somewhat formal phrase, and -the difference between the language of the historians and that of the -persons of whom they write, are naturally and satisfactorily explained. -In this change of language, then, on the part of the inspired -historians, and in their concurrent and prominent mention of the first -day, we have strong presumptive evidence in favor of the marked -character of that day at the time when the Gospel histories were -written. Testimony of this kind, in the form of unstudied allusion or -undesigned coincidence, though easily passed without notice, is -acknowledged on all hands to be of great weight. - -After showing himself probably four times to one or more of his -disciples during the day of his resurrection, Christ appeared late in -the evening to the disciples collectively, Thomas alone being absent. -“Then the same day at evening (_opsia_, _late evening_, from _opse_, -_late_), being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where -the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood -in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.” (John 20:19.) Let -the facts be noted. 1. It was the evening of the first day of the week. -2. The disciples were met together, manifestly, _not_ to commemorate the -resurrection, but for what purpose, or where, it does not matter. 3. The -Lord came and blessed them, and, as we learn from the following verses, -imparted to them spiritual instruction, and breathed on them the Holy -Ghost. These facts should be borne in mind as we proceed. - -We come now to the record of the first day of the following week; “And -after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. -Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, -Peace be unto you.” (John 20:26.) This interval of eight days, from and -including the resurrection day, brings us, according to the common mode -of reckoning, and as no one is disposed to dispute, to the first day of -the next week. The preceding first day, the disciples were met -collectively. Again, this first day, they are met, and Thomas with them. -It has been said that very probably the disciples met every day during -the interval, and, therefore, they put no special honor upon the first -day. But the question is not just here whether the disciples meant to -honor the first day or not. Did the Lord himself single it out from the -days of the week and honor it? This is the question at present. It may -be admitted that the disciples met every day during the interval. This -is exceedingly probable. The fact remains clear that the Lord did not -meet with them. And this very passing by of these supposed meetings of -the disciples by the Lord, during six days, the last of which was the -seventh-day Sabbath, renders his actual meeting with them, as recorded, -on the first day again, all the more significant. The disciples may not -have designed to honor the day, but the Lord himself, passing by the -seventh day along with the other five intervening, selects and homes the -first day by once more meeting on it with his disciples. - -Nor is it to be admitted that the disciples were destitute of all regard -to the returning first day of the week as the day of the Lord’s -resurrection. The very circumstances in which, by the ordering of the -Master, they were placed, could not fail to teach them to look upon it -with special regard. They had been assembled on the evening of the -preceding first day. The Lord had met with them and blessed them, and -breathed on them the Holy Ghost. Earnestly longing to enjoy his -comforting and slivering presence again, we may suppose they met on the -second day. But the Lord does not come. More deeply feeling their need, -they assemble again the third day. Still the desired presence is -withheld. So on, with ever-increasing desires, they meet, day after day. -How natural would it be for them to think of the seventh day, on which -they had so often enjoyed sweet counsel with the Master, going to the -house of God. “Surely,” their thought might well be, “He will meet with -us in our assembly to-day.” But no. The time for the special -manifestation of himself to his worshiping disciples in their collective -gathering had not come. Would not the disciples then remember, if they -had ever forgotten it, that it was on the first day of the week the Lord -rose from the dead, and on that day he had stood in the midst of them -and said, Peace be unto you? And remembering this, they would meet on -the return of the first day with earnest expectation of the return of -the Master. Nor are they disappointed. Once more he comes, and stands in -the midst, and grants his benediction. - -Here then are the facts concerning sacred time, as recorded in the -Gospel history, subsequent to the resurrection of Christ. The seventh -day is not mentioned. If the disciples met on that day, as they probably -did, the inspired penmen take no notice of the fact. There is no meeting -of the risen Lord with his disciples. The seventh day is passed by. On -the other hand, the first day is mentioned in a particular manner, in -changed and special language, by all the evangelists, as a noted day -would naturally be mentioned and marked out as the resurrection day. On -it the Lord repeatedly met with his disciples, blessed them, taught them -important spiritual lessons, and breathed on them the Holy Ghost, the -earnest of the abundant outpouring of the Spirit. How fell of meaning -these facts! On the last seventh day on which the disciples rested -according to the commandment, the Lord himself is lying in the tomb. The -glory of the seventh day dies out with the fading light of that day -throughout the whole of which the grave claimed the body of the -Redeemer. But the glory of the Sabbath of the Lord survives. It receives -fresh luster from the added glories of the Lord of the Sabbath. “The -stone which the builders refused is become the head-stone of the -corner.” It is very early in the morning the first day of the week. -Again God said, Let there be light, and there was light. The Sun of -righteousness has risen with healing in his wings. This is the day which -the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. The first day of -the week has become the Lord’s day. - - - - - A REJOINDER. - “TESTIMONY FROM THE GOSPELS FOR THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.” - - -Without prolonged preliminary remarks, we shall endeavor to consider the -points of argument presented by our reviewer in the article entitled, -“Testimony from the Gospels for the first-day Sabbath.” In entering upon -our task, we feel almost as if we were doing a work of supererogation, -from the fact that what we are called upon to answer is so far from -being a refutation of what we had said in our positive argument, that it -appears to be little more than a re-statement of positions which we -believe we have once fairly met and conclusively answered. Nevertheless, -we express our satisfaction at the concessions apparently made by the -writer. The common plea that the disciples were assembled on the day of -the resurrection in order to honor the resuscitation of the body of -Christ, is seemingly ignored. The points now urged seem to be those of a -disposition on the part of the Lord himself to honor the first day of -the week, and of such a use of language on the part of the historians as -it would be natural for them to make, provided it had become a settled -thing with them to regard the Sunday as a day which Christ had set apart -for holy uses. - -So far as it regards the position assumed, that there is peculiar -significance in the manner in which the first day is pointed out, with -it we are ready most heartily to agree. But so far as the assertion is -concerned, that, in the _manner_ of the pointing out, there is found -strong presumptive evidence that they design to teach succeeding -generation that they looked upon the first day of the week as _holy -time_, we can by no means admit that it is correct. On the contrary, we -believe that their language establishes, beyond controversy, the -opposite position. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were blunt, -straightforward, direct men in all that they said. They had nothing to -disguise, nor could anything be gained by indirection in statement. - -Furthermore, every motive of esteem for Christ, as well as that which -would actuate them in their desire to instruct subsequent generations in -regard to the estimation in which they should hold the day of Christ’s -resurrection, demanded that their language should be full and explicit, -and that it should state, in so many words, that it was sacred to holy -uses. But have they done this? No; the gentleman does not so much as -urge that they have. All his emphasis is placed upon the fact that, in -speaking of it, they call it the “first day of the week,” instead of the -“third after his crucifixion.” He may well say that the distinction -between these two forms of expression would be readily “passed over.” -Has it come to this, then, that the Holy Spirit, in enforcing important -duties upon Christians, is compelled to depart from the natural, clear, -and positive statement of facts, and to employ polemical niceties which, -we believe, if they have any force at all, can only be discerned by -minds whose susceptibilities for refinement are infinitely superior to -those of common men and women, and the poor and ignorant to whom the -gospel was preached. - -If the _Sunday_ had become the “_Christian Sabbath_,” why not _say so_? -If, indeed, it was on the “Lord’s day” that Jesus arose, why was not -this asserted? Or, if the first day of the week was regarded as the -Christian Sabbath, why such a studied avoidance of the application of -this term to that day? Will the gentleman insist that if the evangelists -had stated, in so many words, that the Lord appeared among them after -his resurrection on the first “_Lord’s day_,” or the first “_Christian -Sabbath_,” that it would not have been just what the facts would have -warranted, if his theory be correct, and that thereby all dispute, as to -which day is the Lord’s day, or Christian Sabbath, would have been -forever terminated? Then why endeavor to impress the reader with the -thought that there is really any peculiar significance in the form of -expression employed, or that it furnishes a strong presumptive argument -in favor of first-day sanctity? - -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. - -In conclusion, as the fabric of Sunday sanctity, in so far as it is -based upon the transactions of the day of Pentecost, is seen to rest, -purely upon the opinions of men, and since those who observe the day are -divided in sentiment as to whether the Pentecost did indeed really fall -upon it at all, we close this article, as we did the last, by stating -that we have a _positive commandment_ which is admitted to be binding, -and which, as given in the Bible, says that the “seventh day is the -Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” Also, -that our advice to those who are weary with threading the interminable -labyrinth of conjecture and hypothesis is, Place your feet upon the rock -of the written word; there, and there only, you are safe. Should any one -seek to lure you from this position by the assertion that the law upon -which you have planted yourself has been amended, it will be safe to -follow them only when they are able to tell you when and where the -commandment, as given in Exodus, was changed, and exactly how it reads -since the change has occurred. - - - - - STATESMAN’S REPLY. - ARTICLE FIVE. - THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH AT TROAS. - - -The day on which the Saviour rose from the dead, the day which the risen -Saviour singled out and blessed repeatedly with his presence, the day on -which the Holy Ghost was given to the church,—this honored day certainly -could not pass without stated observance by the disciples of the risen -and ascended Lord. It is but reasonable to expect that the day which -Christ and the Holy Spirit honored would be honored by the early church. - -Passing on in the sacred narrative, we come to the account of first-day -Sabbath observance some twenty-six or twenty-eight years after the -Pentecostal gift of the Spirit. In just such a matter-of-course way as -that in which a well known and established custom would be noted, is the -observance of the first day at Troas mentioned in Acts 20:6, 7: “We -sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came -... to Troas in five days, where we abode seven days. And upon the first -day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul -preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his -speech until midnight.” Several important points should here be noted:— - -1. Paul and his companions remained at Troas seven days—from the third -day of one week until the second day of the next week. - -2. At this time, there was at Troas a company or church of Christian -disciples, who would, of course, hold regular religious services. - -3. Besides the Trojan Christians, there were at Troas, during these -“seven days,” at least nine others, including Paul and Luke (see verse -4), who would not let a week pass without observing a stated day of -worship. And yet, - -4. Neither the disciples resident at Troas, nor Paul and his companions, -pay any regard to the seventh day. The whole narrative plainly intimates -that Paul held himself in readiness to depart waiting only for the -stated weekly day of public service. And the seventh day has no more -sacredness assigned to it than the fifth or sixth. Had it been the -customary day of meeting, the disciples would have assembled on it, and -Paul would have been ready to depart _on the morrow_, the first day of -the week. On the other hand, - -5. The first day of the week was observed as the stated, customary -weekly day of divine service by the Christians at Troas. The word, -rendered “came together,” indicates this. It is most intimately related -to the word in Hebrews 10:25, rendered “assembling together.” The latter -is the noun, with an added preposition from the former word, the verb. -These two terms, and another kindred word, are the common terms for -regular church meetings in the New Testament. (See Hebrews 10:25; 1 Cor. -11:17, 18; 14:23, 26.) Again, it will be noticed that the meeting of the -disciples on this first day was for regular public services of the -Christian church. They came together to “break bread,” or observe the -Lord’s supper, and to hear the preaching of the gospel. Besides, let it -be noticed, it is not said that Paul summoned the disciples together; -but it is said that they “came together.” Or, if we follow the reading -of the oldest manuscripts, the customary character of this Christian -first-day assemblage will be made even more manifest. This reading is as -follows: “And upon the first day of the week, when _we_ came together.” -Whether this is the correct reading or not, it expresses undoubtedly the -fact. Paul, Luke, and their companions, as well as the Trojan -Christians, met for divine service, according to the usual practice of -Christians generally, on the first day of the week. - -It remains for us to consider the mode of reckoning time which would fix -Paul’s departure from Troas on the morning of the first day of the week. -Frankness and justice require us to state that even so authoritative a -writer as Mr. Howson, in that able and scholarly work, “The Life and -Epistles of St. Paul,” adopts this mode of reckoning, and, in accordance -with it, pictures out Paul’s solitary journey from Troas to Assos on the -hallowed hours of the Christian Sabbath. - -No one will dispute for a moment that, according to the Jewish mode of -reckoning, the day would begin at sundown, and in this way the evening -of the meeting at Troas would be the evening succeeding the seventh day, -and Paul’s journey of nearly twenty miles would be on the first day of -the week. But it is perfectly clear from the Scriptures that the Roman -method of reckoning the commencement of the day had already, to some -extent, supplanted the Jewish mode. Nor is it any wonder that the method -of the Romans, who were at the time in authority in Palestine, should -have obtained some recognition, even among the Jews. - -John, in a passage quoted in a former article, uses the following -language: “The same day at evening, being the first day of the week.” -(John 20:19) The meeting at Troas, in the evening of the first day, may -not have been without reference to the meeting of the Lord with his -disciples late in the evening of the same day he arose from the dead. -But whether there is any reference in the meeting at Troas to the -meeting recorded by John or not, the passage above quoted clearly proves -that the late evening succeeding the first day of the week was reckoned -a part of the first day, and not a part of the day following—“The _same_ -day at evening [_opsia_, late evening, after dark, it would appear], -being the first day of the week.” - -Matthew, writing particularly for Jewish Christians, adopts the Roman -method in chap. 28:1, in the expression: “In the end of the Sabbath -[literally, late of the Sabbath, _opse_, late, away on after dark], as -it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.” Here, manifestly, -the seventh day is reckoned as continuing during a number of hours, -which, according to the Jewish mode, belonged to the following day. If -Matthew, writing for Jewish Christians, employs the Roman mode of -reckoning, is it not altogether probable that Luke, writing especially -for Gentiles, would adopt the same mode? - -But we need only look carefully at Luke’s own language to settle this -point. His statement is that Paul preached, “ready to depart _on the -morrow_.” It is agreed on all hands that the Christian disciples at -Troas came together on the first day of the week, and that Paul preached -to them on that day. Now, if the time of meeting was the evening -succeeding the seventh day, according to the Jewish mode of reckoning, -could it be said that Paul, taking his leave at a later hour that same -day, departed _on the morrow_? The original term, _epaurion_, is an -adverb, literally signifying “upon the morrow.” But connected with it is -the feminine article, agreeing with the word, “day,” understood. This -makes the expression, if possible, still more explicit—“the day which is -the morrow,” the next day. Can there remain the slightest doubt as to -Luke’s meaning? The Christian congregation at Troas met on one day of -the week. Paul preached to them on that day. It was the first day. _On -the morrow_, not the same day, but another, the following, the second -day of the week, Paul departed, as he had held himself for some days in -readiness to do, on his way to Assos. Thus, as we have a right to -expect, there is no violation by the apostle and his fellow-Christians -of the law of the Sabbath. - -We have not dwelt upon this question of different modes of reckoning -because of any importance which may be claimed for it in connection with -the main inquiry before us. It is entirely immaterial to the point at -issue in this discussion whether Luke employs the Jewish or the Roman -mode. Even if it could be made to appear that he makes use of the -former, there could be found nothing in his narrative in favor of the -seventh-day Sabbath. The argument for the first-day Sabbath would still -remain in its integrity, leaving for consideration simply the question -as to the consistency of certain acts, in a certain case, with the law -of a holy day of rest and worship. For the sake of giving a pretty full -exposition of a passage important in itself, and because a wrong -interpretation has been given by high authority in countenance of a -mischievous theory of the Sabbath, we have occupied much of our space -for this issue in showing that the evening or night of the first day of -the week was the end of the Christian Sabbath, and that Paul and his -companions, like good, Sabbath-keeping Christians, waited, though ready -to depart, until Monday morning, before starting on their journey to -Assos. - -We propose to conclude the argument from Scripture in our next number. -After this, we shall give the testimony of the standard authorities of -the first three centuries of the Christian era. And then, with the facts -concerning sacred time before us, we shall inquire what theory of the -Sabbath harmonizes all the authenticated facts into one consistent -whole. - - - - - A REJOINDER. - “THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH AT TROAS.” - - -In entering upon an examination of the propositions laid down in the -article entitled, “The First-day Sabbath at Troas,” it will be well for -us first to inquire into the object which the writer had in view in -presenting them for our consideration. In doing so, we shall find that -he does not claim that the test or context of Acts 20:7, furnishes any -positive precept for Sunday observance. His effort is merely to -establish a custom. Suppose, therefore, that we should grant all that he -asks, so far as the church of Troas is concerned, would that prove that -Christians universally are under obligation to follow a like custom? We -think not, unless it can be shown that God has adopted this mode of -inculcating religious duty. But this he has never done. If the writer -had first established a positive law, then he might, with some show of -reason, appeal to custom to show that that law was interpreted as he -understands it; but when he reverses the order, and endeavors to prove -the law by the custom, then he has reversed God’s great plan, which is -that of teaching by explicit statute. - -Furthermore, even should a custom be established, the writer must be -able to show that such a custom was kept up, not as a matter of -convenience or taste, but because of a conviction of religious duty. In -other words, it is possible, to say the least, that the church at Troas -were in the habit of meeting on the first day of the week, not because -they looked upon it as holy time, but for certain utilitarian purposes, -best known to themselves. Let us furnish an illustration precisely in -point:— - -Should some person, eighteen hundred years hence—provided time should -last so long—write a history of the present period, as he cast his eye -over the literature of our day, he would find that, in all parts of this -country, Christians were in the habit of assembling on Wednesday -evening, for the purposes of worship. Would he, therefore, be justified -in concluding that Wednesday is regarded by us as peculiarly sacred to -the Lord? You answer, No, and most properly, for you know that our -motives are entirely different from what he would understand them to be. -So, too, with Troas. Granted, for the sake of the argument, that, as the -writer claims, they were in the habit of assembling on the late Sunday -evening; it by no means follows that they did so because they regarded -it as devoted to the Lord. Does he say that they partook of the -sacrament on that day? Grant that, for the sake of the argument. But -does not every student of the Bible know, and is it not the conviction -of the world to-day, that the Lord’s supper can be partaken of with as -much propriety at one time as at another? Is it not a fact that the time -of its institution did not coincide with Sunday? Is it not true that -originally they partook of it on all days of the week? (Acts 2:42, 46.) -If so, it would manifestly be unsafe to attach any special significance -to the fact that, at this time, it was celebrated on the Sunday, So much -for the hypothesis of the _custom_, in question. - -Now that we have said what we have with reference to a custom made out, -it will be well to inquire in the next place, Has the writer established -the usage which he sought to prove? If so, we have failed to discover -the process by which it has been done. Has he found an explicit -statement that the church at Troas was in the habit of meeting on the -first day of the week? Very far from it. Having traced the sacred -narrative for twenty-six years—mark it, reader, over one-fourth of a -century—he has found a solitary assembly of Christians convened on the -first day of the week. But what were the facts in the case? Was this an -ordinary occasion? Were they by themselves alone? No; it was a time of -unusual interest. The great apostle to the Gentiles was there, paying -them a flying visit. He was about to depart on the morrow. It was -perhaps the last time they would ever see him. They wanted to partake of -the emblems of the Lord’s body from his venerated hand. They wanted to -shake that hand in a final farewell, and to plant the kiss of love upon -his careworn face. The circumstances, then, were unusual. The same -combination of facts might never exist again. There is, therefore, so -far as the general view is concerned, nothing which would justify the -decision that they had ever convened for like reasons, previously, at -the same time of the week, or that they ever would thereafter. The -writer evidently felt this, and, with an acuteness of intellectual -perception which to the common mind is almost incredible, he has -discovered overwhelming support for his theory, where the ordinary -reader would have discerned none. - -How strange it is that, again and again, we find that the strongholds of -Sunday sanctity are located just beyond the boundary where the man of -average ability and learning is permitted to go. The Greek, he is told, -has a significance which, if lightly expressed, would establish a custom -beyond all doubt. Well, we have seen above what the value of a custom -is, unless explained. But we ask—and we ask it in the behalf of the -millions who have never so much as seen even the Greek alphabet, and yet -to whom eternal life is as precious as to the man of letters—can it be -possible that God has suspended the terrible realities of Heaven and -hell upon the discharge of a duty vailed from their eyes by the -obscurity of a language whose mysteries they can never hope to -penetrate? For, mark it, this is not one of those points which can be -settled without difficulty, even by those familiar with the tongue in -question. Were our learning equal to that of the gentleman who has -penned the criticism under consideration, we might flatly contradict the -statements which he makes; but this would simply serve to produce a -dead-lock in the mind of the reader, while he remained as far from a -satisfactory solution of the difficulty as ever. The only reply which we -shall make, therefore, is as follows:— - -The distinction drawn between the present text and the original is -either obscure, or it is obvious. If it is obscure, it is unimportant; -if obvious, then it could be seen by scholars, and is so important that -it would have attracted universal attention and comment by first-day -writers and translators. What, therefore, are the facts in the case? -Certain it is that, if it exists at all, it escaped the notice of the -translators of our common version. That they would have given a -rendering as favorable to the first day as the facts would warrant, no -man will dispute. The suggestion that the text would bear the -translation, “_we_ having come together to break bread,” &c.,[5] while -it does not materially alter the sense, so far as the practice of the -church at Troas is concerned, if admissible, renders it highly probable -that Luke and his associates were there until the breaking of the bread; -a point which we shall use hereafter. In the meantime, we give the -following translations in order to show the conviction of their authors, -respecting the meaning of the original:— - -“And on the first day of the week, when we assembled,” &c.—_Syriac._ - -“On the first day of the week, when we were met together.”—_Wesley, N. -T., with Notes._ - -“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples were got -together.”—_Wakefield._ - -“And on the first day of the week, the disciples being -assembled.”—_Whiting._ - -“And on the first day of the week, we, having come together to break -bread.”—_Am. Bible Union._ - -“And on the first day of the week, we being assembled to break -bread.”—_Sawyer._ - -“And on the first day of the week, when the disciples met -together.”—_Doddridge in Campbell and Macknight’s Trans._ - -“And on the first day of the week, we having assembled.”—_Emphatic -Diaglott._ - -We think the reader is now ready to admit that the traces of a custom -which relies for its existence upon an original text, rendered as given -above by so many different persons, none of whom can be charged with -favoring the seventh-day Sabbath, are, to say the least, too faint to be -of practical argumentative utility. To our mind, the inference is simply -this: Paul, about to depart on his journey to Jerusalem, appointed, for -himself and his companions and the disciples at Troas, a final meeting, -at which it was announced that the Eucharist would be celebrated. At -this meeting, all the parties came together, agreeably to the -announcement previously made, and partook of the Lord’s supper. A -fitting close of a week of apostolic labor in an Asiatic city. - -The next item worthy of our attention is found in the hypothesis, that, -during the time Paul was at Troas, the seventh day of the week was -passed by without any religious meeting occurring thereupon; and that -Paul waited until the arrival of the first day, because that was the one -on which the meetings of the church were regularly held. How a writer so -intimately acquainted with the character and labors of St. Paul, the -individual in question undoubtedly is, could draw the inference which he -has, is more than we can fathom. Who, that has read the history of a man -whose nervous activity drove him to dispute daily in the school of -Tyrannus (Acts 19:9), and to seek every opportunity for the presentation -of his gospel to the Jews in their synagogues, and the Greeks in their -places of public gathering, could be induced to believe that he could -remain for seven long days in the city of Troas without a solitary -religious assembly, until the expiration of that time? And yet this is -the very decision which we are called upon to indorse. Before we can do -this, however, we ask for the proof. The answer is, it must be so, -because the record contains no account of the holding of such meetings -until the first day of the week. - -But is this satisfactory? Do not all the circumstances of the case, as -well as the temperament and character of Paul, render certain the act -that such meetings were held, even, though it is not stated in so many -words? Paul with a Christian church at Troas for one week, and not -preach to them! Impossible. To show the writer that the mention of -religions meetings in brief history is not necessary in order to prove -that they occurred on a given day, or on stated days, let me call his -attention to the fact, that, between the day of Pentecost and the -meeting at Troas, according, to his own showing, there were at least -twenty-six intervening years; that during those years, agreeably to his -view, there were thirteen hundred and fifty-two first-days, all of which -were holy time, and nearly all of which must have been honored by stated -meetings on the part of the apostles; and yet, out of that whole number, -he only claims to produce the record of one solitary day on which such -meeting occurred. What are the facts, then? Paul probably preached every -day of the seven, while he was at Troas. Do you ask why the account is -not given of such meetings in the book of the Acts? I answer that the -Holy Spirit was giving, through Luke, a succinct history of the more -striking occurrences which transpired in their travels. The story of the -first-day meeting at Troas found its way into the sacred narrative, -because its importance to after generations was enhanced by the -accidental fall, and the miraculous restoration to life of Eutychus, and -perhaps by other facts connected with that event, of equal interest. I -think that one of them was a disposition on the part of God to provide -his commandment-keeping servants in succeeding generations with a -passage in the life of Paul, which should forever silence the cavils of -men who should undertake to belittle his ancient Sabbath, and to foist -into its place a day which He never commanded. This we will further -consider in our next point. - -Having endeavored to establish the point that the seventh-day Sabbath -was not observed at Troas, an effort is made to show that a change of -time had occurred, so that Luke, in giving his account of the -transactions mentioned above, treated the day as commencing and ending, -not according to the Jewish method, with the setting of the sun, but -after the Roman fashion, with midnight. The reader will readily discover -the object to be gained by this maneuver, if such I may be allowed to -call it. We had insisted that the first day of the week commenced at -sunset; that Paul met with the disciples in the dark portion of that day -(verse 8), preached to them during that night, and on the next morning -commenced a journey of nineteen and a half miles on foot, on that which -answered to the daylight portion of our Sunday. This, if true, with the -majority of readers, would have forever settled the question that Paul -did not believe in first-day sanctity. A remedy, therefore, must be had. -The gentleman thinks he has found one. That he has made a desperate -effort to obtain it, we are compelled to admit. No man, it seems to us -would ever resort to an experiment so hazardous, who did not find -himself in the stress of a situation which otherwise would be utterly -insupportable. With the most deliberate calculation, and in the face of -authority which he himself highly honors, he has decided that the -journey in question occurred on the second day of the week, instead of -the first, which ended at twelve o’clock the previous night. Well, -suppose we admit, for a moment, that this was true; what then? The -Sunday is thereby rescued from profanation by Paul; but it is also true -that the second day of the week is thereby honored with the meeting of a -Christian church, and that it was it, and not the first, after all, -which was honored by the breaking of bread during its hours.[6] So much -for some of the consequences of the position, if well taken. - -But now let us turn to the argument for the change. Is it really true -that Roman, and not Jewish, time, is employed in a portion of the New -Testament? If so, the perplexities of the situation are very great. How -shall we know when to apply the one, and when the other? How can we tell -precisely where the dividing line should be drawn? We hope, in all -conscience, independently of the question at issue, that the writer is -not correct. He seems to find the first intimation of a change in the -gospels. Matt. 28:1, and John 20:19, are referred to in support of his -view. Now suppose we concede for a time the point which he desires, and -admit that these passages prove the use in them of Roman time; also -that, as he claims, the meeting spoken of in John 20:19, occurred in the -evening (Roman time), and after the coming on of darkness. This done, we -inquire, Was it a Jewish day or a Roman day that was sanctified by the -resurrection of Christ, and his appearance to his assembled disciples? -We think that few will dispute that it was a Jewish day. - -But when did the Jewish day commence? The undeniable answer is, At -sunset. But when did Christ appear to the disciples, according to Roman -time, as argued? We answer, In the darkness of the evening, and, -therefore, after the ending of the Jewish first day. What is the -necessary conclusion? We reply, One of two things. 1. Either that the -visit of Christ had no reference to the sanctity of the day on which it -occurred; or 2. That it was designed to honor the second day of the -Jewish week. We leave the writer in question to take whichever horn of -this dilemma he pleases. If he should insist that John employed Roman -time, then all which he has said in reference to the effect of the visit -of Christ upon the first day of the Jewish week is emptied of all force. -Never was self-stultification more complete. In his effort to escape -from the paws of the Trojan bear (secular travel on Sunday), the writer -has thrown himself into the jaws of the lion (no Scripture precedent for -Sunday-keeping). For, if he is right in supposing that the meeting in -John 20:19, occurred on the Roman evening of that day—that is, after -sunset, and the coming on of darkness—then, of course, it did not -transpire on the Jewish first day of the week, which had previously -ended, according to his own admission, at the going down of the sun; but -it actually took place after the commencement of the second day of the -Jewish week. - -Not only so, but the second meeting, of Christ with his disciples (after -eight days), according to his own reasoning, must have fallen on the -second Jewish day of the next week. And, finally, accepting his logic -that the meeting of Acts 20:7, also fell on the Roman evening of the -first day of the week, that precedent, so long cherished, and so often -cited, is now forever disposed of, since it, too, illustrates the second -Jewish day of the week, and not the first, if, indeed, it adds luster to -any. But, reader, it would be neither Christian nor manly to adopt an -exegesis of Scripture presented by an opponent, simply because such an -exegesis would prove his overthrow. Truth is worth more than mere -victory. The gentleman has made a mistake in deciding that Roman time is -employed in the Bible, and that mistake has brought him to confusion. -But now we propose to show that Roman time is not employed, even though -in so doing we shall assist him out of his trouble for the time being. -Let no one suppose, however, that the relief which we shall afford him -will be permanent, for, unfortunately for him, we shall rescue him from -one death simply to deliver him to another. - -The whole question turns upon the commencement and end of the Bible day. -If it can be shown that it began and terminated with the setting of the -sun, then, beyond all dispute, the meeting in Troas occurred at the -commencement of the first day of the week, at the coming on of darkness, -the only period in that day when lights could be employed to advantage -(verse 8). We proceed, therefore, to our task. We have heretofore quoted -from the Tract Society’s Bible Dictionary, under the article, day, to -prove a general agreement that the Hebrews commenced and ended their day -with the setting of the sun. In addition to this, we might refer the -reader to Smith’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the Bible on the same -subject. In fact, we might multiply authorities without end; but this is -not necessary here. By turning to Genesis, chapter 1, the reader will -find that God measured the day by “the evening and the morning” -(darkness and light). He will here observe that with the ancient Hebrews -the whole night preceded the day to which it belonged. Advancing to -Leviticus 23:32, he will there read the command of God, that the people -should keep their Sabbaths “from even to even.” But as the Sabbath was -the last day of the week, and was to commence and end with the evening, -he will discover that it will be necessary that all the other days -should commence and end in the same manner. - -Passing now to the New Testament, he will find the same custom -prevailing in the days of our Lord. Nay, more; he will there obtain the -authority of Luke himself, who wrote the book of Acts, for believing -that Christ and the Jews followed that system of beginning and ending -the day which God had inaugurated in the outset. We read in Luke 4:40: -“Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers -diseases, brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of -them, and healed them.” By tracing back the event, as given by Luke, in -its parallel, as found in Mark 1, we find that Christ was healing in the -synagogue on the Sabbath day, and that he subsequently repaired to the -house of Peter, and healed his wife’s mother; and that, “at even, when -the sun did set,” the Jews brought to him all those that were diseased, -and possessed with devils, for the purpose of having him heal them. -This, however, they could not have done on the Sabbath day, according to -their views; therefore they prove that the custom was still prevalent -among them of ending the days with the setting of the sun. But, -furthermore, has it not been argued by the writer himself, that the day -of Pentecost was coincident with the first day of the week? We think -this will hardly be disputed. If it be true, however, and if the logic -be sound, that the Spirit which was poured out on the day of Pentecost -was designed to indicate that it corresponded with the Christian -Sabbath, then we need not argue further, for no man will deny that that -day was emphatically Jewish in its beginning and ending. - -This army of Scripture testimony, gleaned from a history of 4000 years, -if met at all, it will be necessary that it should be done by clear and -emphatic statements emanating from the same source from which the -authorities in question are drawn. Has the gentleman furnished any such -evidence? The reader will readily discover that he has not. The only -texts brought forward in support of the change upon which he insists are -John 20:19, and Matt. 28:1. In reference to the first of these, it will -only be required that attention should be called to the fact that, with -the Hebrews, each day had two evenings. (Exodus 12:6, margin; and -Numbers 9:3, and 28:4, margin.) On this point, the Bible Dictionary -says: “The Hebrews reckoned two evenings in each day.... According to -the Karaites, this time between the evenings is the interval from sunset -to complete darkness, that is, the evening twilight. According to the -Pharisees and the Rabbins, the first evening began when the sun inclined -to descend more rapidly; that is, at the ninth hour; while the second or -real evening commenced at sunset.” (Art. Evening.) Now let it be -supposed that Christ met with his disciples somewhere between three -o’clock and sunset, on the day of the resurrection, and the statement -that he met with them the “same day at evening,” is at once verified, -and the necessity for the supposition of a change of time disappears. - -In explanation of Matt. 28:1, we cannot do better, perhaps, than to -append the following comment from Albert Barnes: “The word _end_, here -means the same as _after_ the Sabbath; _i. e._, after the Sabbath was -fully completed, or finished, and may be expressed in the following -manner: ‘In the night following the Sabbath; for the Sabbath closed at -sunset, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.’” That Mr. -Barnes is right in his criticism, will become apparent when we compare -Matt. 28:1, with the parallel passage in Mark 16:1, 2, where the same -historic fact is introduced with these words: “When the Sabbath was -past.” A complete harmony is thus preserved between the two evangelists, -and all requisition for the extreme resort to the hypothesis of a sudden -and unprecedented employment of the Roman system for the computation of -time is dispensed with. - -As it regards the objection, which is based upon the use made in Acts -20:7, of the words, “on the morrow,” we reply that it is not well taken. -That it was perfectly compatible with a Jewish custom, when speaking of -the daylight portion of any day from the stand-point of the previous -evening, to allude to it as “the morrow,” we cite the following -passages: “Then the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul, and -brought him by night to Antipatris. _On the morrow_ they left the -horsemen to go with him, and returned to the castle.” Acts 23:31, 32. -“Saul also sent messengers unto David’s house, to watch him, and to slay -him in the morning; and Michal, David’s wife, told him, saying, If thou -save not thy life to-night, _to-morrow_ thou shalt be slain.” 1 Samuel -19:11. - -In addition to the above texts, we might quote the authority of Mr. -Howson, who is so justly complimented for his scholarship by the writer. -He cannot be charged with leaning toward our views of the Sabbath, and, -therefore, if he had any bias in the case, it would be against, and not -in favor of, the position which we are trying to maintain. If there was -really any force in the criticism which is offered respecting the use of -the preposition and the term with which it is connected, assuredly the -discriminating eye of this gentleman would not have allowed it to escape -detection. Nevertheless, he, as the writer admits, deliberately decides, -while examining at length the very passages now before us, that the -events there spoken of, journey and all, did transpire on the Sunday. In -doing so, it follows, as a matter of course, that he did not regard the -difficulty which is urged concerning the words, “on the morrow,” as one -at all formidable. - -Thus much by way of a brief refutation of the diversity theory for the -commencing of the days of the Bible. We have seen heretofore, that, if -the advocate of this theory were right and we wrong, he has lost to his -cause the three precedental meetings of John 20:19, John 20:26, and Acts -20:7, since they occurred on the second, and not the first, Jewish day -of the week. Let us now view the situation from the stand-point of one -who believes that the sacred, instead of the heathen, method is followed -consistently throughout the Scriptures. In Acts 20:7, the text which is -passing under review, it is said that there was a meeting held upon the -first day of the week, and that Paul preached until midnight. It now -becomes important to know on what portion of the first day of the week -this meeting fell. By examining the record, we find the statement that -there were many lights employed in the chamber where they were gathered. -We know, therefore, that the meeting must have taken place during the -dark portion of the first day of the week. But as we have seen that the -Jewish day commenced with sunset, the only hours of darkness which -belong to it were to be found between that time and the next morning. -Advancing, we learn that, having spent the night in preaching, breaking -of bread, &c., the apostle devoted the daylight portion of the first day -of the week to the accomplishment of a journey of nineteen and a half -miles, while his companions sailed the vessel a greater distance round -the headland to Assos. Here, then, is apostolic example for travel upon -the first day of the week. The writer endeavored to escape this -conclusion, by asserting that the meeting in question and the travel -took place on the second day of the week. This view, we have met, and -successfully answered. The record states that it was upon the first day -of the week when they came together. It then proceeds to give a -connected account of what transpired on that day, and among other -things, is found the story of Paul and his companions starting for -Jerusalem. Now, if the events related did really transpire on two days, -instead of on one merely, as would naturally be inferred from the -context, the burden of the proof is with our opponent. We rest the -matter, therefore, right here. The only attempt which he has made has -been a complete failure. That he thought it was the best he could do -under the circumstances, we doubt not. - -There remains now no item of difference between ourselves and the writer -in the _Statesman_ which should occupy us longer. For, between him and -myself there is no room for dispute respecting the morality of traveling -on the Sabbath, since, according to his own confession, the object which -Paul had in remaining at Troas was that of a good “_Sabbath-keeping -Christian_,” who was unwilling to violate the sacredness of holy time by -the performance of secular labor. Here, then, we pause. As we do so, we -appeal to the judgment of the candid men and women who have read the -criticism of our friend and our reply thereto. Did Paul conscientiously -regard the first day of the week, while traveling on foot nineteen and a -half miles upon it, and did Luke and his six companions, in sailing a -much greater distance on the same hours, transgress the law of God, and -ignore the example of Christ; or, did they look upon the first day of -the week as one which God had given to man for the purposes of labor and -travel? If you still decide that it was holy time, you must be able to -reconcile their action with this theory. This, however, you can never -do. If, on the contrary, you shall determine that they treated it as a -secular day, then it remains so still, for its character has not changed -from that day to this. - -Footnote 5: - - As it is not insisted that this translation is a correct one, I shall - not turn aside for the purpose of showing, as might easily be done, - from the original, that it is not admissible where the rule of strict - construction is followed. - -Footnote 6: - - The honoring of the second day here alluded to rests upon the - hypothesis that the breaking of bread spoken of in Acts 20:11, answers - to the Lord’s supper. It is, however, by no means certain that this - was the case, since scholars differ widely in opinion respecting the - matter; some holding to the opinion that reference was made to the - Lord’s supper, and others to the view that the breaking of bread - referred merely to a common meal. - - - - - STATESMAN’S REPLY. - ARTICLE SIX - TESTIMONY OF PAUL AND JOHN TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH. - - -Two important portions of the inspired records remain to be considered. -The first of these reads as follows: “Now concerning the collection for -the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do -ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in -store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I -come.” (1 Cor. 16:1, 2.) - -From this passage it is clear that the churches of Galatia, as well as -the church at Corinth, or that Christians generally, were required to -set apart a proportion of their worldly goods, as God prospered them, -for benevolent purposes. It is also clear that the act of setting apart -the required proportion of means was to be performed statedly, every -week, on the first day of the week. - -Whatever may be the correct interpretation of the words, “lay by him in -store,” enough is beyond all doubt and agreed upon by all, to show that -the first day of the week was regarded by the apostle and the Christian -churches as a special day, and one more fitting than others for the -benevolent and religious duty enjoined. - -The phrase rendered in our version “by him,” is unquestionably an -idiomatic Greek expression for “at home.” (Compare Luke 24:12, and John -20:10.) And even if we understand this phrase to be connected with the -word rendered, “in store,” which is a participle signifying “treasure -up,” the proof of first-day sacred observance is still clear and strong. -But the true connection of the words, “at home,” is with what precedes. -“Let every one place or devote at home.” Place what? The answer is not -hard to find—a proportion of the weekly earnings; a suitable part of -what God in his bounty had given. When this proportion was separated by -each Christian at home, from the rest of his weekly earnings, it was to -be treasured up. But where? This is the important question. Where was -the money each Christian set apart at home on the first day of the week, -from his weekly receipts, to be kept in store? It appears that this -treasuring up was not at each Christian’s home: - -1. Because the phrase, “at home,” grammatically connects, not with the -word “treasuring,” but with the preceding verb. This verb does not mean -“lay by,” but “lay,” or “place.” The preposition rendered “by” is part -of the phrase, “at home.” If it is insisted that the idea of treasuring -in store is in the word rendered “lay,” then we have this tautology: -“Let every one place in store or lay by at home, placing in store.” Paul -did not write in this way. - -2. The first day of the week must have offered a special facility for -doing what was required. True, if nothing more is meant than laying by -at home, even that marks the first day with distinguishing honor. But -the placing or putting of God’s portion by itself; separated from the -remainder of the receipts of the past week, on each first-day, in each -Christian’s home, was in order to something else, for which the first -day alone gave opportunity. On that day, as we have learned from Acts -20:7, and other portions of Scripture, Christians were accustomed to -meet for public religious services, and at these public gatherings, each -Christian put into the treasury of the church what he had set apart at -home from the rest of the gains of the week. - -3. The most conclusive argument, however, is drawn from the end that -Paul desired to accomplish. He states expressly that his aim in giving -his directions was to avoid the necessity of gatherings or collections -when he should come. The force of this consideration is evaded by -explaining the apostle’s words as meaning “small collections.” But if -every Christian had his money laid by at home, whether it were much or -little, the “collections” would still have to be made. Each Christian, -it is true, would have his sum already made up, and would need to make -no personal gathering. But the apostle’s word is much more naturally and -fittingly applied to collections on a larger and wider scale. And to -effect the apostle’s end, and avoid such collections at his coming, the -Corinthians, like the Galatians, were to make a collection every Lord’s -day, of what each one at home had set apart or placed aside from the -proceeds of his business during the preceding week. In no other way -would the moneys needed be in perfect readiness for the apostle. If left -in the hands of individuals scattered around, there would be uncertainty -about the apostle’s receipt of them, and there would still be trouble in -connection with collections on his arrival. But with the moneys already -gathered, at the regular weekly meetings, into the common treasury of -the church, and there waiting his coming, his aim is satisfactorily -accomplished. - -The only remaining passage is Rev. 1:10: “I was in the Spirit on the -Lord’s day.” It has been admitted by opponents of the first-day Sabbath, -that if, by the Lord’s day in this passage, the first day of the week is -meant, their cause is lost. And lost it is; for no other day can be -meant. Three interpretations have been given of John’s words:— - -1. By the Lord’s day is meant the day of Judgment. Wetstein, in his -elaborate edition of the Greek New Testament, in the year 1752, first -advanced this view. His comment is; “Hunc diem judicii vidit in spiritu; -_i. e._, prævidit representatum.” “John saw in Spirit the day of -Judgment; that is, he foresaw it represented.” The phrase, “the day of -the Lord,” does mean in the Scriptures the day of Judgment. But that -phrase is different from the one here employed. The literal rendering of -the former is, “the day of the Lord.” The literal rendering of the other -is, “the dominical day.” This was not a day foreseen, but a day on which -John was in the Spirit—a day of weekly recurrence which the Lord claims -as his own, as he claims the dominical supper. - -2. By the Lord’s day, it is maintained again, is meant the seventh-day -Sabbath. In support of this view it is said that the phrase employed by -John corresponds with such Old-Testament expressions as “a Sabbath to -the Lord,” and with the Saviour’s language: “The Son of man is Lord even -of the Sabbath.” But the very fact that the seventh day had a well-known -and distinctive name by which it was always designated, is strong -presumptive proof that this new and unusual phrase used by John cannot -apply to it. It would be most natural to suppose that some other day is -meant, and this is clearly proved to be the fact. - -3. The phrase, the Lord’s day, was the common expression for designating -the first-day Sabbath from John’s time onward. As the meal which the -Lord hallowed as his own was called the Lord’s supper, so the day -hallowed by the Lord’s resurrection, by his repeated meeting with his -disciples after rising from the dead, by the descent of his Spirit, by -the weekly religious assemblies of his people with their communions, -preaching and hearing the word, prayers and almsgiving, was properly -termed the Lord’s day. It has been argued on the other side of the -question that the Lord had a day, and but one in the week, called -specially his own. But as has been shown, Jesus himself, after his -resurrection, paid no regard to the seventh day. His disciples did not -observe it. It could not, therefore, have been the Lord’s day. On the -other hand, Jesus did honor the first day, and the Christian churches -everywhere did the same; and thus this honored day is the only one of -which John could speak when he said he was “in the Spirit on the Lord’s -day.” By this name, as will be seen in our next article, the first day -of the week was known in the early church. - - - - - A REJOINDER. - “TESTIMONY OF PAUL AND JOHN TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.” - - -With no small degree of interest we have perused the article entitled, -“Testimony of Paul and John to the First-day Sabbath,” The two texts -which it brings forward in defense of the theory of a changed Sabbath, -are regarded by the friends of that theory, generally, as among the -strongest of its supports. The first of them (1 Cor. 16:1, 2), we had -assailed, and adduced a criticism, from the pen of Mr. J. W. Morton, -which was of great importance. In it, the very stronghold of the Sunday -argument had been fearlessly attacked, and, to our mind, carried beyond -all question. The writer whom we quoted presented twelve versions and -translations, all of which clearly sustained the position that the -expression, “by him,” was equivalent to the term, “at home” If this were -true, then beyond all dispute the Sunday argument had been denuded of -all its strength, provided it ever had any; for the support of its logic -was the assumption that the transaction brought to view in this text was -to take place in the respective assemblies of the saints. - -It is, therefore, with the most profound satisfaction that—if we rightly -apprehend the remarks of our reviewer—we accept his concession of the -point that the words, “by him,” do indeed answer to a Greek idiom, of -which the original terms are equivalent to the expression, “at home.” -This being true, we are agreed that at least a _portion_ of the duty -which Paul commanded was to be performed, not at the house of assembly, -but at the _dwelling_ of _the individual Christian_. In other words, he -admits that the money which they were to “place or devote” to charitable -purposes, was first to be estimated and separated while yet they were in -their own houses. Having conceded thus much, he reasons that the money -was to be carried to the place of worship, and laid up in store, or -deposited among the collections regularly made on the first day of the -week. In order to sustain this view, he offers a grammatical criticism -to which it cannot be objected that it is not drawn finely enough to -meet the taste of the most fastidious. But the writer does not seem to -plant himself so squarely upon it as we would naturally expect one would -who feels that he is standing upon solid ground. - -The _force of his logic_ seems to be drawn from the _object_ which Paul -had in view, in ordering beforehand this weekly laying aside of money -for the poor saints at Jerusalem. The writer thinks that the evident -reference of Paul, in the words, “that there be no gatherings when I -come,” is to contributions to be taken up in the congregation when he -should have reached the place. If he is wrong in this, he is wrong in -all; for no one will dispute that money _could_[7] be “laid by in store” -_at home_, as well as in the church, since to lay by in store, is to put -in some safe and accessible place. - -Right here, then, we inquire, What were the “gatherings” which Paul -sought to avoid on his arrival? They could refer to but one of two -things; either, first, the collection of moneys in the church; or, -secondly, the collecting of them by individuals from those who were -indebted to them. That the first was not the sense in which Paul -employed the word, we submit is apparent, from the fact that the end to -be gained by writing months beforehand, in order to prevent the taking -up of a collection in the church, was not commensurate with the dignity -which is given to it by so prominent a place in the sacred epistle. So -far as the collection itself was concerned, it could have been brought -about, unquestionably, within the space of fifteen minutes. The amount -of time, therefore, which it would consume, is too insignificant to be -worthy of mention. - -Again, as it regards the moral complexion of the act, it will not be -objected by our reviewer that it was to be avoided from any scruples in -that direction, since he believes that such collections were taken up on -every first day of the week. On the other hand, taking the second view -as being the one which properly expresses the facts, we find that it is -in perfect harmony with the circumstances of the case, and consistent -with the notion that Paul had a sufficient motive for writing before -hand, as he did, concerning the collections. He was about to make a -brief visit to Corinth. How long he should remain, he could not tell. -While there, he wanted the undivided attention of the people to be given -to religious purposes, and also that the money which he expected, should -be in readiness, so that no delay might be necessary. - -This, however, could not be, since, not knowing the exact time of his -arrival, they would not be likely to have it on hand when he should -come, unless they laid it by, weekly, at their homes. Should he, -therefore, drop in upon them suddenly, they would be thrown into a -confusion of mind illy compatible with the purposes of daily worship -during his visit, since they would be annoyed and distracted by the -necessity of gathering from this direction and that, the amounts of the -weekly contribution which they had agreed to make for the benefit of the -suffering saints at Jerusalem. - -But once more: Having settled the point that the explanation claimed -does not satisfactorily account for the mention of the subject in an -epistle, while the one which we present meets the requirements of the -case in every particular—since it both supplies the money, and furnishes -the apostle with a body of Christians ready to listen to the preaching -of the word—let us look at the matter from another stand-point. - -The plan proposed by Paul could have been arrived at in but one of two -ways. Every Christian was expected, either, first, to give a fixed sum, -every week, of an amount equal to that which the general valuation of -his property would require; or, secondly, he was, as the writer -supposes, to pay in a fluctuating amount weekly, that amount to be -determined by the gains or losses of the week. - -We will suppose, for a moment, that the first theory is correct, and -will test the plan in question thereby. While doing so, for convenience’ -sake, we will employ the currency of our own time. Here is a Corinthian -Christian who is worth, say $10,000. He decides that he will give, for -the purposes mentioned, ten dollars per week. He has money in his purse, -and nothing to prevent his doing it at any time. Being anxious to obey -the injunction of Paul, he proceeds as the writer suggests. On Sunday -morning he is at home, knowing just what he must contribute on that day, -when he goes to church, having previously decided this point. The -amount, as we have seen, is precisely ten dollars. But Paul says he must -do something with it “at home,” before going to church. What was he to -do with it? The writer says, “to place or devote it.” Well, he takes out -his purse; from it he extracts just ten dollars. He holds it in his -fingers. Now, what shall he do with it? The writer says he must “_place_ -or _devote_ it.” Yes, but we inquire. What does _place_ or _devote -mean_, in such a connection as this? In other words, What shall he do -with the money at home? Shall he take it out, and turn it over, and look -at it, and put it back into his purse again, and then go to church and -place it in the contribution box? We answer that this would be a solemn -farce. To say, also, that having taken it out of his purse he must not -put it back again, but must place it in some other pocket, and then -carry it to church, is simply ridiculous. So far, therefore, as the men -were concerned whose property was fixed, and whose contributions were -the same, weekly, all that was said by Paul about “devoting or placing” -at home was pure nonsense, in the light of the exposition offered.[8] - -Now for the other class, or the men of fluctuating resources. How shall -they proceed? Were they to estimate the amount of their weekly gains, -and to collect in the sum, on the last day, which they were to give on -the first day of the week? If so, then in their cases, as well as in -those of the first order, the whole process was a mere sham, an empty -and meaningless form. For they also, at their homes, would simply have -to take out their money and look at it, and then put it back and go to -the church for the purpose of donating it. - -But again; as we have seen, that unless the work of deciding how much -they ought to give, and separating the amount for that purpose while at -home on the first day of the week, was a part of the plan of the -apostle, the whole suggestion had in it neither rhyme nor reason, we now -turn to the only alternative left our opponent; which is the conclusion -that the work indicated by the term, “place or devote at home,” was that -of _deciding upon_, and _separating_ the sum which they could spare to -the weekly contribution. - -What are the consequences of such a position? We reply, It overturns and -utterly uproots the whole theory of Sunday sanctity; for the lesson -taught by 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, instead of being favorable to the conception -that Paul held to such a theory, shows that he regarded the first day of -the week as secular time. Do you ask, How do you reach such a -conclusion? I answer, It is inevitable, since the men who were acting -under the instruction of Paul could not carry out the work prescribed by -him without devoting at least the morning of the first day of the week -to worldly business, such as that of figuring up and deciding upon the -losses and profits of the preceding week, and, perhaps, collecting from -outstanding matters the pro-rata amount necessary for the stated -collection at the church. - -Should it be objected that our suggestion is open to the criticism that -the well-to-do class of Christians could have furnished their means at -any time, we answer, Very true; but that, should week after week elapse -without the separation, on the part of the wealthy, of the stipulated -sum, it might, before the arrival of the apostle, reach figures which it -would be difficult even for them to meet without perplexity. And -besides, the better, easier, more natural, and we think, spiritually, -the more profitable method, even for them, would be found in doing it -weekly. We might offer many reasons for this conviction, had we space. -Paul was giving a general rule to meet the condition of all classes. The -poor comprised the larger portion of these classes, and a principle was -laid down, therefore, which, while it was better for the rich than any -other, was indispensable, for the purposes in question, to the men of -moderate circumstances. - -Our interpretation, stated in brief, is simply this: The apostle -instructed them on the first day of the week to lay by in store, at -home, what they proposed to give to the saints at Jerusalem, hoarding it -up until he should visit them, so that at his arrival they might put it -into the common treasury; thus avoiding the possibility of being unable, -on the one hand, to meet their pledges, and on the other, of being -necessitated to have their minds occupied with temporal affairs, during -his stay. This conception is free from embarrassments. Even were the -gentleman’s translation of the passage correct, it cannot be shown to be -unsound. He would read the scripture substantially as follows: “Let -every one of you devote at home, treasuring up, that there be no -gatherings when I come.” To our mind, there is no tautology, even in the -declaration of the apostle thus expressed, which is worthy of mention; -for should the term, “treasuring up,” be interpreted to mean the same as -placing or devoting at home, it is explanatory, not of the command, but -of the purpose of the command. A paraphrase, which is often employed -with profit in the writings of Paul, will make it all clear: “Upon the -first day of the week, let every one of you lay aside, or devote to the -Lord, an amount commensurate with the prosperity which he has bestowed -upon you, treasuring it up, so that there need be no gatherings when I -come.” - -The only difference between the gentleman and myself, therefore, would -be as to the _place where_ it was to be treasured up; he insisting that -it was at the church, and we, at the house of the individual Christian. -We have shown that his opinion is not only unnecessary, but that it is -also absurd, since it divides a transaction which Paul does not divide; -and, after admitting that a part of it transpired at the home of the -individual, it represents the other part as having taken place at the -church; whereas, neither the _church_, the _contribution box_, nor the -_assembly_, are so much as mentioned. And besides, it presents Paul in -an attitude which certainly does not compliment his sagacity. Mark you, -it is “every one of you” that he instructs to “lay by at home.” It must -therefore be, not the church collectively, but its individual members -who are called upon to treasure up, or lay by in store. Just here we -submit that the language employed is literal, and not figurative, and -that, this being true, the moment that the saints at Corinth placed -their funds in the common treasury, they violated the injunction of the -apostle, which was that they should treasure it up, or lay it by in -store, individually. By way of enforcing our logic, we inquire of the -reader, who has doubtless contributed many times to church collections, -Can you look upon money thus bestowed as in any proper sense of the term -belonging to you individually? or as still treasured up or laid by in -store? We think that your answer will not be equivocal. To lay by in -store, as before stated, is to put in some safe and accessible place; -but money once donated is not accessible to the individual contributor, -since he has no longer any individual property in it. - -Here we must terminate our remarks on 1 Cor. 16:1, 2. As we do so, we -have disposed of the last Bible text which will be cited in the support -of a supposed practice of Sunday-keeping on the part of the early -church. Error begets error. Having rejected the obvious teaching of Acts -20:7, that Paul, after holding a meeting on the first day of the week, -traveled nineteen and a half miles on foot, and having endeavored to -explain away this journey by inferring that it took place on the second -day of the week, which is not mentioned in the connection, our opponent -comes to the consideration of 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, lugging along in his arms -a precedent which God had clearly taught him was not designed to teach -the lesson which he sought to extract from it. With this precedent, thus -illegitimately obtained, he seeks to explain the language of Paul which -we have been considering. By this means, he has been led to indorse -error. But we need not recapitulate. - -In conclusion on this point, we remark: How admirable is the providence -of God! He has instructed us in his word, in regard to duty, by clear -precepts, and has never told as to study its requirements simply in the -light of human example. How remarkable, therefore, that he should have -condescended to so order, by his Spirit, the record which has been made -in the case of every precedent brought forward, that the text and -context would utterly overthrow every effort of him who should attempt -to employ them in the interest of a false doctrine. On the day of the -resurrection, as if to show that it was not holy time, two disciples are -brought to view as traveling fifteen miles; a portion of the distance in -company with their approving Lord, and the remainder of it after he had -appeared to, walked and conversed with, them. In Acts 20:7, apparently -perceiving the use which might be made of it, he places, in the -foreground of the sacred record, the apostle, threading a weary journey -on foot from Troas to Assos; and lastly, in 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, he framed -the language so that it should inculcate, not the idea that the first -day of the week was holy time, but, on the contrary, that it might be -devoted to the secular work of casting up accounts and collecting funds. - -With the exposition offered of the words, “I was in the Spirit on the -Lord’s day,” Rev. 1:10, we shall make short work. What we have -previously said on that passage is not sufficiently disturbed to warrant -extended remark. Be it remembered, then, that, as said above, the -passage proves that God has a day in this dispensation. At this point -commences our divergence. We say that the term, “Lord’s day,” refers to -the seventh-day Sabbath. The writer says that it refers to the first day -of the week. The declaration that Christ paid no attention to the -seventh-day Sabbath after his resurrection, needs no reply here, except -that he was under no obligation to do so, and there was no good reason -why he should, since he regarded it strictly in his lifetime, and -enjoined it upon his followers. Perhaps, however, it would be well to -add that he at least never did anything after his resurrection which -might be construed into a desecration of it; whereas, in the case of the -only first-day on which it can be _proved_ that he ever met with his -disciples, after his death, be devoted a portion of its hours to travel -on the highway. - -To the objection of the writer that, if the term, “Lord’s day,” in the -case before us, does apply to the seventh-day Sabbath, it is strange -that it should have been called in every case but this “the Sabbath,” we -reply that, were this true, this would simply prove a choice in titles, -and implies no disrespect to the day itself, since the term “Sabbath,” -equally with that of “Lord’s day,” was a sacred denomination. Not so, -however, if he be right in the supposition that the term, “Lord’s day,” -applies to the Sunday; for, if he be correct in this, then indeed we -have something which is _passing strange_. For, in all the New -Testament, that which he is pleased to style the “Christian Sabbath,” -and to which, according to his theory, belonged the honorable name of -“Lord’s day,” is not only so called but once; but, being spoken of nine -times by inspired men, it is mentioned eight times out of the nine by -them in an utter disregard of its hallowed nature, in the terms -employed, since it is referred to by its secular name, first day of the -week, in all these instances. The reader will recollect that, in our -positive argument, we showed that the term, “Lord’s day,” was a fitting -one for the last day of the week, provided the term translated “Lord” -was applicable to God, the Father, as well as to Christ, the Son. 1. -Because it was the day which he blessed and sanctified in Eden, thus -claiming it as his own (Gen. 2:3). 2. Because, in the commandment, he -calls it “the Sabbath of the Lord.” 3. Because, in Isa 58:13, 14, he -makes mention of it in the use of the terms, “Sabbath,” “my holy day,” -“the holy of the Lord,” &c. - -In addition, we might cite other honorable and distinguishing terms by -which it is pointed out in the Bible as a day which belongs peculiarly -to the Lord our God, but these are sufficient. - -If it be replied that the word translated “Lord” in Rev. 1:10, is -necessarily limited to Christ, we answer: 1. As we have argued formerly, -that he said he was Lord of the Sabbath. Mark 2:27, 28. 2. That the -following texts show conclusively that the divine Son of God was -engaged, equally with the Father, in the creation of this world; and, -therefore, that he undoubtedly shared in the rest which furnished the -foundation for the Edenic Sabbath, as well as in the act of blessing and -sanctifying it, or setting it apart for religious purposes. “All things -were made by him [Christ]: and without him was not anything made that -was made.” John 1:3. “He was in the world, and the world was made by -him, and the world knew him not.” John 1:10. “... Who [God] created all -things by Jesus Christ.” Eph. 3:9. “For by him were all things created, -that are in heaven, and that are in earth; ... all things were created -by him, and for him.” Col. 1:16. “God ... hath in these last days spoken -unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom -also he made the worlds.” Heb. 1:1, 2. Even though we should grant, -therefore, which we do not, that the term translated “Lord,” as above, -applies exclusively to the Son of God, we cannot see why the seventh day -might not, with all propriety, be called after him, the Lord’s day. - -In the concluding remarks on this branch of the subject, it will not be -considered out of place for us to remind the reader of the protest which -we offered, in the rejoinder to the second article of the gentleman of -the _Statesman_, against his effort to obtain all the benefit which -could be derived from his interpretation of Rev. 1:10, before he had -struck a single blow, either in the direction of overturning our -construction, or establishing, by fair argument, his own. The reason why -this protest was offered is now apparent. The gentleman there, by -anticipation, _assumed_ that John meant by the term, “Lord’s day,” the -first day of the week. He _promised_ that in due time he would make good -his assertion. But how has it proved, now that he has reached the very -point where he should have fulfilled this engagement? Every one must see -that he has utterly failed. _Proof_ was the very thing which was -_promised_, and which was _needed_, right here. It is the very thing, -also, which he has neglected to adduce. All that is said in reference to -the theory of Wetstein, may have served to give respectability, in point -of length, to the treatment of that which he has regarded a most -important scripture in his line of evidence; but it was utterly -irrelevant to anything which we had said; for the reader will remember -that we emphatically planted ourselves on the position that it was the -weekly Sabbath to which allusion is made. - -To the restatement of the scriptures employed in vindication of this -last opinion, there can be no objection, but we inquire again, Where are -the passages, where the deductions from Scripture teachings, by which -the gentleman has proved that the Lord’s day is the first day of the -week? He has not so much as cited one. He has not made even a -respectable effort at argument; but, with a haste which is irreverent, -if not indecent, he rushes away from the book of God, as if impelled by -the conviction that his view will find no support there, and plunges -headlong into the regions of patristic myth and moonshine. At this we -are not surprised. It is just what we expected. Sabbatarians are as well -acquainted with this device as they are with the emptiness of the -so-called Bible argument for the Sunday. It simply serves to strengthen -their conviction, so often expressed in these articles, that the -stronghold of first-day observance will ever be found in writings which -have been manipulated, retrenched, and interpolated, by the church of -Rome. For, be it remembered, it is from the authorities to which the -gentleman now appeals, that the papacy brings its stoutest testimonials -for apostolic succession, papistic supremacy, and the other heresies -which blacken the record of its apostasy. - -All it is necessary to say to the reader here is, therefore, that he -should bear in mind that Sabbatarians are willing to leave the -arbitrament of this whole question where it can be determined from the -standpoint of Bible evidence. It is the opposition, and not we, who make -it necessary, in the investigation of this subject, to go upon forbidden -ground. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable -for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in -righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished -unto all good works.” 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. If, therefore, first-day sanctity -has no warrant in the Bible, which we have seen to be the case, then it -is not among those things which are _profitable_, or which, as Christian -doctrines, are _necessary to furnish the man of God unto all good -works_. - -Footnote 7: - - This point is an important one; and as we are anxious to satisfy the - reader that it is well taken, we append the following remarks of - Albert Barnes, who—though agreeing with the writer in the _Statesman_ - that this passage furnishes proof for Sunday observance—nevertheless - frankly concedes, as will be seen, that the construction of the - original phrase for “treasuring up,” is such as to admit of the idea - that the work was to be done at home. He says: “The phrase in Greek, - ‘treasuring up,’ may mean that each one was to put the part which he - had designated into the common _treasury_. This interpretation seems - to be demanded by the latter part of the verse. They were to lay it - by, and to put it into the common treasury, that there might be no - trouble of collecting when he should come. Or, it may, perhaps, mean - that they were individually to _treasure it up_, having designated in - their own minds the sum which they could give, and have it in - readiness when he should come.” - -Footnote 8: - - Instead of selecting a wealthy person, able to contribute ten dollars - per week, as has been done above, let an individual be chosen from the - poorer classes of Corinthians—say from among these who would be able - to donate only twenty-five cents per week—and the reader will be more - forcibly impressed with the unreasonableness of that construction - which makes it necessary that so small a pittance should first be - placed or devoted at home, and then carried to the church, and there - deposited in the general collection. - - - - - STATESMAN’S REPLY. - ARTICLE SEVEN. - TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH. - - -Besides the inspired records of the Scriptures, there have come down to -us the writings of men who were contemporaneous with some of the -apostles, and the writings of others who lived in the immediately -succeeding generations. We shall quote from the writings of those who -lived during the two centuries following the close of the canon of -inspiration. These writers give evidence enough that they were not -inspired, as were the penmen of the Divine Word. But it will be borne in -mind that we appeal to them here simply as witnesses to a matter of -fact. Many of their opinions and interpretations of Scripture may not be -worthy of acceptance; but their testimony to the existence of the Lord’s -day, an admitted fact, cannot be disputed. As there has been a great -deal of loose citation from the early fathers on this question, we have -been at considerable pains to translate carefully from the original in -every case, and accompany each quotation with minute and accurate -reference. - -The first writer from whom we shall quote is Ignatius. This father stood -at the head of the church at Antioch at the close of the first century -and the beginning of the second. After occupying that position for many -years, he was condemned to death, as a Christian, by Trajan, transported -in chains to Rome, and there thrown to lions in the Coliseum for the -amusement of the populace, probably in the year 107. On his way to Rome, -he wrote seven epistles to various churches. Eusebius and Jerome arrange -these writings as follows (1) To the Ephesians; (2) to the Magnesians; -(3) to the Trallians; (4) to the Romans; (5) to the Philadelphians; (6) -to the Smyrneans; (7) to Polycarp, bishop, or presbyter, of Smyrna. -These seven epistles, in connection with a number of others confessedly -spurious, have come down to us in two Greek copies, a longer and a -shorter. A Syriac version of three epistles has recently been found. -Without entering into the controversy concerning these Ignatian -Epistles, we give the conclusion reached by Dr. Schaff, which is very -generally accepted: “The question lies between the shorter Greek copy -and the Syriac version. The preponderance of testimony is for the -former, in which the letters are no loose patch-work, but were produced, -each under its one impulse, were well known to Eusebius, probably even -to Polycarp, and agree also with the Armenian version of the fifth -century.” (History of the Christian Church, vol. i. p. 466.) It is -admitted, even by those who do not accept the Greek copy as genuine, -that it is the work of the close of the second century, or a little -later. In any event, then, it is important testimony. In the epistles to -the Magnesians occurs the following language: “Be not deceived with -false doctrines, nor old, unprofitable fables. For, if we still live in -accordance with Judaism, we confess that we have not received grace. For -even the most holy prophets lived according to Jesus Christ.... If, -then, they who were brought up in ancient things arrived at a newness of -hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath, but living according to the Lord’s -life, ... how can we live without him?... Since we have been made his -disciples, let us learn to live according to Christianity.”[9]—_Ad -Magnes._ capp. 8, 9; Coteler’s Edition, vol. ii. pp. 19, 20. Amsterdam, -1724. - -In this passage, it will be observed, the writer draws a contrast -between Judaism and Christianity. To keep the seventh-day Sabbath was to -live according to Judaism. To live according to the dominical life, or, -as the thought is otherwise expressed, to live according to -Christianity, was opposed to the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath. The -argument of Ignatius tells strongly in favor of the first-day Sabbath. -If Jews, he argues, brought up in the old order of things, on turning -Christians, no longer keep the seventh-day Sabbath, but live according -to the dominical life, observing as part of that life, the dominical -day, the day on which the Lord rose from the dead, surely those who -never had been Jews should live according to Christianity, and not give -heed to Judaizing teachers. - -Passing on, we come to a document called “The Epistle of Barnabas.” This -letter, though not the composition of the Barnabas of the New Testament, -was written in the early part of the second century. It cannot be -determined who was the author, but _the early date_ of the letter is -fully established; and that is the main point. Its language is: “We -celebrate the eighth day with joy, on which Jesus rose from the -dead.”—_Coteler’s Edition of the Apostolic Fathers_, vol. i. p. 47. - -The testimony of Justin Martyr is full and explicit. As an itinerant -evangelist for many years during the first half of the second century, -just after the time of the apostle John, he enjoyed an excellent -opportunity of becoming, acquainted with the customs of the whole -church. Writing in the year 139 to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, in -vindication of his Christian brethren, he gives the following account of -their stated religious services: “On the day called the day of the sun -is an assembly of all who live either in cities or in the rural -districts, and the memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the -prophets are read;” _i. e._, the Old and New Testaments. Then he goes on -to specify the various parts of their first-day services. Just as at the -present day, in Christian congregations, there were preaching, prayer, -the celebration of the Lord’s supper, and the contribution of alms. As -reasons why Christians should observe the first day, he assigns the -following: “Because it was the first day on which God dispelled the -darkness and chaos, and formed the world, and because Jesus Christ, our -Saviour, rose from the dead on it.”—_Robert Stephens’ edition of the -works of Justin Martyr_, p. 162. Lutetiæ, 1551. - -In another of his works, the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, written about -the same time as the Apology, from which we have quoted, occurs this -passage: “The command to circumcise infants on the eighth day was a type -of the true circumcision by which we were circumcised from error and -evil through our Lord Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead on the first -day of the week; for the first day of the week remains the chief of all -the days.” (Stephens’ Edition, p. 59. See also Trollope’s edition of the -Dialogue with Trypho, pp. 85, 86.) The careful reader of Justin Martyr -will observe that, in addressing Trypho the Jew, he uses different terms -for the days of the week from those which he employs in addressing the -Emperor Antoninus. Addressing a heathen emperor, he employs the heathen -names for both the seventh and the first day of the week. - -Two important notices of the Lord’s day, all the more important because -of their incidental character, are found in the History of Eusebius. -Dionysius, bishop or presbyter of Corinth, A. D. 170, in a letter to the -church at Rome, a fragment of which is preserved by Eusebius, says: -“To-day we kept the Lord’s holy day, in which we read your letter.” -(Hist. Eccles. iv. 23, Paris Ed. 1678, pp. 117, 118.) The other of these -notices is in regard to a treatise on the Lord’s day, by Melito, bishop -of Sardis, A. D. 170. This treatise, Eusebius remarks, along with others -by the same writer, had come to the historian’s knowledge.—_Hist. -Eccles._ iv. 26, Paris Ed. 1678, p. 119. - -Although the letter of Pliny to Trajan is so well known as hardly to -need quotation, we shall close this article with its interesting -testimony in confirmation, from a pagan quarter, of what has already -been adduced from Christian writers: “They [the Christians] affirmed -that the sum of their fault, or error, was that they were accustomed to -assemble on a stated day—_Stato die_—before it was light, and sing -praise alternately among themselves to Christ as God—_carmenque Christo, -quasi Deo, dicere secum, invicem_.” (Plin. Epist. x., 97.) Here we have -the fact that Christians in the early part of the second century met -regularly on a stated day, and this stated day, as all the Christian -authorities of the same date prove, was the first day of the week, the -Lord’s day. - -Additional patristic evidence will be given in the next article. - -Footnote 9: - - Not a few eminent writers, such as Dwight, and Wilson, of Calcutta, - who are followed by many lesser authors, quote Ignatius, as saying: - “Let us no more Sabbatize, but keep the Lord’s day.” From the literal - rendering of the original above given, it will be seen that these - writers take an unwarrantable liberty with their author. The words of - Ignatius are, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν κυριακὴν ζωὴν ζῶντες. To separate the noun - ζωὴν from the preceding adjective, and connect it with the following - participle, so as to read, “Living a life according to the Lord’s - day,” is an unnatural separation of the words of the original. To drop - out the word ζωὴν is unwarranted. If this word were spurious, then the - rendering would be, “Living according to the Lord’s day,” the - adjective κυριακη without the noun for “day” being expressed occurring - frequently for “the Lord’s day.” But there is no ground for rejecting - the word “life.” To color the language of an author for the sake of - giving it point in favor of one side of a question is unworthy of a - seeker after truth. In the present case there is really nothing gained - by departing from the precise language of the writer. Another passage, - often quoted as from Ignatius, is part of the spurious epistle to the - Galatians. It is as follows: “During the Sabbath, Christ continued - under the earth, in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathea had laid - him. At the dawning of the lord’s day, he arose from the dead. The day - of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Lord’s day - contains the resurrection.” This certainly has some weight as the - testimony of comparatively early writer, but it must not be ascribed - to Ignatius. - - - - - A REJOINDER. - “TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.” - - -There is one feature which has characterized this debate, hitherto, -which has been a source of considerable satisfaction. The controversy, -up to this point, has been urged purely with reference to the teaching -of the Bible, as drawn from its sacred pages. Henceforth, however, this -is not to be the case. We are now to have, not the “sure word of -prophecy,” with the clear and forcible lines of textual evidence, drawn -from its inspired utterances, but that “word of prophecy,” supplemented -and explained by the apostolic fathers. - -It has been said, and well said, that history repeats itself. If there -was one thing which marked the religious impulse that Protestantism gave -to the world, it was an utter rejection, in the decision of religious -opinions, of everything but Bible authority. The voice of Martin Luther -even now seems to reverberate in our ears, as—when fighting the very -battles which Sabbatarians am being called upon to fight over again—he -retorted in sharp and stinging words upon his cowled and priestly -opponents, who were ever citing patristic evidence, The Bible, and the -Bible alone, is our rule of faith. Again, as we read the words addressed -by him to those friends who were hopefully waiting the expected reply -from the Romanists of his time, to a courageous assault which he had -made upon them from the stand-point of the Bible, it seems as if they -were designed to be prophetic of our time, rather than descriptive of -his own. He said: “You are waiting for your adversaries’ answer; it is -already written, and here it is: ‘The fathers, the fathers, the fathers; -the church, the church, the church; usage, custom; but of the -Scriptures—nothing!’”—_D’Aubirgne’s Hist. Ref._, vol. viii., p. 717. - -Wearisome as these repeated conflicts may be to the child of God, there -is a satisfaction in the thought that we hold in our hands the same -weapons, and bear aloft the same banners by which, under the blessing of -God, victory, complete and universal, has been attained in the past. The -opponents of Bible truth have never yet been able to stand before the -thunder of its power, or to balance the ponderous weight of its -influence, in the decision of religious questions. The homely phrase of -the great reformer is just as potent and irresistible in the present -contest as it was in that for which it was framed “When God’s word is by -the fathers expounded, construed, and glossed, then, in my judgment, it -is even like unto one that straineth milk through a coal-sack, which -must needs spoil the milk, and make it black; even so, likewise, God’s -word of itself is sufficiently pure, clean, bright, and clear; but -through the doctrines, books, and writings, of the fathers, it is very -surely darkened, falsified, and spoiled.” - -The elegant and convincing logic of Philip Melancthon, the greatest -theologian of the sixteenth century—who, in the following brief lines, -discussed and summed up the whole question—is just as sound and -unanswerable now as it was when, under the blessing of God, it carried -confusion and defeat into the ranks of the papacy, three hundred years -ago. He says: “How often has not Jerome been mistaken! how often -Augustine! how often Ambrose! How often do we not find them differing in -judgment—how often do we not hear them retracting their errors! There is -but one Scripture divinely inspired, and without mixture of error.” -(_Idem._, p. 219.) In fine, we might prove from history that nearly -every Protestant writer, for the last three centuries, has forged for us -weapons which could be employed with the most telling effect in the -controversy in which we are now engaged. - -This, however, we have not space to do, but must content ourselves with -several brief citations, by which we will show that the authorities of -our own times—equally with those of the past—are uniform in their -expressions of contempt for testimony which is so largely relied upon by -our reviewer in the present discussion. “To avoid being imposed upon, we -ought to treat tradition as we do a notorious and known liar, to whom we -give no credit, unless what he says is confirmed to us by some person of -undoubted veracity.... False and lying traditions are of an early date, -and the greatest men have, out of a pious credulity, suffered themselves -to be imposed upon by them.—_Archibald Bower._ - -“But of these, we may safely state that there is not a _truth_ of the -most orthodox creed that cannot be proved by their authority; nor a -_heresy_ that has disgraced the Romish church, that may not challenge -them as it abettors. In point of _doctrine_, their authority is, _with -me, nothing_. The WORD of God alone contains my creed. On a number of -points, I can go to the Greek and Latin fathers of the church, to know -what _they believed_, and what the people of their respective communions -believed; but after all this, I must return to God’s word to know what -he would have me to believe.” (A. Clark, Com. on Prov. 8.) “We should -take heed how we quote the fathers in proof of the doctrines of the -gospel; because he who knows them best, knows that on many of those -subjects they blow hot and cold.” (Quoted in Hist. of Sab. from -Autobiography of Adam Clarke.) - -“Most of the writings, bearing the name of the apostolic fathers, are -regarded as spurious by various modern critics. The genuineness of all -has been disputed; but the fragments that remain are curious as relics -of an early age, and valuable as indicating the character of primitive -Christianity.” (Am. Cyc., Art. Apostolic Fathers.) Thus much for the -estimate which Protestants place upon the authorities which are brought -forward by the gentleman in the _Statesman_. Assuredly, he would never -have appealed to them, had he not felt that his cause was hopeless one, -when left to the arbitrament of Scripture. - -Should it be pleaded in extenuation of his cause that they have not been -advanced with a view to influencing the judgment of the reader in -reference to the continuity of the old Sabbath, but were introduced -simply to furnish, as suggested in the outset, a criticism showing the -use of the term, “Lord’s day,” in the first three centuries, then, we -inquire, why cite Ignatius at all? It will be perceived at a glance -that, according to the rendering which he has given us—and for which, -and his note thereon, he will receive our thanks, since it will save us -much labor—there is not in it a single mention of the term, “Lord’s -day.” If the passage conveys any meaning at all, it is either that the -Sabbath should be observed in a manner differing from that in which it -was kept by the Jews, or else that it should not be observed at all. - -But the last of these propositions, the writer will not admit to be -sound, since he has fairly repudiated such a conception, and has, in so -many words, stated that he heartily agrees with us in the perpetuity of -the Edenic Sabbath. He has also stated that the fourth commandment—which -it will be admitted commences with the words, “Remember the _Sabbath -day_, to keep it holy”—is a Sabbath law which is still binding, and -which, the words of Ignatius to the contrary notwithstanding, forever -settles the question that this is not a Sabbathless dispensation. - -What shall be done, then, with the language of the venerable father? We -are well acquainted with the office which it has performed hitherto, and -are anxious to know where it is to throw its baleful shadow hereafter. -In the past, hundreds of individuals whose consciences have been aroused -by appeals to the Bible on the subject of the perpetuity of God’s holy -day, have had their fears quieted, and have been lulled into security by -the very extract with which we are here favored. Why, they have said, -was not Ignatius a disciple of John, and did he not therefore know what -John believed? Did he not also prove his integrity by becoming a martyr -to the faith? Since, therefore, he was possessed of both knowledge and -piety, and since he has called the first day of the week the Lord’s day, -are we not justified in keeping the day which he kept, and rejecting the -day which he rejected? Supported and encouraged in this position, as -they have been by the brethren of the writer who—having either less -candor, or less scholarship, than he—have insisted again and again that -Ignatius did call the first day of the week the Lord’s day, it has been -in many cases utterly impossible for Sabbatarians to disabuse their -minds of this impression. With gratitude, therefore, we shall add the -name of the gentleman to the rapidly increasing list of scholars who, -headed by Kitto, and others of equal distinction, frankly concede that -Sabbatarians have been in the right, and that Ignatius did not speak of -the Lord’s day at all, but simply alluded to the Lord’s life. - -But what shall we say for those who have been deluded upon this point, -and have thus been prevented from doing what they felt that duty -required? There is a terrible responsibility somewhere. For the scholars -who have abetted this deception, there can be no defense. For the -unfortunate victims of the fraud, it may be said that their situation -would be more hopeful had they not brought themselves into the -difficulty by going upon forbidden ground. Should one be led astray by -an incorrect translation of the Scriptures, God would undoubtedly pardon -the mistake; for the person had done the best he could under the -circumstances, and had sought for light where God had instructed him so -to do. But to those who, having left the only true source of trustworthy -knowledge, have allowed any class of persons, ancient or modern, to -shape their belief differently from what it would have been had they -relied wholly upon the Bible, we fear that Christ will say—as he did to -those in like circumstances in his day, who, having followed the -traditions of their ancestors, were found violating the law of God—“In -vain do ye worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” - -Before closing on this point, and in order that the citation may not be -employed in the interest of no-Sabbath views, let the reader consider, -for a moment, another feature, and a very important one in this -argument. Having seen that Ignatius—if he wrote the above—did not -mention the Lord’s day, it is proper now to inquire whether it is -certain that he ever penned the language in question, at all? To this it -may be replied, that it is very far from being so. Nay, it is in the -highest degree probable, as the following extracts will prove, that the -venerable man either never wrote a word of those which are cited, or, if -he did, what he said has been so manipulated that it is very far from -conveying the impression which he intended. “From Smyrna, he (Ignatius) -wrote to the churches at Ephesus, Magnesia, Trallia, Rome, and -Philadelphia, and on his voyage, to Polycarp, and the church at Smyrna. -These letters are still extant, though the genuineness of the first -three is doubted by some learned men.” (_Cyc. Relig. Knowl. Art. -Ignatius._) - -The distinguished historian and scholar, Kitto, speaks on this point in -his Cyclopedia, Art. Lord’s Day, as follows: “We must notice one other -passage as bearing on the subject of the Lord’s day, though it certainly -contains no mention of it. It occurs in the epistle of Ignatius to the -Magnesians (about A. D. 100). The whole passage is evidently obscure, -and the text may be corrupt.” Originally, there were fifteen letters -attributed to Ignatius. Centuries ago, however, eight of them were -rejected as hopelessly spurious. The remaining seven have been also -denounced as forgeries, by many writers, with John Calvin at their head. -Others, while holding on to four of the seven, have condemned three, and -among them the letter to the Magnesians, from which the citation which -we are considering was taken. A poor stone, this, which purports to come -from Antioch, for the head-stone of the corner of the temple of -patristic testimonials to the Sunday. - -The way is now prepared for the consideration of the second extract, -namely, that of Barnabas. Here, again, the confession of the gentleman -is of service to us, by way of saving labor, since he unequivocally -admits that the Barnabas who wrote the letter from which he quotes, was -not the Barnabas of New-Testament fame. It becomes important, however, -that we should know just who he was who wrote this epistle, before it -should be received as authority in a grave religious discussion. Few -persons would have the temerity to commit their spiritual interests to -the hands of nameless individuals who lived 1700 years ego, unless they -could feel some assurance that the men in whom they were thus confiding -were persons whose judgment should have weight in the decision of -matters of faith. - -It is not enough that it should be established, even beyond doubt, that -the writer in question lived in the second century. For no one will -insist that _all the men_ who lived at that time were proper exponents -of the views held by Christians in that period. It is, therefore, but -reasonable that, before any man is brought forward to testify in so -important a matter, he should have either a name which will show that he -was qualified, both morally and intellectually, to act the part of a -public teacher of the opinions held in his time, or, at least, that what -he has written must be of a nature to commend his utterances to our -judgments. Neither of these requisitions, however, is met in the case of -the Barnabas (if his name was really Barnabas) quoted above.[10] - -That his epistle has been employed in a gigantic fraud, no one will -dispute. It is headed, “The general Epistle of Barnabas.” At its close, -as given in the apocryphal New Testament, is the subscription, -“Barnabas, the apostle, and companion of Paul.” Now, if he wrote these -words himself, the gentleman will admit that he is unworthy of the -slightest confidence, since he has told a deliberate falsehood. If, on -the other hand, it be insisted that this was the work of subsequent -generations, then we must move with extreme caution. In the region where -this epistle lies, are the unmistakable footprints of men base enough to -pervert the facts, and to employ its contents for an unworthy purpose. - -The only alternative left us, therefore, since the author of the -document is unknown to history, is that of examining what he has said, -with reference to its character. Before doing this, however, it will be -well to state—by way of putting the reader on his guard—that the history -of this epistle is of a nature to awaken the most serious suspicion. By -consulting the Am. Cyc., Art. Epistle of Barnabas, he will find it there -stated that this epistle was lost to the world for eight hundred years, -namely, from the ninth to the seventeenth century, and that, when it -came to the surface after its long disappearance, it was found in the -hands of one Sigismond, a Jesuit of that age. The desperate character of -the order to which this man belonged, and the recklessness with which -its members treat documents of the most sacred character, when they can -thereby serve a favorite purpose, need no comment here. - -Prof. Stowe, while arguing favorably to the epistle, in some respects, -employs the following words, which have in them great significance, in -view of what has been said above: “We admit that the epistle of Barnabas -is strongly interpolated.”—_Hist. of Books of the Bible_, p. 423. - -It is now time to ponder, for a moment, the words of the nondescript -writer quoted above. They are as follows: “We celebrate the eighth day -with joy, on which Jesus rose from the dead.” In them is found not a -single fact which, granting their authenticity, is at all decisive in -the matter at issue. For, be it remembered, the controversy is not as to -whether the ancients were in the habit of holding convocations for any -purpose whatsoever, on the first day of the week, but, whether they -called it the Lord’s day. It will, therefore, be admitted that the term, -Lord’s Day, is not so much as mentioned; whereas, the day which it is -supposed was entitled to the honor of being thus designated, is termed -the “eighth day, the one on which Jesus rose from the dead.” Nor is it -so much as intimated that the day in question was observed as a Sabbath, -or esteemed as holy. The statement employed is that “they celebrated it -with joy.” But this could be said with perfect propriety of any day of -the week on which there regularly occurred a religious festival. - -As an illustration of this, it might be mentioned here that a -historian of the present time, while mentioning the usages of this -period, could not be charged with inaccuracy should he declare that -the 25th of December, which is supposed by some to be the day of the -Lord’s nativity, is regularly celebrated. Should he do so, and should -coming generations infer therefrom that it is now regarded as holy, -you will readily perceive the mistake into which they would fall. What -we want, if we must have recourse to such _miserable material_ as that -which we are handling over, is something positive and definite. This -the text undeniably fails to give. We leave it, therefore, as -worthless; 1st. Because we do not know _who_ wrote it. 2d. Because we -do not know _when_ it was written. 3d. Because it is found in an -epistle so corrupted by interpolations that it is not at all reliable -as authority. 4th. Because it has no direct bearing upon the subject. -5th. Because its author—by the absurd and ridiculous sentiments to -which he gave expression—manifestly had a judgment too weak to allow -us to suppose that, in the providence of God, in which nothing falls -out by mistake, he should constitute a pillar in any way necessary to -the establishment of sound religious doctrine. - -The third authority brought forward is Justin Martyr. From him we learn -that, on the day of the sun, the church at Rome were in the habit of -convening, partaking of the Lord’s supper, listening to preaching, -engaging in prayer, and in the contribution of alms. - -It will be at once perceived that here is the nearest approach yet made -to the accomplishment of the task which our reviewer assigned himself, -and for which he has led the reader away from the oracles of God to the -opinions and practices of men liable to error and mistake. Let it not be -forgotten that the _prominent_ object to be gained by this departure, -was the production of patristic authority for the use of the term, -Lord’s day, in the first three centuries. That this purpose has not been -accomplished, hitherto, all must admit. The next inquiry, therefore, is, -should all points of dispute respecting the reliability of what has been -quoted above, be waived, and should it be granted that Justin Martyr -said what is attributed to him, Has the desired object been reached? The -answer is emphatically in the negative. Justin Martyr avoids the -application of Lord’s day to the day of the sun, as if prevented from -using it by the same fatality which has withheld all the others from -doing so, who have thus far been cited. - -Here we might pause, and insist that the gentleman has utterly failed, -in the citation before us, to prove anything which is really relevant to -the subject. It is in vain that he urges, in extenuation of the fact -that Justin calls the first day of the week, the “day of the sun,” that -he is addressing a heathen emperor. He was not afraid to speak to that -emperor of the Old and New Testaments, of the preaching of the word, of -the Lord’s supper, and of the resurrection of Christ; and why should he -thus carefully avoid mention of the Lord’s day? Surely, he did not wish -to convey the impression that Christians observed the day of the sun -because of its heathen character, since he gives the reasons for their -doing so. - -But, again, it is claimed that at this period the chosen and peculiar -appellation which had been given by the Holy Spirit, was that of Lord’s -day, and that the Lord’s day, or the Sunday, had become the holy Sabbath -which God commanded. This being true, assuredly we might expect that, in -the work of Justin entitled, “A Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew,” he would -set forth, in the use of its peculiar title, the claims of that day -which had been elevated, by divine command, to the position of the -ancient Sabbath. But does he do this? The gentleman does not urge it. He -does say that, in writing to the Jew, he drops the heathen titles of -Sunday and Saturday, and speaks of the first, and the seventh, day of -the week. But mark again; it is not urged that he anywhere calls the -first day the Lord’s day. Once more, therefore, he has failed on this -branch of the subject. - -Now it will be well to regard the matter from the other side of the -question. It must be conceded, as remarked above, that what Justin -Martyr says furnishes stronger support for the idea of worship on the -Sunday than anything else which has been adduced. But here again, we -protest that the Bible, alone and unexplained, is sufficient for the -settlement of this point. Others, if they like, may form their religious -faith upon the practice of uninspired men, handed down to us through the -perilous transit of the ages, protected and shielded from corruption and -innovation by no denunciation of divine wrath against those who change -its phraseology; but we much prefer to stand under the covering ægis of -these words: “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto -him the plagues which are written in this book.” (Rev. 22:18.) Nor do we -think that the gentleman himself would seriously urge that this position -is unsound. Let us test it. Justin Martyr is assumed to be a fair -exponent of the religious sentiment of his time. Now, therefore, what he -believed they believed; and what they believed, we ought to believe, if -our position, taken above, is not correct. Proceeding a step farther, we -inquire, what was the faith of Justin Martyr and his contemporaries, -allowing his writings to be the criterion of judgment? To this it may -replied: - -1st. That they believed in no Sabbath in this dispensation. Proof: “For -if before Abraham there was no need of circumcision, nor of Sabbaths, -nor of feasts, nor of offerings before Moses; so now in like manner -there is no need of them, since Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was, by -the determinate counsel of God, born of a virgin of the seed of Abraham, -without sin.” (Dial. of Trypho.) Does the writer believe this? The -reader well knows that he does not, for he has nobly repudiated it, -again and again. - -2d. They believed that the Sabbath was imposed upon the Jews for their -sins. Proof: “It was because of your (_i. e._, Jews) iniquities, and the -iniquities of your fathers, that God appointed you to observe the -Sabbath.” (_Idem._) But our reviewer holds—as must all who accept the -words of Christ (Mark 2:27, 28)—that it was given to Adam in the garden -of Eden, as their representative head, for the benefit of the whole -race, more than two thousand years before there was a Jew in the world. - -3d. They believed that, in the administration of the Lord’s supper, -water should be employed. Proof: “At the conclusion of this discourse, -_i. e._, that of the Bishop on Sunday, we all rise up together and pray; -and prayers being over, there is bread, and wine, and water offered.” -(First Apol. Tras. by Reeves.) But modern Christendom look upon this as -an innovation of popery. - -4th. They believed that the reasons why Christians should observe the -first day of the week were found in the facts that God dispelled the -darkness and chaos on the first day of the week, and that on that day, -Christ rose from the dead. Proof: Extract given above by the writer in -his article. But the first of these opinions, modern Christians will not -admit at all, and the latter furnishes only one-half of the obligation, -since it ignores all positive law upon the subject. - -So we might proceed, but enough has been said to show that Justin -Martyr, as quoted above, is no criterion for the faith of those who have -the Bible in their hands, from which they can learn, contrary to his -views: 1st. That we have a Sabbath. 2d. That it was given to all mankind -as a blessing, and not to the Jews for their sins. 3d. That both the -bread and the wine belong to the laity, as well as to the priests. 4th. -That the reasons for the observance of the Lord’s day do not rest upon -the circumstance that God dispelled the darkness on the first day, but -upon an explicit command of Heaven. - -If the reader would satisfy himself from other sources that the -statements of Justin Martyr are to be taken with extreme caution, and -that his judgment was so easily imposed upon as to render him an unsafe -guide in the plainest matters of fact, he will read the following -extract from a publication of the Am. Tract Society: “Justin Martyr -appears indeed peculiarly unfitted to lay claim to authority. It is -notorious that he supposed a pillar erected on the island of the Tiber -to Semo Sanchus, an old Sabine Deity, to be a monument erected by the -Roman people in honor of the impostor, Simon Magus. Were so gross a -mistake to be made by a modern writer, in relating a historical fact, -exposure would immediately take place, and his testimony would -thenceforward be suspected. And, assuredly, the same measure should be -meted to Justin Martyr, who so egregiously errs in reference to a fact -alluded to by Livy, the historian.”—_Spirit of Popery_, pp. 44, 45. - -In concluding the remarks which will be offered here—in reference to -those productions which are attributed to Justin Martyr, and which have -been brought forward for the purpose of influencing the mind of the -reader in favor of a cause which has found no support in the -Scriptures—it is proper to state that their authenticity is by no means -above suspicion; or, to speak more accurately, that some of them have -been tampered with, is a matter which is settled beyond dispute. Already -the reader has seen that by some means they have been made to contribute -to the interests of the Romish doctrine of the use of water in the -sacrament, as early as the first part of the second century. If it be -granted that the statement in question is historically true, then the -leaven of the papacy had begun to work so manifestly in the lifetime of -Justin, that the opinions of his associates, as well as of himself, -ought to have no weight with us who have repudiated the great apostasy. - -On the other hand, should it be denied that water was then employed, as -stated by the venerable father, there remain but two conclusions between -which the reader can take his choice; either, 1st. Justin did not -correctly represent the faith of his time; or, 2d. What he did say -originally has been molded and fashioned by the plastic hand of the man -of sin, until it is made to support the heresies of the hierarchy. To -our mind, the latter conclusion is undoubtedly the true one. Below will -be found an extract from a distinguished historian of the church, which -proves that what is said above respecting the treatment which the -writings of Justin Martyr have received is correct: “Like many of the -ancient fathers, he [Justin] appears to us under the greatest -disadvantage. Works really his have been lost, and others have been -ascribed to him, part of which are not his; and the rest, at least, of -ambiguous authority.”—_Milner’s History of Church_, Book 2, Chap. 3.[11] - -The fourth historic mention of the Lord’s day, as brought forward, is in -the following words of Dionysius. “To-day we kept the Lord’s holy day, -in which we read your letter.” By turning to Eusebius, the curious -reader will discover that the citation incidentally given occupies but -little more space than is required for the words as quoted. Their -importance in this discussion does not demand for them any more room -than was assigned them by the historian from whom they are extracted. -The dispute is not whether there is indeed a Lord’s day, for both -parties are agreed respecting this question. What we wish to ascertain -is, Which day of the week is entitled to this appellation? The reference -before us in no way helps in the settlement of this point. It simply -states that the letter was read on the Lord’s day. Whether that was the -first or the seventh in the cycle of the week is not stated, so we pass -the language as unworthy of further consideration. - -The allusion to the fifth authority is even more unsatisfactory than -that of the fourth. It seems that Melito, bishop of Sardis, had written -a discourse on the Lord’s day, which had been seen by Eusebius. As to -its contents, the letter says not one word, neither shall we; for, as it -is not now in existence, it is impossible that any person should be able -to decide which view it would favor, provided it were in being. - -The sixth proof is brought from the writings of Pliny. It is couched in -these words: “They [the Christians] affirmed that the sum of their -fault, or error, was, that they were accustomed to assemble on a stated -day, before it was light, and sing praise alternately among themselves, -to Christ, as God.” Without debating the propriety of bringing forward a -heathen writer to prove the practice of a Christian church, we proceed -to examine the testimony itself. Its utter inability to fill the place -assigned to it will be discerned by every intelligent person who -examines its phraseology. In it is the declaration that Christians were -in the habit of assembling on a stated day, at which time they sang -praises alternately among themselves, to Christ, as God. - -Now that the statement of the facts is not incompatible with the idea -that they were observers of the seventh day, all must admit. For surely, -there is no incongruity in the notion that it would be in the highest -degree proper for the observers of the ancient Sabbath of the Lord to -devote its sacred hours to the delightful task of singing hymns of -praise, and worshiping Christ, as God. That the language itself as -completely harmonizes with this view, as with any other, will be felt -when we remember that the writer does not say that they assembled on the -first day of the week, or the Lord’s day, at all; but, simply, that it -was on a stated day that they gathered themselves together for the -purposes of worship. A stated day is one which recurs at fixed -intervals. The Sabbath might have been the stated day; or, so far as -anything to the contrary in the passage is concerned, the Sunday might -have been the one. Pliny does not decide the point for us. His -declarations, therefore, have not the slightest force in proving -anything favorable to the opinions of the gentleman. - -Furthermore, if inference is to be taken at all, the preponderance would -rather be in favor of the last day of the week, since, in devoting it to -the worship of Christ, they would not only bring upon themselves the -wrath of the heathen, because of their acknowledgment of our Lord’s -divinity; but, also, in the sum of their fault would be found the fact, -that they ignored the sacredness of the day of the sun, and celebrated -another, as holy, by divine command. - -Thus much for the uninspired witnesses, brought forward from the first, -and the early part of the second, century of the Christian era. Had they -flatly contradicted what we have seen the teachings of the Bible to be, -they would not have moved us one hair; for we remember that the great -apostle has said, that, though “an angel from Heaven preach any other -gospel unto you, let him be accursed.” But, strangely enough, their -testimony is utterly worthless for the purpose for which it has been -introduced. Not one of them has styled the Sunday the Lord’s day; not -one of them has called it the Sabbath; not one of them has stated that -it was regarded as holy, or that its hours might not, without sin, be -devoted to secular pursuits. Here, then, we leave them, and wait for a -fresh inundation of such as will answer the purpose for which they are -called in a more satisfactory manner than the foregoing. - -Footnote 10: - - Did it not appear to be indispensable to the enlightening of the - reader, as to the consummate folly of the author of the epistle of - Barnabas, we should not append, as we do, his language in the - following note, since it is hardly worthy of a place in a chaste and - dignified discussion. For its citation we hold those, responsible who - have made this action necessary, and who value the testimony of a man - so utterly devoid of common-sense: “Neither shalt thou eat of the - hyena; that is, again, be not an adulterer; nor a corrupter of others; - neither be like to such. And wherefore so? Because that creature every - year changes its kind, and is sometimes male and sometimes female.” - Chap. 9:8. - -Footnote 11: - - Since, writing the above, the following interesting item in the - _Christian Union_, for Feb. 19, has been brought to my notice, and - will serve to show that continued investigation on the part of - scholars is rendering the authenticity of the writings of Justin - Martyr more and more doubtful:—“Dr. Franz Overbeck has lately - examined, with great care, the ‘epistle to Diognetus,’ which has been - regarded as one of the most precious relics of the age succeeding that - of the apostles. He urges several reasons for coming to the conclusion - that the work was written later than the era of Constantine, and was - intended by its author to pass as a work Justin Martyr’s. Critics had - already proved it no genuine work of Justin, and if Dr. Overbeck is - right, it can no longer be assigned to the age of Justin.” - - - - - STATESMAN’S REPLY. - ARTICLE EIGHT. - PATRISTIC TESTIMONY TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH. - - -The testimony already adduced from the early fathers in our last issue -will be regarded by most of our readers as sufficient in itself. But for -the sake of giving a complete view of the patristic testimony to the -first-day Sabbath up to the close of the third century, we shall occupy -some additional space with extracts, on the accuracy of which our -readers may confidently rely. - -First among the witnesses now cited is Irenæus, bishop or presbyter of -Lyons, A. D. 178. Let it be remembered that in the case of this witness -we have the testimony of one who was brought up at the feet of Polycarp, -the disciple and companion of the Apostle John. The first point to be -noted in the testimony of Irenæus is the abrogation of the seventh-day -Sabbath. As the rite of circumcision was no longer required, so the -observance of the seventh-day Sabbath had ceased. Each was a sign or -shadow of the substance to come. This thought is dwelt upon at great -length. (See _Contra Hæreses_, book iv. ch. 30, Grabe’s Edition, Oxford, -1702, pp. 318, 319; also Benedictine Edit., Paris, 1710, p. 246.) - -Lest his statements might be understood to be opposed to the authority -of the ten commandments, Irenæus adds the following sentences: “The Lord -spoke the words of the decalogue in like manner to all. They remain, -therefore, permanently with us, receiving, through the Lord’s advent in -the flesh, extension and increase, not abrogation.” (Book iv. ch. 31, p. -320.) Thus the law of the Sabbath remains, though not binding to the -observance of the seventh day. - -We now come to this writer’s clear and distinct testimony, in its more -positive aspect, to the Lord’s day. Irenæus took a prominent part in -what has been called the Quarta-Deciman controversy. The question at -issue was—Should the anniversary of the Lord’s resurrection be in -connection with the Jewish passover, on whatever day of the week that -might occur, or on the Lord’s day invariably? This question first arose -on a visit of Polycarp, bishop or presbyter of Smyrna, to Aniest, bishop -of Rome, about 160, and was discussed for many years. Irenæus, acting as -the representative of the Christians in Gaul, wrote to Victor, then -bishop of Rome, in these terms: “The mystery of the Lord’s resurrection -should be celebrated only on the Lord’s day.” (_Euseb. Hist. Eccles._ -book v. chap. 23, 24; Paris ed., 1678, pp. 155, 156.) It will be -remarked here that while there was diversity of view in regard to the -_yearly_ celebration of the Lord’s resurrection—a celebration of which -we have no account whatever until the year 160, there was no question -concerning the sacred observance of the first day as the _weekly_ -commemoration of the Lord’s rising from the dead. - -“We simply add a reference to one of the best known of the fragments of -Irenæus in which there is further explicit testimony to the Lord’s -day—testimony all the more important, because it occurs incidentally in -a treatise concerning the passover, and in connection with a statement -in regard to Pentecost.” (_Fragmentum lib. de Pascha_, Bened. ed., -Paris, 1742, p. 490.[12]) - -For the sake of presenting a complete view of the testimony of the -fathers for the first three centuries, we had thought of quoting from -Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 194; Minucius Felix, 210; Commodian, about -270; Victorinus, 290; and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, 300. But as the -testimony will be perfectly conclusive without these witnessess, and as -space is valuable, we shall cite only three more authorities—three -well-known fathers, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian. - -At the close of the second century, Carthage, the metropolis of Northern -Africa, was the center of numerous flourishing Christian congregations. -Living in Carthage for many years, Tertullian knew well the practice of -the African churches. And although he became, about 202, one of the -errorists known as Montanists, his testimony, however unreliable as to -doctrines, is still indisputable as to facts. From the frequent -references to the Lord’s day in this author we select the following: “By -us, to whom the [Jewish] Sabbaths are strange, and the new moons and -festivals once pleasing to God, the Saturnalia, January, and mid-winter -feasts, and Matronalia [of the heathen] are frequented. O better -fidelity of the heathen to their own religion! They would not share with -us the Lord’s day, nor Pentecost, even if they knew them, for they would -fear lest they should seem to be Christians.” (_De Idolatria_, cap. xiv, -Semler’s edit., Halæ Magdeburg, vol. iv., pp., 167, 168.) The testimony -of this passage is decisive in three points: (1.) The Jewish, or -seventh-day, Sabbath was not observed by Christians. (2.) They were -enjoined not to observe heathen festivals. (3.) To the Lord’s day, as -the proper day for Christian service, belonged the honor to which Jewish -and heathen days had no claim. - -The exercises of the Lord’s day, when Christians assembled for public -service, are described by Tertullian in a manner very similar to that of -Justin Martyr, whose account has already been quoted. Prayer, reading -the Scriptures, exhortation, and collections for benevolent purposes are -all mentioned. (_Apol._, cap. xxxix, vol. v., pp. 92-94.) It is to be -noted that Tertullian, like Justin Martyr, in addressing the heathen, -calls the first day of the week “the day of the Sun,” as he also -designates the Jewish Sabbath by its heathen name. (See _Apol._, cap. -xvi.) - -We close these citations from Tertullian, with one which is of the -greatest importance in proving that the early Christians observed the -first day of the week, not as a mere holiday, but as a day of rest and -worship—a holy Sabbath to the Lord. “On the Lord’s day, the day of the -Resurrection, we should not only abstain from that,[13] [bending the -knee,] but also from all anxiety of feeling, and from employments, -setting aside all business, lest we should give place to the devil.” -(_De Oratione_, cap. xxiii., vol. iv., p. 22.) - -Contemporary with Tertullian at the beginning of the third century was -Origen of Alexandria, one of the most scholarly and learned of all the -early fathers. This writer contrasts the Lord’s day with the Jewish -Sabbath, and shows the superiority of the former. We may not agree with -him when he maintains that the superiority was indicated by the giving -of manna to the Israelites on the first day of the week, while it was -withheld on the seventh. His testimony to the fact of the sacred -observance of the Lord’s day instead of the seventh-day Sabbath is -valid, though his reasons for the admitted superiority may not all be -satisfactory. In the same connection he remarks: “On our Lord’s day the -Lord always rains manna from heaven.” (_Comment on Exodus_, Delarue’s -ed. of Works of Origen, Paris, 1733, vol. ii., p. 154.) In another of -his works he contends that it is one of the evidences of a true -Christian “always to keep the Lord’s day.” (_Contra Celsum_ lib. viii, -vol. i., pp. 758, 759.) - -The most important passage in the writings of Origen is found in his -Homilies on the Book of Numbers. Here we first meet with the name -“Christian Sabbath” for the first day of the week, or the Lord’s day: -“Leaving, then, the Jewish observance of the Sabbath, let us see what -the observance of the Sabbath by the Christian ought to be. On the -Sabbath should be performed no worldly acts. If, therefore, you desist -from all secular works, and do nothing of a worldly nature, but occupy -yourselves with spiritual duties, assembling at the church, listening to -the sacred readings mad instructions, thinking of celestial things, -concerned for the hopes of another life, keeping before your eyes the -Judgment to come, and looking not at the things which are present and -visible, but at those which are invisible and future—this is the -observance of the Christian Sabbath.” (_Hom. xxiii in Numeros_, vol. -ii., p. 358.) - -Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, about the third century, gives this -explicit testimony to the Lord’s day: “Since in the Jewish circumcision -of the flesh the eighth day was celebrated, the ordinance was -foreshadowed in the future, but completed in truth at the coming of -Christ. For inasmuch as the eighth day, that is, the first day after the -Sabbath, was the day on which the Lord rose and gave us life and -spiritual circumcision, this eighth day, that is the first after the -Sabbath and the Lord’s day, preceded in an image, which image ceased -when the truth afterwards came, and spiritual circumcision was given to -us.” (_Epistle_ lxiv., Works of Cyprian, Bremæ, 1690, vol. ii., p. 161) -The weight of this testimony is not a little augmented by the fact that -the epistle, in which it is found is a synodical epistle, which was sent -forth in the name and with the authority of the Third Council of -Carthage, A. D. 253. The epistle bears this inscription at its head: -“Cyprianus et ceteri Collegæ qui in concilio affuerant numero LXIV. Fido -patri Salutem.” - -With this authoritative statement of Cyprian and his sixty-six -colleagues, or co-presbyters, we close our citations from the fathers. -The testimony of succeeding writers is equally clear, but it simply -confirms what has already been fully proved. And now, with the facts of -history in view, as we have learned them from inspired writers and their -immediate successors, it remains for us to examine opposing theories of -the institution of the Sabbath. We shall endeavor to dispose of this -concluding, and perhaps most interesting part of our subject, in two or -three articles. - -Footnote 12: - - The culpable carelessness of Dwight, Wilson, and other authors, in - citing from the early fathers, is nowhere more noticeable than in the - case of Irenæus. These writers quote him as saying: “On the Lord’s - day, every one of us Christians, keeps the Sabbath, meditating on the - law, and rejoicing in the works of God.” There is no reference given - to the writings of Irenæus. And for good reason. After a most careful - examination, we are persuaded no such passage is to be found in his - writings. The mistake was probably first made by President Dwight, - whose weakness of sight compelled him to depend upon an amanuensis. - “For twenty years of his presidency,” we are informed by his - biographer, “he was rarely able to read as much as a single chapter in - the Bible in the twenty-four hours.” (_Dwight’s Theology_, London, - 1821, vol. i. pp. 91, 95.) Others followed this high authority. - - In order to guard our readers against injuring the cause they would - advance, we must mention another important instance of considerable - negligence. In a number of works on the Sabbath, Dr. Justin Edwards’ - “Sabbath Manual,” for example, we find not only the blunders already - noticed, but another quite as bad. The language—“Both custom and - reason challenge from us that we should honor the Lord’s day, seeing - on that day it was that our Lord Jesus completed his resurrection from - the dead,” is ascribed to Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, about A. D. - 162. The words quoted are in reality those of another Theophilus, who - was bishop of Alexandria, at the close of the fourth century. We hand - over these criticisms upon advocates of the first-day Sabbath to our - seventh-day Sabbatarian friends, trusting to their honor and fairness - not to separate them from the rest of this discussion. For our own - part, whether it may be pleasant to the advocates of the seventh-day - Sabbath, we desire to have for ourselves, and to aid others to have, - the whole truth. It was in this spirit that we gave room in our - columns for a full presentation of the arguments on the other side of - this question. - -Footnote 13: - - As a matter of independent interest and importance, we would ask all - who are interested in the question of the posture in prayer of - worshipers in the early church, to compare with Tertullian’s - statement, that of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, A. D. 300, who says: - “We keep the Lord’s day as a day of joy, because of Him who rose on - that day, on which we have learned not to bow the knee.” (_Bibl. - Patrum, apud Gallard_, vol. iv., p. 107.) To the same effect is the - decision of the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, requiring, as there were - certain ones who bent the knee on the Lord’s day, that it should be - the uniform practice to give thanks to God, standing. (_Canon_, xx.) - - - - - A REJOINDER. - “PATRISTIC EVIDENCE TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.” - - -In the rejoinder to the previous article on patristic testimony, the -attention of the reader was called to the fact that our opponent had -utterly failed to find a single instance in which the first day of the -week was called the Lord’s day, by the authorities which he cited, or in -which it was stated by them that it was observed by divine command. Had -we possessed the space necessary for the purpose, the significance of -this failure would have been enlarged upon; for it must be borne in mind -that in the one hundred and thirty-nine years which intervened between -the death of Christ and the writing of the latest citation produced in -his seventh article, lies the most important, and the most promising, -field for such testimonials as would be of the highest value to the -opposition. This is so, not only from the fact that the period in -question was the one in which it is alleged that the transition from the -old to the new Sabbath occurred; but, also, because it was one, which, -from their premises, was the most likely to yield reliable evidence in -regard to apostolic faith, since it lay the nearest to apostolic times. -It is true that even then apostasy had begun its career; for Paul states -that, in his time, “the mystery of iniquity had begun to work.” - -But all will agree that the farther we come this side of the -fountain-head, the more natural it would be to find that the pure waters -of the original stream should become steadily darker and more turbid, -until they lost themselves in the sloughs of those corrupt teachings, -which were so far to excel all others, that they were thought to be of a -nature to demand especial attention in the prophecies. But here we are, -as already remarked, seventy-five to eighty years this side of the -cross, and the case of our reviewer in no-wise helped by his effort. In -fact, not only has he failed to place his Sabbath upon the foundation of -the successors of the apostles, but he has also greatly weakened his -probabilities for the future, since in the territory over which we have -passed, we have seen not only the utter unreliability of the fathers -themselves, as teachers, but, also, that their sayings have been -tampered with by the “man of sin,” who, reaching backward as well as -forward, is reckless in his efforts to make everything contribute to the -power and authority of the hierarchy. - -But we must proceed in the examination of those individuals who are now -introduced as additional witnesses for the Christian Sabbath. The first -in order is Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, A. D. 178. It will not be -necessary to consider the language of the gentleman, in which he states -that Irenæus taught the abrogation of the seventh-day Sabbath, since we -have not quoted that father in the defense of an institution which _God -has commanded_. Nor shall we enlarge upon the fact that Irenæus -inculcates the binding obligation of the ten commandments, since it is -enough for us to know that this doctrine is plainly set forth in the -Bible. - -The witness is the gentleman’s. He has brought him forward to prove -that, in his time, the year of our Lord 178, the term, Lord’s day, was -applied to the Sunday. Has he succeeded, at last, in the achievement of -his purpose? If so, it is the first instance in which he has -accomplished the desired object. Apparently, he has triumphed here. But -let us proceed with caution. Has he produced the writings of Irenæus -himself? No, he has not. The words quoted are these: “The mystery of the -Lord’s resurrection should be celebrated only on the Lord’s day.” By -turning to the Hist. of Eusebius, book v., chap. 23, the reader will -find that the language employed does not purport to be that of Irenæus, -as penned by himself, but that of Eusebius, who is giving an account of -a decree passed by certain bishops, which decree was in harmony with a -letter from Irenæus. We quote enough in the 23d chapter to verify our -statement:— - -“Hence there were synods and convocations of the bishops, on this -question; and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which -they communicated to all the churches, in all places, that the mystery -of our Lord’s resurrection should be celebrated on no other day than the -Lord’s day; and that on this day alone we should observe the close of -the paschal fasts. There is an epistle extant, even now, of those who -were assembled at the time.... There is an epistle extant, on the same -question, bearing the name of Victor. An epistle, also, of the bishops -of Pontus, among whom Palmas, as the most ancient, presided; also of the -churches of Gaul, over whom Irenæus presided, ... and epistles from many -others, who, advancing one and the same doctrine, also passed the same -vote, and this their unanimous determination was the one already -mentioned.” - -It will be observed here that the historian does not quote the language -of the decree as being the exact language of the bishops; also that he -does not pretend to give the precise words of Irenæus, but that he -simply recounts the fact that the epistle of Irenæus was in harmony with -the decree which he had previously given. This it was legitimate for a -historian to do. Eusebius died one hundred and fifty years after -Irenæus, and in his time, we frankly admit that the term, Lord’s day, -was frequently applied to the first day of the week. The historian, -therefore, using the nomenclature of his own period, represents the -bishop of Lyons as favoring the celebration of the Passover on the -Lord’s day, simply because he had said it ought to be observed on the -first day of the week. If we are right in this, then, of course, our -opponents will throw up the whole passage as irrelevant to their present -purpose—since they have not assumed to employ Eusebius, who lived in the -fourth century, as a witness—but have cited his statement because it was -supposed to contain the declaration of Irenæus, who lived at a much -earlier period. - -For the purpose of clinching the argument, and showing that the historic -fact is in harmony with what we have said, we quote the following on the -point from Eld. J. N. Andrews, in which it will be seen that in the -original, the term, first day of the week, and not the Lord’s day, as -supposed, might have been employed:— - -“Observe ... Eusebius does not quote the words of any of these bishops, -but simply gives their decisions in his own language. There is, -therefore, no proof that they used the term, Lord’s day, instead of -first day of the week; for the introduction to the fiftieth fragment of -his lost writings, already quoted, gives an ancient statement of his -words in this decision, as plain first day of the week. It is Eusebius -who gives us the term, Lord’s day, in recording what was said by these -bishops concerning the first day of the week.” - -That which has been said above in reference to the testimony found in -book v., chap. 23, of Eusebius, will largely apply, in principle, to the -citation found in chap. 24, of the same book. In the latter, as in the -former, case, the historian is not giving the exact utterance of -Irenæus, but simply declares, in substance, his decision in regard to -the proper time for the celebration of the passover festival. - -Before passing from Irenæus to the consideration of another case of the -fathers, it would be proper to commend the candor of our opponent, as -manifested in his hearty condemnation of the looseness of Dwight and -others in their statements of historic facts. In making the concession -which the gentleman has, he will doubtless bring upon himself the -condemnation of those who exalt success above truth. He has taken from -such one of their most potent weapons. The language of Irenæus, which is -here admitted to be of spurious origin, has figured largely in the -discussion of this question, in the past. It was pointed and decisive, -and seemed to furnish just the material necessary to the satisfactory -making out of a case, otherwise sadly deficient in the proofs which it -needed. It will, therefore, be yielded up with reluctance. Nevertheless, -we hope that the acknowledgment, made by our opponent in this article, -will lead clergymen, for the future, to desist from the use of it, until -they are able to refute what the writer in the _Statesman_ here asserts. - -In the meanwhile, the reader must not allow himself to suppose that the -gentleman, by saying what he has, has really brought Sabbatarians under -obligation to hint for new light, since what he here asserts is but a -fact with which they have been familiar for years, and which they have -iterated and re-iterated until they have almost despaired of bringing -their opponents to an acknowledgment of the real state of things. -Occasionally, others outside of their ranks have, as does the gentleman, -borne testimony to the accuracy of their statements. If the reader would -have an illustration of this, taken from the writings of an -anti-Sabbatarian author, he will find it in the works of Domville, in -which, substantially, the same conclusions are reached, Mr. Domville not -only tracing the mistake to Dr. Dwight, but also allowing that the -language cited was probably taken from the interpolated epistle of -Ignatius to the Magnesians. - -Up to this point, we have carefully examined, one by one, the historic -quotations from ancient writers, which have been presented for our -consideration; henceforth, we shall pursue a different course. As we -have now reached, in the person of Tertullian, the close of the second, -and the opening of the third, century of the Christian era, we find -ourselves in a period when it is so generally acknowledged that the work -of apostasy was so manifest that the utterances of the men of those -times—even though they were pointed and explicit in regard to the -sanctity of the first day of the week, as looked upon by -themselves—could furnish no reliable standard of Christian faith in our -day. - -The gentleman himself is compelled to admit that his own witness, -Tertullian, became, in the second year of the third century, an ardent -advocate of the errors, follies, and heresies, of Montanus. Not only so, -but the writings of that father are proverbial, among scholars, for the -fanciful conceits and the false notions which are so conspicuous upon -their pages. Tertullian was a fiery zealot and a bitter partisan, -manifestly credulous beyond bounds, and more earnest for his sect than -anxious for the reliability of the sources of his information. Zell, in -his popular Encyclopedia, speaks of him as follows:— - -“After he was past middle age, he embraced the doctrines of Montanus, to -which his ardent, sensuous imagination, and ascetic tendencies would -incline him. He is said to have been determined to that course by the -ill-treatment he received from the Roman clergy. Whether he remained a -Montanist till his death, cannot be decided.... They [his works] are -characterized by vast learning, profound and comprehensive thought, -fiery imagination, and passionate partisanship, leading into -exaggeration and sophistry. His style is frequently obscure.” - -Montanus was a false prophet of the second century, who believed himself -to have received, from the Holy Ghost, revelations which were withheld -from the apostles; he denied the doctrine of the trinity, the propriety -of second marriage, and the forgiveness of certain sins. The disciple of -such a man is surely a strange witness to be found in the employ of -orthodoxy. Should his appearance, however, be excused, as it is above, -by the statement that he was introduced, not because of the reliability -of his own opinion, but simply to testify of the usage of his own times; -it may be replied, first, that an ardent partisan, a person of strong -imagination, and a notorious heretic, is hardly qualified to speak -reliably, even in a matter of this nature, since, from the very -constitution of his mind, he would almost of necessity allow what he -said to be warped by prejudice, or biased by conceptions of interest; -secondly, that in the quotation presented from his pen, it is not a -little remarkable that, instead of asserting a general usage of -Sunday-keeping, he is manifestly finding fault with a large class of his -fellow-Christians for not regarding the day in the same light, and -observing it with the same rigor, that he did; thirdly, that it is by no -means impossible that the very men, whom in his fiery zeal he thus -upbraids, were, after all, sounder than himself in the faith, and would, -could they be fairly heard upon this subject, vindicate their supposed -desecration of the first day, from the same grounds as do the -Sabbatarians now, _i. e._, because they did not look upon it as holy -time. - -If the above responses are not satisfactory, and if it be insisted that -the testimony of the witness shall, after all, he received, then we -propose that he be called to the stand once more, and be allowed to fill -up the measure of what he has to say upon this subject. We have seen -that, according to his opinion, many of his fellow-disciples were lax in -their Sunday-keeping habits, and that to one who believed that no labor -should be performed upon it, whatever, they treated it very much as men -would treat a mere festival occasion. But where did Tertullian and his -sympathizers obtain their notions of the manner in which Sunday should -be kept? Was it from the Scriptures? We shall see; here is the witness; -let him speak for himself: - -“As often as the anniversary comes around, we make offerings for the -dead as birth-day honors. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the -Lord’s day, to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege, also, from -Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, though -our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at -every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we -bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, -in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead -the sign (of the cross). If for these and other such rules, you insist -upon leaving positive Scripture injunctions, you will find none. -Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom, -as their strengthener, and faith, as their observer. That reason will -support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself -perceive, or learn from some one who has.”—_De Corona_, sects. 3 and 4. - -The reader will at once observe that tradition is the foundation which -is here laid for that kind of Sunday observance for which Tertullian was -so great a stickler. Not only so, but the fact is brought to light, -also, that the men whom he represented were in the habit of offering -prayers for the dead; of signing themselves with the sign of the cross; -and going through other ceremonies, which to us, at the present time, -are not only ridiculous in the extreme, but bear upon their face the -impress of the man of sin so unmistakably that none will be deceived. - -If Tertullian was indeed a fair specimen of the Christian men of his -time; if his writings have not been tampered with; and if the opinions -of the men of his day, as expressed by himself, should have weight with -us in the decision of religious questions, where shall we stop in our -acceptance of their creeds? If, because they believed with him in the -change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, -this fact should have weight with us in bringing us to the same -conclusion, independently of Scripture proof, then how can we stop short -of their faith in other particulars? such as the acceptance of tradition -in doctrinal matters, prayers for the dead, the sign of the cross, etc., -etc. In fact, how can we avoid becoming papists ourselves, in the -largest sense of the term, since, having gone as far as we have for the -purpose of making out Sunday sanctity, we have surrendered nearly all -the distinctive principles of Protestantism? - -Of course each individual is at liberty to use his own discretion as to -the measure of confidence which he will give to the writings before us; -so far as we are concerned, personally, we would not attach to them the -slightest weight in the decision of a grave religious question. From the -very nature of that which has been already cited, it is manifestly a -serious slander upon the true church of the second, and the first part -of the third century, to hold them responsible for the fanciful conceits -and destructive errors of this reputed defender of the faith. - -Certain it is, that if Tertullian is correctly reported, his writings -are not a safe criterion of the sentiments of the Christians of his age -in very many points, and it may be fairly concluded, that among them is -that concerning the Sabbath, since what he has said of it finds no -warrant in the open Bible, which the men of this day hold in their -hands. Not only is what he has written absurd and dangerous in the -extreme, but his productions are characterized by the most glaring -contradictions. Another has said of him: “It would be wiser for -Christianity, retreating upon its genuine records in the New Testament, -to disclaim this fierce African, than identify itself with his furious, -invectives, by unsatisfactory apologies for their unchristian -fanaticisms.” (Milman, in note on Gibbon’s Dec. and Fall of the Rom. -Emp., chap. xv.) - -We leave him, therefore, with his follies and foibles, his errors and -faults, his assertions and contradictions, with those who have a taste -for this kind of literature. - -With the case of Origen it will not be necessary that much time should -be consumed. Mr. Mosheim has well remarked of him, that had “the justice -of his judgment been equal to the immensity of his genius, the fervor of -his piety, his indefatigable patience, his extensive erudition, and his -other eminent and superior talents, all encomium must have fallen short -of his merits.” Unfortunately, however, with an erudition which was -truly remarkable, he united a credulity almost without parallel. So -numerous and so grave were the errors of his personal faith, that his -individual opinions, unsupported by facts and arguments, are utterly -worthless in the decision of any theological proposition. Having adopted -the mystical system of interpreting the Scriptures, he reached -conclusions utterly unsound and preposterous in many cases. - -That this is so, the orthodox reader will at once perceive, when we -state, first, that he was a believer in the pre-existence of the human -soul, and that souls were condemned to animate mortal bodies, because of -sins committed in a pre-existent state; secondly, that he was a -Restorationist, and believed in the final universal salvation of all -men, after enduring long periods of punishment. Nor does the advocacy of -such sentiments furnish the only difficulty in the way of his testimony, -as drawn from his writings now extant. There would indeed be some -satisfaction derived from the study of these documents, fanciful though -they might appear to be in many respects, if we could only feel assured -that they represented correctly the sentiments of the alleged author. - -Unhappily, this is not the case. Those who admire Origen most, while -attributing much in what he is said to have written, to that weakness of -discrimination which is everywhere so manifest in his productions, are -compelled to go beyond this, in order to explain many of the grosser -views therein contained, by admitting that they were not his own, but -that they are the result of fraud and interpolation. - -On this point, another, with great candor and friendly charity, when -speaking of the sect known as Origenists, after first stating that “he -was a man of great talents, and a most indefatigable student, but having -a strong attachment to the Platonic philosophy, and a natural turn to -mystical and allegorical interpretations, which led him to corrupt -greatly the simplicity of the gospel, declares that these circumstances -render it very difficult to ascertain exactly what his real sentiments -were.” He says, also, “1. Being a man of unquestionable talents and high -character, his genuine works were interpolated, and others written under -his name, in order to _forge_ his sanction to sentiments of which, -possibly, he never heard.... 3. Origen had many enemies, who probably -attributed to him many things which he did not believe, in order, either -to injure his fame, or bring his character under censure.”—_Encyc. of -Rel. Knowl._, Art. Origenists. - -Having said thus much in reference to the testimony before us, it would -be possible to take up the writings of this distinguished father, and -show from them that there is room for a difference of opinion as to -whether he believed that the so-called Christian Sabbath was indeed to -be regarded as of twenty-four hours’ duration, merely, or whether it -covered alike all days of the week, and the whole of our dispensation. -This, however, would be a tedious and unprofitable expenditure of time -and labor. We leave the whole question, therefore, respecting the -teaching of the works of Origen, as one of no significance in this -controversy; first, because if we know anything about what he did -believe, he was wholly unreliable, either as a teacher of sound -doctrine, or as a representative of the better men of his own time; and, -secondly, because what he has written has been so corrupted, that we -have no guarantee that it truthfully expresses what he believed. - -As we presume the majority of our readers are not particularly -interested in reference to which posture was assumed in prayer on the -first day of the week, by the early church, and as Peter of Alexandria -and the Council of Nice are quoted solely in reference to “this -independent question,” we shall not discuss the note in which reference -is made to them. There remains, therefore, only the case of Cyprian, -bishop of Carthage, to occupy us longer. What this author says was -written about A. D. 253. It will be observed, that in what is declared -by him and the Council, the first day of the week is called the Lord’s -day; beyond this, his testimony is of no value. It is neither stated -that the title was applied by divine authority, nor is it affirmed that -this day had superseded in Sabbatic honor the ancient Sabbath of the -Lord. - -There is, however, in reference to circumcision as something which -prefigured the Lord’s day, or eighth day, enough of mysticism to furnish -us with a clue to the character of the men whose intellectual -perceptions were so fine that they could discover in an institution -which was administered on the eighth day after the birth of the male -child, on whatever day of the week that eighth day might fall, a -prefiguring of the distinction which was to be bestowed on the definite -first day of the week, which had in it, not eight, but only seven, days, -in all. Mr. Mosheim, in alluding to a period in close proximity to that -in which Cyprian lived, mentions it as one in “which the greater part of -the Christian doctors had been engaged in adopting those vain fictions -of Platonic philosophy and popular opinions, which, after the time of -Constantine, were confirmed, enlarged, and embellished in various ways,” -and from which he declares “arose that extravagant veneration for -departed saints, and those absurd notions of a certain fire destined to -purify separate souls, that then prevailed, and of which the public -marks were everywhere to be seen.”—_Eccles. Hist._, Fourth Century, part -ii., chap. iii. - -It is now time to take a retrospective view of the territory over which -we have been passing. Be it remembered that the reader was lured from -the contemplation of the Scriptures, with this precious promise, that -outside of them were to be found the most convincing proofs that the -Lord’s day was and had been the proper title of the first day of the -week since the resurrection of Christ; but what have we seen? -Manifestly, not that which we had anticipated: - -First, we have discovered that Ignatius, the first witness introduced, -does not mention the Lord’s day at all, but simply speaks of the Lord’s -life. - -Secondly, that the epistle of Barnabas was a forgery, made up of the -most absurd and ridiculous fancies, and written by an unknown character -somewhere, perhaps in the second or third century, though purporting to -be the work of the companion of Paul. - -Thirdly, that it is becoming more and more a matter of doubt whether -that which is attributed to Justin Martyr was ever seen by him, and that -he not only does not call the Sunday the Lord’s day, but also inculcates -in what he says, the Romish heresy respecting the use of water in -sacrament, &c., &c. - -Fourthly, that Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and Melito, bishop of -Sardis, while indeed they do speak of the Lord’s day, do not furnish any -clue by which we can determine which day they regarded as such. - -Fifthly, that Pliny, a heathen writer, employs neither the term Lord’s -day nor Sabbath, but simply speaks of a stated day, without -identification. - -Sixthly, that Irenæus is not properly represented as speaking of the -Sunday in the use of the title Lord’s day, since that expression, in -both the instances alluded to, was the language of Eusebius, who lived -in the fourth century, and not of Irenæus, who lived in the second. - -Seventhly, that Tertullian, who lived at the close of the second and the -commencement of the third century, and who was a wild fanatic of the -Montanist school, utterly unworthy to represent the sentiments of his -times, is the first witness from whom the gentleman has succeeded in -obtaining an unequivocal application of the term, Lord’s day, to the -first day of the week; also, that he had connected with it, prayers for -the dead, the sign of the cross, &c., &c. - -Eighthly, that Origen was a man of great learning; that it was -questionable whether he believed in a septenary Sabbath, or in one that -covered the whole dispensation; and that, in fact, it is admitted by his -friends that his works have become so corrupt as to be utterly -untrustworthy in the matter of deciding respecting his real opinions. - -Ninthly, that Cyprian and his colleagues addressed us from a point of -time too far removed from the period of the alleged change of Sabbaths, -and too fully within that of the great apostasy, to be of service in an -exegesis of the Scriptures. - -Tenthly, that three of the most pointed and satisfactory of the -testimonies heretofore employed by first-day writers, are now abandoned -as having been the result of mistake in translation, or in the matter of -attributing them to the proper persons. Summing, up, therefore, in a -word we inquire again, What has been gained by this departure? We -believe that all must see that it has been an entire failure; for, so -far as the Sabbath is concerned, we think the reader will hesitate long -before he will leave the Scriptures, in the matter of deciding upon its -obligation, in order to build the structure of his faith from such -material as we have been handling over. - -Also, as to the question of what day John referred to in Rev. 1:10, when -he said, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day,” he will deliberate -very much before he will decide that it was the first day of the week, -simply because an untrustworthy man, admitted to have been heretical on -many points, called it such 200 years after the birth of Christ, while -Jehovah himself has given to the seventh day that honor, styling it the -“Sabbath of the Lord,” “the holy of the Lord, honorable,” &c., and while -Christ himself has declared in so many words, that he was the Lord of -the Sabbath day. Mark 2:27, 28. - - - - - STATESMAN’S REPLY. - ARTICLE NINE. - THEORIES OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. - - -With the facts of history before us concerning sacred time for nearly -three centuries after the resurrection of Christ—facts drawn from the -inspired writers of the New Testament and their immediate successors, we -are prepared to consider the different theories of the Christian -Sabbath. These theories may be summed up in three. Of one or another of -these, all the remaining theories are simply modifications. - -The first of these three leading theories is as follows: “The Sabbath -was a Jewish institution, and expired with the Jewish dispensation. The -Lord’s day is not in any proper sense a Sabbath. It has an origin, a -reason, and an obligation, not drawn from the fourth commandment, but -peculiarly its own, as an institution belonging specially to the -New-Testament dispensation.” - -The second theory, in the order in which we notice these different -views, maintains that the observance of the Sabbath, as required under -the Old-Testament dispensation, knows no change in any particular. The -observance of the seventh day of the week is essential to the proper -observance of the Sabbath under the gospel dispensation. The observance -of the first day of the week is without divine warrant—a departure from -the law of God through the corruptions which crept into the church. - -The third theory agrees with the second in maintaining that the Sabbath -existed from the beginning, and that it has never been abolished or -superseded. It disagrees with the second theory in maintaining that the -essential idea of the law of the Sabbath is not the holiness of a -portion of time, but the _consecration of a specified proportion of -time_, one day in seven; that, in accordance with this, a change of day -was admissible; that a change was actually made by divine warrant from -the resurrection of Christ; and that the first day of the week, the -Lord’s day, is the true Christian Sabbath, having its moral sanction in -the fourth commandment. - -By many of those who hold the first of these theories, the Lord’s day is -made a purely ecclesiastical institution, without any other warrant for -its observance than the action of the church, by whose authority and in -whose wisdom, the day is set apart for divine service. By others who -accept the same general theory, apostolic authority in the early church -is admitted to afford a divine warrant for the observance of the day. In -a complete treatise on the Lord’s day, a careful discussion of this -theory would be required. Its want of any sufficient foundation could be -satisfactorily shown by a presentation of the following points: (1.) The -declaration of the Lord of the Sabbath is explicit—“The Sabbath was made -for man.” It was not made for any portion of the human family, but for -the race of mankind. (2.) Thus, from the design of its Lord, and the -very nature of the institution, the Sabbath cannot be limited to any -locality or dispensation. (3.) Accordingly, it was given to man at his -creation. (Gen. 3:3.) (4.) For the same reason, the law of the Sabbath -has its proper place, not among ceremonial, local, or positive -enactments, but among the immutable moral precepts of the decalogue. -(5.) This law is, therefore, of universal and perpetual obligation upon -our race. These points would give room for many articles; but, inasmuch -as on all of them there is entire agreement between our seventh-day -Sabbatarian friends and ourselves, we pass to a consideration of the -second theory, which they accept as correct. - -To make good their case, the advocates of the second theory must show -that the seventh day continued to be the Sabbath observed by the church -after the resurrection of Christ, just as before; and that, in the -observance of the first day, a great departure took place from the -original practice of the Christian church. They must not make _bare_ -statements, but they must furnish proof. Instead of appealing to the -letter of the law, and insisting that fact must conform to their -interpretation of it, they must accept the facts of history, and put -their interpretations to the test. It is more reasonable to conclude -that an interpretation of law is wrong, than to reject the attested -facts of history, when the interpretation and the facts do not -harmonize. - -Let us briefly sum up the facts already fully brought to view. Christ -himself, after his resurrection, passed by the seventh day, and -repeatedly put special honor on the first day of the week. This same day -was honored by the Pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit. Christian -congregations met for regular weekly service, not on the seventh day, -but on the first day of the week. The inspired apostle Paul pointedly -condemned the Judaizing teachers who insisted on the observance by -Christians of the seventh-day Sabbath. The early writers, companions of -the apostles, and others of the succeeding generations, bear the -clearest and most explicit testimony to the same facts—the -non-observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, and the stated meetings of -Christians for divine service on the first day of the week, the Lord’s -day. Now, if their theory is correct, how will the seventh-day -Sabbatarians explain the fact that Christ himself, the Holy Spirit, -inspired apostles, and Christian congregations all through the early -church, ignored the seventh day and honored the first? A general and -vague statement to the effect that an unwarranted change was made from -the original practice of the Christian church will not do here. Was not -the practice of the apostles and first organized congregations of -Christians the original practice of the Christian church? That practice -was, as we have seen, to observe the first day of the week. We repeat -what we have already proved at length, viz., that there is not an -instance in the Scriptures of the observance of the seventh day by any -Christian church, nor of any regard to that day, after Christ’s -resurrection, by apostles or their fellow-laborers, except as they -availed themselves, in their missionary work, of the meetings of Jewish -assemblies in Jewish places of worship. “An unwarranted change!” Let -those who take such language upon their lips consider that their charge -lies at the door of Christ and his Spirit, and the inspired apostles. - -But now, for the sake of the argument, let us leave all the testimony of -the inspired writers of the New Testament to the first-day Sabbath out -of view. Again we have the vague charge of unwarranted change. Perhaps -the most definite form of this charge is that which makes the change the -work of the little horn in Daniel’s prophecy, chapter seven. But will -the expounder of Daniel be a little more explicit, and tell us who the -historical personage is, and give us the dates and names of history? -Does the little horn represent Antiochus Epiphanes? if so, then, of -course, his change of the law of the Sabbath must have been before the -Christian era. Will our expositor give us some facts just here? If the -little horn means the papacy, then, according to the prophecy itself, it -did not arise until the Roman Empire, represented by the fourth beast, -was broken into ten fragments, represented by the ten horns. The little -horn sprang up after these, and its change of the law of the Sabbath -must date after the fall of the old empire of Rome. But for centuries -before this event, we have the testimony of numerous writers that the -Christian churches everywhere observed, not the seventh, but the first, -day of the week, the Lord’s day. Again we ask for facts, not mere -statements and theories. - -Leaving this vague attempt to connect the assumed unwarranted change -with Daniel’s prophesy, we come to what is, if possible, still more -vague and indefinite. A change, it is asserted, was made by some -particular officer or council of the church, as it became corrupt and -began to depart from the practice of the original church of Christ. Who -was this officer? or where did this council meet? But we will not make -unreasonable demands for historical testimony. Let us grant that such an -officer or such a council there was at some time or other. The question -then arises, When did the change take place? In the days of Cyprian, A. -D. 250? The answer is clear. The change most have been made before his -day. Origen and Tertullian, fifty years earlier, knew only the first day -of the week, the Lord’s day, as the Christian Sabbath. Was the change -then made in their day? We might assume that it was, only for the clear -testimony of Irenæus and Justin Martyr, carrying us back another half -century, and the equally explicit testimony of still earlier writers, -carrying us back to the apostles themselves. - -Notwithstanding all this dearth of historical testimony as to the -existence of the supposed ruler or council, let it be further granted -that by some such corrupting authority, at some time a decree changing -the day for Sabbath observance was issued. How did the supposed -legislators establish their decree? How did they make it effectual over -all the different parts of the church? Must we we suppose that a change -like this was effected in the church, and not a scrap of a record left -concerning it? The attempt made by the church to establish a common day -for the anniversary of Christ’s resurrection gave rise to long and -bitter controversy, and led to division. And yet, as Prof F. D. Maurice -has well said, “It is supposed that this far more important change, -affecting all the daily relations and circumstances of life, took effect -by the decree of some apostle or some ecclesiastical synod, of which no -record, no legend, even is preserved! Or, perhaps, a half-heathen, more -than half-heathen, statute of Constantine,[14] about the _Dies Solis_ -accomplished what the legislators of the church could not -accomplish—succeeded not only in securing its adoption by Athanasians, -Arians, Semi-Arians, whose controversies Constantine could never heal, -but in securing the allegiance of all the barbarous tribes which -accepted the gospel under such various conditions in later times. Can -any suppositions make greater demands on our credulity than these?” A -Procrustean bed indeed must be that interpretation of the law of the -Sabbath which, to conform them to itself, must thus deal with the facts -of history and the probabilities of historical evidence. - -Just here is the difficulty in the theory of Seventh-day Sabbatarians. -They have somehow got lodged in their mind the idea that the last one of -the seven days of the week is the sacred day, the observance of which is -absolutely essential to the proper keeping of the Sabbath. What has -already been proved from history, inspired and uninspired, is sufficient -to show that this theory is unworthy of men who, like Christ and his -apostles, would grasp the true significance of the law of the Sabbath. -But as so much stress is laid upon the question of time, we shall devote -our next article to this crucial and very practical point. - -Footnote 14: - - The attempt to attribute the change of day to Constantine’s decree is - hardly worth noticing. It is enough to remember that it was issued in - the beginning of the fourth century. No one who knows anything of the - writings of Tertullian and Origen dating back more than a century - before Constantine, to say nothing of still earlier writers, will - venture to ascribe the change to Roman Emperor’s decree. Besides, the - language of the very decree referred to recognizes the honorable - diameter of the first day of the week. It recognizes that day as - already “venerable.”—_The Christian._ - - - - - A REJOINDER. - “THEORIES OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.” - - -The thoughtful reader need not be told that the article which he has -just read, entitled, “Theories of the Christian Sabbath,” has advanced -the discussion of the question before us in no material respect. The -space devoted so generously to the consideration of theories, in regard -to the unsoundness of which there is no difference of opinion between -the gentleman and myself, is thrown away, so far as the present argument -is concerned. While this is true, however, if it serves no other -purpose, it has at least made it clear that, if the gentleman fails to -make out his case in the end, it will not be because he has not had -ample room for the presentation and elaboration of facts and arguments, -since one who was crippled in his effort by a lack of space would hardly -be willing to devote so much time and attention to subjects foreign to -the present issue. - -That which is said with reference to these theories might also be -repeated in reference to the statement and restatement of points which -it is claimed have been proved. Of course, it is the prerogative of any -writer to conduct his own argument in his own way. All that we would -call attention to is the fact that the line of policy pursued, in these -things, is of a nature to satisfy even the most casual observer, that -one who felt that he had resources upon which to draw, without limit, -would not compel us to pass again and again over the same ground. There -is, however, an apology which might properly be offered in the case of -the gentleman, for calling our attention to these trivial points so -repeatedly, which is found in the fact that his articles were written -before our rejoinders were in print. We believe that, were not this the -case, and had he perused what has been said in reply to them, we should -be spared the monotony of answering them again. However, lest we should -seem to avoid them, it will only be necessary that we say enough, -bearing upon each point, to revive, in the mind of one who has followed -us thus far, the fuller consideration given to all of them heretofore. - -To the statement that Sabbatarians, in order to make good their case, -must make their views harmonize with the facts of history, it is enough -to say that, if it is meant by this, the facts of sacred history, as -contained in the Bible, this we have already done; for before it can be -urged that the opposite is true, as we have elsewhere seen, it must be -shown that there is some transaction found in the sacred record which is -in conflict with our interpretation of the law. This has not been done; -for not only has it been made to appear that the Sabbath law is explicit -in its requirement of the observance of the seventh day of the week, but -also that there is not a single case of its violation, by a good man, to -be found in the inspired pages. - -Nor is this all; we have gone beyond this, and proved, by the record, -that the opposite was true of the Sunday, since upon it Christ and two -of his disciples, on the day of his resurrection, as well as Paul and -Luke and others at a subsequent period, did perform upon it labor, which -the gentleman himself has not attempted, and will not undertake, to -harmonize with any just conception of intelligent Sabbath-keeping. So -far as it regards the absence of any mention of meetings of Christians -on the Sabbath, it is sufficient to say, as we have already done, that, -as in the history given, the account relates largely to missionary -trips, where there was no church as yet developed, and, consequently, no -possibility of separate meetings, such a record would be out of the -question; also, that the argument is only a negative one, and really can -have no force, until it can be demonstrated that God’s plan is first to -command, and then show, in every instance what the commandment means, by -practical illustrations furnished from the history of his people; a -doctrine which is not only unsound and untrue, but absurd in the -extreme. - -If, on the other hand, the gentleman means to be understood as insisting -that the history of the church since the close of the canon of -inspiration must be made to teach the faith which we hold as one which -has always been entertained by the church, and therefore sound, we -repudiate, in the name of Protestantism, this most pernicious view, and -in all matters of practical duty, such as Sabbath-keeping, we decide -according to the written word. To the first source (church history), the -gentleman has appealed, and if every candid man and woman who has -witnessed his effort has not been disgusted with the source to which he -has applied, then we know of nothing which would be calculated to create -in him this condition of mind. - -With the summary, in which it is claimed that Christ, and the apostles, -and the Holy Spirit, and the early church, did repeatedly honor the -first day of the week, we will not weary the reader here. We have -disproved every one of these points, and we trust to the intelligence of -those whom we are addressing, in the confident belief that what has been -said, in the absence of even an attempt at refutation, needs not to be -reproduced here. - -We had barely mentioned, in our original articles, that Seventh-day -Adventists held to the opinion that the pope of Rome had been -instrumental in bringing about the change of the Sabbath. No effort was -made to develop the argument on that point, since we did not dare to -presume that room would be granted for the perfecting of the work; in -fact, what was said was uttered rather with a view to calling the -attention of the curious to our published works upon that subject, than -for any other purpose. Now, however, this point is made to assume a -prominence which does not really belong to it, in an argument so largely -doctrinal rather than historic. - -With this, nevertheless, we have no fault to find. Nothing is more -satisfactory than the awakening of a spirit of investigation on all -branches of this great subject; at the same time, we submit that the -attitude of the gentleman must be very unsatisfactory to himself, since -he will readily perceive that to an opponent, chafing under a denial of -the privilege of answering him in the columns of his own paper, this -whole affair wears the aspect of an empty bravado. “Tell us,” says the -editor, and he repeats his invitation again and again, “Whom did this -little horn represent? Was it Antiochus? or the pope? If the latter, -then how, and when, and where, did he bring about the transition?” - -But we reply, Whom do you mean, sir, by the term, “us”? Truly, you would -not require us to come to Philadelphia to enlighten you personally upon -that point. Certainly, you are not particularly anxious that we should -write a series of articles for the benefit of the readers of the -_Review_, on a matter with which they are as familiar as they are with -the history of their own country; but if, indeed, you had in your mind -the readers of the _Statesman_, then it may be inquired again, How has -it been possible for us to reach them, under the circumstances? since, -throwing your forces behind the wall of your editorial prerogative, and -closing against us the gate of possibility, you have shut us out from -all access to them. Gladly would we have availed ourselves of the -opportunity of doing that which we have been denied the privilege of -attempting before the men, many of whom, we believe, would have been -glad to follow this matter to the end; but as this cannot be done, a -brief reply will be made here. - -The first inquiry, relating, as it does, to the point whether Antiochus -Epiphanes or the pope, was meant by the “little horn,” in the seventh of -Daniel, need not consume time. It has been urged by some that the -“little horn,” of Dan. 8:9, applied to the former character. We believe -the papists still insist upon this; but the gentleman, upon -reflection—if in what he has said he has confounded the two—will not -seriously argue against the almost universal admission of Protestant -writers, that the power brought to view in the seventh chapter of -Daniel’s prophecy, is that of the papacy. In fact, reasoning as he does -himself, most satisfactorily, that it could not arise until after the -appearance of the original ten, which represented the final breaking up -of the Roman Empire into ten parts, he more than intimates his personal -conviction that it could not represent Antiochus Epiphanes, who reigned -one hundred and seventy-five years before Christ, since the Roman Empire -was not partitioned among the barbarians who invaded it, until A. D. -483, more than six hundred years after the death of the Syrian king. - -The following, from a standard authority, will serve to show an almost -universal agreement on this subject; and with its presentation we pass -to the investigation of questions more difficult, and more worthy of our -reflection. “Among Protestant writers, this (‘the little horn,’ of Dan. -7:8) is considered to be the popedom.”—_A. Clarke, Com. in loco._ - -“To none can this (‘He shall speak great words againt the Most High’) -apply so well, and so fully, as to the popes of Rome.”—_Idem_, v. 25. - -The real point of debate, as intimated above, is the question whether -the Roman Catholic church has been instrumental in bringing about the -change of the Sabbath. The gentleman errs in asserting that we have -anywhere stated that such a change was brought about by any particular -officer or council. This we have never urged, nor does it accord with -the view held by us. The “little horn” represented, not one, merely, but -a whole line of priest-kings, who were to extend from the time of their -rise, to the Judgment, and the setting up of the kingdom of God. Of this -line of rulers, it is stated—not that they should really succeed in -bringing about an actual change in the requirements of the law of -God—but that they should “_think_” to accomplish this end. It is also -said that, for a time, times, and dividing of time (1260 years), the -saints of God and the law of God should be delivered into their hands. -Not, indeed, that God would forsake either his people or his law, -utterly, but that, for the period in question, they should be permitted -to pursue a course destructive to the one, and antagonistic to the -other. In other words, that they should put to death the saints, and -presume to alter the commandments of God. - -These specifications are simply introduced by way of identification. It -is not said that the power indicated should spring into life suddenly, -and without a previous stage of development; nor is it declared that the -principles which were to characterize it in its mature life should be -wholly peculiar to itself. Other powers, such as pagan Rome, might have -persecuted the people of God before the rise of the papacy, as they -unquestionably did. Other men might have begun the work of tampering -with the law of God, long before the days of the hierarchy, and might -have prepared to its hands the materials necessary to the accomplishment -of the final blasphemous work of the man of sin. - -In the days of Paul, “the mystery of iniquity began to work,” and from -that point, its history was one of gradual development. Some of the most -destructive heresies afterward incorporated into the faith of papists, -it is well understood, were fully fledged, and quite generally accepted, -before the installation of the first pope. So, too, concerning the -first-day Sabbath. There can be little doubt that before the bishop of -Rome became the “Corrector of Heretics,” in A. D. 538, or entered the -chair of St. Peter, the Sunday had come to be regarded, by many, as the -rival, if not the superior, of the ancient Sabbath. Just how extensively -the sentiment prevailed, however, it is hard to determine from church -history, because, as has been shown in a previous article, the sources -of our information have been so corrupted by unprincipled Romanists, -that it is difficult to arrive at the facts in the case. - -One thing is certain; there was a mighty struggle on this question, the -gentleman to the contrary, notwithstanding, which has left the marks of -its existence in the records of the past. Clear down to the rise of -Roman Catholicism, there were men who were strenuous for the observance -of the seventh day, and rejecters of its rival. Doubtless the Sunday, by -slow degrees, had worked itself into almost universal acceptance as a -festival resting upon human, and not divine, authority; but the Sabbath -of the Lord still continued in the faith of many, especially in the -East, as a day to be sacredly devoted to the worship of God. On this -point, Neander, the learned church historian, has given distinct and -unequivocal utterance:— - -“The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was only a human -ordinance, and it was far from the intention of the apostles to -establish a divine command in this respect; far from them and from the -early apostolic church to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. -Perhaps at the end of the second century, a false application of this -kind had began to take place; for men appear, by that time, to have -considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.”—_Rose’s Translation of -Neander_, p. 186.[15] - -Giesler also remarks as follows: “While the Christians of Palestine, who -kept the whole Jewish law, celebrated, of course, all the Jewish -festivals, the heathen converts observed only the Sabbath, and in -remembrance of the closing scenes of our Saviour’s life, the passover, -though without the Jewish superstitions. Besides these, the Sunday as -the day of our Saviour’s resurrection, was devoted to religious -worship.”—_Church Hist., Apostolic Age to A. D. 70._ - -Lyman Coleman, in his “Ancient Christianity Exemplified,” testifies as -follows: “The observance of the Lord’s day as the first day of the week -was at first introduced as a separate institution. Both this and the -Jewish Sabbath were kept for some time; finally, the latter passed -wholly over into the former, which now took the place of the ancient -Sabbath of the Israelites. But their Sabbath, the last day of the week, -was strictly kept in connection with that of the first day for a long -time after the overthrow of the temple and its worship. Down even to the -fifth century, the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the -Christian church, but with a rigor and solemnity gradually diminishing, -until it was wholly discontinued.... Both were observed in the Christian -church down to the fifth century, with this difference, that in the -eastern church, both days were regarded as joyful occasions; but in the -western, the Jewish Sabbath was kept as a fast.” Chap. 26, sect. 2. - -Wm. Twisse, whose antique style comports with that of the period in -which he wrote, most pointedly declares the same fact in a work -entitled, “The Morality of the Fourth Commandment:” “Yet for some -hundred years in the primitive church, not the Lord’s day only, but the -seventh day also, was religiously observed, not by Ebion and Cerinthus -only, but by pious Christians also, as Baronius writeth and Gomaius -confesseth, and Rivut also.” Page 9, London, 1641. - -Morer, in speaking of the early Christians, remarks of them as follows: -“The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and -spent the day in devotion and sermons, and it is not to be doubted but -they derived the practice from the apostles themselves.”—_Morer’s Lord’s -Day_, p. 189. - -Edward Brerewood, professor in Gresham College, London, writes: “The -ancient Sabbath did remain, and was observed by the Christians of the -east church above three hundred years after our Saviour’s death, and -besides that, no other day, for more hundred years than I spoke of -before, was known in the church by the name of the Sabbath.” Page 77, -ed. 1631. - -Prof. Stuart, in speaking of the period between A. D. 321 and the -council of Laodicea, A. D. 364, furnishes the following interesting -statement, which discloses the historic fact concerning the ebb and flow -of discussion on this subject in the early church: “The practice of it -[the keeping of the Sabbath], was continued by Christians who were -jealous for the honor of the Mosaic law, and finally became, as we have -seen, predominant throughout Christendom. It was supposed at length that -the fourth commandment did require the observance of the seventh-day -Sabbath [not merely a seventh part of time], and reasoning as Christians -of the present day are wont to do, viz., that _all_ which belongs to the -ten commandments was immutable and perpetual, the churches in general -came gradually to regard the seventh-day Sabbath as altogether -sacred.”—_Appendix to Gurney’s Hist. of Sabbath_, pp. 115, 116. - -Concerning the same council, Prynne has made a similar historic record; -“The seventh-day Sabbath was solemnized by Christ, the apostles, and -primitive Christians, till the Laodicean Council did, in a manner, quite -abolish the observance of it.... The Council of Laodicea, A. D. 364, -first settled the observance of the Lord’s day, and prohibited keeping -of the Jewish Sabbath, under an anathema.”—_Dissertation on the Lord’s -Sabbath_, pp. 33, 44, ed. 1633. - -In alluding to the differences in practice between the eastern and the -western churches, Neander distinctly sets forth the resolute animosity -of the latter to the ancient Sabbath of the Lord, and the manner in -which they sought to bring it into disrepute, while elevating the Sunday -into favor. He says: “In the western churches, particularly the Roman, -where opposition to Judaism was the prevailing tendency, this very -opposition produced the custom of celebrating the Saturday as a fast -day. This difference of customs would, of course, be striking, where -members of the Oriental church spent their Sabbath day in the western -church.”—_Hist. Chris. Rel. and Church, First Three Centuries. Rose’s -trans._, p. 186. - -Peter Heylyn also marks the peculiar favor shown to the first day of the -week in the western church; and while he declares at one time that it -was near “nine hundred years from the Saviour’s birth before restraint -of husbandry on this day [Sunday] had been first thought of in the -east,” he elsewhere records the fact that in the fifth and sixth -centuries general unanimity respecting the exaltation to divine honor -was reached. He writes: “The faithful, being united more than ever -before, became more uniform in matters of devotion, and in that -uniformity did agree together to give the Lord’s day all the honors of a -holy festival, yet this was not done all at once, but by degrees, the -fifth and sixth centuries being fully spent before it came unto that -hight which has since continued. The emperors and the prelates in these -times had the same affections, both earnest to advance this day above -all others; and to the edicts of the one, and to the ecclesiastical -constitutions of the others, it stands indebted for many of those -privileges and exemptions which it still enjoyeth.”—_Hist. Sab._, part -2, chap. 4, sect. 1. - -Thus it has been proved, by citations from men who have possessed the -resources, as well as the disposition, to make themselves acquainted -with the history of the first centuries of the Christian church, first, -that the first day of the week was looked upon for a long time as a -merely human institution; secondly, that the Edenic Sabbath was for -centuries after the crucifixion of Christ quite generally celebrated; -thirdly, that prejudice against it seems to have been strongest and to -have originated earliest at Rome, where, in order to bring it into -odium, it was made a day of fasting, while the Sunday was treated as a -festival; fourthly, that after a struggle, which extended through -hundreds of years, the ancient Sabbath was finally quite generally -repudiated, and the Sunday, through the united efforts of prelates, -councils, and emperors, was enthroned and enforced upon all. - -Into the details of this long and varying conflict, in which victory -seems first to have favored the one side and then the other, we are -restricted by the limits of our communication from entering. The -intelligent reader can readily fill in the outlines which have been -given, and will not be slow to perceive that the contest, from the very -nature of things, must have been one of intense interest and heated -debate. If he would satisfy himself most fully that the gentleman is -mistaken in saying that it has left no traces, we refer him for a more -full discussion to the authorities quoted. - -Changing now the point of view, we will come to the present time. We -return once more to the charge that the church of Rome, availing itself -of the condition of things which preceded its rise, has consummated the -terrible work which was begun with the great apostasy, long before the -papacy proper was fully developed. In prosecuting the labor thus entered -upon, the reader is invited to pause a moment and decide upon certain -principles which ought to govern in the decision of the question. He -will remember that if he has been educated in the observance of Sunday, -he will be in danger of requiring more testimony than could reasonably -be demanded, since his education, and personal interest, and standing, -would all incline him to a conservatism which needs to be guarded with a -jealous care, lest it should result in a bias which would terminate in -the rejection of sufficient light. - -All that we ask him to do is to treat this subject the same as he would -any other matter of fact. To illustrate: If the body of a murdered man -were discovered upon the street, and if there should be found in the -community one whose character was bad in every respect, concerning whom -those who knew him best had given warning; if on the garments of this -suspicious personage blood stains were found; if, in the meantime, a -careful examination of the wounds should show that they had been -inflicted by a weapon peculiar to the notorious individual; and if, in -addition to the foregoing, he should step forward and frankly confess -that he had done the deed, no court in the world would hesitate to -inflict the penalty of the law, because of any doubt regarding the guilt -of the offending party. Now applying the same principles to the case in -hand, if every one can be shown to hold good in every particular, then -consistency demands that they should produce a conviction equally clear -and strong with that in the mind of the court, in determining in the -case of the homicide upon the infliction of punishment. - -But is it true that the charge against the Roman Catholic church can be -made out as conclusively as that against the individual mentioned above? -Let us see. The first point there brought forward was the unquestionable -fact that the man had been murdered. This was the starting point of the -whole affair. That which answers to it in the case before us is the fact -that the change of the Sabbath has been made out beyond reasonable -doubt; for God commanded the observance of the seventh day, while, -somehow, Christendom is generally observing the first, though utterly -incapable of furnishing Scripture warrant for the change. - -The second point was that respecting the bad reputation of a certain -character in the community—its parallel in the persons of the popes is -found in the fact that, as we have seen, their rise and history were -symbolized centuries before their appearance under the type of the -“little horn” of the seventh of Daniel, by one who never errs in his -analysis of character, and who declared of the “man of sin” that he -should “think to change times and laws,” and that they should be given -into his hands for “a time and times and the dividing of time,” thus -proving that this blasphemous power who was to open his mouth in -blasphemy against God is capable of attempting the transfer of God’s -holy Sabbath to a day different from that pointed out in the -commandment. - -The third point, which related to blood stains upon the garments of the -suspected person, finds its counterpart in the teachings of Romanism, -most clearly. We learn, in the writings of Moses, that the blood is the -life of the individual. This, however, is not more true than it is that -the fourth commandment is the life of the Sabbatic institution. If you -mar that commandment, you mar the Sabbath in the same ratio. If you -destroy that commandment, you destroy the Sabbath. But the assumed -ability to alter this precept as well as others of the decalogue is one -of the very crimes of which Rome has been guilty, by which she has -blotched all over in the most loathsome manner the garments of a once -spotless Christianity, and a profoundly reverent faith. That this is so -will become manifest when we present a copy of the decalogue as it has -been mutilated by the Romish church in the exercise of a pretended -divine right to accomplish such a work. For this purpose we append the -ten commandments as they stand in Butler’s catechism.[16] - -“1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me, -&c. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 3. -Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day. 4. Honor thy father and -thy mother. 5. Thou shalt not kill. 6. Thou shalt not commit adultery. -7. Thou shalt not steal, 8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against -thy neighbor. 9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife. 10. Thou -shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.” - -Hero it will be seen that the second commandment is dropped out -altogether, and that the tenth is divided; a portion of it retaining its -ancient number, and the remaining portion of it being numbered as the -ninth commandment, thereby making the complement of the original ten, -which would have been reduced to nine by ignoring the one against image -worship. It will also be perceived that with the exception of the words, -“Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day,” the fourth commandment -is left out entirely. True, it may be that in the Douay Bible the -original commandments are allowed to remain intact, but we shall see -hereafter that the above arrangement is not accidental, and that the -power to make these changes is unhesitatingly claimed. - -The fourth point was that concerning the form and nature of the wound, -whereby it was discovered that it was made with a weapon precisely such -as one possessed by the suspected party. The correspondence in this -particular will be found in the boundary of the new Sabbath; in its -beginning and ending, occurring as they do at twelve o’clock, midnight, -are the unmistakable marks of the band of one who most assuredly did not -live at Jerusalem, and who left upon the creature of his own power the -badge of its origin at Rome. - -The Jews, as we have seen heretofore, by the agreement of commentators -and scholars generally, as well as by the testimony of the Bible, -commenced and ended their days with the setting of the sun. At Rome, on -the other hand, as well as in other parts of the world, the day began as -we now begin the Sunday—at midnight. In this, it is made apparent that -some one has been tampering with a day which it is claimed was hallowed -by Christ eighteen hundred years ago; since, if it had originated at -that time and in that place, it would have conformed in its beginning -and ending to the weekly Sabbath, the day of Pentecost, and the other -days in the Jewish calendar. The presumption concerning whom this person -is, is already made out. The certainty respecting it will be established -under the next heading. - -The fifth point cited above was the confession of the culprit. Under -ordinary circumstances, this alone would have made a conviction -inevitable. Answering to it in the fullest degree are the oft-repeated -declarations of Romanists, that they have changed the Sabbath from the -seventh to the first day of the week, and that they had the ability and -the right thus to do. Respecting these assumptions, we might introduce -quotations almost without number, but we must content ourselves with a -few brief but pointed ones.[17] - -“_Ques._ What are the days which the church commands to be kept holy?” - -“_Ans._ 1. The Sundays, or our Lord’s day, which we observe by -apostolical tradition instead of the Sabbath. 2. The feasts of our -Lord’s nativity, or Christmas day; his circumcision, or New Year’s day; -the Epiphany, or twelfth day; Easter day, or the day of our Lord’s -resurrection, with the Monday following,” &c. - -“_Ques._ What was the reason why the weekly Sabbath was changed from the -Saturday to the Sunday?” - -“_Ans._ Because our Lord fully accomplished the work of our redemption -by rising from the dead on Sunday and by sending down the Holy Ghost on -Sunday; as therefore the work of our redemption was a greater work than -that of our creation, the primitive _church_ thought the day in which -this work was completely finished was more worthy her religious -observation than that in which God rested from creation, and should be -properly called the Lord’s day.” - -“_Ques._ But has the church power to make any alterations in the -commandments of God?” - -“_Ans._ The commandments of God, as far as they contain his eternal law, -are unalterable and indispensable, but as to whatever was only -ceremonial they cease to oblige, since the Mosaic law was abrogated by -Christ’s death; hence, as far as the commandment obliges us to set aside -some part of our time for the worship and service of our Creator, it is -an unalterable and unchangeable precept of the eternal law in which the -church cannot dispense. But, forasmuch as it prescribes the seventh day -in particular for this purpose, it is no more than a ceremonial precept -of the old law which obligeth not Christians, and therefore, instead of -the seventh day and other festivals appointed by the old law, the -_church_ has prescribed the Sundays and holidays to be set apart for -God’s worship, and these we are now obliged to keep in consequence of -God’s commandment, instead of the ancient Sabbath.” - -“_Ques._ What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday preferable to the -ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday?” - -“_Ans._ We have for it the authority of the Catholic church and -apostolic tradition.” - -“_Ques._ Does the Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for -the Sabbath?” - -“_Ans._ The Scripture commands us to hear the church (Matt. 18:17, Luke -10:16), and to hold fast the traditions of the apostles. 2 Thess. 2:15. -But the Scriptures do not in particular mention this change of the -Sabbath. John speaks of the Lord’s day (Rev. 1:10); but he does not tell -us what day of the week this was, much less does he tell us that this -day was to take the place of the Sabbath ordained in the commandment; -... so that truly the best authority we have for this, is the testimony -and ordinance of the church. And, therefore, those who pretend to be so -religious of the Sunday, whilst they take no notice of the festivals -ordained by the same church authority, show that they act by humor, and -not by reason and religion, since Sundays and holy days all stand upon -the same foundation, viz., the ordinance of the church.”—_Cath. -Christian Instructed_, pp. 209-211. - -“_Ques._ Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to -institute festivals of precept?” - -“_Ans._ Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which -all modern religionists agree with her—she could not have substituted -the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance -of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scripture -authority.”—_Doctrinal Catechism._ - -“_Ques._ If keeping the Sunday be a church precept, why is it numbered -in the decalogue, which are the commandments of God and the law of -nature?” - -“_Ans._ Because the substance, or chief part of it, namely, that the day -be set apart for the service of God, is of divine right and of the law -of nature; though the determining this particular day, Sunday, rather -than Saturday, be a church ordinance and precept.”—_Abridgment of Chris. -Doc._, pp. 57, 59. - -Thus much for the connection of the papacy with the change of the -Sabbath. The reader, repudiating the claim for apostolical tradition, -which is of no value with Protestants, and rejecting as fallacious the -assumed antiquity of the Roman Catholic church, will discover that there -still remains the bold assumption of the ability on the part of that -church to change the Sabbath, and also of the historic fact that it has -done so. Mr. Gilfillan, while, of course, from his standpoint rejecting -the notion that the pope has either in reality changed, or even -possessed the ability to change, the divinely appointed day of rest, -frankly acknowledges that he arrogates to himself the power so to do, in -the following language:— - -“Rome, professing to retain, has yet corrupted every doctrine, -institution, and law of Jesus Christ, recognizing for example, the -mediator between God and man, but associating with him many other -intercessors; avowing adherence to the Scripture, but the Scripture as -supplemented and made void by the writings and traditions of men; and, -in short, without discarding the Lord’s day, adding a number of -encumbering holidays, giving them in many instances an honor equal and -even superior to God’s own day, and claiming for the ‘Vicar of Christ’ -lordship even of the Sabbath.”—_The Sabbath_, p. 457. - -Into the details respecting the fasts; the decrees of councils; the -bulls of popes: the myths concerning the calamities which have befallen -those laboring on the Sunday; the forgery of an epistle in its -interests, which it was claimed fell from Heaven; and the astounding -miracles with which the hierarchy has accomplished the prodigious task -of making the transfer, we are not permitted to enter here, nor will it -be required that we should do so. Any person acquainted with the arts -usually employed at Rome will readily perceive the methods which she has -called to her assistance. All that a reasonable man could possibly ask -is found in the transition from one day to another, in the fact that the -law of God was to be tampered with by a persecuting power which was to -continue its oppressions of the saints of God for twelve hundred and -sixty years, and in the further consideration that no persecuting power -except that of Rome has ever continued for that length of time. - -Concerning the decree of Constantine, the only place which we assign to -it in the controversy between the friends of the Lord’s Sabbath and its -rival, is that which it holds because of its having made the transition -easy. The first day of the week being the one generally observed by the -heathen and by this decree enforced by statute, had in its favor the -practice and sympathy of the masses of men. This law, though passed by a -heathen, and in the interest of the heathen religion, was, as would -naturally have been the case, of great service to those who subsequently -favored the change of day, since it gave to their effort not only the -color, but also the material advantage, of legality; by it, men, under -certain circumstances, were compelled to celebrate the day of the sun -even though they had previously regarded that of the Lord. This, of -course, was burdensome, and worked greatly to the advantage of the -heathen festival. - -One of two views must be taken of the statute of Constantine: If it were -Christian, then it proves that Sunday observance, at the time of its -passage, was exceedingly lax, since by its terms only men in the cities -and towns were prohibited from laboring upon it, while those in the -country were by it allowed and encouraged to carry on the vocations of -the farm. If, on the other hand, it were heathen in its origin, then the -suggestion that it recognizes the venerableness of the day of the sun, -even at so early a period as that of its promulgation, is entirely -without force, since it thereby becomes manifest that it received this -dignifying appellation, not because it had long been venerated by the -disciples of our Lord, but because from time immemorial it had been -honored by the heathen—a doubtful compliment to the Christian Sabbath. - -Footnote 15: - - For the extracts given in this connection, the reader is referred to - “Sabbath and Sunday,” by A. H. Lewis, and to “The History of the - Sabbath,” by J. N. Andrews. - -Footnote 16: - - The commandments as given above are supposed to be repeated by the - individual Romanist in response to the injunction, “Say the ten - commandments of God.” - -Footnote 17: - - The following citations will be found in a small tract published at - the “_Review_ and _Herald_” Office, entitled, “Who Changed the - Sabbath?” - - - - - STATESMAN’S REPLY. - ARTICLE TEN. - THE PRINCIPLE AS TO TIME IN SABBATH OBSERVANCE. - - -Our readers will recollect that the chief difference between the second -and the third theories of the Christian Sabbath, as we stated them in -our last issue, is in reference to the question of time. Seventh-day -Sabbatarians, on the one hand, maintain that the last one of the seven -days of the week is _the_ sacred day, and that the observance of this -very day is absolutely essential to the proper observance of the Sabbath -of the Lord, and the keeping of the fourth commandment. On the other -hand, we set forth what we believe to be the true theory of the -Christian Sabbath, according to which the essential idea of the law of -the Sabbath is the consecration to God of an appointed proportion of -time—one day in seven, and not the essential holiness of any particular -day. - -We have already seen that the interpretation of the fourth commandment -which insists on the essential holiness of the last day of the week -would convict the risen Lord, and his inspired apostles, and the whole -church of Christ, even in its purest days, of the violation of that -precept of the divine law. But let us now examine a few practical points -in connection with this second theory. - -1. If the seventh day of the week is to be rigidly adhered to, as the -law of the fourth commandment, it must be the seventh from the creation, -in regular weekly succession. Will any seventh-day Sabbatarian venture -to affirm that, through all the changes of our race, through all the -breaks of history, through the bondage in Egypt, and the repeated -captivities of God’s ancient people, to say nothing of the miracles in -connection with Joshua’s victory, and Hezekiah’s sickness, unbroken -succession of the weekly divisions of time has been maintained? Does the -last day of our week answer, in an exact numbering of days, to the -seventh day on which God rested after completing the work of creation? -The interpretation which we are now considering demands this conformity -to the fourth commandment in its letter. He would be a bold man indeed, -who would affirm that his seventh day in this nineteenth century is the -exact day which his own view of the law of the Sabbath would require him -to keep holy. Our present first day may correspond to the original -seventh day. Who knows? - -2. But admit that these essentially holy twenty-four hours, at the close -of each week, may be marked without doubt, how can all Christians in -different parts of the world keep them? How can men in different -longitudes and latitudes so mark off the week as to have it end with -this intrinsically holy portion of time? The difference in local time in -different parts of the earth is a fact familiar to every school-boy. The -circumference of the earth, for the convenience of calculation, is -divided into three hundred and sixty degrees. As the sun appears to make -a circuit round the earth every time the earth rotates on its axis, that -is, every twenty-four hours, the apparent motion of the sun from east to -west will be fifteen degrees each hour. Let it be noon of the seventh -day at any given point in our land, and it will be sunset ninety degrees -east, and sunrise ninety degrees west. At what point of the earth’s -surface shall men claim the right to have the seventh or holy day begin -with their sunset or their midnight, and demand that all others east and -west shall measure their holy day from so many hours before or after -their own midnight or sunset, as their portion may require? - -Or, again, in extreme northern and southern latitudes, where perpetual -day and constant night alternate with the annual revolution of the -earth, how shall the seventh day be marked? How shall this essentially -holy day of twenty-four hours be known? As God, in his infinite wisdom, -has seen fit to make our earth, and ordain the laws of its diurnal -revolution on its axis, and its annual orbit round the sun, it is simply -impossible for the inhabitants of the world to keep holy the same -identical period of time. The interpretation of the law of the Sabbath -at which we are looking is in conflict, therefore, with the laws of the -solar system. - -3. Our seventh-day friend, perhaps, retreats to his last refuge. There -is no portion of absolute time essentially holy. That was never meant. -Very well, then, what is meant? Why, that each one in his own longitude -or latitude should observe the seventh day as it is measured by his own -local time. We apprehend that, in some latitudes, the seventh day, -measured by local time, running through some thousands of hours, would -be a weariness to the strictest even of seventh-day Sabbatarians. But we -will leave these extreme cases. They must keep holy the appointed -proportion—one-seventh of their time. That must be the law of the -Sabbath to them. But in the belt of the earth nearer the equator, local -time, measured by the natural division of days, must be followed. - -Now, let it be said, we have no desire to treat a serious subject -lightly. But our friends insist on an interpretation of the fourth -commandment which can hardly be treated seriously. We can scarcely blame -Dr. Geo. Junkin for employing this shaft of ridicule. He says, -substantially, suppose all our seventh-day Sabbatarians (and their -number is not an insuperable objection to the experiment), having -labored six days, according to the commandment, come to the night of -Friday. By an excusable artifice, sponges, saturated with a powerful -anæsthetic agent, are held to their noses, and they are laid up, in -perfect unconsciousness, for a whole day beyond the close of their usual -time of sleep. They awake, supposing it to be the seventh day of the -week, as to them, so conscious intelligent beings, and subjects of law, -it certainly would be to all intents and purposes. But in fact, by the -actual measurement of time, it is the first day of the week. Might there -not be in this way a practical solution of the whole difficulty? - -But the actual rising and the setting of the sun may be insisted on -whether our seventh-day advocates are conscious or not. Suppose, then, -that one of them takes the now rather popular trip of a tour round the -world. Going west at the rate of, say thirty degrees a week, starting -from New York, he would lengthen each of his days from sunrise to -sunrise—supposing the sun to rise at six o’clock, local time, all along -the belt of his course—a little over seventeen minutes; and thus, -keeping his own count of time, and observing every seventh solar day, on -his return to New York at the end of twelve weeks, his seventh-day -Sabbath would really be the first day of the week. Though he might not -be _mentally_ converted to the first-day theory of the Christian -Sabbath, he would at least be _physically_ converted, and would either -be compelled to accept the change, or make a week of six solar days to -harmonize in Sabbath observance with his seventh-day brethren at home, -or take to his journeying again, and complete the circuit of the earth -in the opposite direction, in order to maintain unbroken the succession -of weeks of seven days each, and have his Sabbath fall on the one and -only day which will suit his interpretation of the fourth commandment. - -If, instead of going by the west, our traveler should go by the east, -journeying at the same rate of thirty degrees each week, he would -diminish the length of each of his days a little over seventeen minutes, -and on arriving once more at New York, at the end of twelve even weeks -by the time of that city, but twelve weeks and one day by his own time, -his seventh-day Sabbath would fall on the sixth day of the week, and we -would have a new order of Sabbatarians. - -The reason of the diversity is obvious. The trip around the world, -according to the supposed rate of travel, would occupy just twelve -weeks, or eighty-four days of twenty-four hours each, measured by local -time at New York. The total number of hours, reckoning each day -twenty-four even hours, would be 2,016. The traveler, proceeding -westward at the rate of thirty degrees a week, would add to each day’s -length just seventeen and one-seventh minutes—making each day from -sunrise to sunrise, reckoning this always at six o’clock, local time, -twenty-four hours, seventeen and one-seventeenth minutes long. He would, -therefore, in the whole number of hours of his trip, 2,016, see the sun -rise only eighty-three instead of eighty-four times. Going east, he -would shorten each day’s length, reducing it from sunrise to sunrise, to -twenty-three hours and forty-two and six-seventh minutes. In this case, -the whole number of hours, 2,016, would divide up into eighty-five solar -days. To one remaining at New York, there would be eighty-four solar -days; to the one going west around the world, the same absolute time -would be summed up in eighty-three solar days; and to the one going -east, it would extend itself to eighty-five solar days. Thus at the -close of every trip round the world, the Christian traveler or sailor -must readjust the reckoning of his days, in order to observe the Lord’s -day with his brethren at home. When our Constitution shall have been -amended, and a true Christian regard shall be shown to all citizens, if -our seventh-day friends feel grievously oppressed by the Sabbath laws, -which will then be no dead letter, we shall do our utmost to have the -national government provide a number of comfortable vessels, and give -our friends a gratuitous trip round the world. We shall take care that -the officers are instructed not to sail by the east; for our seventh-day -Sabbatarians would then go away only to come home and be sixth-day -Sabbatarians. Due care will be taken to have them proceed in the right -direction, and to induce them on their return to stay at home, and -government’s oppression of them by Sabbath laws will then forevermore -have ceased. - -In all seriousness, we ask, How can a thoughtful man, in view of the -fact of the earth’s revolution round the sun, and its effect on the -measurement of time, hold to the second theory of the Christian Sabbath? -We have a matter of fact to record just here. In 1790, nine mutineers -from the English vessel, the Bounty, along with six men and twelve women -from Tahiti, landed on what is known as Pitcairn’s island in the Pacific -Ocean. John Adams, one of the mutineers, after the violent death of the -other men, was converted by reading a copy of the Bible, and became a -true Christian. Keeping his own count of the days, he observed the -weekly Sabbath, with the community which was growing up, and which he -was at great pains to instruct in the Christian religion. Some time -after, an English vessel visited the islands, keeping their count of the -days. The officers and crew of this vessel landed at the island on -Saturday, but, to their astonishment, found a Christian community -keeping the Christian Sabbath. The original settlers and the visitors -had gone to the island in different directions. Did the sailors, who -kept one day, not observe the Sabbath? Or did the islanders, who kept -another day, violate the fourth precept of the decalogue? - -Two colonies of seventh-day advocates might leave the same port, one -going east and the other west, and might locate on islands on the same -parallel of longitude, but on different parallels of latitude. Each, -keeping its own record of time, would be found, on settling in their -permanent home, to be observing a different day as the weekly Sabbath. -Would either colony admit that it was in the wrong? If they were to live -apart, each might properly observe its own day; if together, would it -matter which day might be observed? - -Thus the principle as to time in Sabbath observance insists, not on the -essential holiness of any twenty-four hours in themselves, but on the -dedication to God of one day in seven, one seventh of the time as nearly -as that proportion can be measured by the most convenient means -available. This, the third theory does, while it accepts all the facts -of history. With one more article, in favor of the third theory of the -Christian Sabbath, we shall close this whole discussion. - - - - - A REJOINDER. - “THE PRINCIPLE AS TO TIME IN SABBATH OBSERVANCE.” - - -Were it not true that we had long since ceased to be surprised at -anything which an individual could say when opposing the claims of the -Lord’s Sabbath, after having received the light concerning them, our -astonishment at the position taken by the gentleman of the _Statesman_, -in the foregoing article, would have no bounds. - -To one who has followed him thus far in an elaborate argument, running -through a series of nine communications, all for the purpose of -establishing, from both Scripture and history, the change of the Sabbath -from the seventh to the first day of the week, and the obligation under -which all men are now placed to observe the latter instead of the -former, it will be extremely difficult to explain, on grounds honorable -to himself, this sudden repudiation of all which he has said in the -past, while endeavoring to defend the newly found theory of the -observance of one day in seven, to the exclusion of any definite day -whatever. - -In his second article, he says, “We are concerned here and now simply -with the transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of -the week.” In the third article, when speaking of apostolic times, he -remarks again, “It was also seen that while the observance of the -seventh day was not continued, another day of the week, the first, took -its place as the stated day for religious assemblies and services.” -Farther on, he writes again, as follows: “On the last seventh day on -which the disciples rested, according to the commandment, the Lord -himself is lying in the tomb. The glory of the seventh day dies out with -the fading light of that day, throughout the whole of which the grave -claimed the body of the Redeemer. But the glory of the Sabbath of the -Lord survives. It receives fresh luster from the added glories of the -Lord of the Sabbath. ‘The Stone which the builders refused has become -the head of the corner.’ It is very early in the morning, the first day -of the week. Again, ‘God said, Let there be light; and there was light’ -The Sun of Righteousness has risen with healing in his wings. This is -the day which the Lord has made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. The -first day of the week has become the Lord’s day.” - -But we must cease from our quotations, for them is no limit to -expressions synonymous with the above. Not only so, but were additional -proof necessary, by more ample extracts, it could be made to appear that -the whole theory of his defense, as already declared, has rested -entirely upon the change of the day from the seventh, which was observed -till the death of Christ, to the first, which was honored especially by -our Lord, by his personal appearance to the disciples on the first and -second Sundays following the resurrection, and by the outpouring of the -Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, with the especial view of teaching -the disciples that it had become holy time; also, that they, grasping -the moral of the lesson imparted by example, if not by positive precept, -inculcated the doctrine of the change, and made it binding upon all. - -If we are right in this, and the reader who has followed the debate thus -far will unhesitatingly admit that such are the facts, then, of course, -the gentleman is arrayed against himself in a manner most distasteful, -no doubt, to his personal feelings, as well as disastrous to his -polished logic; for to the mind of the merest school-boy it must be -apparent that a change of Sabbath from one day of the week to another, -involves the definiteness of the day thus honored; _i. e._, if the first -day of the week is now the Christian Sabbath because of the nature of -events which transpired upon it in particular, then, of course, it -occupies that position to the exclusion of all other days; but this -utterly demolishes the seventh-part-of-time theory, which the gentleman -has adopted, the very essence of which is, that there is now no -superiority in days, and the individual is left free to choose any one -which may best accord with his tastes or subserve his interests. - -Here, then, we come to a dead halt. Which shall we believe, the nine -articles of the gentleman, or the tenth, which is in direct conflict -with their teachings? Should we go by the bulk of the testimony, then we -must decide that there is a definite day, according to the conviction of -our opponent. But if he still holds to that doctrine, then that which he -has said against the seventh-day Sabbath, on the ground that the earth -is round, and, therefore, that the Edenic Sabbath could not be kept in -all portions of it, is deprived of all its force. For, assuredly, if he -believes that God now requires all men to honor the first day of the -week, the world over, then he must admit that it is possible for them to -do so. - -But if it is possible for men both to find and to celebrate the first -day of the week, on a round world, then, beyond all dispute, the same -process which will enable them to do this, will also qualify them to -locate and to observe the seventh-day Sabbath. For it is just as certain -as mathematical demonstration can make it, that in a week consisting of -seven days, having found the first of the number, in order to discover -the last, you have but to take the one which preceded the known day, or, -if you please, count forward six days from the one already established, -and you have the last day of the Week to which it belongs. - -So, too, with every objection urged in the communication. The one in -regard to the difficulties which would be experienced in an attempt to -keep the Sabbath of the commandment at the poles, is just as fatal to -the first day as it is to the seventh. All this talk, also, in regard to -the impossibility of preserving a correct count, and of the lengthening -and shortening of the days, as the traveler passes from the east to the -west, if it has any force at all, or even the semblance of force, must -be met and answered equally by the observers of the so-called Christian -Sabbath, with those of the Sabbath of the Lord. This being true, we -might pause right here, and roll the burden onto the opposition. Having -raised the dust which is blinding the eyes of the ignorant, yet -conscientious, it would be but substantial justice for Sabbatarians to -fall back and say to them, Take the field, gentlemen, and wrest from the -hand of the infidel and the atheist the weapons with which you have -armed them to be employed against you in the very work in which you are -engaged; for, be it remembered that the children of this world are wiser -in their generation than the children of light, and they will readily -perceive the advantage which they have gained by such doctrines and -difficulties as those to which the gentleman has called their attention. - -This, however, we shall not do, but shall ourselves, in due time, strike -at the very root of the error, in the interest of a definite and -universal day of holy rest. Before entering upon this work, -nevertheless, there is a matter which concerns Sabbatarians most deeply, -to which attention should be directed. - -The gentleman and his friends are pressing upon the nation the necessity -of the Constitutional Amendment—contrary to his former declaration, in -which he said there was no necessary connection between the Sabbath and -the amendment. He now justifies our strictures upon the disingenuousness -of his argument, by deliberately stating, in the article before us, with -an air of triumphant exultation, that, the amendment once secured, the -Sabbath laws in this country will then cease to be a dead letter. By -this, he means, of course, that they will be carried into operation. But -what are those Sabbath laws? They are laws enforcing the first day of -the week, in nearly every State in the Union. - -Now, we believe that what the gentleman says will be fulfilled; but -right here is the proper place to offer a solemn protest. Will the -gentleman fine and imprison my brethren and myself for disregarding the -first day of the week, after having conscientiously kept the seventh? If -so, we ask for the logic by which such a course could be justified, on -the ground that the seventh-part-of-time theory is correct? Now, mark -it, the object of the amendment is to make the Bible the fountain of -national law. All the enactments of the Congress and all the decisions -of the judiciary are to be in harmony with it. If, therefore, Sabbath -laws are passed, they must be such as the Scriptures would warrant; for -the Sabbath, be it remembered, which this movement seeks to enforce, is -the one which the Bible teaches. - -But, according to the last theory, the day which God now requires to be -observed is not any one in particular, but simply one in seven, the -individual being left to make the selection of the one which he prefers -thus to honor. Now, therefore, it is submitted that if God has given to -man this prerogative of choice, then be has done so because this course -was the one which commended itself to infinite wisdom, and no person or -set of persons has a right to come between the creature and the Creator, -depriving the former of rights which the latter has guaranteed to him. -If the Bible Sabbath is indeed an indefinite one, we say to these -gentlemen, Hands off; in the name of religion and the Bible you shall -not perform a work which twill do violence to a large class of -conscientious citizens, and which, according to your own argument, is -contrary to the doctrine of the Christian Sabbath, as laid down in the -word of God. Be consistent with yourselves and your views of Scripture. - -If, indeed, you are sincere in believing that Sabbatarians violate no -divine law in the keeping of the seventh day, then we say to you in the -name of charity, Why not allow them, so long as they are Christian men -and women, and obedient citizens, to carry out their convictions of -duty, without compelling them, by the appliances of persecuting -legislation, to keep the particular first-day Sabbath which indeed you -have chosen for yourselves, but for which you have now ceased to claim -any special divine honor? To form them, either to disregard their own -convictions of duty, or to keep two days holy, would lie an act of -despotism but one remove from that terrible bigotry which, in the -Inquisition, resorted to the rack and the thumbscrew; not, indeed, to -make men better Christians or better citizens, but to coerce them into -the acceptance of institutions for which there was no divine authority. - -But we must pans to the consideration of other points. To the objection -that the seventh day may have been lost since creation, and that he is a -bold man who would affirm his ability to locate it now, it may be -replied that, while Sabbatarians claim for themselves no unusual amount -of courage, they do insist that it is an easy matter to demonstrate the -succession of weeks, and the proper place of the original seventh day in -the septenary cycle at the present time. The way in which this may be -done is as follows: At the creation of the world, God blessed and -sanctified the seventh day, because that on it he had rested. At the -exodus from Egypt, he gave to the people a written law, enforcing the -Sabbatic observance of the day on which he had originally ceased from -his labors. On the sixth, Moses said to the people, “To-morrow is the -rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.” For forty years subsequent to -this, God marked out this day from the others by causing that no manna -should fall upon it whatever, whereas it fell upon every other one of -the seven. - -Thus we have the authority of God himself, who assuredly could not -mistake, that the people of Israel, in the outset, had committed to them -the original seventh day, since God not only gave them a Sabbath, but -also, according to the reason of the commandment, the Sabbath of the -Lord. Descending the line of history to the days of Christ, we find him -declaring that he had kept his Father’s commandments (John 15:10). But -one of these commandments was that relating to the Sabbath; in order, -therefore, to the proper observance of it, Christ must have been able to -decide which day in the week it was. That this was the case, none will -dispute. Thus the day is located in his time satisfactorily, since he -kept the same one which the Jews regarded, and which preceded the day of -his resurrection. From that time to this, we have the general agreement -of Jews, Christians, and heathen, in regard to the precise place in the -week of both the first and the seventh day. Surely, this is all which -could be demanded in order to reach reasonable certainty. - -The difficulty which the gentleman finds in harmonizing the will of God, -as expressed in the law of nature and that of a definite Sabbath for the -people living near the poles, is apparently possessed of some force. It -is, however, not peculiar to him. These barren wastes of ice and snow, -though far removed from our civilization, are apparently destined to -figure as largely in the spiritual world as they do in that of -scientific research; not only on the Sabbath question, but also in that -of baptism, it has a part to act. Think, says the advocate of -sprinkling, as a shudder runs through his whole system, think of an -immersion administered in the regions of eternal ice. Then having -suitably impressed his auditors with the physical difficulties in the -way of Bible baptism, he concludes that God never could have ordained -immersion as the only method, since it is impracticable in the extreme -north, and God surely would have commanded a form of ordinance which -could be carried out in all parts of the world. - -In harmony with this line of deduction is the difficulty stated by our -friend. Chiming in with the theory that the laws of nature and the law -of God must run harmoniously together, it is shown that at the poles the -days and nights are six months long; and, therefore, that a twenty-four -hour Sabbath, definitely located upon the last day of the week, is out -of the questions. The conclusion drawn is that, as the theory of the -seventh-day Sabbatarians is in conflict with the ordinance of nature in -these portions of the globe, it must be contrary to the original design -of God. - -But pause a moment; suppose we should grant that in the region in -question there are men who cannot keep the seventh-day Sabbath as -originally ordained, does that prove of necessity that it ought not to -be hallowed in those portions of the world where there is no difficulty -in the way of its observance? We think not. To illustrate: Were a man to -pass his life in a coal mine, hundreds of feet beneath the surface, -laboring continually, and never seeing the sun at all, would he, -therefore, be exempted from the definite Sabbath? You answer, No. But -why is this reply returned? Manifestly, because the difficulty is not -with God and Isis laws, or the sun, but with the individual who has -voluntarily placed himself under abnormal circumstances. In other words, -he has located himself where the God of nature never designed that he -should, and, in so doing, he has himself created a difficulty which he -himself can remove. - -So, too, with the Northman. If he finds it impossible to keep a Sabbath -which is most perfectly adapted to the wants of mankind, it is simply -because he has placed himself in a region which God has doctored waste -and uninhabitable as emphatically as can be done by nature speaking -through the language of eternal ice and snow, and the disappearance for -six months in a year of that great luminary whose light and heat are so -indispensable to the comfort and advancement of the race. But, if this -is true, then the argument from the conflict between the law of the God -of nature and that of revelation, concerning a definite day of rest, -loses all of its force; for the whole trouble arises, not from any want -of adaptation on the part of such a rest to the circumstances of those -who are where God would have them located, but from a disregard, in the -first place, on the part of the nations in question, of the manifest law -of prohibition to the settlement of regions which were designed to -remain unoccupied. - -Their relief can be found in one of two directions: They can, in the -interest of their own progress, retrace their steps to localities where -the more advanced portion of the race feel the genial influence of a -diurnal sun; or, should they insist upon remaining in the bleak regions -of their choice, it is possible for them, according to the accounts of -travelers, to mark by the variations of the twilight, even in their six -months’ night, the boundaries of the Sabbath and the week days as they -come and go to those residing in more temperate regions. - -It is now time to grapple with the theory that it is impossible for -those traveling around the world and those living in different portions -of it to keep one and the same day. The first thing to be settled is the -matter of what is meant by the expression, “the same day.” Upon this -point, the gentleman has wasted many words. We have never insisted upon -the identical hours. All that we demand is that the mine day should be -observed throughout the habitable globe, _i. e._, each individual should -celebrate in his own particular locality the seventh day of the week as -it comes to him in its passage round the earth—to use the language of -common parlance. - -Whether this can be done or not is a question which involves the wisdom -of God; for, granting that he gave the fourth commandment as a Sabbath -law, and the regulations concerning the Sabbath, as found in the books -of Moses, there is no room for dispute that he understood the statute to -enforce the keeping of a definite day, and not merely one-seventh part -of time, In the sixteenth chapter of Exodus, where the Sabbath is first -introduced, is found an excellent opportunity to test this matter. He -there marks out the day which he had hallowed as the one which followed -the sixth, and the only one on which no manna fell. For forty years, -also, this practice of separating the day of his rest by a weekly -miracle from all others was continued. But why should he have done this -if there was no choice, and if the keeping of the seventh part of time -was all that was necessary? Nay, more, why did he make it absolutely -impossible for a man to celebrate any other day but the seventh day of -the week? That he did so, we can prove in a few words. - -We will suppose that a person entertaining the sentiments of the -gentleman should have attempted to carry them out in the forty years -during which God led the people in the wilderness; also, that his first -experiment was that of Sunday rest. In this he would have failed -utterly. Do you ask, How? I answer that God had decreed that no manna -should fall on the seventh day (Ex. 16:26), and that the manna which was -to be eaten on the Sabbath should be gathered on the day before (Ex. -16:5). It would therefore have been impossible for the individual in -question to provide food for his Sunday rest. But, disgusted with this -kind of Sabbath-keeping, suppose he should have tried, in order, Monday, -Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, the result would not have -varied materially. On Sunday, there was an utter absence of all food; on -the other days, that which had been previously gathered, instead of -being fit for use, would have been found corrupted and changed into -loathsome worms, since God had told the people that only the manna which -was gathered on the sixth day should be kept until the day following; -and some of them, having made the experiment of disobeying in the -particular in question, found the result as cited above (Ex. 16:19, 20). -On the other hand, should the same individual have decided finally to -consecrate the seventh day of the week, he would have found no -difficulty whatever. Gathering his double portion of the manna on the -sixth day, by a miracle of God it would have been preserved pure and -wholesome through the last day of the week. - -But how can this be accounted for on the hypothesis that no particular -day was chosen by the Lord? If, indeed, he had adopted the indefinite -plan, and had left the people to choose for themselves, it is certain -that he did this because it was the best method. But if it were the best -method, and if it were in accordance with his view of the statute, then, -assuredly, he would not have stultified himself and mocked the people by -first granting them a privilege and then, by his providence, preventing -them from carrying it out. - -Should it be suggested that this law was confined to the land of -Palestine and to the Jews in its operation, I answer; first, that at the -time spoken of the people were in Arabia, not in Judea, and that even -should that be granted, which is not true, viz., that the fourth -commandment related simply to the Hebrews, this does not affect the -question at all, for no one will insist that Jews were only obliged by -it when in Judea. Wherever they might be, they were required to keep the -Sabbath, whether in bondage in Assyria, or traversing the known world in -quest of gain. From Spain to India, from Scythia to Africa, this law was -designed to apply and did apply for hundreds of years before it will be -even claimed that it was abolished. This being true, it is established -beyond question that God himself imposed upon men, traversing the whole -of the eastern continent, a uniform day of worship. - -Do you inquire when they commenced it? I answer, At sunset, agreeably to -the direction in Lev. 23:32. Did they go eastward to the Pacific, or -westward to the Atlantic, they were required to commence their rest at -that hour. Was it impossible for them to do so? He that says so charges -God with folly. Were they capable of carrying out the requirement? Then, -at least on the eastern continent, the definite day was a practicable -thing. God knew how his people would be scattered; he gave them the -institution of the Sabbath, adapted to whatever circumstances they might -be placed in; he marked out that Sabbath from the rest of the week, and -in the outset settled beyond controversy the question that it was not -movable in its nature. Therefore, he who would accept the theory which -we have been considering and repudiate the one which we indorse, must do -it in the face of God’s explanatory providence, in the teeth of his -written law, and against the practice of his people, Israel, who for -centuries have had no difficulty in finding the Sabbath in every -latitude. - -So much for the law and its history, making clear, as it does, that our -opponents do not understand the possibilities of the case as God looks -upon them. We will now proceed to the consideration of the difficulties -which they discover in the realization of our theory. - -It is claimed that, in going around the world eastward, a day is gained; -and in going around westward, a day is lost, to the traveler. From these -premises it is argued that a definite day cannot be kept. Has it ever -occurred to the gentleman that his own theory would be somewhat -disturbed by the same trip? Mark it, it is exactly one-seventh part of -time which is to be kept. It will hardly be urged that all the old -watches in the land are reliable enough to be trusted in a journey of -this length, and, besides, suppose we had lived in a period when such -time-pieces were not known, then what? Oh! says the objector, we would -have gone by the sun. Then you agree with us, after all, that the sun -presents the most available method of marking the day; but remember, -now, that you are on your journey round the earth, westward; you travel -six days, each one considerably lengthened out by the fact that you are -going with the sun; you stop and rest on the seventh day, which you call -the Sabbath. Unfortunately, however, as you have been lying still, it is -considerably shorter than your six days of work; by this means you have -cheated the Lord out of one-seventh of the whole time which all of the -six days had in excess over the one on which you rested. Traveling -eastward, the opposite would be true, and your days of rest would be -longer than your days of labor, and would not, therefore, represent -one-seventh part of time. - -Again, we might show by argument the complete anarchy into which the -community would be thrown by the realization of this doctrine, that each -man for himself is at liberty to fix upon his weekly Sabbath. Nothing -would be easier to prove than that it would seriously obstruct your -courts of justice; that it would render stated worship impossible; in -fine, that it would bring confusion into every walk in life. - -Do you reply that you will obviate the difficulty by legislative -enactment, and that you will make this whole nation, from New York to -San Francisco, regard the Sunday for the sake of uniformity and good -order? I answer; first, have you then improved upon God’s great plan? -Did he not know that a definite day would be the best, and would he not -have been likely to give it to us? Secondly, then you admit that it is, -after all, possible to keep one and the same day across the whole of -this continent; for were this not true it would be idle for you to -attempt to produce uniformity by legislation. But putting this -concession of yours in regard to the western, alongside of God’s -enforcement of a definite day for centuries, on the whole of the -eastern, continent, the circuit of the globe is made, and the -possibility of keeping a definite Sabbath on both hemispheres is -established. - -Before me lies the draft of an electrical clock, which is styled, “The -clock of all nations.” The design is an ingenious one, and serves to -show at a glance the difference in time between prominent cities in all -parts of the globe. For this purpose, a central dial is drafted, -representing the meridian of New York. The hands on this dial indicate -the precise hour of noon. Around this central figure are arranged twenty -additional dials, on each one of which is marked by the hands the time -of day as it will exist in the cities named, commencing on the east of -New York with Pekin, and terminating to the west of it with San -Francisco. By it, you perceive at a glance the precise variation of time -in the different longitudes to which these cities belong. - -For example, while the clock of New York indicates twelve, noon, the one -in Pekin indicates twenty minutes before one in the morning; the one in -Rome, fifteen minutes to six P. M.; the one in London, five minutes of -five P. M.; and so on until you reach New York, where it is twelve M. -Then passing westward of that point, where the time is, of course, -slower, the dial for Chicago marks seven minutes past eleven A. M.; that -of St. Louis, five minutes of eleven A. M.; that in San Francisco, -fifteen minutes before nine A. M. By this means, the variation between -Pekin and San Francisco is shown to be about sixteen hours, or nearly -two-thirds of one whole day. By the same method, the reader will at once -discern that it is possible to locate the commencement of the day at any -one of these points in its passage around the world. - -In order to do this, let it be supposed that the day begins when it did -in Bible times, with the setting of the sun. It is, if you please, -Sunday at Pekin, and those who keep that day commence to celebrate it at -sunset. Now, if we would ascertain just when the citizens of Rome would -enter upon a like service, it is only necessary to determine how long it -would take the sunset to travel the distance separating these two -cities. By consulting the draft in question, we find that the time at -Rome is six hours and fifty-five minutes slower than that at Pekin. This -being the case, the sunset would reach them, and they would enter upon -the first day of the week just six hours and fifty-five minutes after -those dwelling on the meridian of Pekin have done so. - -So we might go through the whole list. As the world revolves upon its -axis, it would bring London to the same point where the people of Rome -saw the sun sink in the west and entered upon the Sunday, just fifty -minutes subsequent to that event. The citizens of New York would begin -their Sunday, also, with the sunset, four hours and fifty-five minutes -after those of London did so; and those of Chicago, fifty-five minutes -later than those of New York; and those of San Francisco, two hours and -twenty minutes subsequent to those of Chicago. All, however, would be -hallowing the same day, though not, for a portion of the time, the same -hours.[18] Each, in his own proper locality, would commence to keep the -day when it reached him, and continue to keep it until by a complete -revolution of the earth he is brought around to the commencement of -another day, as indicated by another decline of the sun. This is as God -would have it. - -In the passage from Egypt to Palestine there was a variation of some -minutes; but there was no change in the time of commencing the Sabbath. -From even to even shall you keep your Sabbaths, was the divine edict, -and his people, in going eastward or westward, obeyed this injunction. -In doing so they needed no time-piece; nor would the traveler at the -present time. In every habitable region, according to God’s plan, the -great luminary of heaven visibly marks the boundaries of sacred time. -The day began in the east, and travels to the west. A complete -revolution of the earth brings it, with its complement of light and -darkness, to the home of every man, no matter as to the meridian of -longitude in which he lives. It is the same day, in the Bible sense, as -that kept by the Christian thousands of miles to the east of him, though -it may not begin at exactly the same moment. - -Practically, this question has no real significance whatever. Though it -may puzzle the brain of one who has not before him the facts, it has -been settled forever in a most remarkable manner by the usage of -mankind. The fact is beyond cavil that, from the extreme eastern -boundary of the eastern continent to the extreme western verge of the -western continent, there is such a perfect agreement upon this point -that each day of the week, commencing on the western shore of the -Pacific, continues its course across Asia, Europe, and America, until it -arrives at the eastern shore of the same sea. So true is this that, were -there a line of churches surmounted with bells, in hearing distance of -each other, they could ring in the commencement of any day; say at -Yokohama in Japan, and its march could be made known along the whole -line from that place to San Francisco by a like practice in each of the -churches, without a solitary break until the last bell on the Pacific -coast had announced its arrival there. Whether it be admitted that it -can be done or not, it is a fact that the Christians from China to -California do observe the same Sabbath or Sunday all along the line -between the two points. - -Should it be replied that, although there is a uniform reckoning of the -days to those passing from San Francisco eastward to China, or from -China westward to San Francisco, that, nevertheless, should they cross -the Pacific Ocean from San Francisco westward to China, or from China -eastward to San Francisco, it would be necessary for them in the first -case to add a day, and in the last, to drop one, in order to make their -time harmonize with that of the people in these two countries, the reply -is, that this is very true. It does not, however, prove that there is no -definite day which can be kept alike by the inhabitants of the two -continents; for in order to the keeping of the same day on a round world -there must somewhere be a day-line, in other words, there must be a -point where the day begins. In crossing that line the same result would -ensue as that claimed in the passage from California to China _via_ the -Pacific, _i. e._, a day must be either dropped or added in the reckoning -of the individual making the transit. - -We have already seen that God’s plan was to measure the days by the -setting of the sun. This being the case, the fourth day, on which the -sun was made, commenced at the precise point where at the time of its -creation it would have appeared to a person to the east of it as sinking -out of sight in the west. The day commencing at that point passed around -the earth until every portion of it had in succession witnessed the -setting of the sun on the fifth day. The only difficulty that remains in -the case, consequently, is that of deciding where the day-line should be -located. As already discovered, the practice of nations has fixed it in -the Pacific Ocean. It is not a little remarkable that sailors change -their reckoning while crossing that ocean backward or forward, and -circumnavigate the globe at will without the slightest confusion. The -only instance which has been cited in which any trouble has occurred, or -any confusion of date has arisen, is that of Pitcairn’s Island, in which -they failed to make the change under consideration.[19] Had they done -this, they would have found themselves in harmony with the great mass of -men living on the same meridian with their insignificant island. - -The only matter of debate which remains is that concerning the proper -location of the day-line. Has there or has there not been a mistake made -in fixing upon the place where it belongs? Certain it is that the -providence of God seems to harmonize with the present arrangement. Man -commenced his existence in the east. The progress of empire has been -westward. Emigration has carried with it a harmonious system of counting -the days, by which they have been recognized as beginning on the -eastern, and traveling to the western, continent. Especially is this -true of the Christian world. - -But, again, is there not, aside from this providential arrangement and -from the universal opinion that the day does begin in the east, as well -as the fact that scientific men have established the point of changing -the reckoning somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, some additional reason for -supposing that God would choose this locality for the beginning of the -day? We answer, There is. Should the day-line run through any continent -or large body of land, it will be readily perceived that it would -produce great confusion, since, on the one side of it, though imaginary -in its character, individuals would be keeping the seventh day of the -week, while on the other, their neighbors in close proximity to them -would not yet have made their exit from the sixth. - -To avoid this difficulty, therefore, the only remedy which could be -found would consist in the employment of some great natural boundary, -such as a range of mountains or an expanse of water, by which those on -one side of the day-line would be so separated as to prevent the -disorder which must arise from constant and uninterrupted -intercommunication. That there is any range of mountains stretching -northward and southward from pole to pole which would answer the purpose -in question, no one will insist. The only resource left, consequently, -is that of those vast bodies of water called seas or oceans. - -Turning now to the one which is known as the Atlantic Ocean, it is found -that the day-line could not be run through it without intercepting some -habitable portion of the globe. The only resource which remains is found -in the Pacific Ocean, which, as has been seen, has been selected by the -mass of mankind as a suitable place in which to make those changes that -would be necessary in case the day-line was actually located therein. -Happily, an examination of a large globe will prove that a line drawn -from Behring’s Straits southward across the latitudes which are -available for the homes of mankind will not touch any portions of land -whatever, or at least if it strikes any they would be so insignificant -in their character that they would not be worthy of mention. - -With these remarks, the subject of the day-line is dismissed with the -conviction that the necessity of its existence, the fact that it must be -found in the Pacific Ocean if anywhere, and the uniform recognition in -practice, if not in theory, by all nations, of its location in that sea, -unite in furnishing a combination of facts which render assurance -justifiable in the mind of one who does not insist upon more testimony -than he ought to demand. - -There remain now but two matters in the article of the gentleman which -need to be disposed of. These are found in the contemptuous sneer at the -insignificance of the numbers of Sabbatarians, and the witticisms, if -such they may be called, which are indulged in in the employment of the -suggestion concerning the use of the sponges saturated with stupefying -chemicals and the gratuitous trip around the world, which it is proposed -to give them. - -To answer these sallies to the satisfaction of some would be impossible, -while with others, possessing the power of logical discrimination and -knowing that the office of mere wit is most frequently that of diverting -the attention from a course of reasoning which it is felt cannot be met, -such an effort would be uncalled for. The paucity in numbers is the same -old, threadbare objection which every great reform has been compelled to -meet since the world began. While the administration of narcotics and -the trip round the world would be just as fatal to the exact observer of -the seventh part of time as it would to one celebrating a definite day, -even though it were admitted that the consequences of such a journey -would be as claimed by the writer. - -But besides all this, it will be discovered that the basis of the whole -transaction, both in the case of the sponge and the vessel, is fraud, -deceit, and force. Stupefy a man with narcotics for twenty-four hours; -or nail him down under the hatches of a circumnavigating vessel; break -the compass; send him round the world; let the whole community conspire -to falsify the facts in the case; do not let him know where he has been; -falsify the truth regarding the day observed by first-day keepers; and -then, forsooth, you have changed the practice, if not convinced the -judgment, of a little handful of conscientious, definite Sabbath-day -keepers. Wonderful, gentlemen! Wonderful in the extreme! What results -for such prodigious efforts! Alas, for truth, when it must pass such an -ordeal as this! We blush, but not for ourselves. We would almost be -willing to inhale the anæsthetic or run the hazard of the voyage at sea, -taking our chances respecting the proper preservation of the -Heaven-appointed day of rest, if, by so doing, we might prevent our -brethren of the Amendment school, for whose welfare we have the most -earnest desire, from making so sorry a show of the low estimate which -they place upon the importance of employing in a controversy like this, -arguments which appeal only to the Christian’s head and heart, instead -of those which appeal to the baser faculties of the mind. - -A summary of the ground traveled in this rejoinder would run somewhat as -follows:— - -1. That in adopting the seventh-part-of-time theory, the gentleman has -abandoned the definite first day which he sought to establish in the -first nine of his articles. - -2. That the seventh-part-of-time theory is just as fatal to the Sunday -as it is to the Sabbath. - -3. That it overturns the practicability of the proposed Amendment, since -it seeks to enforce a definite day, and since, according to it, -Sabbatarians have a Bible right to observe the seventh day in the -exercise of a divinely given choice of days. - -4. That it is possible to establish the identity of the last day of the -week at the present time with that upon which God rested at the -completion of the emotion; from the providential manner in which God -pointed it out in the exodus from Egypt; the fact that Christ and his -disciples kept the Sabbath according to the commandment; the general -agreement among Jews, Christians, and heathen concerning its place in -the week from that time to this. - -5. That the objection concerning the conflict between a definite Sabbath -and the laws of nature at the poles does not array the God of nature -against himself, or our version of his commandment, since the trouble -does not imply any want of foresight on the part of the Deity, but -rather a disregard of the plainest teachings of both providence and -nature on the part of those who have placed themselves where it was -never designed that men should locate. - -6. That if a definite day is impossible, then the wisdom of God is -impeached, since, both by the letter of the commandment and by his -providential interpretation of it for forty years, that is the very -thing which it inculcates. - -7. That a definite day can be kept on the eastern continent, since this -had been done for hundreds of years before the change of the law will be -even claimed. - -8. That a definite day can be observed on the western continent, since -this is the very object which the Amendment is designed to secure. - -9. That the trip around the world would render it as impossible to keep -an exact seventh part of time as it would a definite seventh day. - -10. That the seventh-part-of-time theory would introduce into society -the direst confusion, defeating even the administration of justice. - -11. That, practically, the whole world from the extreme east to the -extreme west does keep a definite day. - -12. That the loss and gain of time creates no disturbance except in the -crossing of the Pacific Ocean. - -13. That with a definite day, there must be a day-line. - -14. That that day-line is, by the uniform practice of nations, and the -providence of God, which renders it impossible that it should exist -anywhere else, drawn through the Pacific Ocean. - -15. That it only remains for us to do just what we are doing and have -been doing for centuries in order to prove by actual demonstration that -all the difficulties in the way of a definite Sabbath can be readily -disposed of by those who are desirous of keeping the law of God as it -reads. - -Footnote 18: - - By consulting the figures given above, the reader will be able to - demonstrate, not only the fact that the inhabitants along the line - from Pekin to San Francisco, can hallow the same day, but also that - the day which they hallow will be identical in some of its hours. For - example: It was shown that the people of Rome commence their day six - hours and fifty-five minutes later than do those of Pekin. Deducting - these six hours and fifty-five minutes from twenty-four hours we have - left seventeen hours and five minutes as the period of time during - which the citizens of these two cities would be celebrating the - Sabbath in common. Applying the same principle to other cities, we - find that London and Pekin would worship together for sixteen hours - and fifteen minutes; New York and Pekin, eleven hours and twenty - minutes; Chicago and Pekin, ten hours and twenty-five minutes; S. - Francisco and Pekin, eight hours and five minutes. - -Footnote 19: - - The gentleman might have cited the case of Alaska, also, as a parallel - to that of Pitcairn’s Island. The inhabitants of this region, like - those of the island mentioned, sailed eastward to this continent - across the Pacific Ocean, and failed to drop the required day in their - reckoning. The result was, that when we purchased that territory, they - were found to be keeping Saturday instead of Sunday. We believe, - however, that the mistake is now rectified. - - - - - STATESMAN’S REPLY. - ARTICLE ELEVEN. - THE TRUE THEORY OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. - - -The third theory of the Christian Sabbath, in the order in which we have -been considering the different theories, affirms that the Sabbath was -instituted at the creation of man, and that it has never been abolished -or superseded. This theory further maintains that the essential idea of -the law of the Sabbath is not the holiness of any particular portion of -time, but the consecration of a specified proportion of time, viz., one -day in seven; that, in accordance with this essential idea of the -Sabbath, a change of day was admissible; that a change was actually made -by divine warrant, on account of, and dating from, the resurrection of -Christ; and that the first day of the week, the Lord’s day, is the true -Christian Sabbath, having its moral sanction in the fourth commandment. - -Enough has already been written in these columns, in disproving the -opposing theories, to show that this theory of the Sabbath is the true -one. Two things being admitted, there appears to be no escape from this -theory. Let it be admitted, first, that God instituted the Sabbath for -all mankind, and that its law is of unchanging as well as universal -application. This is readily conceded by those with whom we are now in -discussion. Then, in the second place, let it be admitted that the -inspired apostles, under the guidance of Christ and his Spirit, and with -their manifest approbation, ceased to observe the seventh day, and -actually observed the first day of the week. This our opponents are very -loth to admit. But the testimony given by us at considerable length is -simply overwhelming and incontrovertible. The third theory, and it -alone, harmonizes the immutable law of the Sabbath with the actual -change of day. - -In further confirmation of the correctness of this theory, it remains -for us, in concluding this discussion, to show that this third theory -accords with the fourth commandment, and meets every aspect of the -design of the institution of the Sabbath. - -The principal feature of the design of the Sabbath is the setting forth -of God’s sovereign control, as creator, of man and the time of man, as -God’s creature. Called into being by the Creator, and made lord over the -irrational and material creation, man was taught that his time was to be -used for God’s honor. It was a trust from the Creator; and that man -might not forget this, one-seventh of the time in regular recurrence was -marked out to be consecrated specially to the Lord of all. This is the -very idea in the commemoration of the work of creation. It is to keep -alive the knowledge of God as the Creator and Sovereign Ruler of man. To -commemorate the creation, is to keep before the mind, week by week, the -duty of using our time for the honor of the Author and Upholder of our -being. - -Nor is the example of God’s resting the seventh day made insignificant -by this theory of the Christian Sabbath. “In six days God made the -heavens and the earth, and rested the seventh day.” God’s people in -different parts of the world do and must begin their work at different -times, and yet in each locality they labor six days and rest the -seventh. It is the proportion of time which is the law of the -commandment, enforced by the divine example; and hence the Christian -Sabbath, in the true import of the commandment, is as really the seventh -day as the Jewish Sabbath. The Christian labors six days, and not the -seventh, according to the divine example and the divine command. - -In this way, also, the true theory of the Christian Sabbath meets the -design of the institution as it was intended to arrest the current of -the outward life and lead up the soul to unseen and eternal verities. -And here there is a most important argument for the change of the day -for Sabbath observance. It is most reasonable to believe that, if there -be any work which more gloriously manifests the perfections of God, and -serves better to turn the thoughts of men to things above, than the work -of creation, the day which commemorates such a work would be the -appropriate time for Sabbath observance. - -So far as the essential idea of the Sabbath connects itself with a -particular day, the argument is of great weight in favor of a change -from the seventh to the first day of the week. The weekly division is -the main thing, let the week begin when it may. It may begin on what we -now call the third, or fourth, or any other, day. It will matter little. -But as the first day, in our enumeration of the days, will always bring -to mind the great work of redemption, accomplished by the Saviour, who -on the first day of the week rose from the dead, the observance of this -day as the Sabbath best answers one of the principal designs of that -institution. - -And then, how fittingly does the observance of the first day, the day of -the Lord’s resurrection, correspond to the design of the Sabbath as a -foretaste of the heavenly rest—the _Sabbatismos_ or Sabbath-keeping that -remains for the people of God. Rejoicing here on the Christian Sabbath -in what our Redeemer has done for us, we look forward with joyful -anticipations to the many mansions which he has gone before us to -prepare, that we may be “forever with the Lord.” - - “Bright shadows of true rest; some shoots of bliss; - Heaven once a week; - The next world’s gladness prepossessed in this, - A day to seek - - Eternity in time; the steps by which - We climb above all ages; lamps that light - Man through his heap of dark days; and the rich - And full redemption of the whole week’s flight. - - ‘The milky way chalked out with suns; a clue - That guides through evening hours; and in full story - A taste of Heaven on earth; a pledge and cue - Of a full feast; and the out-courts of glory.’” - - - - - A REJOINDER. - “THE TRUE THEORY OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.” - - -It is a peculiarity of this discussion that we are prevented, in our -rejoinders, from anticipating the positions which our opponent has in -store for us. Were it possible to proceed upon principles of -consistency, in debate, and conclude that he, having adopted such and -such views, would continue to maintain them steadily for the future, -there would be a sort of satisfaction found in preparing material to be -employed hereafter. But we have learned, by actual experience, that in -this debate such anticipatory action would be labor lost. For example: -In the last reply, which had to do with the seventh-part-of-time theory, -we had intended to show that, were it true, and that, were the -observance of one day in seven all that is now required, even then -Sabbatarians stood upon a footing as safe as that of their opponents, -since the observance of the seventh day answered to the keeping of -one-seventh part of time, equally with that of the celebration of the -first day of the week. - -Being prevented by want of space from indulging in these reflections, we -laid them over for another week, supposing that they would come in play -equally well at this time, Alas! what a mistake! We should have struck -when the iron was hot. Unfortunately, we are not now confronting the -no-day-in-particular doctrine, as we were then; but it is the “Lord’s -day” again, the first day of an indefinite week, “a particular, definite -day, enforced by the command and the example of Christ and the -apostles,” which once more stands before us. How it is that we have been -borne so rapidly over the space which separates these antagonistic -positions, the reader will have to decide for himself; for we confess to -a perfect want of ability, on our own part, to render him any -assistance. Without the slightest attempt at logical deduction, we are -first informed that the essential idea in Sabbath observance is not that -of the keeping of a particular day, but the consecration of one day in -the week, allowing the week to begin wherever it may. This, we are told, -would suitably commemorate God’s rest at the creation of the world; and, -also, that if, in addition, we make the day of our rest identical with -the first day of the week, we can thereby celebrate both creation and -redemption. For this very purpose, we are informed, the Sabbath -commandment was changed, so as to admit of the introduction of a new -day. - -But pause a moment. Has the gentleman told us just what change was made? -Has he told us what words were stricken out? and how it now reads? The -reader has not forgotten that this is the very thing the opposition were -challenged to perform. He will perceive that this, also, is the very -thing which the gentleman has failed to accomplish, and cannot hereafter -do, since the reply under review is the last of his series. If it be -said that he has cited us to the fourth commandment, as given in the -twentieth of Exodus, as containing the law as it now reads, then he is -self-condemned; for he admits that the phraseology of that commandment -did enforce a definite day, and that, the last day of the week. - -But once more: Passing over the absurdity of claiming a change in the -law, where there is no ability to produce the statute as amended, let us -go back from Sinai to Eden, along with the gentleman, and see if we -cannot find, independent of the commandment, evidence that the creation -Sabbath was not a portable institution, to be trundled about at the -caprice of any and every individual. Mark it, now, it is granted that -what is called the Jewish Sabbath law enforced the keeping of the -seventh day, and admitted of no other as a substitute. But whence is -this conclusion drawn? Undeniably, from the words, “The seventh day is -the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” - -But where has the gentleman learned that the creation Sabbath was -enjoined in the use of language less explicit and limited in its meaning -than are the words of the decalogue? If he knows anything about the -original decree of Jehovah, and the limitations with which he guarded -the Sabbath in the outset, he, like ourselves, is compelled to go to the -sacred record for information. If, in going there, he has been able to -find anything which would prove that the Edenic Sabbath was less fixed -in its character than that of Sinai, then he has made some progress. The -only scripture which will throw any light upon the subject will be found -in Gen. 2:1-3. - -Unhappily for the gentleman, however, it is fatal to his conception that -the original Sabbath varied in any way from that of the Jews—so-called. -In the account of its institution, the language employed is almost -precisely the same with that subsequently traced upon the tables of -stone. It is there declared that God sanctified (_i. e._, set apart to a -holy use) the _seventh day_. The reason for this action is the fact that -he had rested upon it. Now, it will be observed that it was the -“_seventh day_” that God blessed and sanctified, and no other. It is -submitted, therefore, as the gentleman concedes, that the same -expression (_i. e._, the seventh day), when employed in the commandment -given to Moses, did locate the Sabbath institution immovably upon the -last day of the week, until the law was changed; that the same language, -when employed originally, must have produced the same result; in other -words, if the command to keep the seventh day, as given on Mount Sinai, -held the people strictly to the observance of the last day of the week, -so, too, Jehovah, in the beginning, restricted the whole race to a -Sabbath which was, equally with the other, the seventh, and, therefore, -the last day of the week. - -In order to avoid this conclusion, it will be required that, by some -means, he should be able to show that the same terms which were employed -by God, at one time, have a different meaning from that attached to -them, as employed by him at another time. Not only so, the Sabbath in -Genesis, like that in Exodus, is further limited and defined by two -additional facts. First, it was the day on which God rested; secondly, -it was the day which he blessed because He had rested upon it. -Therefore, before any other day could be substituted for it, these two -things must be true of it, as matter of history. This, however, can -never be the case, as it regards any day of the week, save the last; -consequently, he who celebrates any other is not celebrating the one -which God imposed in the beginning. So much for the definiteness of the -Sabbath which was given to Adam. - -Should it be replied that what has been remarked is correct, and that it -is not argued that any one was at liberty to keep any other day than the -seventh of the week, until Christ changed the law, and thereby -authorized them so to do, we reply, Very good; that brings us back again -to the original proposition, which is, Did he make such a change? If he -did, then it is just as important that we should have clear and -conclusive evidence that such an alteration was made by him, as it is -that we should have the abundant testimony which we now possess that a -definite Sabbath was originally given to mankind. - -All this speculation in regard to what might have been done with perfect -consistency under a given state of facts is worse than idle. What we -demand is this—What _has been_ done? Instead of concluding that Christ -did a certain thing because it would have been right so to do, first -show us, by actual Scripture quotation, that he really performed the -work in question, and the consistency of his action will take care of -itself. A theology which has no broader, firmer basis than individual -conception of the propriety of certain occurrences which may never have -taken place at all, is not worth the paper on which it is drawn out. -This, nevertheless, is the very material with which we are dealing. - -Eleven articles, ostensibly written to afford divine authority for the -change of days, are concluded; and, from beginning to end, there is not -found in them a “Thus saith the Lord” for the transfer. Again and again -it is inferred that such and such transactions meant so-and-so. Again -and again it is concluded that such and such things are admissible, not -because of any scriptural warrant, but because they seem good in the -eyes of those with whose practice they best conform. The reason why this -is so, the reader will readily perceive. It is found, not in the fact -that the learned gentleman who represents the opposition is insensible -to the superiority of positive Bible statements over individual surmise, -but in the necessity under which he is placed, to employ the only -material which he has at hand. Meeting him, therefore, where he is, let -us prove the unreliability of such deductions as he is indulging in by -actual test. The points which he is attempting to establish are these: -1. The original idea of the Sabbath can be met by the observance of the -first day of the week, as well as by that of the last. 2. That the -commemoration of Christ’s resurrection can only be suitably carried out -by hallowing the first day of every week. - -Now, as to the first of these propositions, it will only be safe to -decide that it is correct after giving it mature reflection. We have -already seen that God’s original plan for preserving the memory of -creation week was that of setting apart the last day of each subsequent -week for the imitation, on our part, of his rest thereon. To say, -therefore, that it would have answered just as well to allow the -individual to take any other day—say the first day of the week—for this -purpose, is to argue that God acted without cause in making the -selection which he did and enforcing it for four thousand years. If the -question were one of indifference, why did he not leave the day unfixed? -Why not allow them then to commemorate his rest on the first day, as the -gentleman would have done now, arguing that the ends of the original -Sabbath would, in this way, be fully met. Certain it is that no good -reason can be assigned why it would now be more proper to commemorate -the rest of Jehovah by a variable Sabbath than it has been heretofore. -This being true, the gentleman’s logic is found to be unsound, or else -the action of the Deity was inconsiderate. - -Turning, now, to the second proposition, the reader will be instantly -struck with its unqualified antagonism to the first point which is -sought to be made out. - -Remember, now, that the gentleman is arguing stoutly for first-day -sanctity. He is not so particular when the week begins, but it must have -just seven days, and the first of them must be devoted to the -commemoration of the Lord’s resurrection, Should you ask him why he is -thus particular in the selection of the first day of the week, he would -reply, “Why, that is the day on which the Lord arose, and it is his -resurrection, as the crowning act in the work of redemption, which we -seek to honor.” But, reader, would it not occur to you, immediately, -that this is a repudiation of all which he has said concerning the -Edenic Sabbath? Nosy, mark it; what God demands, is, that we should -honor the seventh day of the week, as the one which he rested upon, -blessed, and sanctified. If, therefore, the rest, the blessing, and the -sanctification of that day can be suitably remembered by the observance -of another day differing from it, then the assumption that an event is -most impressively handed down by the dedication, for this purpose, of -the very day on which it transpired, is unsound. - -But if this assumption be unsound, then all of the gentleman’s talk in -regard to the necessity for a change of days, in order to the suitable -commemoration of the resurrection of Christ and the completion of the -work of redemption, is without force. For, assuredly, if he is right in -supposing that God’s rest in Eden, on the seventh day, can he -commemorated as well on the first day as on the seventh, then the same -principle will hold good in regard to the events which transpired on the -first day of the week, _i. e._, they can be kept in remembrance by the -hallowing of the seventh day as well as by that of the first. But this -being true, his argument for the necessity of the change of Sabbaths is -gone, and his philosophy of the change proved to be unsound. The only -purpose which it has served in this controversy has been the revelation -of that which is really the conviction of its author, as it is that of -men generally, that there is no time in which great transactions can be -so suitably commemorated as that of the day on which they took place. -When the nation wishes to celebrate the anniversary of its independence, -it sets apart for this purpose the fourth of July, which answers exactly -to the day of the month on which the Declaration of Independence was -made. Substitute for this another day, and you have marred the -impressiveness of the occasion. - -So, too, with God’s rest on creation week; it must be so celebrated that -all the associations connected with it will be calculated to lead the -mind back to its origin and object. Turn it around, as the gentleman -proposes to do, _i. e._, substitute the first day of the week in the -place of the last, and you have precisely reversed God’s order. You have -put the rest-day first, and cause the six laboring days to follow; -whereas, God, knowing that rest was only needed _after_ labor, worked -six days and then rested the seventh, not because he was weary, but -because he desired to put on the record for us an example to be strictly -followed. The gentleman, however, without the slightest warrant, has, -with a rash hand, laid hold of the divine procedure, and now says that -the order pursued was not necessary to the inculcation of the great -lessons which God designed to impart. - -To this, I reply, 1. That God’s actions are never superfluous. 2. That, -if we err at all, it is safer to err on the side of the divine example. -3. That if the idea of God’s working six days is in any way connected -with a proper Sabbath rest, then it is indispensable that the Sabbath -should follow, and not precede, the working portion of the week. 4. That -if the rest of God, merely, is the object which we should keep before -our minds by a proper regard for the Sabbatic institution, the gentleman -has himself shown, by the logic which he has employed, that the only -suitable period for the keeping of that rest is found in that portion of -the week on which God ceased from his labors. - -The remark of the gentleman that the work of redemption furnishes a -subject worthy of being remembered by observance with Sabbatic honor of -the day on which it was completed, is worthy of passing notice. The idea -which he advances is one which is quite prevalent, and employed with -great satisfaction by clergymen generally, when controverting the claims -of God’s ancient rest-day. The strength of the position lies in the fact -that it distinguishes between redemption and creation, assuming, perhaps -correctly, that the latter is more exalted than the former. Having won -the assent of the mind to this proposition, the reader is quietly -carried over to conclusions much less obvious than the first. Almost -unconsciously he is led to decide, with his instructor, that, since -redemption is a greater work than creation, it ought, therefore, to be -honored by a day of rest. - -Now we shall not enter into this matter largely, but we simply suggest -that either this decision is the result of human, or else it is the -product of divine, wisdom. If it is human wisdom, then its teachings -should be followed with extreme caution. If it is divine wisdom, then -they can be obeyed with the most implicit confidence. Just at this -point, therefore, it is all-important that the test be applied. Has -Jehovah ever said that the commemoration of creation week had become -less desirable on account of the possible redemption of a fallen race, -by the death of his Son? The most careful reader of the Bible has failed -to find any such language; in fine, the intimation that such is really -the fact is rather a reflection upon the Deity himself, since, from it, -it might be inferred that the glory of his work had been dimmed by the -fall of the race. - -But, again, if the Lord has not said that he would not have the memory -of creation cherished still, has he ever said that he would have the -work of redemption signalized by a weekly rest? Once more the student of -the Scriptures unhesitatingly answers in the negative; but if God has -failed to make this declaration, who shall presume to put words in his -mouth, and read the thoughts of his mind, as those having authority so -to do? The man who will undertake to do it is venturing upon ground -which lies hard by that of blasphemy. God never neglects to say that -which ought to be said; he never calls upon any man to go beyond his -commandments, for in them, says Solomon (Eccl. 12:13), is found the -whole duty of man. - -Furthermore, were we to reason upon this matter at all, every -consideration would lead us to the conclusion that the inference of our -opponents is not correct. In the first place, redemption is not yet -fully completed in the case of any individual. In the second place, the -Scripture says we have (are to have) redemption through his _blood_ -(Col. 1:14). But his blood, it is generally supposed, was shed upon -Friday, and, therefore, it is not impossible that the hallowing of that -day would more suitably commemorate redemption than that of any other -day. In the third place, it was proved at length in a former article, -that if creation was suitably commemorated by a day of rest, redemption, -which is an event entirely opposite in its character, would naturally be -celebrated by some institution of an entirely different nature. In other -words, the Sabbath inculcates cessation from labor by the indulgence of -inaction, while all the events connected with the resurrection of Christ -rendered inactivity impossible. - -But finally, we are not left, in a matter of this significance, to the -unreliable decisions of the human mind. Not only is it true that God has -never appointed a day of septenary inactivity, as the Heaven-chosen -memorial of the resurrection of the divine Son of God; but it is also -true that God himself, in the exercise of a wisdom which will hardly be -impugned by finite beings, has selected an institution entirely -different from that under consideration for the illustration of that -phase of the work of redemption which was seen in the resurrection of -Christ. - -Says the great apostle to the Gentiles: “Therefore we are buried with -him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the -dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness -of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his -death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.” Rom. 6:4, -5. “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also we are risen with him -through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the -dead.” Col. 2:12. - -Baptism, that is, Bible baptism, or the immersion of the individual -beneath the water, most forcibly commemorates the death of our Lord. As -the administrator lowers the body of the passive subject beneath the -yielding wave, by the very necessity of the case, breathing is, for the -time, suspended, and the person, as nearly as may be while in life, as -he lies motionless in the hands of the individual to whom he has -committed himself in the exercise of an act of faith, shadows forth the -death and burial of his Lord in a most impressive manner. As he rises, -also, from that position, and, proceeding to the shore, unites once more -with the throng of living beings who surround him, he most forcibly -illustrates the coming back again of our Lord from death and the grave -to a life of infinite activity and glory. - -All, therefore, which is necessary in order to the remembering, by -outward expression, of that most glorious event, which gave back to the -disciples, from the nations of the dead, the body of the beloved Master, -is that we go forward in the fulfillment of an ordinance which has been -provided for that purpose, and which sets forth the events which are -thought worthy of a memento in a manner as superior to that in which it -could be done by mere inaction, as God’s conception of what would be -suitable under such circumstances is higher than that of man. The wonder -is that any one should have lost sight of the original design of an -institution which is remarkably expressive of the purpose for which it -was created. In fact, had not the same power which has changed the -Sabbath also tampered with the ordinance of baptism by changing the -original form into one less expressive of its historic associations, we -believe that the view which is now passing under consideration never -could have suggested itself to any mind. - -But, reader, it is now time that our labor should be drawn to a close. -In the providence of God, we have walked together over the territory -devoted to the great and important Sabbath question. With pleasure, we -are about to lay down our pen for the last time, and submit the whole -matter to you for the pronouncing of the final verdict of your -individual judgment. As we do so, it is with feelings of most profound -gratitude to God for a truth which, while there is underlying it a cross -so heavy that it cannot be lifted by human strength unaided, is, -nevertheless, so plain that its mere statement is its most complete -demonstration. Were it not true that society is at present so organized -that the keeping of the seventh day involves social, political, and -pecuniary sacrifice, much greater than he is aware of who has not -considered the matter, we would not hesitate to say that a complete and -speedy revolution could be wrought upon this subject in a brief space of -time. Never, in the history of any reformation which has heretofore -occurred, were men covered with a more complete panoply of defense, and -armed with more destructive weapons of offense, than are God’s -commandment-keeping people at the present period. The only mystery -connected with the subject is, that, being as plain as it is, the fact -of the change should not have attracted universal attention before. - -Traversing again the ground over which we have come with the gentleman -who has managed the opposition in this debate, the poverty of his -resources is most striking. In all that he has said, he has proved -nothing which has in any way relieved his case, nor can his failure be -attributed to any lack of capacity on his part. In the handling of the -material with which he has had to do, he has displayed not a little -ingenuity. The arguments which he has employed and the positions which -he has taken are those of the orthodox ministry generally at the present -time. His failure is entirely attributable to the natural weakness of -the position which he has sought to defend. His was indeed a hard task. -He felt the moral necessity of a Sabbath, as a Christian man; and, -finding the religious world keeping the first day of the week, he sought -to defend this practice from the Bible stand-point. But, alas for his -cause! The more he has appealed to this source, the more certain has it -become that the Bible, and the usages of Christendom in this matter, can -never he harmonized. In its pages we find the most ample authority for a -day of rest, but none for the one which is generally honored as such. -The record in brief stands as follows:— - -1. There is a Sabbath. - -2. That Sabbath is the seventh, and not the first, day of the week, for -the following reasons:— - -(1.) In the beginning God rested on the seventh day, thereby laying the -foundation for its Sabbatic honor (Gen. 2:3); whereas, he never rested -upon the first day. - -(2.) He blessed the seventh day; whereas, he never blessed the first -day. - -(3.) He sanctified the seventh day, or devoted it to a religious use; -whereas, he never sanctified the first day. - -(4.) The day of his rest, his blessing, and his sanctification, he -commanded to be kept holy, in a law of perpetual obligation; whereas, he -never commanded the observance of the first day. - -(5.) The Lord Jesus Christ recognized the obligation of the seventh day -by a life-long custom of observing it (Luke 4:16); whereas, the Lord -Jesus Christ never rested upon the first day of the week; but always -treated it as a secular day. - -(6.) He also recognized its perpetuity forty years after his death, when -speaking of events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, by -instructing his disciples to pray that their flight might not occur -thereon (Matt. 24:20); whereas, he never spoke of the first day as one -to be honored in the future, nor, indeed, so far as we know, did he ever -take it upon his lips at all. - -(7.) It is the day which the holy women kept, according to the -commandment, after the crucifixion of our Lord (Luke 23:66); whereas, -there is no account that any good man has ever rested upon the first day -out of regard for its sanctity. - -(8.) It is the day on which Paul, as his manner was, taught in the -synagogue (Acts 17:2); whereas, Paul never made the first day of the -week, habitually, one of public teaching, a thing which he would have -been sure to do had he looked upon it as sacred to the Lord. - -(9.) Being mentioned fifty-six times in the New Testament, it is in all -these instances called the Sabbath; whereas, the first day is mentioned -eight times in the New Testament, and in every case it is called, -simply, the first day of the week. - -(10.) In the year of our Lord 95, it is spoken of by John as the Lord’s -day (Rev. 1:10); whereas, the first day is in no case mentioned in the -use of a sacred title. - -(11.) It is mentioned not only as the Sabbath, but it is also spoken of -as the next Sabbath, and every Sabbath, thus proving that it had no -rival (Acts 13:4; 15:21); whereas, the day before the first, and the -sixth day after it, being spoken of as the Sabbath, it (_i. e._, the -first day) is classed with the other days of the week. - -(12.) In the Acts of the Apostles, and, in fine, in the whole canon of -the New Testament, there is not a single transaction which is related as -having occurred upon the seventh day in the least incompatible with the -notion that it continued to be regarded as holy time, while the law -which enforces its observance is inculcated in the clearest and most -emphatic terms (Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:31; Jas. 2:8-12); whereas, the -first day was one on which Christ indulged in travel on the highway in -company with others, after his resurrection, without informing them of -its character or rebuking them for sin. It is also a day on which two of -the disciples walked the distance of fifteen miles on one occasion, -while on another, Paul performed the journey of nineteen and one-half -miles on foot, while Luke and seven companions worked the vessel around -the headland for a much greater distance (Luke 24:13, 29; Acts 20:1-13.) - -In view of the above, the whole question of obligation may be summed up -in the following words: Shall we keep a day which God has commanded, -which Christ inculcated, and which holy men regarded from the opening -until the close of the canon of Scripture? or shall we disregard that, -putting in its place one which neither God, nor Christ, nor a holy -angel, nor an inspired man, ever, anywhere, under any circumstances, -enjoined, and which, in addition, God and Christ, and holy men and -women, are everywhere in the sacred word brought to view as treating in -a manner such as they would only treat a day of secular character? - -In fine, it is simply the same old test applied once more to human -action, which has in all ages been the measure of moral character, _i. -e._, Shall we obey God? or shall we not? Shall we gratify our own -inclination and have our own way by pertinaciously persisting in a -course of action for which we have no Scripture warrant? or shall we -take the Bible in one hand and, accepting its doctrines as the words of -life, follow them to their legitimate consequences in our daily walk? -Says John, “This is the love of God, that ye keep his commandments.” -Says James, “Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my -faith by my works.” - -Sublime sentiments, indeed! In them is expressed the moving, controlling -principle of every Christian heart. Oh! that all men in the ages of the -past had held to the noble purpose of taking God at his word, believing -that he meant just what he said, and walking out with a noble courage -upon their confidence in his wisdom to legislate, and his right to -command. Had they done so; had they been willing to be taught instead of -going uninstructed; had they submitted to be led instead of insisting -upon independent action, how much misery would have been spared our -kind. Take, for example, the case of Eve—God exempted one tree in the -garden from the rest, saying, “Thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day -that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Unhappily, the mother -of all living ventured to deviate from the command of God in what -appeared to her an unimportant particular, and, as the result, a race -was plunged into the terrible consequences of rebellion. - -It would seem as if this should have been enough to teach all, that it -is only safe to do just what God requires in small, as well as great, -things. Alas! however, this has not been the case. Nadab and Abihu, with -the example of Eve before them, contrary to the directions of the Lord, -ventured to substitute natural fire for the hallowed fire of the altar. -To them, there was no apparent difference; but in a moment the curse of -God fell upon them and they were borne lifeless, and without the honors -of an ordinary funeral service, away from the camp of Israel. Uzzah, -despising the commandment of the Lord, by which the Levites alone were -to touch the ark, in an unguarded moment, reached out his hand to steady -it, and God made a breach upon him in the presence of the people. Uzzah -fell lifeless before the ark which contained the same law which is under -consideration. It was not the ark that sanctified the law; but, rather, -the law that sanctified the ark. - -If, therefore, God was so jealous of that which was merely the vehicle -of the ten words spoken by his voice and written by his finger, how must -he feel in regard to those words themselves? In them, is found the -embodiment of the whole duty of man. With them, God now tests, as he has -always tested, the characters of men. “Know ye not,” says Paul, “his -servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of -obedience unto righteousness?” - -True, it may be, that we can transgress that law at the present time -without suffering the _visible_ displeasure of God, as did those whom, -in the past, he set forth as examples of his wrath. But let us not -deceive ourselves on this account; God is no respecter of persons. Moral -character is what he admires, exact obedience is what he demands. In his -providence, at the present time, it is our fortune to live in an epoch -when great light is shining upon the long dishonored and mutilated -Sabbath commandment. A worldly church, having departed from the -simplicity of gospel teaching and gospel method for the propagation of -truth, has called to her aid the elements of force and the appliances of -law. Closing their eyes to light, ample in itself for all the purposes -of duty and doctrine, they have entered upon a crusade, determining to -venture the experiment, so oft repeated, of enforcing, as doctrines, the -commandments of men. - -The end of this matter God knows, and has pointed out in his word. With -outward success they may meet; but it will be at the terrible cost of -that vital godliness which is alone found where the arm of God is made -the arm of our strength. For those who, in the past, have ignorantly -broken the law of Jehovah, God has ample forgiveness; but for those who, -in the face of God’s providential dealings, and in diametrical -opposition to the plain teachings of his word, to which their attention -is being called, shall still persist, not only in disobedience, but, -also, in acts of oppression against those who prefer the narrow and -rugged path of Bible fidelity, there can be nothing in reserve but the -terrible displeasure of him whose right it is to command. - -Reader, whoever you may be, and whatever may have been your past -convictions and life, we turn to you in a final appeal. As you revere -God, as you love Christ and his precious word, we exhort you in this -matter to seek wisdom from the only true source. Be not discouraged by -the disparity in numbers, neither tremble before the hosts which may -frown upon you in the coming contest. “The Lord, he is God.” Under the -shadow of his wing we can safely abide. No nobler destiny was ever -vouchsafed to the obedient among the children of men, than is prepared -for those who shall prove their fealty to the God of Heaven by a noble -testimony to their love for him, by the keeping of his holy Sabbath, -under circumstances, in the near future, which shall indeed try the -souls of men. - -May God grant that both reader and writer, nay more, also our opponent -in this discussion—toward whom we entertain none but the kindliest -feelings—also, all, everywhere, who are indeed the children of the -living God and the brethren of our blessed Lord, may come to see eye to -eye in this matter, so that, finally, we shall be brought safely through -the perils of this last great conflict, which the true church is to -endure, and stand victorious over all our enemies upon the Mount Zion of -our God, there to sing the song of a deliverance complete and eternal, -in a world where, from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to -another, all flesh shall come to worship before the Lord. (Isa. 66:23.) - - - - - INDEX OF POINTS DISCUSSED. - - - PART FIRST: - - ELD. LITTLEJOHN’S ARTICLES IN THE STATESMAN. - - ARTICLE ONE. - Tendency toward Sabbath Discussion, 5 - Various Views concerning Reform, 6 - Inquiry as to Proper Action, 13 - - - ARTICLE TWO. - Religious View of Sabbath Reform, 16 - Sabbath Commandment, 19 - Has this Law been Changed? 22 - - - ARTICLE THREE. - Reasons for Sunday Observance Examined, 28 - The Resurrection, 30 - Example of Christ, 32 - - - ARTICLE FOUR. - Texts on First Day of the Week, 36 - They do Not Prove its Sacredness, 39 - The Meeting of John 20:19, Considered, 42 - - - ARTICLE FIVE. - John 20:26, Examined, 48 - Act of Worship does Not Consecrate the Day, 50 - 1 Cor. 16:2, Examined, 54 - - - ARTICLE SIX. - Acts 20:7, Examined, 57 - Acts 2:1, Considered, 63 - Pentecost Not First Day, but Fiftieth Day, 64 - Rev. 1:10, Examined, 66 - Proposed Amendment of the Constitution Not in Harmony with Bible - Truth, 68 - - - ARTICLE SEVEN. - Bible View of the Sabbath, 71 - The Law Changed by the Catholic Power, 76 - Position of Seventh-day Adventists, 79 - Proposed Amendment Dangerous to our Liberties, 83 - - - - - PART SECOND: - - REPLIES AND REJOINDERS. - - - REPLY ONE. - Seventh-day Sabbatarianism and the Christian Amendment, 87 - Supposed Action of Missionaries, 89 - The Proposed Amendment Expresses only Fundamental Principles, 91 - - - FIRST REJOINDER. - Amendment Not Related merely to Principles, but to Sunday in - Particular, 96 - Supposition of Missionary Action Examined, 103 - - - REPLY TWO. - The Seventh Day Not Observed by the Early Christian Church, 107 - Examination of New-Testament Proofs, 108 - - - SECOND REJOINDER. - Our Common Ground, 116 - The Seventh Day, only, the Sabbath in the New Testament, 119 - No Effort Has been Made to Place Sunday upon Precept, 124 - Consideration of Col. 2:14-17, 125 - Rom. 14:5, Examined, 129 - Survey of the Ground Passed Over, 131 - - - REPLY THREE. - Testimony of the Gospels for the First-day Sabbath, 133 - Resurrection of Christ, 134 - John 20, 136 - - - THIRD REJOINDER. - No Evidence of First-day Sacredness, 140 - The Gospels do Not Call First Day the Sabbath, 150 - - - REPLY FOUR. - Argument for the First-day Sabbath from the Gift of the Holy Spirit - on the Day of Pentecost, 154 - Authors Differing Concerning the Day of the week, 155 - Argument for the First Day, 156 - - - FOURTH REJOINDER. - Value of Testimony—First-day Keepers Witnessing that Pentecost Fell - on the Sabbath, 163 - No Reason Stated, nor Commandment Found, for First-day Sabbath, 172 - - - REPLY FIVE. - First-day Sabbath at Troas, 177 - The Reckoning of Time Considered, 179 - - - FIFTH REJOINDER. - No Custom Found in Acts 20, 183 - Argument for Change of Time Considered, 191 - Evidence of Acts 20 Favorable to the Sabbath, 201 - - - REPLY SIX. - Testimony of Paul and John to the First-day Sabbath, 202 - Examination of 1 Cor. 16:2, 203 - Of Rev. 1:10, 205 - - - SIXTH REJOINDER. - 1 Cor. 16:2, 207 - —Testimony of J. W. Morton, 207 - —Concession of Albert Barnes, 209 - —Paul’s Plan of Systematic Beneficence, 211 - —Devotion at Home, 214 - Rev. 1:10, 219 - —The Sabbath is the Lord’s Day, 220 - —Christ Lord of the Sabbath, 221 - —No Proof Given that First Day is the Lord’s Day, 222 - - - REPLY SEVEN. - Testimony of the Early Fathers to the First-day Sabbath, 225 - Testimony of Ignatius, 225 - Errors of Dr. Dwight, etc., Corrected, 227 - Barnabas and Justin Martyr, 228 - Dionysius, 229 - Pliny, 230 - - - SEVENTH REJOINDER. - Value of Traditional Testimony, 231 - Ignatius, 235 - Barnabas, 239 - Justin Martyr, 243 - What Justin Martyr Believed, 246 - Dionysius, Melito, Pliny, 250 - Deficiency of Testimony for First-day as a Sabbath, 253 - - - REPLY EIGHT. - Patristic Testimony to the First-day Sabbath, 254 - Irenæus, 254 - Errors of Dr. Dwight and Others in Quoting this Father, 256 - Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, 257 - - - EIGHTH REJOINDER. - The Apostasy, 261 - Testimony of Irenæus, 262 - Of Tertullian, 267 - Of Origen, 273 - Of Cyprian, 276 - Summary View of the Case, 277 - - - REPLY NINE. - Theories of the Christian Sabbath, 280 - Claim of an Unwarranted Change of the Sabbath Considered, 284 - - - NINTH REJOINDER. - No Advance Ground Taken, 287 - Harmony of Sabbath Law and Sacred History, 289 - Roman Apostasy and Change of Sabbath, 293 - Seventh-day Sabbath in the Early Church, 296 - Testimony of Romanists, 304 - - - REPLY TEN. - The Principle as to Time in Sabbath Observance, 313 - One Day in Seven, not the Seventh Day, Required, 313 - Difficulties of Keeping Definite Day, 314 - - - TENTH REJOINDER. - Inconsistency of the _Statesman’s_ Positions, 321 - No-Definite-Day Argument Fatal to First Day, and to any Sabbath, 325 - Inconsistency of his Position on Necessity of Legislation, 326 - Difficulties of Sabbath-Keeping Considered, 329 - Absurdity of the Theory of an Indefinite Day, 333 - Definite Time Around the World, 339 - Summary, 348 - - - REPLY ELEVEN. - The True Theory of the Christian Sabbath, 351 - First Day of the Week the True Christian Sabbath, 351 - A Memorial of Redemption, 353 - - - ELEVENTH REJOINDER. - Inconsistency of the Replies, 355 - No Amendment of Sabbath Law Produced, 356 - A Gospel Memorial of the Resurrection, 367 - Sabbath Keeping Involves Sacrifice, 369 - Summary of Evidence for the Sabbath, 371 - The Commandment, or Tradition? 374 - Conclusion, 377 - - - - - CATALOGUE - - -Of Books, Pamphlets, Tracts, &c., Issued by the Seventh-Day Adventist -Publishing Association, Battle Creek, Mich. - - -HYMNS AND TUNES; 320 pages of hymns, 96 pages of music; in plain -morocco, $1.00. - -A COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. By J. N. -Andrews. $1.00. - -THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY, Vols. 1 & 2. By Ellen G. White, Each $1.00. - -THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: Or The Sunday, The Sabbath, The Change, -and The Restitution. A Discussion between W. H. Littlejohn and the -Editor of the _Christian Statesman_. Bound, $1.00. Paper, 40 cts. First -Part, 10 cts. - -THOUGHTS ON THE REVELATION, critical and practical. By U. Smith. 328 -pp., $1.00. - -THOUGHTS ON THE BOOK OF DANIEL, critical and practical. By U. Smith. -Bound, $1.00; condensed edition, paper, 35 cts. - -THE NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN. By U. Smith. 384 pp., bound, $1.00, -paper, 40 cts. - -LIFE INCIDENTS, in connection with the great Advent movement. By Eld. -James White. 373 pp., $1.00. - -AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF ELD. JOSEPH BATES, with portrait of the author. 318 -pp., $1.00. - -HOW TO LIVE: comprising a series of articles on Health, and how to -preserve it, with various recipes for cooking healthful food, &c. 400 -pp., $1.00. - -SABBATH READINGS; or Moral and Religious Reading for Youth and Children. -400 pp., 60 cts.; in five pamphlets, 50 cts. - -APPEAL TO YOUTH; Address at the Funeral of Henry N. White; also a brief -narrative of his life, &c. 96 pp., muslin, 40 cts.; paper covers, 10 -cts. - -THE GAME OF LIFE, with notes. Three illustrations 5x6 inches each, -representing Satan playing with man for his soul. In board, 50 cts., in -paper, 30 cts. - -THE UNITED STATES IN PROPHECY. By U. Smith. Bound. 40 cts.; paper, 20 -cts. - -HYMNS AND SPIRITUAL SONGS for Camp-meetings and other Religious -Gatherings. Compiled by Eld. James White. 196 pp. Bound, 50 cts., paper, -25 cts. - -REFUTATION OF THE AGE TO COME. By J. H. Waggoner. Price 20 cts. - -PROGRESSIVE BIBLE LESSONS FOR CHILDREN; for Sabbath Schools and -Families. G. H. Bell. Bound, 35 cts., paper, 25 cts. - -THE ADVENT KEEPSAKE; comprising a text of Scripture for each day of the -year, on the subjects of the Second Advent, the Resurrection, &c. Plain -muslin, 25 cts.; gilt. 40 cts. - -A SOLEMN APPEAL relative to Solitary Vice, and the Abuses and Excesses -of the Marriage Relation. Edited by Eld. James White. Muslin, 50 cts.; -paper, 30 cts. - -AN APPEAL to the Working Men and Women, in the Ranks of Seventh-day -Adventists. By James White. 172 pp., bound, 40 cts.; paper covers, 25 -cts. - -SERMONS ON THE SABBATH AND LAW; embracing an outline of the Biblical and -Secular History of the Sabbath for 6000 years. By J. N. Andrews. 25 cts. - -THE STATE OF THE DEAD. By U. Smith. 224 pp., 25 cts. - -HISTORY of the Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul. By D. M. -Canright. 25 cts. - -DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION, between Elds. Lane and Barnaby. 25 -cts. - -THE ATONEMENT; an Examination of a Remedial System in the light of -Nature and Revelation. By J. H. Waggoner. 20 cts. - -OUR FAITH AND HOPE, Nos. 1 & 2—Sermons on the Advent, &c. By James -White. Each 20 cts. - -THE NATURE AND TENDENCY OF MODERN SPIRITUALISM. By J. H. Waggoner. 20 -cts. - -THE BIBLE FROM HEAVEN; or, a dissertation on the Evidences of -Christianity. 20 cts. - -DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION, between Elds. Grant and Cornell. 20 -cts. - -REVIEW OF OBJECTIONS TO THE VISIONS. U. Smith, 20 cts. - -COMPLETE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS, concerning the Sabbath and First Day -of the Week. By J. N. Andrews. 15 cts. - -THE DESTINY OF THE WICKED. By U. Smith. 15 cts. - -THE MINISTRATION OF ANGELS; and the Origin, History, and Destiny of -Satan. By D. M. Canright. 15 cts. - -THE MESSAGES OF REV. 14, particularly the Third Angel’s Message and -Two-Horned Beast. By J. N. Andrews. 15 cts. - -THE RESURRECTION OF THE UNJUST; a Vindication of the Doctrine. By J. H. -Waggoner. 15 cts. - -THE SANCTUARY AND TWENTY-THREE HUNDRED DAYS. By J. N. Andrews. 10 cts. - -THE SAINTS’ INHERITANCE, or, The Earth made New. By J. N. Loughborough. -10 cts. - -THE SEVENTH PART OF TIME; a sermon on the Sabbath Question. By W. H. -Littlejohn. 10 cts. - -REVIEW OF GILFILLAN, and other authors, on the Sabbath. By T. B. Brown. -10 cts. - -THE SEVEN TRUMPETS; an Exposition of Rev. 8 and 9. 10 cts. - -THE DATE OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS OF DAN. 9 established. By J. N. Andrews. -10 cts. - -THE TRUTH FOUND; the Nature and Obligation of the Sabbath of the Fourth -Commandment. By J. H. Waggoner. 10 cts. - -VINDICATION OF THE TRUE SABBATH. By J. W. Morton. 10 cts. - -SUNDAY SEVENTH-DAY EXAMINED. A Refutation of the Teachings of Mede, -Jennings, Akers, and Fuller. By J. N. Andrews. 10 cts. - -MATTHEW TWENTY-FOUR; a full Exposition of the chapter. By James White. -10 cts. - -THE POSITION AND WORK OF THE TRUE PEOPLE OF GOD under the Third Angel’s -Message. By W. H. Littlejohn. 10 cts. - -AN APPEAL TO THE BAPTISTS, from the Seventh-day Baptists, for the -Restoration of the Bible Sabbath. 10 cts. - -MILTON ON THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 5 cts. - -FOUR-CENT TRACTS: The Two Covenants—The Law and the Gospel—The Seventh -Part of Time—Who Changed the Sabbath—Celestial Railroad—Samuel and the -Witch of Endor—The Ten Commandments not Abolished—Address to the -Baptists. - -THREE-CENT TRACTS: The Kingdom—Scripture References—Much in Little—The -End of the Wicked—Infidel Cavils Considered—Spiritualism a Satanic -Delusion—The Lost Time Question. - -TWO-CENT TRACTS: The Sufferings of Christ—Seven Reasons for -Sunday-Keeping Examined—Sabbath by Elihu—The Rich Man and Lazarus—The -Second Advent—Definite Seventh Day—Argument on Sabbaton—Clerical -Slander—Departing and Being with Christ—Fundamental Principles of S. D. -Adventists—The Millennium. - -ONE-CENT TRACTS: Appeal on Immortality—Brief Thoughts on -Immortality—Thoughts for the Candid—Sign of the Day of God—The Two -Laws—Geology and the Bible—The Perfection of the Ten Commandments—The -Coming of the Lord—Without Excuse. - -CHARTS: THE PROPHETIC, AND LAW OF GOD, CHARTS, painted and mounted, such -as are used by our preachers, each $1.50. The two charts, on cloth, -unpainted, by mail, with key, without rollers, $2.50. - -=The Way of Life.= This is an Allegorical Picture, showing the way of -Life and Salvation through Jesus Christ from Paradise Lost to Paradise -Restored. By Eld. M. G. Kellogg. The size of this instructive and -beautiful picture is 19x24 inches. Price, post-paid, $1.00. - -Works in Other Languages. - -The Association also publishes the _Advent Tidende_, Danish monthly, at -$1.00 per year, and works on some of the above-named subjects in the -German, French, Danish, and Holland languages. - -Any of the foregoing works will be sent by mail to any part of the -United States, post-paid, on receipt of the prices above stated. A Full -Catalogue of our various Publications will be furnished GRATIS, on -application. - -Address, REVIEW & HERALD, -BATTLE CREEK, MICH. - - - - - PERIODICALS. - - -THE ADVENT REVIEW & HERALD OF THE SABBATH, weekly. This sheet is an -earnest exponent of the Prophecies, and treats largely upon the Signs of -the Times, Second Advent of Christ, Harmony of the Law and the Gospel, -the Sabbath of the Lord, and, What we Must do to be Saved. Terms, $2.00 -a year in advance. - -THE YOUTH’S INSTRUCTOR, monthly. This is a high-toned, practical sheet, -devoted to moral and religious instruction, adapted to the wants of -youth and children. It is the largest and the best youth’s paper -published in America. Terms, 50 cts. a year, in advance. - -THE HEALTH REFORMER. This is a live Journal, devoted to an Exposition of -the Laws of Human Life, and the application of those laws in the -Preservation of Health, and the Treatment of Disease. The _Reformer_ -will contain, each issue, thirty-two pages of reading matter, from able -earnest pens, devoted to real, practical life, to physical, moral, and -mental improvement. Its publishers are determined that it shall be the -best Health Journal in the land. - -Terms, $1.00 a year, in advance. Address. HEALTH REFORMER, Battle Creek, -Mich. - - -BOOKS FROM OTHER PUBLISHERS. - - -FUTURE PUNISHMENT, by H. H. Dobney, Baptist minister of England. The -Scriptural Doctrine of Future Punishment, with an Appendix, containing -the “State of the Dead,” by John Milton, author of “Paradise Lost,” -extracted from his “Treatise on Christian Doctrine.” - -This is a very able and critical work. It should be read by every one -who is interested in the immortality subject. It is also one of the best -works upon the subject to put into the hands of candid ministers, and -other persons of mind. - -Price, post-paid, $1.00. - -THE VOICE OF THE CHURCH, on the Coming and Kingdom of the Redeemer; or, -a History of the Doctrine of the Reign of Christ on Earth. By D. T. -Taylor. A very valuable work, highly indorsed on both sides of the -Atlantic. - -Price, post-paid, $1.00. - - The Great Reformation, by Martin, 5 Vols., $ 7.00 - D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation, 5 Vols., 4.50 - Scripture Biography, 4.50 - Cruden’s Concordance, sheep, 2.00 - “ ” muslin, 1.50 - Bible Dictionary, sheep, 2.00 - “ ” muslin, 1.50 - Cole’s Concordance, 1.50 - Prince of the House of David, 2.00 - Pillar of Fire, 2.00 - Throne of David, 2.00 - The Court and Camp of David, 1.50 - The Old Red House, 1.50 - Higher Christian Life, 1.50 - Pilgrim’s Progress, large type, 1.25 - “ ” small “ .60 - Biography of George Whitefield, 1.25 - History of English Puritans, 1.25 - Story of a Pocket Bible, 1.25 - Captain Russell’s Watchword, 1.25 - The Upward Path, 1.25 - Ellen Dacre, 1.25 - The Brother’s Choice, 1.15 - Climbing the Mountain, 1.15 - The Two Books, 1.15 - Awakening of Italy, 1.00 - White Foreigners, 1.00 - Lady Huntington, 1.00 - Young Man’s Counselor, 1.00 - Young Lady’s Counselor, 1.00 - Paul Venner, 1.00 - Among the Alps, 1.00 - Poems of Home Life, .80 - Edith Somers, .80 - Nuts for Boys to Crack, .80 - Anecdotes for the Family, .75 - Pictorial Narratives, .60 - Bertie’s Birthday Present, .60 - Songs for Little Ones, .60 - Memoir of Dr. Payson, .60 - Mirage of Life, .60 - Huguenots of France, .50 - The Boy Patriot, .50 - Springtime of Life, .50 - May Coverly, .50 - Glen Cabin, .50 - The Old, Old Story, cloth, gilt, .50 - Poems by Rebekah Smith, .50 - Charlotte Elizabeth, .40 - Save the Erring, .40 - Blanche Gamond, .40 - My Brother Ben, .40 - Hannah’s Path, .35 - Star of Bethlehem, .30 - Father’s Letters to a Daughter, .30 - -A more full Catalogue of books of this nature, for sale at this Office, -can be had on application. - - - - - HEALTH REFORM PUBLICATIONS. - - -=Good Health=, and How to Preserve It. A brief treatise on the various -hygienic agents and conditions which are essential for the preservation -of health. Just the thing for a person who wishes to learn how to avoid -disease. Pamphlet, price, post paid, 10 cents. - -=Disease and Drugs.= Nature and Cause of Disease and So-called “Action” -of Drugs. This is a clear and comprehensive exposition of the nature and -true cause of disease, and also exposes the absurdity and falsity of -drug medication. Pamphlet. Price, 10 cents. - -=The Bath=: Its Use and Application. A full description of the various -baths employed in the hygienic treatment of disease, together with the -manner of applying them, and the diseases to which they are severally -adapted. Pamphlet. Price, post-paid, 15 cents. - -=Hydropathic Encyclopedia.= Trall. Price, post-paid, $4.50. - -=Uterine Diseases and Displacements.= Trall. Price, post-paid, $3.00. - -=Science of Human Life.= By Sylvester Graham, M. D. Price, post-paid, -$3.00. - -=Domestic Practice.= Johnson. Price, post-paid, $1.75. - -=Hand Book of Health=—Physiology and Hygiene. Price, post-paid, 75 -cents; paper cover, 40 cents - -=Water Cure in Chronic Diseases.= By J. M. Gully, M. D. Price, -post-paid, $1.75. - -=Cure of Consumption.= Dr. Work. Price, post-paid. 30 cents. - -=The Hygienic System.= By R. T. Trall, M. D. Recently published at the -Office of the HEALTH REFORMER. It is just the work for the time, and -should be read by the million. Price, post-paid, 15 cents. - -=The Health and Diseases of Women.= By R. T. Trall, M. D. A work of -great value. Price, post-paid, 15 cents. - -=Tobacco-Using.= A philosophical exposition of the Effects of Tobacco on -the Human System. By R. T. Trall, M. D. Price, post-paid, 15 cents. - -=Valuable Pamphlet.= Containing three of the most important of Graham’s -twenty-five Lectures on the Science of Human Life—eighth, the Organs and -their Uses; thirteenth, Man’s Physical Nature and the Structure of His -Teeth; fourteenth, the Dietetic Character of Man. Price, post-paid. 35 -cts. - -Address, =Health Reformer=, _Battle Creek, Mich._ - - - - - ● Transcriber’s Notes: - ○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected. - ○ Typographical errors were silently corrected. - ○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only - when a predominant form was found in this book. - ○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_). - ○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the sections in which they are - referenced. - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Constitutional Amendment: or, The -Sunday, the Sabbath, the Change, and , by Wolcott H. Littlejohn - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CONSTITUTIONAL *** - -***** This file should be named 61071-0.txt or 61071-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/1/0/7/61071/ - -Produced by Brian Wilson, Bryan Ness, David King, and the -Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. -(This file was produced from images generously made -available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at -http://gutenberg.org/license). - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at -http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at -809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email -business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact -information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official -page at http://pglaf.org - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit http://pglaf.org - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - http://www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |