{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_61071/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_61071","id":"gutenberg_61071","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/61071","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - American","Category: Law & Criminology","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Sabbath","Seventh-Day Adventists -- Doctrinal and controversial works","Sunday","Sunday legislation -- United States"],"text":"THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: OR, THE SUNDAY, THE SABBATH, THE CHANGE,\n                            AND RESTITUTION.\n\n\n\n\n                     THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT:\n\n                                   OR\n\n                        THE SUNDAY, THE SABBATH,\n\n                                  THE\n\n                        CHANGE, AND RESTITUTION.\n\n\n                          A DISCUSSION BETWEEN\n\n                W. H. LITTLEJOHN, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST,\n\n                                AND THE\n\n                   EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN STATESMAN.\n\n\n                              STEAM PRESS\n          OF THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION,\n                          BATTLE CREEK, MICH.:\n\n                                 1873.\n\n\n\n\nEntered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1873, by the\n\nS. D. A. P. ASSOCIATION,\n\nIn the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE.\n\n\nAs it has been thought best that the following articles, which, with the\nexception of the Replies and Rejoinders, have already been published in\nthe _Christian Statesman_, the _Sabbath Recorder_, and the _Advent\nReview_, should have a still wider circulation, it has been at last\ndecided to present them to the public in the form of the present volume.\n\nThe occasion of their first appearance was as follows: Within the last\nfew years, a party has been organized in this country, whose especial\naims are the amendment of the Constitution, so that the names of God and\nChrist may appear in it; the recognition in the same instrument of the\nBible as the fountain of national law; the securing of the reading of\nthe Bible in the common schools; and the enforcement by law of the\nobservance of Sunday, as the Christian Sabbath. Slowly, but steadily,\nthe friends of this movement are bringing it to the public notice and\nenlarging the circle of its active supporters. A single glance at the\nexisting state of affairs reveals the fact that, at no distant date, the\nissues which these men are making up will be the ones over which\ncontending parties will wage fierce contest. Already the press of the\ncountry, by the drift of events which they find themselves incapable of\ncontrolling, are compelled, almost daily, to record transactions which\nare not only calling the attention of the people to a conflict which is\nboth imminent and irrepressible, but which are also continually adding\nfuel to a flame which even now burns with a fierceness and volume\nindicative of its future scope and power.\n\nIn view of these facts, the writer of the subjoined articles, while\ntaking no particular interest in party politics, merely as such,\nnevertheless felt a profound conviction that the time had come, in the\nprovidence of God, when Christian men should offer a solemn protest\nagainst a state of affairs which, while ostensibly inaugurated in the\ninterest of the kingdom of Christ, will ultimately prove most\ndestructive of religious liberty. This, he therefore attempted to do,\npurely from the stand-point of the Bible. Through the courtesy of the\neditor of the _Christian Statesman_, which paper is the organ of the\namendment party, the first seven of the following communications were\npermitted to appear in the columns of that periodical. Subsequently, the\neditor of that paper felt it incumbent upon him to take issue with what\nwas thus published, and to answer the same in a series of editorial\narticles. To these again, the author of the original communications\npublished a series of rejoinders, in defense of the positions assumed by\nhim in the outset, and in controversion of those of the reviewer. These\narticles, the replies of the editor, and the rejoinders thereto, having\nbeen grouped together in the present volume, are offered to a candid\npublic for serious consideration.\n\nThe reader will readily perceive that the whole discussion turns upon\nthe Sabbath question. Fortunately, also, he will discover that the\nground covered in the debate by the respective disputants is that\ngenerally occupied by the classes of believers whom they represent.\nLeaving him, therefore, to decide for himself as to which of the views\npresented has the sanction of the divine mind, the writer of the present\npreface can do no more than to give expression to his earnest desire\nthat the God of all truth will vouchsafe his Spirit for the illumination\nof every mind which comes to the consideration of this subject with an\nhonest purpose to ascertain his will in the matter under consideration.\n\nW. H. L.\n\n_Allegan, Mich._\n\n\n\n\n                           TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\nArticle I. 5\n\nArticle II. 16\n\nArticle III. 28\n\nArticle IV. 36\n\nArticle V. 48\n\nArticle VI. 57\n\nArticle VII. 71\n\nExplanatory Remarks. 86\n\nReplies and Rejoiners. 87\n\nArticle I. 87\n\nRejoinder. 93\n\nArticle II. 107\n\nRejoinder. 116\n\nArticle III. 133\n\nRejoinder. 139\n\nArticle IV. 154\n\nRejoinder. 161\n\nArticle V. 177\n\nRejoinder. 182\n\nArticle VI. 202\n\nRejoinder. 207\n\nArticle VII. 225\n\nRejoinder. 231\n\nArticle VIII. 254\n\nRejoinder. 261\n\nArticle IX. 280\n\nRejoinder. 287\n\nArticle X. 313\n\nRejoinder. 321\n\nArticle XI. 351\n\nRejoinder. 355\n\nIndex of Points Discussed. 379\n\n\n\n\n                               ARTICLE I.\n\n\nOne of the marked features of our time is the tendency toward the\ndiscussion of the Sabbath question. Nor can this subject be treated with\nmore indifference in the future than it is at the present. Agitation,\nceaseless, unrelenting, excited, and finally severe, is rendered certain\nby the temper of all the parties to the controversy. On the one hand,\nthe friends of Sunday observance are dissatisfied with the laxity of the\nregard which is paid it, and are loud in their demands for statutory\nrelief; denouncing upon the nation the wrath of God, in unstinted\nmeasure, should their petition be set at naught. On the other hand, the\nenemies of the Sabbath institution, in all of its phases, are becoming\nbold in their protestations against a legalized Sabbath, as something\nextremely oppressive and inexpressibly intolerable in its very nature.\n\nIn all parts of the country, activity characterizes the camps of both\nthese contending hosts. Everywhere the elements of strength\u2014hitherto\nunorganized, and inefficient to the accomplishment of great results\nbecause of that fact\u2014are being brought out and employed in effective\nservice.\n\nCincinnati, Chicago, New York, Boston, San Francisco, in their turn,\nbecome the theaters where the skirmish lines of future combatants, on a\nlarger scale, are brought into occasional collision. The ordinary\nappliances of dinners, processions, national and State conventions,\ncity, town, and district societies, are rapidly becoming the order of\nthe day, while those who are brought within the range of their influence\nare stimulated and aroused, on the one hand, by earnest appeals to the\nBible and religion, and on the other, to natural rights and individual\nconscience. So far has the matter now proceeded, so much has already\nbeen said, so fully has the contest been opened, that retrogression\nmeans defeat to either the one or the other party. And as to compromise,\nthis can never be attained, from the fact that the position from which\nboth parties are now seeking to emerge is that of toleration. Why, says\nthe ardent advocate of the Sunday law, it is not sufficient that I\nobserve the day of rest with strictness and fidelity in my own family. I\nowe a duty to the public; I am a member of a great Commonwealth, which\nGod treats as a personality, and if I do not see to it that the statute\nlaws of the land are in harmony with, and enforce the requirements of,\nthe law of God, this nation, like all others which have ignored their\nobligation to legalize and enforce his will in matters of this nature,\nwill be devoted to a ruin for which I shall be accountable, and in which\nI shall be a sharer. Moved by such considerations as these, his purse is\nopen and his labors untiring for the accomplishment of that which now\nappears to him to be in the line of both individual interest and\nreligious duty.\n\nAgain, his neighbor across the way being, perhaps, of the free-thinking\norder, and an ardent admirer of the complete separation of Church and\nState, wonders that he has so long consented to that abridgment of his\npersonal liberty which has been made by statutory provision, and which\nhas hitherto compelled him to surrender much of what he calls natural\nright to the whims and caprices of those with whom he differs so widely\non all questions bearing upon the relation of man to his God.\nHenceforth, says he, I pledge my means, my influence, and my untiring\neffort, to a revolution which, if need be, shall shake society to its\nvery center, rather than to consent to the legalized perpetuation of an\ninstitution which requires on my part an acknowledgment of a faith which\nI have never held, and of doctrines which I detest.\n\nOf course, all do not share alike, either in the enthusiasm or the\nanimosity which characterizes certain individuals when entering upon a\nconflict like the one in question. In every party is found more or less\nof the aggressive and the conservative elements. Especially is this true\nin the incipient stages of its history. Some men are necessarily more\nearnest than are others in everything which they undertake. Some are\nbold, headlong, defiant; others, cautious, slow, and timid. One class\nleaps to its conclusions first, and looks for its arguments afterward;\nthe other moves circumspectly, and, while it gives a general assent to\nthe desirability of results, finds a world of trouble in deciding upon\nwhat means ought to be employed in securing them. One is forever foaming\nbecause of delay, and fears defeat as the result of hesitation; while\nthe other protests against too rapid and ill-considered action.\n\nSuch is, at present, the condition more especially of the positive side\nof the Sunday movement in this country. The strong men and the weak men,\nthe resolute men and the undecided men, are struggling for the mastery\nof the policy in the camp. One sort discovers no difficulties in the way\nof immediate and complete success. Lead us to the front, say they, our\ncause is just, and all that is necessary to success is the courage and\ninspiration of battle. But hold, say the others, not too fast; public\nsentiment is not prepared for the issue. And besides, we are not so\nclear in our minds as are you respecting the lengths to which this\ncontroversy should be carried, and the line of argument which ought to\nbe pursued. Why, say the first, what need can there be of more delay?\nNothing is more manifest than the means which we ought to employ for the\naccomplishment of our purpose. Our work is simply that of enforcement.\nHas not God said in so many words, in the decalogue, \u201cSix days shalt\nthou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of\nthe Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work\u201d? Is not this\nlanguage explicit? Is it not a part of that law which nearly all\nChristians acknowledge to be binding? Do we not enforce the observance\nof the remaining commandments by statutory provision? And is it not\nequally clear that this should be treated in like manner? Why delay,\nthen? Why not move upon the enemy\u2019s works with the inspiring battle-cry\nof \u201cGod in the Constitution?\u201d Why not at once clamor for the amendment\nof that instrument, and for the passage of statutes by which the better\nobservance of the Christian Sabbath can be secured? Give us these, and\nour victory is won. Our Sunday mails, and trains, and travel, and public\namusements of every name and nature, can be removed at a single stroke.\nAs a result, the nation will stand higher in the estimation of God; and\nthe people, having acknowledged his supremacy, will have taken a long\nstep in the direction of final renovation and conversion.\n\nBut wait, says another, not too fast in matters of so great moment.\nPlease bear in mind the fact that this contest is to be one of words and\narguments. Your danger is that of underrating the capacity and\nintelligence of our opponents. If you expect to meet them successfully,\nit must be by a logic which will bear criticism and examination.\n\nAs an individual, I am by no means certain that the Bible authority for\nour movement is so clear and abundant as you seem to imagine.\n\nThe law which you quote in justification of our course is truly a\nSabbath law, and its import is unmistakable; but, unfortunately, instead\nof making for our cause, it is diametrically opposed to your efforts,\nand plainly declares that the _seventh day_ of the week is the Sabbath\nof the Lord, whereas you are unmistakably occupying before the world a\nposition no less awkward than that of insisting that the first, and not\nthe seventh, is the one which should be enforced by legal enactment.\nWhile, therefore, I am in full sympathy with the general purposes of\nthis movement, I am convinced that, before we shall succeed, we must\nrest it upon a different basis than the fourth commandment. So far as my\nindividual preferences go\u2014in order to avoid the difficulties which lie\nalong the line of Scripture justification for our conduct\u2014I suggest that\nwe rest it upon the broad principle of social necessity, relying for our\nsuccess upon the generally conceded fact that _rest_ upon one day in\nseven is indispensable to the well-being of individuals and communities.\n\nBut, says a third party, while I agree with you in condemning the\nproposition that the fourth commandment, as originally given, furnishes\nus warrant for the observance of the first day of the week, I can never\nconsent to the idea of its unconditional repeal; for without it in some\nform we are entirely without a Sabbath law; a condition of things which\nwould be deplorable indeed. I therefore conclude that that law has been\nbrought over into our dispensation, and so far changed as to adapt it to\nthe enforcement of the observance of the first day of the week,\nagreeably to the example of Christ and the apostles. With this view, I\ncan safely predict power and triumph for the grand scheme upon which we\nhave entered. Give us a Sabbath of divine appointment and backed by a\nsacred precept, and victory is certain. But so sure as we lower the\ncontroversy to one which is merely corporeal in its nature and results,\nand pecuniary in its considerations, defeat is written upon our banners,\nsince you have taken from us all the inspiration of the contest, and\ndried up the very springs of our enthusiasm and courage.\n\nWhat the final result of such discussions will be, there is little room\nfor doubt. That a revolution is fairly inaugurated in the minds of the\npeople, it is now too late to question. What remains to be done,\ntherefore, is simply to execute the grand purpose for which it has been\ninstituted.\n\nThat this cannot be accomplished by a merely negative policy, has been\nillustrated too many times in history to require further demonstration.\nMen, having once entered the field of conflict, universally become less\nand less scrupulous in regard to the means employed to secure the\ndesired object. In the primary meetings of a great movement, the voice\nof the conservative may be listened to with attention and respect; but\nshould he give expression to the same prudent counsel upon the battle\nfield, when the sword of the enemy is red with the blood of his\ncompatriots, his utterances would be silenced in a storm of indignation\nsuch as would threaten his very existence, and consign his name to the\nlist of those whose fidelity was at least questionable, and whose\nsympathy with the common foe was far from being impossible.\n\nSo, likewise, with the half-way men in this incipient struggle, which is\nabout to throw open the gates of controversy upon one of those religious\nquestions which, above all others, is sure to be characterized, first,\nby uncharitableness, and finally, by bitter hate and animosity. With\neach advancing month, their hold upon the confidence of their associates\nwill grow less and less, and the counsels of their party will come more\nand more fully under the control of those positive, nervous spirits, who\nare swept along by convictions so deep and strong that they will bear\ndown everything before them.\n\nNevertheless, candid reader, it is by no means certain that there may\nnot be much of truth in the positions assumed by the more moderate men\nin the existing issue. At all events\u2014since we have not as yet entered\ninto that impassioned state of the public mind from which calm\ndeliberation is banished by the necessity of immediate action\u2014let us\npause here for a moment, and carefully weigh the correctness of the\nsuggestions presented above.\n\nIs it worth the while to enter the lists in the approaching struggle, in\norder to secure the results proposed?\n\nI say proposed, because, of course, the result is as yet more or less\nuncertain; nevertheless, we incline to the opinion that the end desired\nwill be substantially realized, so far as appearance is concerned. Yet\nthis will not be brought about in a moment, nor will it be accomplished\nwithout a hard fight. It must, from the very necessity of the case, be a\ncontest which will enter, divide, and distract families, and which will\nalienate a large portion of the community from the other. But, with a\nunited and well-drilled ministry, on the one band, backed by the compact\norganization of their respective churches, and opposed by a\nheterogeneous mass of discordant elements, there can be little doubt as\nto final success.\n\nFirst, then, let us suppose that the policy inaugurated shall be that of\nthe class represented above as desiring to strip the subject of its\nreligious garb, and to array it in the habiliments of mere policy and\ntemporal considerations. Are the benefits reasonably to be expected from\nsuch a course such as would warrant the enthusiasm now manifested by the\nadvocates of the proposed reformation? We believe not. In fine, so\ncertain are we of it, that we should not hesitate to predict immediate\nand perfect paralysis to their efforts, so soon as they should inscribe\nthis doctrine upon their banners. How many of the gentlemen in question\nare really so profoundly interested in the social status of the\nworking-man that their zeal in his behalf could be wrought up to the\npoint of sacrificing time and money, and of devoting voice and pen to\nthe mere work of giving him a septenary day of physical rest? What\nsatisfaction would be afforded them by the reflection that, as the\nresult of legal enactment, the carefully appointed police in our great\ncities should be able to meet each other on the boundary lines of their\nrespective beats, on the morning of Sunday, with the accustomed\nsalutation, All is quiet! and cessation from labor is complete in all\nparts of the great metropolis? Who would highly prize a coerced rest of\nthis sort? What particular gratification would be afforded to the\nreligious world, as they gather, in their costly churches, by the\nthought that the great mass of the people were quietly sleeping, or\nlazily lounging in the various places of their retirement? Certainly\nthere is nothing in such a state of things which offers results\nsufficiently desirable either to reward them for the great sacrifices\nwith which it would be necessary that they should be purchased, in the\nfirst instance, or to secure that patient continuance in vigilant\nperseverance which would be required to insure the perpetuity of an\norder of things at once so compulsory and so precarious. We say,\ntherefore, that to rest the contest upon this issue would be simply to\nfalsify the facts. It is not the physical consideration of rest, in any\nlarge degree, which animates the mind and strengthens the resolve of\nthose engaged in the newly organized reform. No; there is something\nbehind all this. The informing soul, that which electrifies, stimulates,\nand nerves to action, is the profound conviction that this is a\nreligious movement; that which is sought is the honoring of God by the\nobservance of a Sabbath such as is found in his word. If this be not so,\nif the higher idea of Christian worship as the primary one is not\nparamount in this matter, then the whole thing is a farce, from\nbeginning to end. Not only so; if what is sought is merely the\nimprovement of bodily condition, then the plan suggested is, in many\ncases, far from being the best which might be offered. Take, if you\nplease, our over-populated cities, with the dense masses of human beings\nwho are there crowded together, under most unfavorable circumstances,\nmany of them perishing for lack of pure air, and others pale and sickly\nfor want of exposure to the vivifying rays of the sun, which is\ncontinually shut out from their gaze by the massive piles of masonry by\nwhich they are inclosed; who will not say that, leaving the spiritual\nout of consideration, and setting aside the idea of the sanctity of the\nday, it would be a blessing incalculably greater for them, should\nprovision be made whereby this should become to them a day of\nrecreation, while wandering amid flowers, and over hills, and through\ngroves, instead of one in which, either from necessity or choice, they\nshould still perpetuate the confinement which has already nearly proved\nfatal in their cases?\n\n\n\n\n                              ARTICLE II.\n\n\nTurning from the secular phase of this subject, let us regard it for a\nmoment from the religious stand-point.\n\nIs there anything in the purpose itself which is worthy of the cost at\nwhich alone it can be realized? In other words, since the object aimed\nat is ostensibly that of bringing the nation up to the point of a\ngeneral regard for the first day of the week as a Sabbath, would such a\nresult be one which should be profoundly desired?\n\nWe reply that this will depend altogether upon circumstances. In this\ncase, as in the first, mere cessation from labor on that day, which is\nnot prompted by a regard for the will and approval of Jehovah, could\nafford no relief to a nation, which is seeking to avert divine\ndispleasure since there is no element in the act itself calculated to\nrecommend it to the favor of Heaven. To illustrate: The individual\nsentenced to solitary confinement in the State\u2019s Prison is precluded\nfrom the possibility of laboring on the Sunday; will any one therefore\nargue that there is any merit in his inaction on that day? Again: The\nheathen nations, in common with the majority of the Christian world,\nhave many of them regarded the Sunday as a sacred day; should we\npresume, therefore, that they are looked upon by the Almighty more\ncomplacently on this account? You answer, No; and urge, as a reason for\nthis reply, that they have been engaged in a false worship, and have not\nbeen actuated by any regard for the true God. Where, then, is the line?\nManifestly, right here: The men who honor God by the keeping of any day\nmust be prompted by the conviction that they are doing it in strict and\ncheerful obedience to a divine command.\n\nHere, then, is the crucible in which we will try the metal of this\nmodern movement. If, when their grand design shall be accomplished\u2014as\nthe result of many labors and toils\u2014and, even though before their\npurpose is attained, it shall be found necessary for them to reach their\nobject through a conflict intensely bitter and impassioned on the part\nof the opposition, we shall witness the spectacle of a nation bowing\nsubmissively to the _law_ and _will_ of _God_ in the humble and fervent\nobservance of a weekly rest of _divine appointment_, it will be the\ngrandest triumph which history has recorded. No treasure of gold\u2014we were\nabout to say no sacrifice of life\u2014would be too great a price to pay for\nso glorious a victory. Let it be understood, however, that this must be\na voluntary and intelligent worship on the part, at least, of the mass\nof the people.\n\nBut will this be true, should our friends compass the great object of\ntheir ambition? Let us inquire once more after their intentions. What is\nit they advocate? The answer is, A universal regard for the first day of\nthe week, as the Sabbath of the Lord.\n\nBut what is the authority upon which the majority of them rest their\nargument for the proposed observance? Is it merely pecuniary advantage?\nNo, say they, it is out of a sincere regard for the God of Heaven, and a\nconscientious desire to fulfill his law. But this implies religious\nduty. So far, so good. It also clearly sets forth the fact that God has\na law, and a Sabbath which it enforces. The appeal, therefore, must\ninevitably be to that law, as the proper instrument from which to\ninstruct the people.\n\nTo that they must be brought, again and again. Its import must be\npatiently taught, its sacredness must be thoroughly inculcated. Let them\nbut be satisfied by _sound logic_ that the divine statute is explicit in\nits demands for a strict observance of the first day of the week, let\nthem be thoroughly educated into the idea that they are under its\njurisdiction, and let them be instructed that this whole movement\nproceeds upon this religious conviction, and you have laid a foundation\nwhich will uphold a structure of imposing dimensions and enduring\ncharacter, the cornerstone whereof is the fear of God, and an\nacknowledgment of his presence in the affairs of men. But how is it in\nthe case in question? Is the commandment of a nature such as to support,\nin every particular, the tenets presented by the reform under\nconsideration? This is really the vital point. Let it speak for itself.\nIt is the fourth of the decalogue which is urged: \u201cRemember the Sabbath\nday, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work;\nbut the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt\nnot do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant,\nnor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within\nthy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and\nall that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord\nblessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.\u201d If this is not a Sabbath law,\nthen there is none in existence; for, _mark it_, this is the only\ninstance in all the Scriptures in which it will be claimed by any one\nthat we have a positive command for the observance of the Sabbath. So\nfar, therefore, as the first day of the week is concerned, its friends\nhave this advantage, that, if they but succeed in resting it upon this\ncommandment, their labor is ended; for it\u2014_i. e._, the commandment\u2014has\nno rival. All that is needed, consequently, is a clear, pointed exegesis\nshowing that the day in question is the one, the observance of which the\ndivine Lawgiver has required. But, unfortunately, such an exegesis would\nbe beset with difficulties. To begin with, Who shall be able to\nharmonize the declaration which the commandment contains in these words,\n\u201cThe _seventh day_ is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt\nnot do any work,\u201d with the utterance of those who, on the contrary, say\nthat the _first day_ is the Sabbath of the Lord, and must be observed as\nsuch? The divine Lawgiver\u2014as if determined that there shall be no room\nfor debate in regard to the day which he had in his mind\u2014has identified\nit in a manner such as to leave no room for dispute. In the first place,\nhe announces his willingness that six days of the week should be devoted\nto secular employment, \u201cSix days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work:\u201d\nthen follows the disjunctive, \u201cbut\u2014the seventh day is the Sabbath of the\nLord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work.\u201d Here it is made plain\nthat it is the \u201cSabbath of the Lord\u201d upon which we are to rest. Again,\npassing over the intermediate space, we come to the close of the\ncommandment, in which he sets forth three important transactions by\nwhich that was constituted the Sabbath, and by which it may ever be\nrecognized. He says, \u201cFor in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,\nthe sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore\nthe Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.\u201d That is, the day\nwhich we are to keep as the Sabbath of the Lord is the one upon which he\n_rested_, which he _blessed_, and which he _hallowed_. Therefore, before\nthe first day of the week can, with any show of reason, be kept in\nfulfillment of this commandment, _i. e._, before it can be regarded as\nthe \u201cSabbath of the Lord,\u201d it must be shown that, at some time, God has\nrested upon it, blessed, and hallowed it. But this would be a difficult\ntask; for not only are the Scriptures silent, so far as the affirmation\nof this fact is concerned with reference to the first day of the week,\nbut, on the contrary, they positively declare that it was the very day\nupon which Jehovah _entered upon the stupendous undertaking of making a\nworld_. Should additional evidence be required on this point, _i. e._,\nthat the last day of the week, and not the first, is the one which\nJehovah intended to sanctify, we have but to cite the intelligent reader\nto the fact that Moses, the prophets, the Lord himself, the holy women\nafter his death, and the whole Jewish nation\u2014in whose language the\ndecalogue was given\u2014are, and have been, unanimous in placing this\nconstruction upon the Sabbatic law.\n\nShould any, however, perceiving the dilemma into which they are thrown\nby the effort to enforce their view in the use of the law, as it was\noriginally given, seek relief in the position that it was so far amended\nin the days of Christ as to admit of the substitution of the day of his\nresurrection for that of God\u2019s rest at the end of creation week, we\nreply, If such a fact can be clearly made out, it would certainly\nfurnish the very help which is needed just at this juncture, and without\nwhich confusion must inevitably characterize the movements of those who\nfeel the necessity of a Sabbatic law for the keeping of Sunday.\n\nLet us, therefore, carefully investigate this most important point. Is\nit true that the Son of God did so change the phraseology of the\ncommandment of the Father that, from his time forward, its utterances\nhave not only justified the secularizing of the last, but have also\nenforced, by the penalty of eternal death, a strictly religious regard\nfor the first day of the week, on the part of both the Jewish and the\nGentile world? Now this, if accomplished, was no trifling affair, and\ncould not have been done in a corner; since it involved the guilt or\ninnocence, the life or death, of countless millions of men and women,\nwhose condemnation in the day of Judgment for the violation of Sunday\nsanctity would turn, of necessity, upon the words of one who both had\nthe power to change, and had brought the knowledge of that change\nclearly before them. Certain it is, therefore\u2014since God does not first\njudge, and legislate afterward\u2014all the light which is necessary for the\nproper elucidation of this subject is now to be found in his written\nword. To this, then, we turn; and with a profound conviction that the\nlanguage of Christ was true in its largest sense, \u201cIf any man will do\nhis will he shall know of the doctrine,\u201d\u2014we inquire, Where is it stated,\n_in so many words_, that God made the amendment in question?\n\nShould the response be returned, as it certainly must be, that such a\nstatement is not to be found within the lids of the Bible, we answer\nthat this is a concession which, most assuredly, will greatly embarrass\nour friends in the proposed reform. Sagacious men will not be slow in\ndiscovering its bearing upon the subject, and it will be very difficult\nto explain such an omission to the satisfaction of cautious and\nreflecting minds. Should it be suggested, however, that\u2014notwithstanding\nthe fact the change has not been set forth in so many words\u2014it has\nnevertheless occurred, and is therefore binding, we answer: Although the\ntransaction upon the face of it, to say the least, would be a singular\none, if an alteration has really been made, the next thing to be\nascertained is its precise nature. We have already seen that the first\nlaw was very explicit in its statements; and all are conversant with the\nfact that to it was given the greatest publicity, and that it was\nuttered by the voice, and written by the finger of God, under the most\nimposing circumstances. Now, if Christ\u2014whose power to do so we shall not\nquestion here\u2014has really undertaken the task of adding to, or taking\nfrom, this most sacred precept, will some one furnish us with an\n_authentic copy_ of the statute, as amended? Now this is a reasonable\nand just request. To declare simply that a change has occurred, without\nmaking known precisely what that change is, is but to bewilder and\nconfuse. Conscious of this fact, the State is always extremely careful\nto give to its citizens\u2014in the most public manner\u2014every variation which\nis made in its enactments, lest the loyal man should be incapable of\nproving his fidelity by obedience, or the disloyal justify his violation\nupon the plea of necessary ignorance. Shall man be more just than his\nMaker? Shall Christ\u2014who, in every other respect, has, in matters of\nduty, furnished us with line upon line, and precept upon precept\u2014be\nfound, at last, upon this most important point, to have been unmindful\nof the highest interests of his followers? Most assuredly not. He that\nnever slumbereth nor sleepeth, He that knoweth the end from the\nbeginning, He who hath said, \u201cWhere there is no law there is no\ntransgression,\u201d has certainly never required his people to occupy a\nposition in the face of their enemies so extremely embarrassing as that\nin which they would be compelled to ignore the plainest dictates of\nreason and Scripture, by seeking to condemn in the world a practice\nwhich is not necessarily immoral in itself, and against which there is\nno explicit denunciation of the Bible. Who, then, we inquire again, will\nfurnish us from the sacred page the precept so remodeled as to meet the\nexigences of this case? Is it _larger_ or more _condensed_ than before?\nDoes the first clause read, \u201cRemember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy?\u201d\nIf so, it is well. Is the second in order expressed in these words, \u201cSix\ndays shalt thou labor, and do all thy work?\u201d This, again, is good. But\nhow is it with the third, \u201cThe seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord\nthy God: in it thou shalt not do any work?\u201d Here, unquestionably, the\nchange must begin. Who among us, therefore, can produce the divine\nwarrant for a reading of this passage which shall make it harmonize with\nthe keeping of Sunday? Who dare declare, upon his veracity, that he has\never discovered in the sacred word an instance in which it has been so\nrewritten as to read, \u201cBut the _first_ day is the Sabbath of the Lord\nthy God: in it thou shalt not do any work?\u201d\n\nFurthermore, passing over the instructions in regard to sons, daughters,\nservants, the stranger, etc., what has the pen of the divine remodeler\ndone with the _reason_ of the commandment as found in the words, \u201cFor in\nsix days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them\nis, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath\nday, and hallowed it?\u201d Has that been stricken out altogether? Or, is\nthere a glaring inconsistency in the remodeled statute, by which it is\nmade to state that the _first_ day of the week, instead of the\n_seventh_, is now the Sabbath of the Lord our God, because of the fact\nthat, in the creation of the world, God rested upon, blessed, and\nhallowed, the latter? These are weighty questions. Upon them, virtually,\nturns the issue of an amended law. For, to amend, is so to change or\nalter as to vary the duty of a subject; and if no one is capable of\ninforming definitely and particularly in regard to the precise\nvariations of the phraseology, then, of course, no one is able to decide\njust how far our course of action should deviate from what it has been\nhitherto, in order to meet the demands of the divine will as now\nexpressed, in a rule which has never been seen, and which no hand would\nventure to trace with any claim to exactitude. Who, then, we inquire\nagain, is sufficient for this task? Not one among the millions of\nProtestants who are so earnestly clamoring for the sanctity of the day\nin question will seriously lay claim to the ability to perform that\nwhich would at once elevate him to a position\u2014in view of the relief\nwhich it would bring to thousands of troubled minds\u2014more exalted than\nthat of any saint or martyr who has ever lived.\n\nNor is this all; behind all this pretentious claim for an amended law\nare very many indications of a wide-spread conviction\u2014though undefined\nand hardly recognized by the individuals themselves\u2014that the fact upon\nwhich they place so much stress is, after all, one in regard to which\nthere are serious doubts in their own minds. As an illustration of this,\nwe have but to call attention to two things. First, on each Lord\u2019s day,\nso-called, thousands of congregations\u2014after devoutly listening to the\nreading of the fourth commandment of the decalogue, word for word,\nsyllable for syllable, letter for letter, precisely as it was written\nupon the table of stone by the finger of God\u2014are in the habit of\nresponding with solemn cadence to the utterances of the preacher, \u201cO\nLord, incline our hearts to keep this law.\u201d Now this prayer means\nsomething, or nothing. It is either an expression of desire, on the part\nof those employing it, for grace to enable them rightly to observe the\ncommandment as it reads\u2014seventh day and all\u2014or else it is a solemn\nmockery, which must inevitably provoke the wrath of Heaven. These\npeople, therefore, judging from the most charitable stand-point, are\nwitnesses\u2014unconscious though they may be of the fact\u2014of a generally\npervading opinion that the verbiage of the fourth commandment has not\nbeen changed, and that it is as a whole as binding as ever. Second, nor\nis it simply true that those only who have a liturgy have committed\nthemselves to this idea. It is astonishing to what extent it has crept\ninto creeds, confessions of faith, church disciplines, and documents of\na like nature. But among the most striking of all evidences of its\nuniversality, when properly understood, is the practice of nearly all\nreligious denominations of printing, for general distribution among the\nSunday-school scholars, verbatim copies of the decalogue, as given in\nthe twentieth chapter of Exodus. Yet this practice would be a pernicious\none, and worthy of the most severe censure, as calculated to lead astray\nand deceive the minds of the young, if it were really true that this\ncode, in at least one very important particular, failed to meet the\nfacts in the case, as it regards present duty.\n\nIn view of these considerations, a change of the base of operations\nbecomes indispensable. A commandment, altered in its expressions so as\nto vary its import, and yet no one acquainted with the exact terms in\nwhich it is at present couched\u2014and all, in reality, being so skeptical\nupon the point that even its most ardent advocates reason as if it had\nnever occurred\u2014would certainly furnish a foundation altogether\ninsufficient for the mighty superstructure of a great reform, which\nproposes, ere the accomplishment of its mission, to revolutionize the\nState.\n\n\n\n\n                              ARTICLE III.\n\n\nWhere, then, shall we turn for relief? There is one, and but one, more\nchance.\n\nAcknowledging that the law, as originally given, will not answer the\npurpose, and that its amendment cannot be made out with sufficient\nclearness to warrant the taking of a stand upon it, we turn, for the\nlast time, to examine a position quite generally advanced; namely, that\nof Sunday observance inaugurated, justified, and enforced, by the\nresurrection and example of Christ. Is it true, then, that such is the\nfact? Have we, at last, found relief from all our difficulties in the\nlife and career of no less a personage than the divine Son of God? Let\nus see.\n\nThe point of the argument is briefly this:\u2014\n\nOur Lord\u2014by rising from the dead, and by his practice of meeting with\nhis disciples on that day\u2014both introduced, and made obligatory upon his\nfollowers, the necessity of distinguishing between the first and the\nremaining days of the week, as we would between the sacred and the\nprofane. Now, if this be a case which can be clearly made out, then we\nare immediately relieved in one particular; that is, we have found\nauthority for the observance of the Sunday. But how is it as it regards\nthe seventh day? This, we have seen, was commanded by God the Father.\nThe obligation of that command is still recognized. Now, consequently,\nif Christ the Son has, upon his own authority, introduced another day\nimmediately following the seventh, and clothed it with divine honors, is\nit a necessary inference that the former is therefore set aside? To our\nmind, it is far from being such. If God has a law for the observance of\na given day, and Christ has furnished us with an example for that of\nanother also, then the necessary conclusion is, that the first must be\nkept out of respect for God the Father, and the last through reverence\nto Christ the Son. Three facts, therefore, must be clearly made out, or\nour situation is indeed one of perplexity.\n\nFirst, it must be shown, authoritatively, that the resurrection effected\nthe change which is urged, and that the practice of Christ was what it\nis claimed to have been.\n\nSecond, that that practice was designed to be exemplary; in other words,\nthat what he did in these particulars was of a nature such that we are\nrequired to imitate it.\n\nThird, it must also be shown that he not only sanctified the first, but,\nalso, that he secularized the seventh day of the week.\n\nBut can this be done? Let us see. First, then, we will consider the\nmatter of the resurrection. Now, that it was an event of surpassing\nglory, and one ever to be held in grateful remembrance, there is no room\nfor dispute among Christians. But shall we, therefore, decide that it\nmust of necessity be commemorated by a day of rest? This would be\nassuming a great deal. It seems to us that it would be better, far\nbetter, to leave decisions of such importance as this entirely with the\nHoly Spirit. Protestants, at least, warned by the example of Roman\nCatholics, should avoid the danger of attempting to administer in the\nmatter of designating holy days; since, manifestly, this is alone the\nprovince of God. Hence, we inquire, Has the Holy Ghost ever said that\nthe resurrection of Christ imparted a holy character to the day upon\nwhich it occurred? The answer must, undeniably, be in the negative. No\nsuch declaration is found in the Holy Word. Nor is this all; even from\nthe stand-point of human reason, every analogy is against it. It were\nfitting that, when God had closed the work of creation, and ceased to\nlabor, he should appoint a day in commemoration of that rest. The\npropriety of such a course, all can see. But, on the contrary, is it not\nequally manifest that to have remained inactive on that glorious\nmorning, when the Son of God had burst the bands of death, and the news\nwas flying through all parts of the great city of Jerusalem, \u201cJesus has\nrisen to life again,\u201d would have been a condition of things wholly out\nof the question? Both the enemies and the friends of Christ\u2014the one\nclass stimulated by hate, and the other released by the mighty power of\nGod from the overwhelming gloom and crushing despondency of three\nterrible days\u2014were, by the very necessities of the case, moved to action\nby an energy which would cause them to overleap every barrier and to\nbreak away from every restraint. Everything, everywhere, animated by the\nnew aspect which affairs had suddenly assumed, demanded immediate,\nceaseless, and untiring activity. And such it had. From the early\nmorning, until far into the hours of the succeeding night, scribe and\nPharisee, priest and Levite, believer and unbeliever, were hearing,\ngathering, and distributing, all that could be learned of this most\nmysterious event. We say, consequently, that so far is it from being\ntrue that the day of the resurrection is one which should be hallowed,\neither exactly or substantially as that of the decalogue, the very\nopposite is the fact; and, if it were to be celebrated at all, every\nconsideration of fitness demands that it should be done by excessive\ndemonstrations of outward and uncontrolled joy, rather than by quietude\nand restraint.\n\nPassing now to the other branches of the subject, we inquire, finally,\nWhat was there in the _example_ of Christ and the apostles which in any\nway affects the question? If they are to be quoted at all upon this\nsubject, it is but reasonable that their history should be examined with\nreference both to the seventh and the first day; for, if precedent, and\nnot positive enactment, is to be the rule by which our faith is to be\ndecided, in a point of this significance, it is at least presumable that\nthe historic transactions by which this question is to be determined\nwill be ample in number, and of a nature to meet and explain all the\nphases of the subject. That is, the Gospels and the Acts of the\nApostles\u2014covering, as their history does, a period of about thirty\nyears\u2014will afford numerous and conclusive evidences that both Christ and\nthe apostles did actually dishonor the old, and invest with peculiar\ndignity and authority the new, Sabbath. First, we inquire then, Is\nthere, in all the New Testament, the record of a single instance in\nwhich Jesus or his followers transacted, upon the seventh day of the\nweek, matters incompatible with the notion of its original and continued\nsanctity? The answer is, of necessity, in the negative. The most careful\nand protracted search has failed to produce a single case in which the\nson of Joseph and Mary departed in this particular from the usages of\nhis nation, or in which his immediate representatives, during the period\nof their canonical history, failed to follow, in the most scrupulous\nmanner, the example of Him of whom it is said that, \u201cas his custom was,\nhe went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to\nread.\u201d (Luke 4:16.) Nor is this all; it is a remarkable fact, and one\nwell calculated to stagger the investigator at the very threshold of his\nresearches into the data for the modern view, that, whereas the Sabbath\nis mentioned fifty-six times in the New Testament, it is in every\ninstance, save one (where it refers to the annual Sabbaths of the Jews),\napplied to the last day of the week. So far, therefore, as the negative\nargument is concerned, which was based upon the presumption that the\nclaims of the old day were constructively annulled by the appointment of\na new one, its force is entirely broken by the record, which, as we have\nseen, instead of proving such an abolition, is rather suggestive of the\nperpetuity of the old order of things. Hence, we turn to the positive\nside of the subject.\n\nHow do we know that Christ ever designed that his example should produce\nin our minds the conviction that he had withdrawn his regard from the\nday of his Father\u2019s rest, and placed it upon that of his own\nresurrection? Did he, in laying the foundation for the new\ninstitution\u2014as in the case of the Lord\u2019s supper\u2014inaugurate the same by\nhis own action, and then say to his disciples, As oft as ye do this, do\nit in remembrance of me? Did he ever explain to any individual that his\nespecial object in meeting with his followers on the evenings of the\nfirst and second Sundays (?) after his return from the dead was designed\nto inspire in the minds of future believers the conviction that those\nhours, from that time forward, had been consecrated to a religious use?\nIf so, the record is very imperfect, in that it failed to hand down to\nus a most significant fact. I say significant, because, without such a\ndeclaration, the minds of common men, such as made up the rank and file\nof the immediate followers of Christ, were hardly competent to the\nsubtile task of drawing, unaided, such nice distinctions. How natural,\nhow easy, by a single word, to have put all doubt to rest, and to have\ngiven to future ages a foundation, broad and deep, upon which to ground\nthe argument for the change.\n\nBut this, as we have already seen, was not done! and after the lapse of\neighteen hundred years, men\u2014in the stress of a situation which renders\nit necessary that they should obtain divine sanction, in order to the\nperpetuity of a favored institution\u2014are ringing the changes of an\nendless variety of conjectures drawn from transactions, which, in the\nrecord itself, were mentioned as possessing no peculiar characteristics,\nwhich should in any way affect the _mere time_ upon which they occurred.\n\nLet us, therefore, with a proper sense of the modesty with which we\nshould ever enter upon the task of deciding upon the institutions of the\nchurch, when there is no divine precept for the guidance of our\njudgment, examine for ourselves. As we do this, it will be well, also,\nto bear in mind the fact that our prejudices will be very likely to lie\nentirely upon the side of life-long practice and traditionary\ninheritance. In fact, nearly every consideration, political, financial,\nand social, will be found, if not guarded with the strictest care,\nwooing us to a decision which\u2014though it might dishonor God, and do\nviolence to the principles of a clear, natural logic\u2014would exempt us,\nindividually, from personal sacrifice and pecuniary loss.\n\n\n\n\n                              ARTICLE IV.\n\n\nFirst, then, we suggest that it would be well to collate all the texts\nin the New Testament in which the first day of the week is mentioned.\nThey are as follows: \u201cIn the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn\ntoward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary\nto see the sepulcher.\u201d Matt. 28:1.\n\n\u201cAnd when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of\nJames, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and\nanoint Him. And very early in the morning, the first day of the week,\nthey came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun.\u201d Mark 16:1, 2.\n\n\u201cNow when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared\nfirst to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.\u201d Mark\n16:9.\n\n\u201cAnd they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the\nSabbath day, according to the commandment. Now upon the first day of the\nweek, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing\nthe spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.\u201d Luke\n23:56, and 24:1.\n\n\u201cThe first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet\ndark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the\nsepulcher.\u201d John 20:1.\n\n\u201cThen the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the\ndoors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews,\ncame Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto\nyou.\u201d John 20:19.\n\n\u201cUpon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in\nstore, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I\ncome.\u201d 1 Cor. 16:2.\n\n\u201cAnd upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to\nbreak bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and\ncontinued his speech until midnight.\u201d Acts 20:7.\n\nDoubtless the reader is not a little surprised, provided he has never\ngiven his attention to the subject before, at discovering the\nmeagerness, so far as numbers at least are concerned, of the passages\nalluded to above. Nevertheless, let us take the data, thus furnished,\nand from them endeavor to derive all the information which they can\nlegitimately be made to afford. At first glance, it will be discovered\nthat six of the passages of Scripture under consideration relate to one\nand the same day, which was that of the resurrection. Written as they\nwere from five to sixty-two years this side of that occurrence, and\npenned by men who were profoundly interested in everything which was\ncalculated to throw light upon matters of duty and doctrine, we would\nnaturally expect that they would seize these most favorable\nopportunities for instructing those whom they were endeavoring to\nenlighten in regard to the time of, and circumstances connected with,\nthe change of the Sabbath. Let us observe, therefore, how they discharge\nthis most important responsibility. It will not be urged by any that\nJohn 20:1, and Mark 16:9, furnish anything which in any way strengthens\nthe Sunday argument. The statements which they contain are merely to the\neffect that Mary Magdalene was the one to whom Christ first presented\nhimself, and that she visited the tomb very early in the morning.\nNeither will it be insisted that the declaration found in Matt. 28:1,\nand Mark 16:1, 2, and Luke 23:56, and 24:1, afford any positive\ntestimony for the sanctity of the first day of the week. On the\ncontrary, we think that every candid person will concede that the\nbearing which they have upon the subject is rather against, than\nfavorable to, the case which our friends are so anxious to make out. To\nillustrate: In Matt. 28:1, we read that \u201cin the end of the Sabbath, as\nit began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene,\nand the other Mary, to see the sepulcher.\u201d Again, in Mark 16:1, 2, the\nsame general fact is stated, with the simple variation that, instead of\nthe expression, \u201cin the end of the Sabbath,\u201d are substituted the words,\n\u201cwhen the Sabbath was passed,\u201d while in Luke 23:56, and 24:1, it is\ndeclared that these things transpired on the first day of the week, the\ncontext carefully setting forth the fact that the women had \u201crested upon\nthe Sabbath, according to the commandment,\u201d and that it being past, they\ncame to the sepulcher, bringing with them the spices which they had\nprepared.\n\nNow, putting all these things together, what have we learned?\nManifestly, the following facts: First; when the events transpired which\nare set forth in these scriptures, there was a Sabbath; since it is\nstated, by way of locating them in point of time, that the Sabbath had\nended before the affairs spoken of were transacted. Secondly; that the\nSabbath, to which reference was made, was the seventh day of the week,\nsince it preceded the first, and was that of the commandment. Thirdly;\nthat, if the first day of the week was a Sabbath, as is now claimed, the\nwomen were ignorant of it, since it is clear that they did not go to the\ntomb on the seventh day to embalm the body, because of its being holy\ntime; whereas, upon the first day of the week their scruples were gone,\nand they came to the sepulcher, bearing their spices with them, to\naccomplish a work which they would not have regarded as legitimate on\nthe Sabbath. Fourthly; that the seventh day was not only the Sabbath at\nthe time mentioned, but also that, according to the convictions of the\nhistorians, it was the Sabbath at the time of their writing\u2014since they\napply to it the definite article \u201c_the_;\u201d whereas, if there had been a\nchange of Sabbaths, it would have been natural to distinguish between\nthem in the use of explanatory words and phrases, such as are now\napplied, as, for instance, \u201cthe Jewish Sabbath,\u201d \u201cthe Christian\nSabbath,\u201d &c., &c. Fifthly; that, while Matthew, Mark, and Luke do, in\nevery instance cited above, honor the seventh day of the week in the\nmost scrupulous manner, by applying to it the Bible title of the\nSabbath, they do, nevertheless, make mention of the day of the\nresurrection in each case, in the same connection, in the use of its\nsecular name, \u201cthe first day of the week.\u201d A slight which is utterly\ninexplicable, provided the latter had really put on a sacred character;\nsince, that being true, it was much more important that its new claims\nshould be recognized and inculcated by those who could speak with\nauthority, than it was that they should perpetuate the distinction of a\nday whose honors had become obsolete. Having now examined five of the\nsix texts under consideration, there remains but one more to occupy our\nattention. This reads as follows: \u201cThen the same day at evening, being\nthe first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples\nwere assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst,\nand saith unto them, Peace be unto you.\u201d John 20:19. Here, again, we are\nstruck with the manifest disposition on the part of John, in common with\nthe other evangelists, to avoid the application of any sacred title to\nthe first day of the week. Twice, in this chapter, he makes mention of\nthat which is now regarded as the \u201cQueen of days,\u201d but in both\ninstances, he avoids, as if with studied care, attaching to it any\ndenomination by which its superiority over other days should be\nindicated. How perfectly in keeping, for instance, it would have been\nwith the facts as they are now claimed to have existed\u2014as well as with\nthe interests and desires of millions who have since lived\u2014had he in the\ntext before us so varied the phraseology of the first clause that it\nwould read as follows: \u201cAnd the same day at evening, being the\n_Christian Sabbath_, when the disciples were assembled,\u201d &c. This,\nhowever, he did not do, and we inquire of the reader, right here,\nconcerning his _motive_ in omitting that which now appears to us so\ndesirable, and which would have been perfectly legitimate were the views\nof our friends correct. Did he intentionally omit an important fact? Was\nit left out because of an oversight on his part? Or, would it be safer\nto conclude that perhaps, after all, the difficulty lies, not with the\napostle, or with the Holy Spirit, which dictated his language, but with\nthe theory, which seems to be out of joint with his utterances?\n\nNevertheless, as it is still urged that, in the absence of a positive\ndeclaration, this, the only remaining text, does furnish abundant\nevidence of the sacred regard in which the day of the resurrection was\nheld\u2014since it gives an account of a religious meeting held upon it,\nmanifestly for the purpose of recognizing its heavenly character\u2014let us\nexamine more critically into the nature of the claims which are based\nupon its record. That those with whom we differ should be tenacious in\ntheir efforts to rest their cause very largely upon the account found in\nJohn 20:19, is not at all surprising. It is the only chance, as we have\nseen, which is left them of basing their argument upon a passage of\nScripture which relates to the day of the resurrection. So far as 1 Cor.\n16:2, and Acts 20:7, are concerned, it will not be disputed by any that\ntheir testimony is merely collateral evidence. If Sunday has become the\nSabbath, it was by virtue of transactions which occurred immediately in\nconnection with the rising of Christ. In other words, it was on the\nthird day after the crucifixion that Christ, if at all, began to impress\nupon the minds of his disciples the Sabbatic character which had already\nattached to, and was henceforth to continue in, the day which saw him a\nconqueror over death and the grave.\n\nNay, more; if the change occurred at all, it must have dated from the\nvery moment that the angel descended, the guard was stricken down, and\nthe Son of God, glorified, came forth. This being the case, from that\ntime forward it would naturally be the effort of Christ to produce in\nthe minds of his followers the conviction of this most momentous fact.\nEvery action of his would necessarily be\u2014if not directly for the purpose\nof imprinting the peculiar sacredness of the hours upon those by whom he\nwas surrounded\u2014at least of a character such as to impart no sanction\neither to a deliberate, or even an unintentional disregard, on the part\nof any, of their hallowed nature. Hence, our friends, seizing upon the\nfact that he met with them while assembled together in the after part of\nthe day, have endeavored to clothe the incident with great interest, and\nhave largely elaborated their arguments to show that this was not an\naccidental occurrence, but rather partook of the nature of a religious\nmeeting, Christ himself honoring these instinctive efforts on the part\nof the disciples to act in harmony with the spirit of the hour, by his\nown personal presence.\n\nBefore we sanction this view of the subject, however, let us give our\nattention for a moment to the manner in which the previous portion of\nthe day, then closing, had up to that point been spent. Certain it is,\nthat Jesus had not, during its declining hours, been suddenly moved by a\nnewly created impulse for the accomplishment of an object which had been\njust as desirable for twelve hours as it was at that moment. Sunday\nsanctity had already become a fixed fact, and its knowledge as essential\nto the well-being of the disciples in the morning, as at the evening. We\nnaturally conclude, therefore, that the very first opportunity for its\ndisclosure would have been the one which Christ would embrace. This was\nafforded in his conversation with Mary. But, while there is no evidence\nthat it was imparted, it is at least presumable that she was left\nentirely ignorant of it.\n\nThe second occasion was presented in that of the journey of the two\ndisciples from Jerusalem to Emmaus, a distance of seven and a half\nmiles. Jesus walked with them and talked with them by the way, reasoned\nwith them about the resurrection, made as though he would have gone\nfarther, discovered himself to them in the breaking of bread, and\ndisappeared, leaving them to retrace the seven and a half miles to the\ncity, with no word of caution against it on his part. Nay, more; his\nmarked approval of the propriety of the act might properly have been\ninferred from the fact that he himself accompanied them in the first\ninstance, in the garb of a wayfaring man; at the same time acting the\npart of one who was so far convinced of the rectitude of his own and of\ntheir action, that he was ready to continue his journey until night\nshould render it impracticable. (Luke 24:28.) Following these men now,\nas they retrace their steps to the city from which they had departed,\nand to which they were now returning\u2014manifestly all unconscious that\nthey were trespassing upon time which had been rescued from that which\nmight properly be devoted to secular pursuits\u2014let us observe them, as\nthey mingle once more with their former companions in grief. How does it\nhappen that they are congregated at this precise point of time? Is it\nbecause they have at last discovered the fact that it has been made in\nthe special sense a proper day for religious assemblies? If so, whence\nhave they derived their conviction? Certainly not from Mary, or the two\ndisciples just returning from Emmaus. Assuredly, also, not from Christ\nhimself.\n\nBut, again, is it not really from an induction on their own part, by\nwhich they have themselves discovered the fitness of making the day of\nresurrection also that of worship? Listen a moment. Hear their excited\nremarks as, at this juncture, they are joined by the two. Do you catch\nthese words, \u201cThe Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon\u201d?\n(Luke 24:34.) Does not this establish the fact of their confidence in\nthe previous report? Unfortunately, the historian adds, \u201cNeither\nbelieved they them.\u201d Here they are, then, manifestly still doubting the\nvery fact which some have thought they were convened to celebrate.\n\nBut, again, what is the _place_ of their convocation? Unquestionably,\nneither the temple nor the synagogue. The record states that where they\nwere assembled, \u201cthe doors were closed for fear of the Jews.\u201d Evidently,\nthey were in some place of retirement and comparative safety, hiding\naway from the fury of a people who, in their madness and cruel hate, had\ncrucified even the Lord of glory. We ask again, Where were they? Let\nMark explain. Certainly he is competent to the task. When describing the\nvery transaction we are considering, he says: \u201cAfterward he appeared to\nthe eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief\nand hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him\nafter he was risen.\u201d Mark 16:14. Here, then, is the clue to the whole\nmatter. It was not a religious meeting, because they were in a frame of\nmind to be censured, rather than applauded, because of unbelief. It was\nmerely the body of the apostles, gathered in their own quarters for the\npurpose of partaking of an evening meal, where they were in the habit of\neating, and drinking, and sleeping\u2014and where, at this time, they kept\nparticularly close, because of the perils which surrounded them on every\nhand. That this is true, is further sustained by two additional\nconsiderations.\n\nFirst; it was a place where Christ expected to find meat, and where he\nrequested such for his own use, and was supplied from their bounty with\nbroiled fish and an honeycomb, which, the record states, \u201che took and\ndid eat before them.\u201d (Luke 24:41-43.)\n\nSecondly; that they were in possession of just such a rendezvous, is\nclearly stated in John 20:10, where, speaking of Peter and John when\ngoing from the sepulcher, it says, \u201cThey went away unto their own home.\u201d\nA few days later, Luke declares (Acts 1:13,) that when they came in from\nthe ascension, they \u201cwent up into an upper room, where abode both Peter,\nand James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas; Bartholomew, and\nMatthew, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the\nbrother of James.\u201d\n\nThus, by a natural and easy combination of the facts brought to view by\nthe inspired penman, the whole matter has been reduced to a simple\ntransaction, such as might have been repeated many times during the\nforty days, and such as\u2014in and of itself\u2014fails to disclose any evidence\nthat the occurrences narrated, either necessarily or presumptively,\nafford the slightest justification for the supposition that Christ\nhimself either designed, or that the apostles might legitimately\nconclude that he intended, by joining them under these familiar\ncircumstances, to authorize one of the mightiest innovations upon the\npractice of ages which the world has ever seen.\n\n\n\n\n                               ARTICLE V.\n\n\nNor is this matter at all relieved by the statement found in John 20:26,\nthat after eight days, Thomas being present, he appeared unto them a\nsecond time under similar circumstances. For even should we grant that\nthis was on the next Sunday evening\u2014a matter in which there is, at\nleast, room for a difference of opinion\u2014the subject is merely\ncomplicated the more, so far as the view of our friends is concerned,\nsince here a second opportunity, and that a most excellent one, for\ncalling the attention of the disciples to the new character which a once\nsecular day had assumed, was entirely neglected. In this also, as in the\nfirst instance, the conversation was of a nature to show that the object\nof the interview was to give additional evidence (because of the\npresence of Thomas) of the re-animation of the body of Christ, without\nany reference to its effect upon the character of the day upon which it\noccurred. But such silence, under _such_ circumstances, in regard to so\nimportant a matter, is in itself conclusive evidence that the change\nclaimed had not really taken place. Furthermore, it will not be urged\nthat more than two out of the five first-days which occurred between the\nresurrection and the ascension were days of assembly. Had they been\u2014as\nit had been decided, according to the view of those urging the\ntransition, that the Sunday should not be hallowed by positive\ndeclaration, but simply inaugurated by quiet precedent, then the\npresumption is, that this precedent, instead of being left upon the\ninsufficient support of two Sabbaths out of five, would have been\ncarefully placed upon the whole number. Nor would the precaution have\nended here. In a matter vital in its nature, certain it is that the\nhonest seeker after truth would not be left to grope his way through a\nmetaphysical labyrinth of philosophic speculation in regard to the\neffect of certain transactions upon the character of the time upon which\nthey occurred; or the bearing of certain meetings of Christ and the\napostles upon the question as to whether Sunday had assumed a sacred\ncharacter, when at the same time his perplexity was rendered\ninsupportable by the fact, that the historian states, that like meetings\noccurred on days for which no one will claim any particular honor.\n\nTake, for instance, the meeting of Jesus with the apostles at the sea of\nGalilee (John 21), while they were engaged in a fishing excursion.\nAssuredly, this did not take place on Sunday; else, according to the\nview of our friends, they would not have been engaged in such an\nemployment. Just what day it was, no one is able to decide; but all\nagree that its character was in no way affected by the profoundly\ninteresting interview which occurred upon it between the Master and his\ndisciples. If it were, then there is at least one holy day in the week\nwhich we cannot place in the calendar, since no one can decide whether\nit was the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth.\n\nIf, however, you would have a still more forcible illustration of the\nfact that religious meetings, were they never so solemn, can in nowise\nalter the nature of the hours on which they occur, let me call your\nattention to the day of the ascension (Acts 1). Here is an occasion of\ntranscendent glory. If the statements in the sacred narrative of events,\nwhich transpired during its hours, could only be predicated of either\none or the other of the first-day meetings of Christ with his disciples,\nit would at least be with an increased show of reason that they could be\nwoven into the tissue of a Sabbatic argument. Here are found many of the\nelements essential to the idea of religions services, of which the\ninstances in question are so remarkably destitute.\n\nIn the first place, those who followed our Lord to the place of meeting\nwere intelligent believers in the fact of his resurrection.\n\nIn the second place, the assembly was not confined to a mere handful of\nindividuals, seeking for retiracy within an upper room where they were\nin the habit of eating, drinking, and sleeping; but it transpired in the\nopen air, where Jesus was in the habit of meeting with his followers.\n\nIn the third place, the congregation was made up of persons whom the\nHoly Spirit had thus brought together for the purpose of becoming the\nhonored witnesses of the resurrection and ascension of Christ.\n\nIn the fourth place, it was graced by the visible forms of holy angels\nin glistering white, who participated in the services.\n\nIn the fifth place, Jesus himself addressed them at length, lifted up\nhis hands to heaven, and brought down its benediction upon them, and in\nthe sight of the assembled multitude, steadily and majestically rising\nabove them, he floated upward, until a cloud received him out of their\nsight.\n\nIn the sixth place, it is said, in so many words, that the \u201c_people\nworshiped_ him there.\u201d\n\nNow, suppose, for the sake of the argument, that some modern sect should\nendeavor to transform our unpretending Thursday, which was really the\nday of the ascension, since it was the fortieth after the resurrection,\ninto one of peculiar dignity, claiming, in defense of their position,\nthe example of Christ, and urging that the course which he pursued could\nonly be satisfactorily explained on the ground that he was laying the\nfoundation for its future Sabbatic observance, how would our friends\nmeet them in such an emergency? Deny the facts, they could not, for the\nrecord is ample. There would, therefore, be but one alternative left.\n\nIf transactions of this character are of a nature such that they\n_necessarily_ exalt the days upon which they occur to the rank of holy\ndays, then Thursday is one, and should be treated as such. No line of\nargument, however ingenious, could evade this conclusion, so long as the\npremises in question were adhered to. Planting himself squarely upon\nthem, with the consent of modern Christendom, the advocate of the newly\ndiscovered holy day, finding the record perfectly free from\nembarrassments in the nature of transactions which would appear to be\nincompatible with the notion that everything which Christ and his\napostles did was in harmony with his view, if possessed of that skill\nand ability which has marked the efforts of some modern theologians in\nsuch discussions, could weave a web of inference and conjecture almost\ninterminable in its length.\n\nAll the facts connected with the meeting could be expanded, and turned\nover and over, and exhibited from innumerable stand-points, so as to\nyield the largest amount of evidence possible. Having dwelt at large\nupon everything which was said and done at Bethany, he might return with\nthe solemn procession to the great city. Having done this, he would not\nfail to call our attention to the fact that they did not conduct\nthemselves in a manner such as men might have been expected to do under\nthe circumstances on a common day, but that, on the contrary, impressed\nwith the sacredness of the hours which had witnessed the glorious\nascension of the Son of God, they immediately repaired to a place of\nassembly, manifestly for the purpose of continued worship. Again,\nscrutinizing with polemic eye every syllable of the history, in order to\nextract from it all the hidden testimony which it might contain, his\nattention would be arrested by these words, \u201cA Sabbath day\u2019s journey.\u201d\nImmediately, he inquires, Why employ such an expression as this\u2014one\nwhich occurs nowhere else in the sacred volume? Certainly it cannot be\nthe result of accident. The Holy Spirit must have designed to signify\n_something_ by such a use of the term in the connection under\nconsideration. A Sabbath day\u2019s journey! What importance could be\nattached to the fact that the particular point from which Christ\nascended was no more than a Sabbath day\u2019s journey from Jerusalem? The\nexpression is not sufficiently definite to designate the precise spot,\nand must, therefore, have been employed to express some other idea. What\nwas it? Undeniably, it was introduced into this connection because of\nthe _nature_ of the _time_ on which the journey occurred. It was a\n_Sabbath day_, and, as such, it was important that succeeding\ngenerations should not be left to infer from the account given, that it\nwas a matter of indifference to the Lord how far travel should be\ncarried on such an occasion; but, on the contrary, that he was jealous\non this point, and that the expression in question was employed to show\nthat the procession of Christ\u2019s followers, and Christ, himself, bowed\nreverently to the national regulation respecting the distance to which\nit was proper for one to depart from his home during the continuance of\nholy time.\n\nBut this line of argument, though plausible in itself, and superior in\nfact to that which is many times used to support the tottering fabric of\nfirst-day observance, would not, we fancy, persuade an intelligent\npublic to introduce a new Sabbath into their calendar. The verdict which\neven those with whom we differ would be compelled to render would be\nthat which both reason and piety would dictate; namely, that the fatal\ndefect in the logic was the want of a thus saith the Lord.\n\nPassing now from the first six of the eight texts which relate to the\nfirst day of the week, let us give to 1 Cor. 16:2, and Acts 20:7, a\nconsideration of sufficient length only to enable us to assign to them\nthe proper place which they should occupy in this controversy. While it\nwill be observed that they present the only mention of the first day of\nthe week after leaving the gospels, and while it is remembered that they\nare separated from the occurrences there narrated by the space of\ntwenty-six years, it is a remarkable fact that the first of them, if not\nin itself clearly against the conception of Sunday sanctity, at least,\naffords no strength for the argument in its favor. It reads as follows:\n\u201cUpon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in\nstore, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I\ncome.\u201d 1 Cor. 16:2.\n\nNow, bear in mind that the inference here is, that the gatherings spoken\nof were to be made in the assemblies of the Corinthians, the presumption\nfollowing that, as they must have been in the habit of convening on the\nfirst day of the week, the apostle took advantage of this fact in order\nto secure the desired collections for the saints at Jerusalem. You will\nobserve, consequently, that the postulate, or assumed point in the\ndiscussion, is that the Corinthians were at the church, or place of\nmeeting, when the \u201claying by,\u201d which was ordered above, took place. If,\ntherefore, this be not true, the whole logical superstructure which\nrests upon it necessarily falls to the ground.\n\nLet us inquire after the facts. Does the apostle say, Let every one of\nyou lay by himself at the church? or, does he command that his pro-rata\ndonation should be placed in the contribution box of the assembly? We\nanswer: There is not a word to this effect. Nor is this all; the very\nidea of the text is diametrically opposed to this notion. Before the\ncontrary can be shown to be true, it will be necessary to demonstrate\nthat which is absurd in itself; namely, the proposition that what an\nindividual has voluntarily placed beyond his own reach and control by\nputting it in a common fund, can, at the same time, be said to be \u201claid\nby him in store.\u201d\n\nFurthermore, Mr. J. W. Morton, a gentleman who has given the subject\nmature reflection and careful investigation, by a comparison of the\ndifferent versions and the original, has demonstrated the fact that, if\nproperly translated, the idea of the passage is simply that, for the\npurpose of uniformity of action, and to prevent confusion from secular\nmatters when the apostle himself should arrive, each person should lay\nby himself _at home_ the amount of his charities according to his\nability. We give the following from his pen: \u201cThe whole question turns\nupon the meaning of the expression, \u2018by him;\u2019 and I marvel greatly how\nyou can imagine that it means, \u2018in the collection box of the\ncongregation.\u2019 Greenfield, in his lexicon, translates the Greek term,\n\u2018by one\u2019s self; _i. e._, at home.\u2019 Two Latin versions\u2014the Vulgate, and\nthat of Castellio\u2014render it, \u2018_apud se_,\u2019 with one\u2019s self, at home.\nThree French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacy,\n\u2018_chez soi_,\u2019 at his own house, at home. The German of Luther, \u2018_bei\nsich selbst_,\u2019 by himself, at home. The Dutch, \u2018by hemselven;\u2019 same as\nGerman. The Italian of Diodati, \u2018_appressio di se_,\u2019 in his own\npresence, at home. The Spanish of Felipe Scio, \u2018_en su casa_,\u2019 in his\nown house. The Portuguese of Ferrara, \u2018_para isso_,\u2019 with himself. The\nSwedish, \u2018_n\u00e6r sig sielf_,\u2019 near himself. I know not how much this list\nof authorities might be swelled, for I have not examined one translation\nthat differs from those quoted above.\u201d\u2014_Vindication of the True\nSabbath_, p. 61.\n\nThe simple fact is, therefore, that while the text in question yields no\nproof that Sunday was then regarded as a day of convocation, it was one\nwhich might he encumbered with matters which would necessarily call\nattention to the pecuniary affairs of individual Christians, and so\navoid the necessity of their giving thought to such things when Paul\nhimself should arrive; thereby preventing delay on his part, and leaving\nthem free to devote their whole time to the consideration of religious\nthemes. Thus much for 1 Cor. 16:2.\n\n\n\n\n                              ARTICLE VI.\n\n\nAdvancing now to the remaining scripture, which is found in Acts 20:7,\nwe append its words as follows: \u201cAnd upon the first day of the week,\nwhen the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto\nthem, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until\nmidnight.\u201d By reading that which immediately follows the above, we shall\nlearn the following facts: First, that here is indeed a record of a\nreligious meeting upon the first day of the week (verse 7). Second, that\nit was held in that portion of the day when the darkness prevailed,\nsince it was necessary to employ many lights (verse 8). Third, that Paul\npreached unto them, and that, while he was speaking, Eutychus fell to\nthe ground; and Paul, having restored him to life, returned to his labor\n(verses 7-11). Fourth, that he broke bread, or administered the Lord\u2019s\nsupper (verse 11). Fifth, that he preached until break of day (verse\n11). Sixth, that Luke, and the other disciples, preceding him, sailed\nthe vessel to Assos (verse 13). Seventh, that Paul, having preached all\nnight, until the dawning of the day, crossed the country on foot,\nstepped aboard of the vessel, and went on his journey toward Jerusalem\n(verses 13, 14). Now let it be borne in mind, that Troas was a city on\nthe west coast of Asia, located at the base of a peninsula, on the\nopposite side of which lay the city of Assos; distant about nineteen and\na half miles in direct line from the former place. Let it also be\nremembered that the promontory in question, projecting as it did into\nthe sea for some miles, made it necessary for a vessel, passing from\nTroas to Assos, to traverse a much greater distance, and to consume more\ntime than one would be compelled to do in passing from one of these\npoints to the other by the overland route. This explains the reason why\nPaul, who was exceedingly anxious to spend all the time he could with\nthe brethren, consented to perform the journey on foot; thus being\nenabled to spend several additional hours with them, while Luke and his\nassociates were toiling to bring the boat around the headland to the\nplace of the apostle\u2019s final embarkation.\n\nReturning now to the consideration of the meeting in question, it\nbecomes important to know just when it was entered upon. Did it answer\nto what we would call a Sunday-evening meeting? If so, then Paul resumed\nhis journey on Monday morning. But, before we give an affirmative\nresponse to this question, would it not be well to inquire in relation\nto the system for computing time which ought to be followed in this\ncase? We moderns have generally adopted that of the Romans. With it,\nbeginning the day, as it does, at midnight, we would naturally answer\nthe interrogatory above in the affirmative. Should we do this, however,\nwe should unquestionably fall into a grievous error. The days of the\nBible commenced invariably with the setting of the sun.\n\nThat this is so, the following quotation from the American Tract\nSociety\u2019s Bible Dictionary is sufficient to demonstrate: \u201cThe civil day\nis that, the beginning and end of which are determined by the custom of\nany nation. The Hebrews began their day in the evening (Lev. 23:32); the\nBabylonians at sunrise, and we begin at midnight.\u201d Art. Day, p. 114.\n\nReasoning, therefore, upon this hypothesis, the bearing of the text is\nimmediately reversed. As the meeting was held in that portion of the\nfirst day of the week in which it was necessary that lamps should be\nlighted, it follows that it commenced with the setting of the sun on\nSaturday evening, and continued until daylight on what we call Sunday\nmorning. It is consequently clear that we have at last found one first\nday in the Scriptures, the first half of which was observed in a manner\ncompatible with the idea of its being regarded as a Sabbath. But, as a\nSabbath day is twenty-four, and not merely twelve, hours long, it is\nindispensable that those who seek to avail themselves of the record\nbefore us, should be able to establish the point that there is nothing\nin it which would go to show that the remaining portion of the day was\ndevoted to purposes, and employed in a manner, irreconcilable with the\nhypothesis of its sanctity. Can they do this? Let us see. Would it be\nlegitimate for believers at the present time to traverse on foot a\ndistance of nineteen and a half miles between the rising and the setting\nof the sun, on the first day of the week, in order to pursue a journey\ntoward a point of destination hundreds of miles in the distance? Would\nit be admissible for others, prosecuting the same journey, to weigh\nanchor and hoist sail in a friendly port, and coast along the shore for\na much greater distance?\n\nWho, among the friends of Sunday observance at the present time, would\nventure to answer these questions in the affirmative, without putting on\nthe record some qualifying or explanatory clause? We hazard the\nassertion that few of them, conscientious as we believe many of them\nare, would be willing, by such a response, to place themselves on the\ncategory of those who, to say the least, may have very lax views in\nregard to what may be done upon holy time. And yet this is precisely the\nsituation in which Luke has left Paul, himself, and his associates,\nbefore the generations of Christians who were to follow them.\n\nWe ask, therefore, again, Can it be true that the great apostle to the\nGentiles, standing as a representative man in the great work of\ntransferring the religious world from the observance of the seventh, to\nthat of the first, day of the week, and this not by positive precept,\nbut, as it is claimed, simply by precedent and example, should have\nallowed himself to throw that example, as in the case before us, against\nthe very work which he was seeking to accomplish? In other words, is not\nthe obvious import of the text such that the average reader, with no\nfavorite theory to make out, and a mind unbiased by the effect of\neducation and early training, would naturally come to the conclusion\nthat Paul and the disciples with him, and those from whom he parted at\nTroas, looked upon the day of that departure as but a common one?\n\nWe believe that if any other meaning can be drawn from the history\nbefore us, it will be reached through constraint, and not through the\neasy process of obvious reason. It is useless to talk about inability to\ncontrol the vessel, and the urgent necessity of occupying every hour in\norder to reach Jerusalem in time for the feast. So far as the first of\nthese points is concerned, if it were well taken, is it not to be\npresumed that, for the vindication of the course pursued, and for the\nbenefit of posterity, it would have found a place in the sacred record?\nAnd as to the matter of limited time, the question of twelve hours\nlonger or shorter, was immaterial in a journey of the length of the one\nunder consideration. Besides, upon following the account as given, we\nhave from Luke himself that, before they reached their destination, they\nstopped at Tyre for seven days (chap. 21:4), and at Cesarea, many days\n(chap. 21:10), and yet had ample time to accomplish their object in\nreaching Jerusalem before the feast.\n\nWe say again, therefore, that these considerations, in the absence of\nany allusions to them in the context, are simply gratuitous, or, at\nleast, are far-fetched. The narrative still remains. The great fact that\nPaul and his followers did travel upon the first day of the week is made\nconspicuous, and the only legitimate conclusion to be drawn therefrom is\nthat which alone harmonizes with the consistency of Paul\u2019s life and that\nof his brethren, as well as the wisdom and beneficence of the great God,\nnamely: That he did so because of his conviction that it was a day which\nmight properly be devoted to labor and travel. With this understanding,\nthe story is relieved of all embarrassment, and becomes a simple and\nhighly interesting account of a meeting convened on the first day of the\nweek, because of the approaching departure of a beloved brother and\napostle, and rendered also worthy of record by the miracle which was\nperformed upon Eutychus. But with such a decision, our labor is ended,\nand with it the whole theory in regard to the Sabbatic character of\nSunday is exploded; for, not only does the scripture which we have been\ninvestigating fail to yield the doctrine which it was supposed to\ncontain, but, on the contrary, it presents Paul as standing emphatically\nagainst it. This being true, it belongs to a faith which he never\nproclaimed, and which, consequently, was associated in his mind with\nthat which should not be received, though it were \u201cpreached by an angel\nfrom Heaven.\u201d\n\nNevertheless, that we may not appear to have overlooked the two\nremaining texts, which are generally quoted as affording additional\nproof of the distinguished regard in which the first day of the week was\nheld, we turn our attention for a moment to Acts 2:1, and Rev. 1:10.\n\nAs it regards the first of these scriptures, the claim is, that the\noutpouring of the Spirit occurred with reference to a divine disposition\nto honor the day of the resurrection. To this we reply, first, that if\nthis were so, it is a remarkable fact that there is nothing in the\nconnection to show it. The name of the day, even, is not so much as\nmentioned. The inspired annalist, were this supposition true, would most\nassuredly have given prominence to an idea which, it is claimed, was the\ngoverning one in the mind of the Spirit, in order to enable succeeding\ngenerations to extract from the facts narrated the true moral which they\nwere intended to convey. But mark his words. Is the declaration, \u201cWhen\nthe first day of the week was fully come\u201d? If so, we might say that this\nday was foremost in his own mind, and in that of the Spirit.\n\nBut such was not his language. On the contrary, his statement is, \u201cWhen\nthe day of Pentecost was fully come.\u201d Hence, it was the day of\nPentecost, or the great Jewish feast, which is here made to stand out\nconspicuously upon the sacred page. If, therefore, we are to decide that\nthe transaction in question was intended to hallow any particular\ntwenty-four hours, undeniably they were those within which the Pentecost\nfell. But those did not occur regularly upon the first day of the week,\nnor was the institution one of weekly recurrence. It was annual in its\nreturn, transpiring one year upon the first, and perhaps the next year\nupon the second, and so on, through every day of the week. To reason,\nconsequently, that, because it happened to take place at this time upon\nSunday, the fact is necessarily significant of a change in the character\nof the day, is altogether inconclusive.\n\nThat were a cheap logic indeed, which would argue that the Pentecost,\nwhich was mentioned expressly, and the return of which was waited for\nwith patience, was in no-wise affected, illustrated, or perpetuated, by\nthe outpouring of the Spirit upon it, whereas, a septenary division of\ntime\u2014not thought worthy of mention by its peculiar title\u2014was thenceforth\nrendered glorious. Stand together, however, they cannot; for, if it were\nthe Pentecost which was to be handed down in this way to those who\nshould come after, then it would, of necessity, be celebrated annually,\nand not each week; but, if it were the first day of the week which alone\nwas made the object of divine favor, then why wait until the arrival of\nthe great annual Sabbath at the end of the fifty days? Why was not some\nother first day taken\u2014say one of the six which had already occurred\nbetween the resurrection and that time\u2014in this manner avoiding the\npossibility of confusion as to which event was thus honored?\n\nShould it be replied that the Spirit could not be poured out until the\ngreat antitype of the fifty-day feast had been met in Heaven, we answer:\nThen it was _this_ event, and not the resurrection, which furnishes the\noccasion for the remarkable demonstrations which were manifested before\nthe people. We repeat again, therefore, that from whatever stand-point\nwe look at the text, it is the _Pentecost_, and not the first day of the\nweek, to which, if to anything, it attaches special importance. This is\nfurther demonstrated by the fact that it is to this hour a matter of\ngrave discussion between theologians whether the day of Pentecost, at\nthe time under consideration, did really fall upon the first day of the\nweek or upon some other. Leaving to them, therefore, the delicate and\narduous task of adjusting questions of this nature\u2014which are neither\nimportant in themselves, nor easy of decision\u2014we hasten to glance at\nRev. 1:10. It reads as follows: \u201cI was in the Spirit on the Lord\u2019s day,\nand heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet.\u201d\n\nHere is something which certainly has a bearing upon the subject. The\nlanguage employed is of thrilling interest. Says the apostle, \u201cI was in\nthe Spirit on the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d This being uttered about A. D. 95,\ndetermines the point that God has a day in this dispensation, and also\nproves that he has but one; since the language would be very indefinite\nwere there two or more days of such a nature. But by what system of\nreasoning is the conclusion reached that this must of necessity be the\nfirst day of the week? Assuredly, it can only be by inference. If it can\nfirst be proved that the day of the resurrection has, by divine\nauthority, been anywhere styled the \u201cLord\u2019s day,\u201d then the point is\nunquestionably gained. When those words were penned, more than sixty\nyears had passed since it is claimed that Sunday had been clothed with\ndivine honor. The whole canon of the New Testament, save the gospel of\nJohn, had been written within that time. Ample opportunity had been\nafforded for the work of placing upon record the sacred appellation\nwhich was to be given to that period of time, which, having been\nseparated from everything of a secular nature, had been elevated to the\ndignity of a holy rest. But had this ever occurred? The facts are\nbriefly these: The first day of the week, as we have seen, being\nmentioned eight times in the New Testament, is always spoken of as plain\nfirst day of the week; John himself, writing his gospel after the\nappearance of the Apocalypse, everywhere applies to it this unpretending\ntitle. Whenever the term Sabbath is used, on the other hand\u2014as we have\nseen that it is fifty-six times in the New Testament\u2014it is applied, with\none exception, to the Sabbath of the commandment, or the seventh day of\nthe week.\n\nIn view of these facts, take a common man, without bias or predilection,\none, if you please, who has never heard of the controversy in question,\nplace in his hands the Bible without note or comment, let him read the\nfollowing texts which confessedly refer to the seventh day of the week,\nand we think the verdict which he would render would be decidedly in\nfavor of the venerable Sabbath of the Lord; of which it is true, as it\nis of no other day, that he has again and again claimed it as his own.\nThe italics are our own. \u201cIf thou turn away thy foot from the _Sabbath_,\nfrom doing thy pleasure on _my holy day_; and call the Sabbath a\ndelight, the _holy of the Lord_, honorable; and shalt honor him, not\ndoing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine\nown words; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord.\u201d Isa. 58:13, 14.\n\n\u201cBut the seventh day is the _Sabbath of the Lord thy God_: in it thou\nshalt not do any work:\u201d \u201cfor in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,\nthe sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore\nthe Lord _blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it_.\u201d Ex. 20:10, 11.\n\n\u201cAnd he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for\nthe Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.\u201d Mark\n2:27, 28.\n\nIf such a decision be a just one, however, where are we in the matter\nunder examination? What has become of the modern Sabbath reform for\nwhich we have been seeking justification in the word of God? First, we\nsought to place it upon the commandment; this, we found to be out of the\nquestion. Second, we investigated the claim of an amended law; that, we\ndiscovered to be entirely without authority, and against even the\nconviction and practice of the very men who urged it. Third, we turn, as\na last resort, to the precedents of Bible history; these, we found, so\nfar as they affect the question at all, to be overwhelmingly against a\nmovement which, while it claims to be in the interest of the God of\nHeaven, is confronted by the following astounding facts: First, the day\nwhose observance it seeks to enforce by statute law is one, the keeping\nof which, God has never commanded. Second, Christ has never commanded\nit. Third, no inspired man has ever commanded it. Fourth, God himself\nnever rested upon it. Fifth, Christ never rested upon it. Sixth, there\nis no record that either prophets or apostles ever rested upon it.\nSeventh, it is one upon which God himself worked. Eighth, it is one\nwhich, during his lifetime, Christ always treated as a day of labor.\nNinth, it is one upon which, after his resurrection, he countenanced, by\nhis own personal example, travel upon the highway. Tenth, it is one upon\nwhich the two disciples, in going to and returning from Emmaus, traveled\na distance of fifteen miles. Eleventh, it was on that day that Paul\nwalked from Troas to Assos, a distance of nineteen and one-half miles.\nTwelfth, it was on that day that Luke and his associates passed from one\nto the other of these places by a longer route, working their vessel\nround the promontory.\n\nThat all these things could be true, and yet our friends be right in the\nsupposition that they are engaged in a work which commands the approval\nof Heaven, is too absurd to require further discussion. A movement\npushed forward in the face of these facts may succeed, so far as\npolitical success and legal enactment are concerned, but when the logic\nfor its Scriptural character is scrutinized as closely as it will be\nbefore it shall plant its banners upon the capitol of the nation, all\nconscientious convictions in regard to its heavenly birth will give\nplace to an inspiration, the source of whose strength will be found in\nthe superiority of party drill, and the overwhelming power of mere\nnumbers. Who shall say that the God of Heaven has not permitted it to\ncome to the surface for the very purpose of calling the attention of\nhonest men and women, as it only could be done by the debate which will\narise in controversy, to the scantiness of that Sunday wardrobe by\nwhich, as with it our friends attempt to clothe a favorite institution,\nwe are so forcibly reminded of the bed and covering spoken of by the\nprophet Isaiah: The first of which was \u201ctoo short to stretch one\u2019s self\nupon,\u201d and the last, \u201ctoo narrow to wrap one\u2019s self within?\u201d So sure as\ninvestigation is provoked upon this subject, so certain is it that,\nsooner or later, thinking men and women will discover\u2014as we have already\ndone in this article\u2014that there is indeed a crying demand for a Sabbath\nreform. Not one, however, which rests merely upon the power of\nCongressional enactment, and Presidential sanction, but one which shall\nfind its authority in the highest of all laws, and which shall have the\napproval of the King of kings and Lord of lords.\n\n\n\n\n                              ARTICLE VII.\n\n\nThe conflict is finally open. The spirit of inquiry has lifted itself in\nthe nation; and all eyes will be turned toward the Bible, as really the\nonly source from which can be derived authority for a Sabbath reform\nwhich shall be worthy of the name.\n\nCommencing with its opening pages, they will trace the Sabbatic\nnarrative until they have been able to verify the following summary of\nhistory and doctrine:\u2014\n\n1. The Sabbath, as the last day of the week, originated in Eden, and was\ngiven to Adam, as the federal head of the race, while he yet retained\nhis primal innocence. Proof: \u201cAnd on the seventh day God ended his work\nwhich he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work\nwhich he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it;\nbecause that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and\nmade.\u201d Gen. 2:2, 3.\n\n2. That, though the history of the period, stretching from the creation\nto the exodus, is extremely brief, it is manifest, even from that\nperiod, that the good of those ages had not lost sight of it; since the\nchildren of Israel were acquainted with its existence thirty days before\nreaching Mount Sinai. \u201cAnd He said unto them, This is that which the\nLord hath said, Tomorrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord;\nbake that which ye will bake to-day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and\nthat which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.\u201d\nEx. 16:23. \u201cSix days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which\nis the Sabbath, in it there shall be none.\u201d Ex. 16:26.\n\n3. That God, unwilling to commit the interest of so important an\ninstitution to the keeping of tradition, framed a command for its\nperpetuity, which he spoke with his own voice and wrote with his own\nfinger, placing it in the bosom of the great moral law of the ten\nprecepts: \u201cRemember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt\nthou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of\nthe Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son,\nnor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle,\nnor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made\nheaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the\nseventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed\nit.\u201d Ex. 20:8-11.\n\nThat this law has been brought over into our dispensation, and every jot\nand tittle of it is binding now, and will continue to be, so long as the\nworld stands. \u201cThink not that I am come to destroy the law or the\nprophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say\nunto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no\nwise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore,\nshall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he\nshall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall\ndo and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of\nHeaven.\u201d\u2014JESUS, Matt. 5:17-19. \u201cDo we then make void the law through\nfaith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.\u201d\u2014PAUL, Romans 3:31.\n\u201cWherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and\ngood.\u201d Romans 7:12. \u201cIf ye fulfill the royal law according to the\nscripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well; but if\nye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law\nas transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend\nin one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit\nadultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if\nthou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.\u201d\u2014JAMES, Jas.\n2:8-11. \u201cWhosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is\nthe transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take\naway our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth\nnot; whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.\u201d\u2014JOHN, 1\nJohn 3:4-6.\n\n5. That, agreeably to this view, Christ\u2014of whom it is said, \u201cThy law is\nwithin my heart\u201d\u2014was a habitual observer, during his lifetime, of the\nSabbath of the decalogue. \u201cAnd he came to Nazareth, where he had been\nbrought up; and, _as his custom was_, he went into the synagogue on the\nSabbath day, and stood up for to read.\u201d Luke 4:16. \u201cIf ye keep my\ncommandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father\u2019s\ncommandments, and abide in his love.\u201d John 15:10.\n\n6. That the women, whose religious conceptions had been formed under his\nteachings, carefully regarded it. \u201cAnd they returned, and prepared\nspices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day, according to the\ncommandment.\u201d Luke 23:56.\n\n7. The Lord instructed his disciples that it would exist at least forty\nyears after his death, since he taught them to pray continually that\ntheir flight, at the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred A. D. 70,\nmight not take place on that day. \u201cBut pray ye that your flight be not\nin the winter, neither on the Sabbath day.\u201d Matt. 24:20.\n\n8. That the great apostle to the Gentiles was in the habit of making it\na day of public teaching. \u201cAnd Paul, as his _manner was_, went in unto\nthem, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.\u201d\nActs 27:2. \u201cAnd he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and\npersuaded the Jews and the Greeks.\u201d Acts 18:4.\n\n9. That, in the year of our Lord 95, John still recognized its\nexistence. \u201cI was in the Spirit on the Lord\u2019s day, and heard behind me a\ngreat voice, as of a trumpet.\u201d Rev. 1:10.\n\n10. That God has never removed the blessing which he placed upon it in\nthe beginning, or annulled the sanctification by which it was at that\ntime set apart to a holy use.\n\n11. That, in perfect keeping with the above propositions, it is, equally\nin the New with the Old Testament, scores of times denominated the\nSabbath; and that, while God, and Christ, and prophets, and apostles,\nand inspired men, unite in applying to it this sacred title, they never,\nin any single instance, allow themselves to speak of any other day in\nthe week in the use of this peculiar appellation.\n\n12. That it is not only to continue during the present order of things,\nbut that, in the new earth, clothed in all the freshness and beauty of\nits Edenic glory, creation, more than ever before, will be the subject\nof devout gratitude, and weekly commemoration on the part of the\nimmortal and sinless beings who shall worship God therein forever. \u201cFor\nas the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make shall remain\nbefore me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And\nit shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one\nSabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the\nLord.\u201d Isa. 66:22, 23.\n\nPutting all these facts together\u2014connected, consistent, and unanswerable\nas they are\u2014men will discover that a great departure has taken place\nfrom the original practice of the church, and against the explicit\ncommand of God. Should they ask, as assuredly they will, when, and by\nwhom, it was inaugurated, it will not be a fruitless effort on their\npart to obtain needed information. God has made ample provision for the\ninstruction of those who would do his will, and for the condemnation of\nthose who refuse so to do. Referring to prophecies given centuries ago,\nmapping out beforehand the history of the world, they will find the\nprophet Daniel\u2014while describing the work of the \u201clittle horn,\u201d which\narose among the ten horns of the great and terrible beast, and which\nlittle horn nearly all Protestant commentators agree in applying to the\npapal church\u2014stating of it, by way of prediction, that it should \u201cwear\nout the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws,\u201d\nand that they should \u201cbe given into his hand until a time and times and\nthe dividing of time.\u201d (Dan. 7:25.) Consulting history, they will\ndiscover that, so far as the saints are concerned, these terrible words\nhave been so completely fulfilled that this power has actually put to\ndeath, in one way or other, at least fifty millions of the people of\nGod.\n\nAgain, perceiving, as they will readily, that the \u201claws,\u201d which this\npresumptuous power should blasphemously claim to be able to change, are\nthe laws of God, what will be their astonishment at learning, from the\nrepresentatives of this great oppressive system\u2014which alone has extended\nthrough a period sufficiently long to cover the \u201ctime, times and half a\ntime,\u201d or the 1260 years of Daniel\u2019s prophecy\u2014that it actually boasts\nthat it has done the very work in question. Nay, more; what limit can be\nput to their surprise when they find these men absolutely pointing with\nexultation to the practice of the Christian world in the observance of\nSunday, as an evidence of the ability of the Roman Catholic church to\nalter and amend the commands of God! That they do this, however, in the\nmost unequivocal terms, will be abundantly proved by the following\nquotations from their own publications:\u2014\n\n\u201c_Question._ Is it then Saturday we should sanctify, in order to obey\nthe ordinance of God? _Ans._ During the old law, Saturday was the day\nsanctified; but _the church_, instructed by Jesus Christ, and directed\nby the Spirit of God, has substituted Sunday for Saturday; so we now\nsanctify the first, not the seventh, day. Sunday means, and now is, the\nday of the Lord. _Ques._ Had the church power to make such a change?\n_Ans._ Certainly; since the Spirit of God is her guide, the change is\ninspired by the Holy Spirit.\u201d\u2014_Cath. Catechism of Christian Religion._\n\n\u201c_Ques._ How prove you that the church has power to command feasts and\nholy days? _Ans._ By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday,\nwhich Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict\nthemselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts\ncommanded by the same church.\n\n\u201c_Ques._ How prove you that? _Ans._ Because, by keeping Sunday, they\nacknowledge the church\u2019s power to ordain feasts, and to command them\nunder sin; and by not keeping the rest by her commanded, they again\ndeny, in fact, the same power.\u2014_Abridgment of Christian Doctrine._\n\n\u201cIt is worth its while to remember that this observance of the\nSabbath\u2014in which, after all, the only Protestant worship consists\u2014not\nonly has no foundation in the Bible, but it is in flagrant contradiction\nwith its letter, which commands rest on the Sabbath, which is Saturday.\nIt was the _Catholic church_ which, by the authority of Jesus Christ,\nhas transferred this rest to the Sunday in remembrance of the\nresurrection of our Lord. Thus the observance of Sunday by the\nProtestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the\nauthority of the church.\u201d\u2014_Plain Talk about Protestantism of To-day_, p.\n225.\n\nInstinctively anticipating some providential mode of escape from the\nterrible consequences of that great apostasy, out of which the religious\nworld has for centuries been endeavoring to work its way, conscientious\nmen and women will catch the notes of warning which for twenty-five\nyears have been sounding through the land, in these words: \u201cHere is the\npatience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God,\nand the faith of Jesus.\u201d Rev. 14:12.\n\nInquiring into the origin of the message which is thus being given to\nthe world, they will find that, for a quarter of a century, God has been\ncalling attention to the subject of his law and his Sabbath, and that a\ndenomination of earnest men and women, but little known as yet among the\nlearned and mighty of the land, have been devoting themselves with zeal\nand a spirit of self-sacrifice to the tremendous task of restoring God\u2019s\ndowntrodden Sabbath to the hearts and judgments of the people. They will\nfind, also, that these persons have not entered upon this labor because\nthey anticipated an easy and speedy victory; nor, indeed, because they\never believed that the great mass of mankind would so far shake off the\ntrammels of tradition and the fear of reproach as to be able to venture\nan unreserved surrender to the teachings of the Bible; but simply\nbecause they saw in it that which was at once the path of duty, and that\nof fulfilling prophecy.\n\nHaving accepted Dan. 7:25, in common with the religious world, as\napplying to the papacy, and learning, as the result of investigation,\nthat the days of the great persecution were to reach from the decree of\nJustinian (A. D. 538,) giving authority to the Bishop of Rome to become\nthe corrector of heretics, to A. D. 1798\u2014when the pope was carried into\ncaptivity, having received a wound with the sword agreeably to Rev.\n13:10\u2014these students of God\u2019s word at once perceived that the next thing\nin order would be the completion of the restitution, which had begun in\nthe taking away of his ability to put the saints to death, by a work\nequally called for in the inspired prediction; namely, that of rescuing\nfrom his hands the \u201ctimes and laws\u201d which he thought to change. Or, in\nother words, that the effort of the pope to remove the Sabbath of the\nLord from the seventh to the first day of the week should be made to\nappear in its true light; namely, as the work of a blasphemous power\nwhich had held the world in its grasp for centuries.\n\nBut, while they were clear in those convictions which led them in 1846,\nunder the title of Seventh-day Adventists, to claim that they were\nfulfilling the prophecy of Rev. 14:9-12, they discerned that the same\nfacts which brought them to this conclusion also compelled the\nconviction that theirs was to be the road of persecution: hardship, and\nprivation. They read in Rev. 12:17, in these words, \u201cThe dragon was\nwroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed,\nwhich keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus\nChrist,\u201d the history of the last generation of Christians; and saw that,\nin God\u2019s inscrutable providence, it was to be their fortune to be the\nobject of diabolic hate, because of the commandments of God and the\ntestimony of Jesus Christ, to which they cling with determined\nperseverance.\n\nOnce more: In studying the 11th to the 18th verses inclusive of the 13th\nchapter of the same book, they saw that\u2014if their view of the work which\nwas assigned them was correct\u2014that portion of the Scriptures was applied\nto the United States of America, and indicated that this country was to\nbe the theater of a mighty contest between those who \u201ckeep the\ncommandments of God and the faith of Jesus,\u201d and the government under\nwhich they live, from which they could only be delivered by the coming\nof Christ. This view they unhesitatingly proclaimed. For twenty years,\nthey have announced it as a part of their faith. When they first\ndeclared it to be such, they brought upon themselves ridicule and\ncontempt, for, humanly speaking, every probability was against them. The\ngovernment was ostensibly republican in form, and professedly tolerant\nto the very extreme, in all matters of religious opinion. The\nConstitution had even provided that \u201cCongress should make no law\nrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free\nexercise thereof.\u201d\n\nNevertheless, so firm were they in the conviction that they had the\nright application of the prophecy, that they unhesitatingly walked out\nupon their faith; and for a fifth of a century they have talked it, and\npublished it everywhere, notwithstanding the odium it has brought upon\nthem. Lest we might appear to be drawing upon our own imagination in a\nmatter of such importance, we append the following extracts from their\nworks. The words in parentheses are our own, and serve to explain that\nwhich a larger quotation from the context would make clear of itself:\n\n\u201cWhen the \u2018beast\u2019 (the papacy) had the dominion, all in authority must\nbe Catholics. The popular sentiment then was that none should hold\noffices in the government, except they professed the Catholic faith. The\npopular religion at that period was Catholicism. They legislated upon\nreligious subjects, and required all men to conform to the popular\ninstitutions and dogmas of the papacy, or suffer and die. The image must\nbe made in the United States, where Protestantism is the prevailing\nreligion. Image signifies _likeness_; therefore Protestantism and\nRepublicanism will _unite_; or, in other words, the making of laws will\ngo into the hands of Protestants, when all in authority will profess the\npopular sentiments of the day, and make laws binding certain religious\ninstitutions (_i. e._, Sunday observance, &c.), upon all, without\ndistinction.\u201d\u2014_Advent Review and Sabbath Herald_, Vol. 6, No. 6, 1854.\n\n\u201cIt seems to me, even to look at the subject in the light of reason,\nthat a conflict must in time come between commandment-keepers and the\nUnited States. This, of course, will lead those who find that they\ncannot sustain their Sunday institution by argument to resort to some\nother means.\u201d\u2014_Advent Review and Herald_, Vol. 10, No. 11, 1857.\n\n\u201cWhen all concur upon this question (Sunday-keeping), except a few who\nconscientiously observe the fourth commandment, how long before their\nconstancy would be attributed to obstinacy and bigotry? And how long\nbefore the sentence would go forth, as it did in the days of Pliny,\n\u2018that for this, if for nothing else, they deserved to be\npunished.\u2019\u201d\u2014_Review and Herald_, Vol. 19, No. 15.[1]\n\nHow changed the political sky to-day from what it was when these words\nbegan to be spoken! Now, thoughtful men are pondering whether, after\nall, these things may not be so. They see a powerful organization\nlooming up in the country, which appends to the call for their\nconventions the names of some of the most influential men in the land.\nThey hear them declaring in so many words, that what they are determined\nto do is to sweep away the constitutional barrier between them and a\ncoerced observance of Sunday, so that all may be compelled to regard it\nas sacred. What we want, say they, and what we are determined to have,\nis such an amendment of the Constitution, 1. That it shall recognize God\nand Christ; 2. That it shall enable us to secure the reading of the\nBible in the common schools; 3. That we may be enabled to enforce the\nbetter observance of the Christian Sabbath, _i. e._, Sunday.\n\nThese declarations, a few years since, would have appalled every lover\nof constitutional liberty. Every man and woman imbued with a proper\nsense of the genius of our institutions would have been struck with\nhorror at the very thought of pursuing the course in question. But a\nchange has come over the spirit of the land. Steadily, the advocates of\na day which has no authority in the word of God are drifting where all\nbefore them have done who have sought to maintain a human institution\nupon the claim of divine authority. It is idle for them to say at this\nstage of the proceedings that they propose to regard the rights of those\nwho have conscientious scruples on this subject. God has said that the\nmatter will culminate in oppression; nay, even though this were not so,\nreason itself would prove that this would be the case. Without\nquestioning the sincerity of the men who at the present make these\nstatements, we appeal to that very sincerity for the evidence that this\nmatter will end just where the Seventh-day Adventists have claimed that\nit would.\n\nThey have convinced themselves that they are called of God to a mighty\nwork. They believe that they have a noble mission. They are men of mind\nand nerve. But, when a few months shall have revealed the insufficiency\nof their logic, when Seventh-day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists\nshall have confronted them with a plain \u201cThus saith the Lord,\u201d against\ntheir favorite scheme, they would be more than human if\u2014refusing to\nyield to arguments which they cannot answer\u2014they should continue to look\nwith complacence upon the very men who, after all, will prove to be\ntheir most formidable antagonists in the great conflict. In fact, it\nwould be a denial of both nature and history to say that they would not\nat last come to regard them in the light of enemies of God, really more\nworthy of condemnation and coercion than those who were simply\nunbelievers in any Sabbath at all, and so incapable of standing before\nthe systematic effort which they have set in motion.[2]\n\nBut, candid reader, the facts are before you, and between us and these\nevents there will be ample time for calm reflection, and deliberate\ndecision. Where do you choose to stand in this final conflict between\nthe venerable Sabbath of the Lord and its modern papistic rival? Will\nyou keep the commandments of God, as uttered by his voice and written by\nhis finger? or will you henceforth pay intelligent homage to the man of\nsin, by the observance of a day which finds its authority alone in the\nmutilated form of the commandments, as they come from his hand? May God\nhelp you to make a wise choice.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  For further information upon this subject, the reader is referred to\n  \u201cThe Three Angels\u2019 Messages\u201d and the \u201cUnited States in Prophecy,\u201d\n  published at the _Review and Herald_ Office, Battle Creek, Mich.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  Persons desiring to investigate this question still further, by\n  addressing the author of these articles, will receive by mail, without\n  charge, a tract in which he has discussed at length a branch of this\n  subject merely alluded to in this communication.\n\n\n\n\n                          EXPLANATORY REMARKS.\n\n\nImmediately on the publication of the foregoing articles in the\n_Christian Statesman_, the editor of that paper announced his purpose to\nreview them in the columns of that periodical. This purpose he\nsubsequently carried out in the publication of eleven communications, in\nwhich various strictures were offered upon the positions taken by me in\nmy original contributions. I immediately requested the privilege of\nreplying to these criticisms in the columns of the _Statesman_, so that\nthose who had read my argument in the beginning, and the replies of the\neditor of the _Statesman_ thereto, might have an opportunity to see the\nrelative strength of the positions occupied by that gentleman and myself\ntested in fair and open debate. My petition, however, was denied, and I\nwas compelled either to remain silent or seek elsewhere for an\nopportunity to make my defense. Fortunately, at this juncture, the\ncolumns of the _Advent Review_, which is the organ of the Seventh-day\nAdventists, were freely offered me for the purpose in question, and in\nthem the Replies of the editor of the _Statesman_, and my Rejoinders\nthereto, have since been published. To these Replies and Rejoinders, as\nthey appeared therein, the remainder of the present volume is devoted.\nTo them, the reader is earnestly invited to give his most serious\nattention, since they present, side by side, the lines of argument\nusually employed for and against the Sabbath of the Lord.\n\nW. H. L.\n\n\n\n\n                        REPLIES AND REJOINDERS.\n\n\n\n\n            Reply of the Editor of the Christian Statesman.\n                              ARTICLE ONE.\n         SEVENTH-DAY SABBATARIANS AND THE CHRISTIAN AMENDMENT.\n\n\nWe have given not a little space to the argument against the Christian\nAmendment of our National Constitution from the stand-point of the\nadvocates of the seventh-day Sabbath. This argument, in brief, is this:\nThe proposed amendment, in its practical working, is intended to secure\nthe better observance of the first day of the week, as the civil\nSabbath. But the Bible, the revealed law of God, it is affirmed,\ncontains no warrant either for individual or national observance of the\nfirst day of the week. The amendment, therefore, it is maintained,\nshould not be favored, but earnestly opposed, by those who acknowledge\nthe supreme authority of the law of the Bible.\n\nThis, it will be seen at a glance, is no argument against the principle\nof the proposed amendment. On the other hand, it bases itself on that\nvery principle, viz., that it is the bounden duty of the nation to\nacknowledge the authority of God, and take his revealed word as the\nsupreme rule of its conduct. The argument, therefore, instead of being\ndirected against the amendment itself, is directed almost entirely\nagainst that interpretation of the divine law of the Scriptures which\nfixes the Christian Sabbath on the first day of the week. We consented\nto admit to our columns a short series of brief articles presenting an\nargument against the amendment. Pressing the lines of courtesy and\nfairness far beyond the limits of our agreement, we have, in fact,\nadmitted many long articles, the burden of which has been to show that\nthere is no warrant in the word of God for the observance of the first\nday of the week as the Sabbath of divine appointment. We shall expect\nequal generosity from the journals of our seventh-day Sabbatarian\nfriends.\n\nThe amendment proposed is in substance as follows: An acknowledgment of\nGod as the ultimate source of all power and authority in civil\ngovernment; of Jesus Christ as ruler of nations; and of the Bible as the\nfountain of law, and the supreme rule of national conduct. Let this be\ndistinctly borne in mind. We have here a clear assertion of the very\nprinciples for which the seventh-day Sabbatarian most strenuously\ncontends.\n\nJust here, we would take occasion to say that even if the proposed\namendment contained an express acknowledgment, in so many words, of the\nfirst-day Sabbath, and if the argument for the seventh-day Sabbath were\na perfect demonstration, there would still be, on that account, as\nmatters actually stand in our land at present, no valid objection\nagainst such explicit Constitutional acknowledgment of the first day.\n\nSuppose a company of the advocates of the seventh-day Sabbath, going\nforth as missionaries, should discover, in a distant sea, an island\ninhabited by a people in many respects highly civilized, possessing a\nportion of the Bible, and observing one day in seven, say the fourth day\nof the week, as a day of rest and worship of the true God, and\nacknowledging it as such in their Constitution of government. Suppose\nthat in the same island should be found a large and active minority,\nthoroughly infidel and atheistic, striving in every way to overturn the\nSabbath. The missionaries, perceiving much room and opportunity for\ndoing good to the people, settle among them, and seek, among many\nthings, to change the Sabbath to what they regard as the proper day. In\nwhat way would they attempt to accomplish this? Would they permit\nthemselves for a moment to be classed with the infidel and atheistic\nopponents of the Sabbath? Would they not stand side by side with those\nwho defended the Sabbath observances of the country against the attacks\nof immoral and unbelieving enemies of all Christian institutions?\n\nIf these missionaries were advocates of the first-day Sabbath, and we\nwere of the number, for our part, this is what we would do: We would\npractice for ourselves the observance of what we are persuaded is the\nChristian Sabbath. We would multiply and scatter abroad copies of the\nentire Bible, and seek to convince the people and the nation that God\u2019s\nlaw requires the observance of the first day. In the meantime, confident\nthat, by the blessing of the Head of the church, the circulation of the\ndivine word and the proclamation of its truths would at length change\nthe conviction of the islanders, we should say to them: \u201cDo not cease to\nobserve a day of rest and worship. To have one such a day in every seven\nis right. Do not blot out its acknowledgment from the Constitution. You\nneed its legal safe-guards. True, there is no divine warrant for the\nobservance of the fourth day of the week instead of the first. But a\nfourth-day Sabbath is better than no Sabbath at all. We will help you to\npreserve from the assaults of our common enemies the observances of the\nSabbath, that you may have them to transfer, as we urge you to do, to\nthe first day of the week.\u201d Would the advocates of the seventh-day\nSabbath do otherwise, except in substituting the seventh day for the\nfirst? And now let us take the actual, corresponding case in our own\nland. The great mass of Christians here, as elsewhere, regard the first\nday of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord. Admit, for the sake of the\nillustration, that they have no better ground for their opinion than the\nislanders mentioned above. Is it not right for them to have a day of\nrest and worship? Is it not right for them to observe one such a day in\nseven? Is it maintained that, because the day is not the proper one,\nthere is and can be nothing right about these Sabbath observances? Then,\nif all is wrong, it must be better to have no Sabbath at all, and\nutterly secularize the week. This, our seventh-day friends cannot and\nwill not admit. They gladly testify that our first-day Sabbath, poorly\nas it may be observed, is infinitely to be preferred to the unbroken\ncurrent of the worldliness of the week. A Sabbathless week; successive\nrounds of equally secularized days, marked, if marked at all, by the\nrecurrence of unusual worldly gayety and dissipation; this is what\ninfidelity and atheism would give us for the existing Sabbath. Do the\nfriends of the seventh-day Sabbath desire any such substitution? Their\nargument against the proposed amendment on the ground that it expressly\nor impliedly contains an acknowledgment of the first-day Sabbath, is,\nthat it will enforce existing Sabbath laws, and strengthen first-day\nSabbath observances. But is it not better to do this than accept the\ndread alternative? Even from this point of view, then, we claim for the\nproposed amendment, what in some cases it has actually, and, we believe,\nmost consistently, received, the approval and support of seventh-day\nSabbatarians.\n\nBut we return to the form of the proposed amendment. It expresses, as it\nshould, only the most fundamental principles. It asserts the duty of the\nnation to acknowledge God in Christian relations. It recognizes the\nBible as the fountain of the nation\u2019s laws, and the supreme rule of its\nconduct. Now, if we were among either the first-day or the seventh-day\nmissionaries, in the case of the islanders already referred to, such a\nnational acknowledgment of the authority of the Bible is just exactly\nwhat we would desire. If the islanders had this principle, as has been\nsupposed, incorporated into their written Constitution, we could ask for\nnothing more advantageous for our missionary work. If they had it not,\nand certain citizens were laboring to secure its insertion by an\namendment of the instrument, we would most assuredly accord these\nlaborers our heartiest encouragement and support. We should suspect\nourselves of prejudice, or rather of a deficiency in good common sense,\nif we found ourselves inclined to pursue an opposite course. Believing\nthat God\u2019s law requires the observance of another day than the fourth,\nhow could we reasonably do anything else than co-operate and rejoice in\nthe work of leading such a people to acknowledge the supreme authority\nof that law, and to register their purpose in the fundamental instrument\nof their government, to adjust all national affairs according to its\nrequirements?\n\nAnd now, what can be said of our seventh-day Sabbatarian brethren? Are\nthey not inconsistent? They proclaim the duty of the nation to\nacknowledge \u201cthe highest of all laws.\u201d So far, we are agreed. They\nmaintain that the Bible is that law. Here, too, we are at one. And yet\nthey\u2014not all of them, we are happy to state\u2014oppose a movement which aims\nto secure in the organic law and life of the nation a sincere, reverent,\nand obedient acknowledgment of the authority of the Bible\u2014an\nacknowledgment which forecloses discussion on no question on which\nChristians or others may differ, but which brings the final appeal in\nall national controversies to the tribunal of the unerring word of God.\n\nThe inconsistency of this attitude of opposition to the Christian\nAmendment cannot but create unfavorable presumptions in regard to the\nsoundness of judgment of any who may occupy it. An attack from so weak a\npoint, upon the Constitutional acknowledgment of the Christian\nScriptures, it will be generally felt, does not betoken a very\nformidable assault upon the Sabbath of the Christian church. And yet,\nnotwithstanding this, to our mind, exceedingly unfortunate connection,\nwe would bear cheerful testimony to the fact that the articles we have\ninserted, so far as they are an argument against the first-day Sabbath,\nand this is manifestly the point which the writer had principally in\nview, contain a clear, calm, courteous, and attractively written\npresentation of one side of a very important subject. We shall present\nthe other side of the question in succeeding issues of this journal.\n\n\n\n\n                    REJOINDER, BY W. H. LITTLEJOHN.\n        \u201cSEVENTH-DAY SABBATARIANS AND THE CHRISTIAN AMENDMENT.\u201d\n\n\nWe have debated for some time in our own mind the propriety of\nattempting an answer to the strictures, if such they may be called, upon\nour articles on the Constitutional Amendment. Having decided, however,\nthat they contain a show of logic which might deceive the careless\nreader, we have at last determined to give them a notice commensurate\nwith the importance they assume, if not from their intrinsic merit, at\nleast from the distinguished source whence they emanate.\n\nBefore doing this, we take pleasure in acknowledging the generosity of\ntheir author in allowing us to discuss in the columns of his paper the\nsubject from a stand-point of a nature calculated to dampen rather than\nstimulate the ardor of his readers in the work in which, with him, they\nare engaged. From the outset, we have discovered no disposition to take\nany advantage by which the full effect of what we had to say might in\nany way be lessened. On the contrary, attention has several times been\ncalled to our communications, as being worthy of perusal by all.\n\nHaving said thus much in reference to the treatment we received at the\nhands of the editor of the _Statesman_ up to the time of the completion\nof the publication of our articles, we shall be pardoned for expressing\nour surprise at finding ourselves, in his first reply, standing somewhat\nin the attitude of one who had taken advantage of indulgence shown him\nto present a line of argument different from that proposed at the\nbeginning.\n\nIt is possible that we have mistaken the design of the statements to\nwhich we allude. This we hope may prove to be the case; for, so far as\nwe are concerned, individually, we have covered the precise ground which\nwe designed to at the first. If the editor of the _Statesman_ has found\nhimself disappointed, either in the nature or the length of the\nargument, he is to blame, and not we.\n\n1. Because, so far as the matter of length is concerned, we stated to\nhim that we should leave that entirely \u201cwith his magnanimity, convinced\nthat he would not cut us short in our work so long as what we had to say\nwas pointed, gentlemanly, and of such a nature as to bear forcibly upon\nthe question at issue between us.\u201d\n\n2. As it regards the scope of the articles, we stated, unqualifiedly,\nthat we should treat the subject from the stand-point of an observer of\nthe seventh day, appealing to the Bible for our authority. Nor were we\ncontent with declaring our plan of opposition by _letter_, but we went\nso far as to give, in the caption of our articles themselves, an outline\nof the order in which we should treat the subject. It was as follows:\n\u201cThe Constitutional Amendment; _or_, the Sunday, the Sabbath, the\nChange, and the Restitution.\u201d In it, as will be observed, is exactly set\nforth the manner in which we discussed the propriety of the amendment;\n(1) Showing the emptiness of the claims of the Sunday. (2) The force and\nobligation of those of the seventh day. (3) The manner in which the\nchange of days occurred, and (4) The work which God has inaugurated for\nthe purpose of bringing about the Restitution.\n\nThus much by way of personal acknowledgment and explanation.\n\nWe turn now to the criticism proper upon our argument.\n\nFirst, there is an attempt to state the positions which we assumed to\nprove.\n\nIn reply, it is sufficient to say that it is deficient in one very\nimportant particular. That particular relates to our proposition that\nGod himself has inaugurated a movement _entirely outside of, and opposed\nto_, the Constitutional Amendment party, for the purpose of bringing\nabout a Sabbath reform in his own way. For proof of this, we appeal to\nour last article in full. It is, to say the least, not a little\nremarkable that the editor of the _Statesman_ should have overlooked\nthis point in our communications, since a perception of it would have\nsaved him the perpetration of the great mistake which he has made, as we\nshall see hereafter.\n\nSecondly, It is intimated that the proposed amendment is not necessarily\nconnected with the Sabbath question; and that, therefore, observers of\nthe seventh day should unite with those of the first in securing its\npassage, which, being done, the differences between them could be\nsettled at leisure.\n\nNow we confess to not a little surprise that such a position should be\ntaken by a gentleman of so much candor and penetration as the editor of\nthe _Statesman_. Have we then been deceived up to this point? Is it true\nthat Sunday observance has not heretofore been represented as something\nof vital importance to the nation, to be secured, and only secured, by\nthe alteration of the Constitution as proposed? Have these gentlemen not\nbeen really in earnest when they have appealed to the strong love of the\npeople for the strict observance of what they have been pleased to call\nthe Sabbath, in their endeavors to arouse them to the significance of\ntheir movement? If they have not, then they are unworthy of public\nconfidence, and should henceforth be cast down from the leadership of a\ngreat party, which boasts, not only its morality, but also its\nChristianity.\n\nLet us see, then, whether the amendment, which is now in their hands,\nis, or is not, by their own confession, to be employed in the interest\nof Sunday observance.\n\nThat the _Christian Statesman_ is a fair exponent of the opinions and\nintentions of the leading spirits in the movement for the amendment, we\nthink no one will have the hardihood to deny. What it advocates and\nfavors, then, is destined to stand or fall with the triumph or defeat of\nthe men who speak through it. Turning to the prospectus of the identical\ncopy of the _Statesman_ which contains the criticism which we are\nreviewing, we find the following statement: \u201cThe design of this paper,\nas its name suggests, is the discussion of the principles of civil\ngovernment in the light of Christianity. It has been established to\nadvocate the proposed Religious Amendment to the Constitution of the\nUnited States. At the same time, it will aid in maintaining all existing\nChristian features in our civil institutions, in particular, laws\nagainst the desecration of the Christian Sabbath,\u201d &c.\n\nWe might pause here, but, in a matter of this importance, let us make\ncertainty doubly certain.\n\nIt was _strange_ that the writer should have made the assertion which he\ndid, with the prospectus from which we have quoted before him. It is\n_passing strange_ that\u2014as if guided by a Providence which had doomed him\nto make a complete exposure of his real sentiments, although in so doing\nhis own consistency should be involved\u2014he should, within two weeks from\nthe penning of the above assertion, go back upon the files of his\nperiodical for two years, and reprint, by way of _emphasis_, according\nto his own statement, the following editorial, which forever settles the\npoint that he believes and knows that the amendment and Sunday-keeping\nare destined to be joined together in a common victory. As the reader\nperuses this editorial, let him bear in mind the fact that it is not the\neffusion of an excited and exasperated man, but the expression of a deep\nand settled conviction which has once found utterance, and which so\nperfectly expresses the real sentiments of its author that, after years\nof deliberate reflection, he felt the truth of what he had said so\nforcibly that he was constrained to give it fresh utterance. Let him\nalso note the fact that the italics are not our own, but those of the\neditor. We regret that we have not space to give it in full, and invite\nthose who can do so, by all means to turn to the copy of the _Statesman_\nwhich contains it, and read it for themselves.\n\n\u201cTime for the meeting of Congress, ... Two years ago we printed the\nfollowing telegram, dated at Washington, on Sabbath, Dec. 4, and\ncommented on it in the following terms, which we now emphatically\nrepeat: \u2018The trains yesterday and _to-day_ brought large accessions to\nthe number of Congressmen and visitors already here, and _by to-morrow\nmorning_ it is expected that nearly every Senator and member will have\narrived.\u2019 Thus the fact is heralded over the whole country that a large\nnumber of the members of the National Congress openly and wantonly\nindulge in common travel on the Sabbath.... And there are other\nreflections suggested by their conduct.\n\n\u201c1. _Not one of those men who thus violated the Sabbath is fit to hold\nany official position in a Christian nation...._ The interests of a\nnation can never be safe in the hands of Sabbath-breakers, and every one\nof these Congressmen has done that for which, if our laws were right, he\nought to be impeached and removed.\n\n\u201c2. _The sin of these Congressmen is a national sin_, because the nation\nhas not said to them in the Constitution, the supreme rule for our\npublic servants, \u2018We charge you to serve us in accordance with the\nhigher law of God.\u2019 These Sabbath-breaking railroads, moreover, are\ncorporations created by the State, and amenable to it. The State is\nresponsible to God for the conduct of these creatures which it calls\ninto being. It is bound, therefore, to restrain them from this, as from\nother crimes; and any violation of the Sabbath, by any corporation,\nshould work immediate forfeiture of its charter. And the Constitution of\nthe United States, with which all State legislation is required to be in\nharmony, should be of such character as to prevent any State from\ntolerating such infractions of fundamental moral law.\n\n\u201c3. Give us in the National Constitution the simple acknowledgment of\nthe law of God as the supreme law of nations, _and all the results\nindicated in this note will ultimately be secured_. Let no one say that\nthe movement does not contemplate sufficiently practical\nends.\u201d\u2014_Christian Statesman_, Vol. 6, No. 15.\n\nNow let it be borne in mind that the question at issue is one of\n_practical bearing_, and not of mere technical distinction. We are not\nsplitting hairs as to what _consistency would demand_ under certain\ncircumstances; but the matter in dispute is, Is it not in the highest\ndegree probable that a party, represented by men who express,\nbeforehand, sentiments like those contained in the above editorial,\nwould, when having vaulted into the seat of power, attempt the coercion\nof all into a strict observance of the Sunday? Is not the line of\nargument employed above that which would _compel them to this action_,\nsince it is there insisted that God holds the nation and the State\nresponsible for any dereliction in duty in this direction? Furthermore,\nis it not _promised_, in so many words, that if the amendment is\ncarried, the end desired shall be secured by statutes so relentless that\nall offending corporations shall have their charters taken away, and by\na public opinion so uncompromising that no man who presumes to violate\nthe Sabbath law shall be thought worthy of any position of trust?\n\nThirdly, Waiving, for the time being, the point that the Sunday and the\namendment stand together, it is urged that, though they do, this should\nnot prevent seventh-day observers from supporting the latter, since it\nis better to submit to Sunday laws than to have the nation pass into the\nhands of atheists.\n\nBefore debating this proposition at length, it will be well to bear in\nmind that what I have said in the _Statesman_, as well as what I now\nsay, is spoken simply with reference to one occupying the position of a\nSeventh-day Adventist.\n\nSo far as our Seventh-day Baptist friends are concerned, we have no\ndisposition to hold them responsible for the views which we, as\nAdventists, hold. But so far as it regards our relation to this subject,\nit is materially affected by these considerations. A failure to discern\nthis has led the gentleman into very absurd positions. When he attempts\nto make a _Seventh-day Adventist conscience_, he must form it upon a\n_Seventh-day Adventist model_. Before he can do this, all his bright\nvisions of a temporal millennium and good days to come, must vanish into\nthin air. To say, as he does, that common sense would teach him to\npursue a certain line of conduct, is one thing; to say that, did he\noccupy the position which we hold, common sense would teach him to do\nthe same thing, is another, and entirely different, thing. Let it be\nborne in mind, therefore, that we are not now discussing the proposition\nwhether we _ought to be Seventh-day Adventists_, but, taking the ground\nwhich he has _chosen_, whether, _as Adventists_, we ought to support the\nproposed amendment. This being done, we are ready to inquire, What is\nthe peculiar faith of the people in question?\n\nWe answer, 1. They believe that Jesus Christ is about to come in the\nclouds of heaven. 2. That they represent a body of believers which the\nLord is raising up in order that they may lift the standard of his\ndowntrodden law and Sabbath, as one around which those who will be ready\nto hail him at his appearing, though few in numbers, will ultimately be\ngathered. 3. That, in the light of prophecy, those who thus break away\nfrom the errors of the papacy are in danger of persecution, not from\ninfidels and atheists, bad as they may be, but from those who, in the\nguise of religion, shall, without warrant from God, endeavor to enforce\nby statute law the observance of a day which finds no authority in the\nword of God, but has for its support simply the _dictum_ of the man of\nsin. 4. That the very body of men whose appearance in this country they\nhave for twenty years so confidently predicted, as being the ones who\nshould do the work in question, have actually appeared, and are\ninaugurating the campaign which is very soon to be waged with\nunrelenting fury against those who keep the commandments of God and the\nfaith of Jesus.\n\nAll these features of their faith were shadowed forth in our\ncommunications in the _Statesman_.\n\nWith this understanding, how utterly empty and infelicitous is the logic\nof our friend. Take, for example, his chosen illustration of the\nislanders. There is in it hardly a single point _appropos_ to the case\nin hand.\n\n1. The island to which the missionaries are supposed to go is one in\nwhich, according to his statement, the fourth-day Sabbath is already\nacknowledged as such in their Constitution of government, and therefore\ncarries with it the sanction and authority of statute law; whereas, with\nus there is no such Constitutional acknowledgment.\n\n2. In the case of the islanders, their mistake in the selection of the\nday is evidently attributed wholly to ignorance, since they were in\npossession of only a _part_ of the Bible, and their remedy was to be\nfound in furnishing them with copies of the complete work; but our\nopponents, on the contrary, are in possession, and have been from\nchildhood, of the Scriptures in full. Nor can the ministry, who are\nleading the movement in question, plead ignorance of the line of\nargument by which the seventh-day Sabbath is supported, since, for at\nleast two hundred years, it has been iterated and reiterated, until\ntheir familiarity with it and their complete rejection of it is proved,\nnot only by what they say, but also by what they do. Instance the fining\nand imprisonment, at sundry times, even in this country, of men who,\nhaving conscientiously observed the seventh day, have attempted to enjoy\nthe privilege which God has given them, both by precept and example, of\nworking on the first day of the week.\n\n3. In the case cited, the infidel minority is supposed to be on the\npoint of mounting the throne of power, and of sweeping away every\nvestige of the Sabbath institution; whereas, in our case, as seen above,\nthe danger which threatens the people of God in these last days, is not\nto be apprehended alone from those who scoff at God and the Bible, but\nfrom those who, according to Paul, having \u201ca form of godliness,\u201d shall\n\u201cdeny the power thereof.\u201d In other words, who, while accepting the\nScriptures, if you please, shall disregard their explicit statements, as\nin the case of the commandments, substituting in the place of the\nseventh day, which God has styled his Sabbath, the first, which he has\nnever claimed as his own, nor enjoined on any man.\n\nWith this statement of our views, further remark is uncalled for. We\nthink that even our reviewer will now perceive that, before he could\nbring us to accept as logical the proposition numbered three, above, it\nwould be necessary for him to overturn the very foundations of the\nsystem of truth which we now hold. This, however, we fancy is a task\nwhich our opponent judging from the line of argument which he has thus\nfar pursued, would not undertake with much prospect of success, until he\nhas become more thoroughly conversant with the scope and nature of the\nwork in which we are engaged.\n\nFourthly. It is suggested that we are in danger of being classed with\ninfidels and atheists.\n\nSo far as this peril is concerned, we simply remark that it is generally\nfound to be best in the long run to do right for the sake of right,\nregardless of what men may say concerning you, leaving the result with\nGod. The individual who would desert sound principles because some\nwicked man or set of men might, for the time being, be confounded with\nhim, is destitute of true morality. Besides, in the matter in question,\nwho is it from whom Seventh-day Adventists need apprehend that such an\nerroneous impression will receive publicity? We trust not from our\nfriend, because, in the article in question, he frankly acknowledges\ntheir devotion to the Bible in its strict construction.\n\nIs it, then, from the infidels themselves? Well, if it should be, we\nthink we can undeceive them. I will tell you what we will do. Whenever\nthey attempt to \u201cfawn upon us overmuch,\u201d we will preach to them the _law\nof God, Sabbath and all_, and my word for it, they will themselves\nshortly draw a line of demarkation between them and us, so broad and\ndistinct that all who are not willfully blind will have no difficulty in\ndiscerning it; for it is a remarkable fact that it is as true now as it\nformerly was, that the \u201ccarnal mind is not subject to the law of God,\nneither indeed can be.\u201d The infidel of the present day hates that law\nwith a hatred, the intensity of which is only equalled by that of the\nlarge body of first-day observers\u2014we are happy to say not of the\n_Statesman_ school\u2014who have abolished the ten commandments in order to\ndispose of one of them, and whose special delight seems to consist in\nberating the law which David pronounced \u201cperfect,\u201d and Paul declared to\nbe \u201choly, just, and good.\u201d\n\nFinally, we submit that when it can be shown, 1. That God would be\nbetter pleased with a nation having a Constitution which contained his\nprinted name, while wielding the whole power of that Constitution\nagainst the only Sabbath which he has ever commanded, than he would be\nwith one which\u2014while his name would fail to appear in its fundamental\nlaw\u2014was nevertheless administered in the interests of civil and\nreligious liberty; and 2. That the best method of converting atheists is\none by which they would be exasperated by fines and imprisonments\ninflicted in the name of the God of the Bible for the desecration of a\nday which they know that it nowhere commands; and 3. That it would be\nreasonable to expect that men should, by their votes, elevate to place\nand authority those who are destined to put manacles upon their wrists,\nand padlocks upon their tongues; then, and not till then, can\nSeventh-day Adventists be expected to support an amendment which, though\nin many respects desirable, will inevitably be employed against God, his\npeople, and his law.\n\n\n\n\n                           STATESMAN\u2019S REPLY.\n                              ARTICLE TWO.\n      THE SEVENTH DAY NOT OBSERVED BY THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH.\n\n\nHaving shown in our last article that seventh-day Sabbatarians, to be\nconsistent with themselves in appealing to the Bible as of supreme\nauthority, should be among the earnest friends of the Religious\nAmendment, we come now to consider their argument against the first-day\nSabbath.\n\nOn many points dwelt upon in the articles we have published, there is no\ndifference of view. We believe that the Sabbath was instituted, not in\nthe wilderness, for Israel; but in Eden, for mankind. We maintain, also,\nthat the law of the Sabbath is an essential part of the great moral code\nof the ten commandments, spoken by God\u2019s voice amid the awful\nmanifestations of Sinai, and written by the finger of God on tables of\nstone as a law of perpetual obligation for the whole human family.\nThese, and other points admitted on both sides, need not occupy time and\nspace in this discussion. We are concerned here, and now, simply with\nthe transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the\nweek. Our readers have had before them an argument, of considerable\nlength, to show that God never authorized a change of day. We proceed to\nprove that the transfer was made by divine authority and approval.\n\nIn doing this, we shall first have to inquire into the facts of history.\nWe shall have to ask, Was the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath,\nacknowledged as binding up to the resurrection of Christ, continued by\nthe apostles and the early church after that event? Was any other day\nsubstituted by them in its place? For an answer to these questions, we\nmust appeal to _facts_. We make our appeal to the records of the New\nTestament. A careful and thorough examination of these authoritative\nrecords shows conclusively that _the seventh day was not observed as the\nSabbath after the resurrection of Christ by the apostles and the early\nchurch_.\n\nIt is admitted on all hands that Christ himself, before his death, and\nhis disciples, up to the time of his resurrection, kept the seventh day\nholy. It is also admitted on both sides that after the resurrection the\napostles and other followers of Christ kept holy one day in seven. While\nthey abounded daily in the work of the Lord, the seventh-day\nSabbatarians will concede with us that there was still one day marked\nout from the rest of the week as sacred time. What day was thus\ndistinguished? Was it the seventh, otherwise known as the Sabbath? Let\nus see.\n\nThe word Sabbath occurs in the New Testament, after the close of the\ngospel history, twelve times. In two of these instances, viz., Acts\n20:7, and 1 Cor. 16:2, the word means \u201cweek,\u201d and not the seventh day,\nas also in a number of instances in the gospels. In Acts 1:12, the word\nis used to indicate a certain distance. The term is employed in two\nother places, viz., Acts 13:27, and 15:21, in incidental reference to\nthe service of the Jewish synagogues. In Colossians 2:16, Paul mentions\nthe seventh-day Sabbath only to deny the obligation of its observance.\nThis important passage will be considered farther on. There remain,\nthen, six instances, two of them in regard to one and the same day and\nmeeting, in which the word is found in accounts of gatherings for\nreligious purposes on that day, the seventh of the week. These meetings\nwere as follows: 1. At Antioch, in Pisidia, Acts 13:14; 2. At the same\nplace, the next seventh day, Acts 13:42, 44; 3. At Philippi, Acts 16:13;\n4. At Thessalonica, Acts 17:2; and 5. At Corinth, Acts 18:4. At\nThessalonica, there were three Sabbaths, and at Corinth, every Sabbath,\nit may be inferred, for several weeks, thus marked by religious\nmeetings. We are informed that Paul went into the synagogue at\nThessalonica on the Sabbath, or seventh day, \u201cas his manner was.\u201d And,\naccordingly, particularly during his first and second, or his more\nproperly termed, missionary tours, as distinguished from his journeys in\nrevisiting churches already organized, we may unhesitatingly infer that\nthere were other similar meetings on the seventh day, as at Salamis,\nActs 13:15; at Iconium, Acts 14:1; and at Ephesus, Acts 18:19, and 19:8.\n\nAnd here we note the fact that _in not a single one of these instances\nwas the meeting a gathering of Christians_. In no case was it the\nassembly of the members of a Christian church for worship. In every\ncase, these meetings on the seventh day were in Jewish places of\nworship, all in synagogues regularly occupied by Jewish assemblies,\nexcept that at Philippi, which was at a _proseucha_, a Jewish place of\nprayer out of the city by the river\u2019s side. In every instance, it was a\ngathering of Jews and Jewish proselytes, with the addition of a greater\nor lesser number of Gentiles, the sight of a crowd of whom at Antioch,\nthe second day of meeting in their synagogue, excited the jealousy and\nrage of the Jews. And in these gatherings, in every case, Paul labored\n_as a missionary_, glad to avail himself of every opportunity to\nproclaim the saving truths of the gospel of Christ.\n\nCan any intelligent and candid reader of the inspired records fail to\nunderstand the narrative of Paul\u2019s missionary work? He was sent forth\n\u201cto turn sinners from darkness to light.\u201d As he himself states at\nAntioch, addressing the Jews: \u201cIt was necessary that the word of God\nshould first have been spoken to you.\u201d His \u201cheart\u2019s desire and prayer to\nGod for Israel was that they might be saved.\u201d Accordingly, wherever he\nwent, he was found going to them on the seventh day in _their_ places of\nworship, not in Christian houses of prayer; meeting with them in _their_\nassemblies, not in assemblies of professed followers of Christ. Just as\na Christian missionary, in modern times, going to a heathen land, would\navail himself, if possible, of the customary assemblies of the\nresidents, whatever day they might keep holy, so Paul and his\nfellow-missionaries availed themselves of the seventh-day assemblies of\nthe Jews, that from among them, as well as from among the Gentiles, they\nmight gather out an _ecclesia_\u2014a body of followers of the Lord Jesus, in\nwhom Jew and Gentile should be one.\n\nThe question, therefore, still remains to be answered: Which day of the\nweek did the church at Jerusalem, existing at the time of Christ\u2019s\nascension, which day did the apostles in their relations with this\nchurch, which day did the churches, organized and established by the\napostles, and under their example and divine authority, observe as a\nholy day, a Sabbath to the Lord? In all the references to the seventh\nday, or Jewish Sabbath, there is not, as we have seen, a particle of\nevidence that that day was thus observed.\n\nOn the other hand, there is positive testimony that the very\ncongregations or churches of Christians, organized at the places where\nPaul performed missionary labor on the seventh day, ignored that day,\nand in its stead observed another day of the week as holy time. For\nexample, at Corinth, \u201cas his manner was,\u201d Paul went first to the Jews\nand preached to them in their synagogue, the word of God, _reasoning\nwith them_, and persuading them and the Greeks to accept of Christ.\nThen, when the Jews opposed themselves and blasphemed, he shook his\nraiment, and said unto them, \u201cYour blood be upon your own heads; I am\nclean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.\u201d So he left the\nsynagogue and the Jews, not the city, and entering into the house of\nJustus, received Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, with all his\nhouse, and many of the Corinthians, as converts into the Christian\nchurch. Here we have the church of Corinth. Which day of the week did it\nobserve as the Sabbath of the Lord? the seventh? Though Paul \u201ccontinued\nthere a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them,\u201d there\nis not a word more about seventh-day services. This, it is true, would\nbe merely negative, if it were all. But this is not all. In Paul\u2019s\ndirection to this same church, a few years later, he makes clear and\ncertain, what before was probable, that their stated day for religious\nservices was not the seventh, but the first, day of the week. 1 Cor.\n16:2. The plain and most explicit teaching of this passage will be fully\nconsidered hereafter.\n\nAgain, when Paul entered into the synagogue at Ephesus, and reasoned\nwith the Jews (Acts 18:19), and, because he could not tarry long at this\ntime, soon returned again, and met the objections of disputatious Jews\nfor the space of three months (Acts 19:8), his labors as a missionary\nare said to have been in the synagogue, no doubt on the Sabbath of the\nJews, or the seventh day. But once more separating the Christian\nconverts from the unbelieving and blaspheming Jews, and forming the\nChristian church of Ephesus, he continued there in incessant labors for\ntwo years. And now we hear no more of seventh-day assemblies. This,\nagain, may be said to be merely negative, as we hear of no special honor\nput upon any day. But we have not done with this. Passing the last years\nof his life in this city of Ephesus, the apostle John writes of \u201cthe\nLord\u2019s day,\u201d known and observed by the Christians among whom he dwelt.\nThat this holy day of the early church, called the Lord\u2019s day, was not\nthe seventh, but the first, is shown by the most satisfactory historical\ntestimony, which will be adduced in full in its proper connection.\n\nOnce more. When Paul came to Troas to preach Christ\u2019s gospel, and a door\nwas opened to him of the Lord (2 Cor. 2:12), whether it was on his first\nvery brief visit (Acts 16:8), or more probably in going over \u201cthose\nparts,\u201d on his way from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20:2), he no doubt,\n\u201cas his manner was,\u201d went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.\nA congregation of Christian disciples was formed, and the apostle\ndeparted for Greece. After an absence of some months, Paul returns to\nTroas, and with his companions remains there seven days, departing again\non the second day of the week. Whether he departed on the first or\nsecond, however, the fact remains that, during his abode of seven days\nat Troas, there was one seventh day. Do we hear of any religious meeting\non that day? Did the disciples then assemble for divine service? Let us\nhear the record: \u201cWe abode seven days. And upon the first day of the\nweek, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached\nunto them, ready to depart on the morrow.\u201d The seventh day is passed by.\nThe day for the assembling of the Christian disciples is not the Sabbath\nof the Jews. Another day has taken its place. This most explicit\ninstance at Troas of ignoring the seventh day, and honoring another in\nits place, as the stated day for the religious services of Christians,\nabundantly confirms, if confirmation were needed, the conclusions\nalready reached in the instances at Corinth and Ephesus.\n\nThus the _facts_ of the records of inspired history conclusively prove\nthat the seventh day was not observed by the apostles and early\nChristians as their sacred day of divine worship, or the Sabbath of the\nLord. We might add here that the testimony of all the earliest Christian\nwriters, who received from the apostles and the companions of the\napostles the institutions of the Christian church, is full and explicit\nto the same effect. But we shall hear their evidence for the first day,\nand thus also against the seventh, in good time.\n\nIt will now be in place to consider how apostolic precept corresponds\nwith apostolic example, and that of the churches, in regard to the\nseventh day. Colossians 2:16, a most important passage, making\nparticular mention of the seventh-day Sabbath, yet singularly overlooked\nby seventh-day Sabbatarians, now claims our attention for a moment.\nJudaizing teachers, so busy everywhere throughout the early church, had\nbeen at work among the Christian disciples at Colosse. They had been\ninsisting upon the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the\nLord. One would think that some of these men had come down to our time\nand learned to use very good English. We refer these representatives of\nan ancient, but not honorably mentioned, class for instruction to the\napostle\u2019s words to the Colossians: \u201cLet no man judge you in meat or in\ndrink, or in respect of a holy day [literally, _of a feast_], or of the\nnew moon, or of the Sabbath days;\u201d _i. e._, of yearly, monthly, or\nweekly Jewish celebrations. We do not wait to examine the parallel\npassages in Gal. 4:10, and Rom. 14:5, where the obligation of Jewish\nobservances, including the seventh-day Sabbath, is denied, and where, in\nthe latter case, to make the argument even stronger, the toleration of\nthese observances as a weakness is considerately advised. Surely, it is\nno wonder that seventh-day Sabbatarians seem not to be aware of the\nexistence of these portions of the divine word! It cannot be pleasant to\nbe made to feel that, like the Judaizers of old, they bring themselves\nunder the sharp rebuke of the inspired apostle by judging Christians in\nrespect of the seventh-day Sabbath.\n\nWe will now sum up this part of the discussion: Admitting that the\nSabbath was instituted in Eden for mankind; that it is of perpetual\nobligation; that it was observed by Christ himself before his death, and\nby his disciples until his resurrection, as by the Jews of old, on the\nseventh day of the week; we have gone on to see that the apostles and\nthe early church, still having one stated day each week as a holy day,\ndid _not_ continue the observance of the seventh day. We have seen that\nthe seventh day, after the resurrection, is mentioned only in connection\nwith assemblies, in Jewish places of worship, of Jews, Jewish\nproselytes, and, in some instances, a larger or smaller addition of\nGentiles, among all of whom the apostle labored as a missionary for the\nconversion of souls, and the formation of Christian congregations, or\nchurches. We have found that no instance can be adduced of the apostles\nin their relations to Christian churches, nor of assemblies of Christian\ndisciples, meeting to observe the seventh day as the Sabbath of the\nLord. On the other hand, we have found them ignoring the seventh day and\nhonoring another, in perfect harmony with the apostle Paul\u2019s rebuke of\nJudaizing teachers who insisted on having Christian disciples observe\nthe seventh day, and his condescending toleration of their weakness.\n\n\n\n\n                              A REJOINDER.\n     \u201cTHE SEVENTH DAY NOT OBSERVED BY THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH.\u201d\n\n\nIt is, we confess, with some degree of embarrassment, that we attempt\nthe answering of the second article from the pen of the editor of the\n_Statesman_, in reply to the argument which we presented in the columns\nof that paper. Our difficulty does not arise from any confusion into\nwhich we have been thrown by the superior logic of our opponent; it\nconsists, rather, in knowing just where and how to commence the work.\n\nSo far as statements are concerned, they are numerous and repeated again\nand again, in substance. But we have no disposition, nor have we the\nspace, to take them up singly, in their numerical and repetitious order,\nfor consideration. And, besides, the fallacy of nearly every one of them\nhas been demonstrated in what we have already written. This being the\ncase, we have determined to take the general scope of the criticism, and\nthus, as briefly as may be, make suggestions which, if carried out, will\nanswer its assumptions, as well as its attempted efforts at deduction.\n\nWe remark, then, in the outset, that we are happy to meet the writer\nupon the common ground of a Sabbath having originated in Eden, and\ninserted in a law of perpetual obligation on both Jews and Gentiles.\n\nLet the reader keep these mutual concessions continually before his\neyes. They are of great significance in this debate. 1. They prove that\nthe Sabbath is not Jewish in its origin, but was given to Adam, as their\nrepresentative head, for the benefit of the whole race, more than two\nthousand years before there was a Jew in existence. 2. They also prove\nthat the Sabbath institution was rendered obligatory upon all men by a\ndivine precept, with the phraseology of which we are all acquainted. 3.\nThat that precept is explicit in its declaration that the last and not\nthe first day of the week was the Sabbath. 4. That before any other day\ncan be substituted in the place of the one designated, the Power which\noriginated it must authorize the change.\n\nSo much for the important results which necessarily flow from the\nprinciples which we hold in common, if indeed we are right in supposing\nthat the writer _really_ means what he _actually_ says; namely, that he\nholds to the perpetuity of the fourth commandment of the decalogue. We\nshall see, hereafter, whether or not his statements are to be taken for\nall which they express.\n\nWe advance, now, in our examination of the criticism before us.\n\nWhat direction, then, does the effort take in the main? It will be\ngranted that the plan of defense adopted is that of attempting to prove\nthat the early church did violate the seventh, and did honor the first,\nday of the week. But with what success has the effort been attended? We\nknow that it is stated several times that the apostles disregarded what\nthe author is pleased to call the _Jewish_ Sabbath\u2014after he had conceded\nthe principle that that of the commandment was _Edenic_ in its\norigin\u2014but did he make out his case? So far from it, in every instance\nwhere he has found them connected in the record with the Sabbath day, it\nhas ever been in the performance of duties _religious in their nature_.\nFor should we concede that he is right in supposing that Paul went into\nthe synagogues to teach on the Sabbath day, simply because he would find\nhearers there, this, assuredly, would not prove that Paul was a\nSabbath-breaker.\n\nLet me take the gentleman\u2019s favorite illustration of a missionary in a\nforeign land, at the present time. Now suppose that his lot were cast in\na country where the first day of the week, or the day of the sun, was\nregarded as holy by the natives, and he should be found on that day\nregularly teaching them in their places of assembly, would _that_ decide\nthe question that he was necessarily a violator of the first-day\nSabbath? You answer immediately in the negative. So, too, in the case of\nPaul. The fact that it can be shown that it was his custom to teach in\nthe synagogues on the seventh day of the week, if it has no power to\nprove that he was a conscientious _observer_ of that day, cannot at\nleast be cited as furnishing evidence that he _disregarded_ it. We ask,\nthen, again, Has a scintilla of positive testimony been given that Paul\never broke a single Sabbath of the Lord, as contained in the divine\nprecept? Once more it must be conceded that there has not. But is it not\na little singular that in a history of thirty years, where the Sabbath\nis so often mentioned, not one single action has ever been discovered in\nthe least incompatible with Paul\u2019s veneration of the seventh day? We let\nthe reader answer.\n\nFurthermore, we have from the pen of our opponent himself the frank\nadmission that, in the historic territory over which he has been\npassing, it has been uniformly true that both Luke and Paul have ever,\nwhen speaking of the seventh day, called it \u201cthe Sabbath.\u201d Now let the\nreader remember that this confession is full and sweeping in its\ncharacter. Then let him ask himself whether it is natural to suppose\nthat men, having repudiated an old Sabbath, and zealous for the\nestablishment of a new one, would be likely to make up the record in\nquestion in such a form that the old Sabbath, whenever spoken of, should\nalways be styled \u201cthe Sabbath,\u201d and the new one be mentioned merely as\nthe \u201cfirst day of the week?\u201d In order to impress the fallacy of such an\nidea, we have but to call attention to the fact that men, at the present\ntime, possessing the same natures and dispositions as formerly, would\navoid such a course with the most scrupulous care. Instance the fact\nthat seventh-day observers never allude to the Sunday as _the Sabbath_,\nbut avoid such a reference under all circumstances; while the devotees\nof the Sunday, when speaking of the last day of the week, almost\nuniformly speak of it as the _Jewish Sabbath_, if Sabbath they will\nallow themselves to call it at all.\n\nBut again. We are told, very candidly, that by the word Sabbath, in Acts\n13:44, where it is said that the \u201cnext Sabbath day came almost the whole\ncity together\u201d to hear the word of God, is meant the next seventh day\nsucceeding the first seventh day on which Paul addressed the Jews at\nAntioch. This being true, it is settled beyond dispute that, in the mind\nof Luke, there was no Sabbath day occurring between the one on which\nPaul spoke to the people, and the seventh day of the next week when he\naddressed them the second time; for, if there had been, then it would\nnot have been proper to call the last Sabbath mentioned the \u201c_next_\u201d\none, since another Sabbath would have intervened between the two in\nquestion. In other words, according to the view of our friend, the\nSunday, which was the next day after the first discourse of Paul, was\nreally the next Sabbath which followed it; whereas, the inspired penman\nignores it altogether, and, passing over it with silence, calls the last\nday of that same week \u201cthe Sabbath.\u201d\n\nAgain, it is stated in Acts 15:21, that the \u201cScriptures are read in the\nsynagogues _every_ Sabbath day.\u201d Here, again, it is conceded that the\nreference is to the seventh day of the week. If this be true, however,\nthen James, as well as Luke, had, in his lexicon of terms, the \u201cSabbath\nday\u201d as the one which answered to the seventh day and not to the first;\nfor no one will insist that the Scriptures were read in the synagogues\nof the Jews regularly on the first day of the week; but James says that\nthey were read there _every_ Sabbath day; therefore, in his mind\u2014as we\nhave already remarked\u2014the first day was not the Sabbath.\n\nOnce more: It is stated of Paul that he reasoned in the synagogues\n_every_ Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. Here also it is\nurged\u2014admitting that the reference is to the seventh day\u2014that Paul went\ninto the synagogue in order to get a hearing. But this he could not do\non the first day, since he would have found the synagogue closed, and no\naudience. Nevertheless, the statement stands unqualified that Paul\npreached \u201c_every Sabbath_.\u201d Now if this be true, and the first as well\nas the seventh day might, according to the view of the historian, be\ncalled a Sabbath, then we have him stating that Paul preached in the\nplace in question on both the first and seventh days. On the other hand,\nif he regarded the first day as alone the Sabbath, then he meant to\nteach that Paul preached in the synagogue on that day, and that day\nonly. But my opponent will not insist upon either of these positions.\nThe only conclusion that is left us, therefore, is that the Holy Ghost,\nwho inspired Luke in the selection of terms, employed the appellation of\nSabbath as applying only to the day which had been sanctified in Eden,\nand had always been known by that title.\n\nNow let us give our attention for a moment to the objection so strongly\nurged that in the book of the Acts, and in the epistles, there is no\nwell-authenticated instance in which the apostles held meetings, with\nChristians exclusively, on the seventh day. The point of the proposition\nmight be thus stated: If the early Christians did hold meetings on the\nseventh day, the record would have shown it: this it fails to do;\ntherefore, the presumption is that they did not regard it as holy.\n\nThis is a sword that cuts _both_ ways, if it cuts at all. We do not\nwonder that, when our friend laid hold of its hilt, he said,\ntremblingly, This is a _negative weapon_; so that, when we should\nattempt to borrow it of him, we might find the edge, which was designed\nfor his _own neck, dulled by his own concession_.\n\nBut let us proceed. Is it true, so far as the ancient Sabbath of the\nLord is concerned, that, unless we can find historic accounts of its\nobservance in the New Testament, we must therefore conclude that it was\nnot regarded? We answer, No; simply because its observance is not alone\ntaught by precedent. It rests upon a positive command of God,\nincorporated in a law which was brought over into this dispensation, as\nwe have seen, and made obligatory upon Christians. It was not,\ntherefore, necessary that a detailed account of its observance should be\nplaced upon the record, in order to prove that it was regarded by the\nearly church; since the very fact that they acknowledged the law of God,\nis in itself proof that they sanctified the Sabbath which it ordained.\nUntil, therefore, the gentleman can shake the pillars of that law\u2014as we\nshall show he has not yet succeeded in doing\u2014it is of itself a guarantee\nthat every seventh day was regarded with solemnity by those who were\nendeavoring to keep its precepts.\n\nIn proof of this, we have but to mention the fact that from Moses to\nDavid\u2014a space covering five hundred years\u2014the term Sabbath is not\nemployed once in the sacred history, and yet the gentleman will agree\nwith me that the good men of those ages hallowed it, simply because he\nagrees with me that they had a precept requiring them to do so.\n\nBut, again, we must be allowed to insist that the very silence of which\nthe gentleman complains does indirectly prove, independent of the\ncommandment, that the first generation of Christians were Sabbatarians.\nWhat we mean to be understood as saying is, that they at least did not\nviolate the regulations concerning the strict observance of the Sabbath,\nas enforced among the Jews; for had they done so, a record of thirty\nyears could not have failed to bring to light numerous collisions, which\nwould have been inevitable between Jews and Christians, the one class\ndespising and trampling down the Sabbath of the law, and the other\nfollowing them with that vulture glance of inquisition, by which\u2014as in\nthe case of our Lord\u2014they were in the habit of watching their\nantagonists, with a view to condemning them before the law. And,\nbesides, with what show of consistency could Paul have stood up before\nthem, announcing himself as one who had never violated the customs of\nthe fathers (Acts 28:17), if he had been seen weekly transgressing the\nlaw of one of the dearest institutions handed down to them from the\nremotest antiquity?\n\nThus much for one side of the logic of our opponent. Now let us apply it\nto the Sunday. As we do so, it will be recollected that there has been\nno effort made, as yet, to place it upon a positive precept. Its\nexistence, therefore, if such it has at all, must be attributable to\nprecedent. Thus far, such precedent has not been cited, except by way of\nanticipation. When it comes up, we will consider it in order. In the\nmeantime, let it be remembered that our friend has voluntarily taken a\nposition which will compel him to admit that, unless he can find at\nleast one clear and unquestionable case in which the Sunday was from\nbeginning to end devoutly celebrated, his cause is a hopeless one. Nay,\nmore, to make out his point, every candid mind will demand that, in the\nabsence of positive command, he shall be able to show numerous instances\nin which the day, whose claims he seeks to vindicate, was intelligently\nhonored; for, be it remembered, that, according to his own declaration,\nthe apostle was traveling from point to point, writing and preaching,\nand Luke was keeping a diary of his labors, for the purpose of\ninstructing that generation of Christians, as well as this, concerning\nduty and doctrine. If, therefore, Sunday sanctity came under the head of\nthose doctrines, it was important, overwhelmingly so, that such a fact\nshould be set forth clearly, since an habitual disregard on the part of\nany, of the new Sabbath, would bring upon them the condemnation of\nHeaven. Furthermore, the line of demarkation, which the new day would\nhave drawn between the disciples and the Hebrews, would have been so\nbroad, and the discussions upon those points would have been so numerous\nand so full, while the transition was taking place, that its existence\ncould not have failed to become discernible in the writings of that\nperiod.\n\nHere we must change our line of argument, and turn to the consideration\nof Col. 2:14-17, and of Rom. 14:5. Our opponent intimates that\nSabbatarians are in the habit of evading these texts. In this remark, he\ndoes us great injustice. The statement is so far from being true that I\nmake no doubt that, within the last twenty years, Seventh-day Adventist\npreachers alone have, by voice and pen, commented upon them at least a\nthousand times. But the best method of showing the charge to be untrue\nwill be found in an examination of the texts themselves. The first is as\nfollows: \u201cBlotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against\nus, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to\nhis cross; ... Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or\nin respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:\nwhich are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.\u201d Col.\n2:14, 16, 17. Now be it remembered that he affirms that these scriptures\nteach the abolition of the creation Sabbath; also, that, while we\nconcede the point that there are here mentioned sabbaths which were\nabolished at the crucifixion of Christ, we deny that the seventh-day\nSabbath was among them, and insist that they were simply the ceremonial\nsabbaths of the Jews to which reference is made.\n\nIn proof of our position, we offer the following considerations: 1. That\nwhich was repealed is represented as having been \u201cblotted out.\u201d Now the\nScriptures are remarkable for the force and propriety of the\nillustrations which they employ. But who will say that the terms\n\u201cblotting out\u201d could properly be applied to writing engraved in stone,\nas was the Sabbath law in its original copy? 2. That which was blotted\nout was the \u201chandwriting of ordinances;\u201d but the commandments were the\nfinger-writing of God. 3. That which was blotted out was found among\nordinances that were \u201c_against_ us, and _contrary_ to us.\u201d But Jesus\nsays, \u201cThe Sabbath was made _for_ man.\u201d Mark 2:27, 28. 4. That which was\nblotted out and taken out of the way \u201cwas nailed to his cross.\u201d But it\nis inconceivable that such language could be spoken of the tables of\nstone, since they are not of a nature such that the work spoken of could\nbe readily accomplished, and therefore the figure will not apply to them\nexcept when forced. 5. It must be admitted that these things concerning\nwhich we are not to allow men to judge us were either all of them\nshadows of Christ, or that if the _others_ were not, the _sabbath days_\nwere. If they were all shadows, then the sabbaths undeniably were such;\nfor the expression, \u201cwhich were a shadow of things to come,\u201d stands\nimmediately connected with the term \u201csabbath days.\u201d\n\nBut this decides the point in controversy; for our friend has already\nvoluntarily declared that the seventh-day Sabbath originated in Eden.\nThis being true, it cannot be regarded as a \u201cshadow\u201d or type of Christ,\nsince it was in being before man had ever fallen, and, consequently,\nbefore a Saviour was either needed or promised. It is commemorative in\nits character, and was calculated to carry the mind back to the\ncreation, to the rest of Jehovah, rather than forward to the crucifixion\nof his Son. Do you inquire, then, what sabbaths the apostle had in view?\nWe answer: He locates them among \u201ccommandments written in ordinances.\u201d\nIn other words, in the Mosaic ceremonies. Now take your Bible and turn\nto the twenty-third chapter of Leviticus, and you will find that the\nJews had three annual feasts\u2014the passover, the Pentecost, and the feast\nof tabernacles\u2014besides the new moons, and the seven annual sabbaths. The\nsabbaths were as follows, to wit: 1. The first day of unleavened bread.\n2. The seventh day of that feast. 3. The day of Pentecost. 4. The first\nday of the seventh month. 5. The tenth day of that month. 6. The\nfifteenth day of that month. 7. The twenty-second day of the same. These\nare the ones, beyond all question, to which reference is here made.[3]\n1. Because they were in the handwriting of Moses, and could be blotted\nout. 2. Because they were found in handwriting of ordinances. 3. They\nwere among ceremonies that were against us, and contrary to us (Acts\n15:10). 4. The law in which they originated might have been nailed to\nthe cross. 5. That law was also one which shadowed forth Christ (Heb,\n10:1).\n\nTo the second text we shall give but little space. In the presentation\nof it, our friend attempts to be _facetious_. Nor are we disposed to\nfind fault with him for this. It is sometimes admissible, even in the\ndiscussion of the _gravest_ questions, to indulge in _harmless_ humor.\nThat the effort in question partakes of _this character_, _i. e._, that\nit is _harmless_, we shall not dispute. At all events, when we read it,\nit amused rather than offended us. A second thought, however, suggests\nthe possibility that if _we_ were not damaged by the sally, it might\nhave been _pernicious_, nevertheless, since it is possible for it to\n_react upon its author_. Certain it is, that it will damage either him\nor Paul, because he represents the great apostle as making a special\neffort, in his general labors, to teach men that they must under _all_\ncircumstances keep _one_ day holy, and that under _some_ they might be\nallowed to regard a _second_ also in the same light. But, unfortunately,\nif this exegesis is correct, and if the language of Rom. 14:5, applies\nto the weekly Sabbath at all, Paul blundered egregiously in\ncommunicating his intentions; since he virtually told them whom he was\naddressing that, of the days of which _he was speaking_, they _need not_\nkeep them at all, or they _might_, at will. Here follows the text \u201cOne\nman esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike.\nLet every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.\u201d\n\nNow we have heard men Who believed in no Sabbath employ this text again\nand again to prove that there is now no holy time; we have also heard\nconscientious first-day observers argue forcibly and conclusively that\nthis text proved no such thing, simply because it referred to days that\nwere connected with meats and drinks, and not to the weekly Sabbath at\nall. But we confess that the position of our friend is somewhat novel.\nNevertheless, we feel sure that the reputation of the great apostle for\nperspicuity will not suffer by this attempt, and we think that, so far\nas he is concerned himself, reflection will prevent him from ever\nseriously urging it. In conclusion on this point, we append a brief\ncomment from the pen of Adam Clarke, whose reputation, and the fact that\nhe was an observer of Sunday, will give him no little authority with our\nopponent. He says: \u201cReference is here made to the _Jewish_ institutions,\nand especially their festivals; such as the passover, pentecost, feast\nof tabernacles, new moons, jubilee, &c. The converted _Jew_ still\nthought these of moral obligation; the _Gentile_ Christian, not having\nbeen bred up in this way, had no such prejudices.\u201d\u2014_Com. in loco._\n\nThe only remaining text cited is that of Gal. 4:10. After what has been\nsaid, no further comment from us will be required. The reader, desirous\nof satisfying himself that this text also has no reference to the weekly\nSabbath, and of necessity refers either to heathen festivals or Jewish\nceremonial days, can read the context, and consult standard authorities,\nsuch as Clarke or Barnes.[4]\n\nLet us now survey the ground over which we have passed. So far as we\nhave gone, what has been done toward proving a practice of first-day\nobservance on the part of the early church? We answer, Nothing,\nabsolutely nothing. The only texts which have been cited for this\npurpose are 1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10, and Acts 20:7. So far as they are\nconcerned, we have previously shown that the first of them does not in\nany way affect the question of Sunday observance; that the second\nrelates to the seventh day of the week and not to the first; and that\nthe third proves that Paul traveled nineteen and one-half miles on the\nSunday. When our reviewer shall attempt to stir a single stone in the\nstructure of argument which we reared in our former articles on these\npoints, we shall be by his side, to see that he does it fairly. Until\nthen, the intelligent reader need not be told that it is vain for him to\ntry to make capital by quoting them as above.\n\nThus much for the first day. We inquire next, What has been conceded or\nproved, which is favorable to the seventh-day Sabbath? 1. That it\noriginated in Eden. 2. That it was enforced by the fourth commandment.\n3. That that commandment is still binding. 4. That the effort to show a\nchange in its phraseology from Col. 2:16, Rom. 14:5, and Gal. 4:10, was\na complete failure; and therefore that it reads as it did formerly, that\n\u201cthe seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord.\u201d 5. That there is a Sabbath\nin this dispensation. 6. That, being enforced by positive command, it\nstands in need of no precedent. 7. That, while the apostles did many\ntimes preach on that day, there is not one instance in which they\nviolated it. 8. That had they desecrated it, the conflicts which would\nhave been thus created, must have found a place in the history of those\ntimes. 9. That in the book of Acts it is always called \u201cthe Sabbath.\u201d\n10. That it was the only Sabbath known to the apostles, since they speak\nof it not only as \u201c_the_ Sabbath,\u201d but as \u201cthe _next_ Sabbath,\u201d and\n\u201c_every_ Sabbath.\u201d\n\nIn concluding, we suggest that we leave our reviewer in a situation\nwhich, to a man of his clearness of perception, must be a very\nunsatisfactory one. Having insisted upon the perpetuity of the fourth\ncommandment, he is compelled to take one of two positions. Either, 1.\nThat it reads the same as it did when it enforced the seventh day; or,\n2. That its phraseology has been changed. We confess that we have been\nunable to decide which of these positions he prefers. Nor is it material\nhere. If he adopts the first, the thoughtful reader will agree with me\nthat it is simply absurd to argue that a statute, while reading the\nsame, means differently from what it did formerly. On the other hand,\nshould he adopt the latter, then we inquire why he has not given it to\nus as it reads since it has been changed, and thus ended the controversy\nby gratifying our most reasonable request.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  \u201cIt is not clear that the apostle refers at all to the _Sabbath_ in\n  this place [Col. 2:16], whether Jewish or Christian; his \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, _of\n  sabbaths, or weeks_, most probably refers to their feasts of\n  weeks.\u201d\u2014_A. Clarke, in loco._\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  \u201cThe days here referred to are doubtless the days of the Jewish\n  festivals.... It is not a fair interpretation of this to suppose that\n  the apostle refers to the _Sabbath_, properly so called, for this was\n  a part of the decalogue, and was observed by the Saviour himself, and\n  by the apostles also. It _is_ a fair interpretation to apply it to all\n  those days which are not commanded to be kept holy in the\n  Scriptures.\u201d\u2014_A. Barnes, in loco._\n\n\n\n\n                           STATESMAN\u2019S REPLY.\n                             ARTICLE THREE.\n         TESTIMONY FROM THE GOSPELS FOR THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.\n\n\nIn a previous article it was seen that from the resurrection of Christ\nthere is no instance recorded in Scripture of the observance of the\nseventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord by any assembly of Christians. On\nthe contrary, it was seen that the Judaizing spirit, which in some\ninstances insisted on such observance by Christians, was rebuked by the\ninspired apostle. In connection with this was noted the fact that in the\ncase of Jews converted to Christianity, yet inclined still to regard the\nseventh day with other Jewish celebrations, Christians were directed to\nbear with such observance as a weakness in their brethren. It was also\nseen that while the observance of the seventh day was not continued,\nanother day of the week, the first, took its place as the stated day for\nreligious assemblies and services. Let us now examine the testimony from\nthe Gospels for this day, reserving the remainder of scriptural proof\nfor another article.\n\nThe manner in which the first day of the week is pointed out in the\nGospels as the day of the Lord\u2019s resurrection, is itself striking and\nsignificant. All four of the evangelists concur in making prominent the\nfact that it was on this day that Christ rose from the dead. This fact\nis stated by Matthew, 28:1-6; twice by Mark, 16:1-6, and again in verse\n9; by Luke, 24:1-6; by John, 20:1, 2. This concurrent, particular\nmention of the first day of the week as the day of the resurrection, in\nfour independent historical accounts, the earliest of which was written\nprobably about twenty years after that event, has a significance readily\noverlooked, but well worth noting.\n\nTo appreciate this fully, we must distinguish between the words of the\nhistorians and the words of the persons whose sayings they record\u2014a most\nimportant point in the study of any history. Observing this distinction,\nthen, we note that the promise of Christ, as recorded by the historians,\nwas, that he would rise from the dead on the third day, dating from and\nincluding the day of his crucifixion and burial. The chief priests and\nPharisees, asking Pilate to have the sepulcher guarded; the angels at\nthe sepulcher the morning of the resurrection; the two disciples,\nconversing with the risen Lord on the way to Emmaus, and the Lord\nhimself, speak of it as the _third_ day. In no other way does any one\nwhose language is recorded by the historians refer to the day of the\nresurrection. Now, had the historians themselves, writing after an\ninterval of from nearly twenty to over sixty years, simply desired to\nstate the fact of the Lord\u2019s resurrection, it would have been sufficient\nfor them to say that, according to His promise, he rose on the _third_\nday. But instead of this, they all concur in pointing out particularly\nthe _first_ day of the week as the resurrection day. On the supposition\nthat, when the historians wrote, the first day was regarded precisely\nlike the second and third days of the week, as it was at the time of the\nresurrection, this change of statement is singular and inexplicable. On\nthe other hand, on the supposition that the first day had become an\nhonored and noted day among Christians, this mention of it by all the\nevangelists, and that, too, in a uniform and somewhat formal phrase, and\nthe difference between the language of the historians and that of the\npersons of whom they write, are naturally and satisfactorily explained.\nIn this change of language, then, on the part of the inspired\nhistorians, and in their concurrent and prominent mention of the first\nday, we have strong presumptive evidence in favor of the marked\ncharacter of that day at the time when the Gospel histories were\nwritten. Testimony of this kind, in the form of unstudied allusion or\nundesigned coincidence, though easily passed without notice, is\nacknowledged on all hands to be of great weight.\n\nAfter showing himself probably four times to one or more of his\ndisciples during the day of his resurrection, Christ appeared late in\nthe evening to the disciples collectively, Thomas alone being absent.\n\u201cThen the same day at evening (_opsia_, _late evening_, from _opse_,\n_late_), being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where\nthe disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood\nin the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.\u201d (John 20:19.) Let\nthe facts be noted. 1. It was the evening of the first day of the week.\n2. The disciples were met together, manifestly, _not_ to commemorate the\nresurrection, but for what purpose, or where, it does not matter. 3. The\nLord came and blessed them, and, as we learn from the following verses,\nimparted to them spiritual instruction, and breathed on them the Holy\nGhost. These facts should be borne in mind as we proceed.\n\nWe come now to the record of the first day of the following week; \u201cAnd\nafter eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them.\nThen came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said,\nPeace be unto you.\u201d (John 20:26.) This interval of eight days, from and\nincluding the resurrection day, brings us, according to the common mode\nof reckoning, and as no one is disposed to dispute, to the first day of\nthe next week. The preceding first day, the disciples were met\ncollectively. Again, this first day, they are met, and Thomas with them.\nIt has been said that very probably the disciples met every day during\nthe interval, and, therefore, they put no special honor upon the first\nday. But the question is not just here whether the disciples meant to\nhonor the first day or not. Did the Lord himself single it out from the\ndays of the week and honor it? This is the question at present. It may\nbe admitted that the disciples met every day during the interval. This\nis exceedingly probable. The fact remains clear that the Lord did not\nmeet with them. And this very passing by of these supposed meetings of\nthe disciples by the Lord, during six days, the last of which was the\nseventh-day Sabbath, renders his actual meeting with them, as recorded,\non the first day again, all the more significant. The disciples may not\nhave designed to honor the day, but the Lord himself, passing by the\nseventh day along with the other five intervening, selects and homes the\nfirst day by once more meeting on it with his disciples.\n\nNor is it to be admitted that the disciples were destitute of all regard\nto the returning first day of the week as the day of the Lord\u2019s\nresurrection. The very circumstances in which, by the ordering of the\nMaster, they were placed, could not fail to teach them to look upon it\nwith special regard. They had been assembled on the evening of the\npreceding first day. The Lord had met with them and blessed them, and\nbreathed on them the Holy Ghost. Earnestly longing to enjoy his\ncomforting and slivering presence again, we may suppose they met on the\nsecond day. But the Lord does not come. More deeply feeling their need,\nthey assemble again the third day. Still the desired presence is\nwithheld. So on, with ever-increasing desires, they meet, day after day.\nHow natural would it be for them to think of the seventh day, on which\nthey had so often enjoyed sweet counsel with the Master, going to the\nhouse of God. \u201cSurely,\u201d their thought might well be, \u201cHe will meet with\nus in our assembly to-day.\u201d But no. The time for the special\nmanifestation of himself to his worshiping disciples in their collective\ngathering had not come. Would not the disciples then remember, if they\nhad ever forgotten it, that it was on the first day of the week the Lord\nrose from the dead, and on that day he had stood in the midst of them\nand said, Peace be unto you? And remembering this, they would meet on\nthe return of the first day with earnest expectation of the return of\nthe Master. Nor are they disappointed. Once more he comes, and stands in\nthe midst, and grants his benediction.\n\nHere then are the facts concerning sacred time, as recorded in the\nGospel history, subsequent to the resurrection of Christ. The seventh\nday is not mentioned. If the disciples met on that day, as they probably\ndid, the inspired penmen take no notice of the fact. There is no meeting\nof the risen Lord with his disciples. The seventh day is passed by. On\nthe other hand, the first day is mentioned in a particular manner, in\nchanged and special language, by all the evangelists, as a noted day\nwould naturally be mentioned and marked out as the resurrection day. On\nit the Lord repeatedly met with his disciples, blessed them, taught them\nimportant spiritual lessons, and breathed on them the Holy Ghost, the\nearnest of the abundant outpouring of the Spirit. How fell of meaning\nthese facts! On the last seventh day on which the disciples rested\naccording to the commandment, the Lord himself is lying in the tomb. The\nglory of the seventh day dies out with the fading light of that day\nthroughout the whole of which the grave claimed the body of the\nRedeemer. But the glory of the Sabbath of the Lord survives. It receives\nfresh luster from the added glories of the Lord of the Sabbath. \u201cThe\nstone which the builders refused is become the head-stone of the\ncorner.\u201d It is very early in the morning the first day of the week.\nAgain God said, Let there be light, and there was light. The Sun of\nrighteousness has risen with healing in his wings. This is the day which\nthe Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. The first day of\nthe week has become the Lord\u2019s day.\n\n\n\n\n                              A REJOINDER.\n        \u201cTESTIMONY FROM THE GOSPELS FOR THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.\u201d\n\n\nWithout prolonged preliminary remarks, we shall endeavor to consider the\npoints of argument presented by our reviewer in the article entitled,\n\u201cTestimony from the Gospels for the first-day Sabbath.\u201d In entering upon\nour task, we feel almost as if we were doing a work of supererogation,\nfrom the fact that what we are called upon to answer is so far from\nbeing a refutation of what we had said in our positive argument, that it\nappears to be little more than a re-statement of positions which we\nbelieve we have once fairly met and conclusively answered. Nevertheless,\nwe express our satisfaction at the concessions apparently made by the\nwriter. The common plea that the disciples were assembled on the day of\nthe resurrection in order to honor the resuscitation of the body of\nChrist, is seemingly ignored. The points now urged seem to be those of a\ndisposition on the part of the Lord himself to honor the first day of\nthe week, and of such a use of language on the part of the historians as\nit would be natural for them to make, provided it had become a settled\nthing with them to regard the Sunday as a day which Christ had set apart\nfor holy uses.\n\nSo far as it regards the position assumed, that there is peculiar\nsignificance in the manner in which the first day is pointed out, with\nit we are ready most heartily to agree. But so far as the assertion is\nconcerned, that, in the _manner_ of the pointing out, there is found\nstrong presumptive evidence that they design to teach succeeding\ngeneration that they looked upon the first day of the week as _holy\ntime_, we can by no means admit that it is correct. On the contrary, we\nbelieve that their language establishes, beyond controversy, the\nopposite position. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were blunt,\nstraightforward, direct men in all that they said. They had nothing to\ndisguise, nor could anything be gained by indirection in statement.\n\nFurthermore, every motive of esteem for Christ, as well as that which\nwould actuate them in their desire to instruct subsequent generations in\nregard to the estimation in which they should hold the day of Christ\u2019s\nresurrection, demanded that their language should be full and explicit,\nand that it should state, in so many words, that it was sacred to holy\nuses. But have they done this? No; the gentleman does not so much as\nurge that they have. All his emphasis is placed upon the fact that, in\nspeaking of it, they call it the \u201cfirst day of the week,\u201d instead of the\n\u201cthird after his crucifixion.\u201d He may well say that the distinction\nbetween these two forms of expression would be readily \u201cpassed over.\u201d\nHas it come to this, then, that the Holy Spirit, in enforcing important\nduties upon Christians, is compelled to depart from the natural, clear,\nand positive statement of facts, and to employ polemical niceties which,\nwe believe, if they have any force at all, can only be discerned by\nminds whose susceptibilities for refinement are infinitely superior to\nthose of common men and women, and the poor and ignorant to whom the\ngospel was preached.\n\nIf the _Sunday_ had become the \u201c_Christian Sabbath_,\u201d why not _say so_?\nIf, indeed, it was on the \u201cLord\u2019s day\u201d that Jesus arose, why was not\nthis asserted? Or, if the first day of the week was regarded as the\nChristian Sabbath, why such a studied avoidance of the application of\nthis term to that day? Will the gentleman insist that if the evangelists\nhad stated, in so many words, that the Lord appeared among them after\nhis resurrection on the first \u201c_Lord\u2019s day_,\u201d or the first \u201c_Christian\nSabbath_,\u201d that it would not have been just what the facts would have\nwarranted, if his theory be correct, and that thereby all dispute, as to\nwhich day is the Lord\u2019s day, or Christian Sabbath, would have been\nforever terminated? Then why endeavor to impress the reader with the\nthought that there is really any peculiar significance in the form of\nexpression employed, or that it furnishes a strong presumptive argument\nin favor of first-day sanctity?\n\nThe language of the historians is just that which men would use when\nspeaking of a secular day, and not that which they would naturally\nemploy when alluding to a consecrated one. The expression, \u201cfirst day of\nthe week,\u201d was not only the briefer\u2014as compared to the other, that is,\nthe \u201cthird days the crucifixion\u201d\u2014but was definite in every particular.\nOnce more, therefore, we insist that the fact that the inspired\nevangelists persisted, twenty years after the occurrence of the events\nrecorded, in calling the Sunday \u201cthe first day of the week\u201d\u2014as they have\ndone in the six times in which they have mentioned it\u2014if guided at all\nin the selection of this term by the usage and opinions of the times in\nwhich they wrote, have furnished us with a commentary which, if it\nproves anything at all, proves that the day now regarded as holy was not\nso esteemed at that time by the disciples generally, else those among\nthem who, as historians, would have been glad to have conferred upon it\nthis honor, would have referred to it in the use of its sacred title,\n\u201cSabbath,\u201d or the \u201cLord\u2019s day.\u201d\n\nAs it regards the _design of Christ_, we take issue with our friend, and\noffer the following reasons for our confident assertion that he is\nwrong: 1. His conclusion is not one which is either necessary or\nobvious. God has shown us his method of making a holy day. That method\nhe has set forth in clear and positive statement, and the observance of\nsuch a day he has enforced by explicit command. This being the case, we\nmust infer that he chose that manner because it was the best. Hence we\nshould naturally conclude that when he wished to change the day of his\nchoice, once enforced by a law still binding, he would make known his\nmind in a manner so clear and impressive that there could be no room for\ndoubt. This, however, in the action of Christ alluded to, is far from\nbeing the case, because the meeting of the Lord with the apostles did\nnot necessarily affect the nature of the time on which it occurred.\nInstance the fact heretofore cited, that he met with them on a fishing\nday (John chap. 21), and again on Thursday, the day of the ascension,\nwithout in any way changing the character of those days, as all will\nadmit. Now, if this could be true of those two days, might it not also\nbe true of the first day of the week? 2. Because, as we have seen, there\nis not the slightest evidence that the _apostles inferred_ that it was\nthe intention of Christ to produce the impression claimed. For, had this\nbeen the case, their convictions must have found expression for our\nbenefit. 3. Because, manifestly, the conversation of Christ is given, so\nfar as it inculcated any duty not elsewhere expressed; and in his words\nthere is no allusion to any design on his part to teach them that the\ntime on which they were assembled was holy. 4. Because there is a\nsufficient reason found for the meeting of Christ with the apostles on\nthese two occasions, in his desire to establish them in the conviction\nof his resurrection, and to instruct them in regard to future action.\n\nBefore passing from this branch of the subject, we must be allowed to\nexpress our surprise that, in the anxiety of our friend to make out his\ncase, he has made a declaration which we think he would not have done\nhad he been more deliberate in his selection of facts. He says, in\nspeaking of John 20:26\u2014the second and only additional instance in which,\nafter the first, he claims that Christ met with the apostles on the\nfirst day of the week\u2014as follows: \u201cThis interval of eight days, from and\nincluding the resurrection day, brings us, according to the common mode\nof reckoning, and as no one is disposed to dispute, to the first day of\nthe next week.\u201d To this we reply that, if he means to be understood, by\nthis statement, that there is no dispute as to whether the second\ngathering under consideration did occur just one week after the first,\nhe mistakes greatly. It is by no means true that this is a matter about\nwhich there is no difference of opinion. In order to show the reader\nthat we are right in this, we quote the following from many testimonies\nwhich might be introduced: \u201c\u2018After eight days\u2019 from this meeting, if\nmade to signify only one week, necessarily carries us to the second day\nof the week. But a different expression is used by the Spirit of\ninspiration when simply one week is intended. \u2018After seven days,\u2019 is the\nchosen term of the Holy Spirit when designating just one week. \u2018After\neight days,\u2019 most naturally implies the ninth or tenth day; but allowing\nit to mean the eighth day, it fails to prove that this appearance of the\nSaviour was upon the first day of the week.\u201d In a note on the above\nremarks, the same author says \u201cThose who were to come before God from\nSabbath to Sabbath to minister in his temple, were said to come \u2018after\nseven days.\u2019 1 Chron. 9:25; 2 Kings 11:5.\u201d\u2014_Hist. of Sabbath, by J. H.\nAndrews_, p. 148.\n\nRight here, also, is the proper place to give attention to the elaborate\nargument which is made to produce upon the mind of the reader the\nimpression that the presence of Christ, in the two instances mentioned,\nwas expressly designed for the purpose of distinguishing the two\nfirst-days (?) upon which he manifested himself to his disciples. We\nshould not do justice to our opponent, should we refuse to grant him\ncredit for making a doubtful circumstance go as far in his favor as it\nwere possible for any man to do. What he has said is both poetic and\npathetic. Poetic, because it is purely a figment of his own imagination.\nPathetic, because the spectacle here brought to view is one which\nappeals most forcibly to the sympathies of the generous reader. Who\nwould not commiserate the condition of men who, for six weary days, sat\nin public assembly, waiting the momentary expected advent of their Lord?\nWho would not rejoice when finally he appeared in their midst, even if\nit were on the first day of the week? How natural, too, it would be for\nthe reader, having his sympathies thus aroused, to follow him who has\nshown an art, at least dramatic, in playing upon their feelings, to the\nconclusion to which he springs\u2014not by the route of logical deduction\u2014but\nby that of a more fascinating sentimentalism.\n\nBut before he does this, let us descend for a moment from the hights of\nfancy to the lower grounds of prosaic fact. It strikes us that the\ngentleman will discover that he has paid too high a price for what he\nhas obtained. Where did he learn that they assembled on the six days in\nquestion? Assuredly not from the record, for that is silent upon this\npoint. Nay, more; he does not himself claim that he has any written\nauthority for it, but simply says that he \u201cbelieves\u201d so and so, and then\nproceeds to his deductions. Well, with this understanding of the matter,\nand knowing that it is merely an inference of the writer, let us follow\nhis conclusions to their legitimate consequences. Having done this, we\nperceive, 1. That at last we have reached a whole week, every day of\nwhich was one of religious meetings, and yet not one word recorded in\nregard to the gatherings which occurred on six out of the seven days of\nthe week. This being true by his own concession, what has become of that\nargument in which he indulged so largely in his effort to prove that\nbecause there was no account of a meeting of Christians on the Sabbath,\nthey were consequently not in the habit of meeting on that day? Does it\nnot fall to the ground, utterly emptied of all its force, if it ever had\nany? 2. Where, now, is his oft-repeated declaration that there is no\naccount of the meeting of any of the apostles with a Christian church on\nthe Sabbath, and the conclusion therefrom, that they therefore held\nnone? Here is the admission of the writer himself, that the apostles and\nthe church at Jerusalem did meet on at least one seventh day after the\nresurrection of Christ. 3. What has become of the instructive lesson\nwhich Christ imparted to his followers on the evening of the day of his\nresurrection? Has it not been insisted that that visit was made for the\n_especial purpose_ of teaching, them, by example, and by meeting with\nthem, that the day on which it occurred was _holy time_? If we have\nrightly apprehended the logic of our opponent, this was the precise\nmoral which our Lord designed to convey by his manifestation on that\noccasion. How clear it is that such a conviction has rested upon the\nmind of the writer, and how often he has repeated it.\n\nBut how was it with the apostles? Now, certainly, they were not _more\nobtuse_ than _we_ are. Assuredly, they knew as much about the will and\npurpose of Christ in meeting with them the first time, as we do now. Did\n_they_ then infer that Christ met with them expressly for the purpose,\nnot of honoring by positive precept, but by the fact of his assembling\nwith them, the day on which that assembly occurred? If so, why should\nthey, according to the view we are considering, have gathered themselves\ntogether every day for the whole subsequent week, expecting his\npresence? Would they not have discovered that _such presence_, under\n_such circumstances_, would have utterly _nullified_ the moral lesson of\nthe _first visit_, since it would not afterwards be true that the first\nday of the week was the _only one_ which he had thus distinguished,\nthereby marking it out from the rest of the week?\n\nSo much for the consequences which would necessarily follow, had that\noccurred which the writer says he \u201cbelieves\u201d took place. But,\nfortunately, or unfortunately for him, the whole thing is a myth from\nbeginning to end. The only force which it posseses lies in the assumed\nfact that it brings together eight meetings on consecutive days, on two\nof which, and two only, the Lord met with his followers, those two being\nfirst days of the weeks to which they belonged. Therefore, before the\nstatement can possess any argumentative power, we must first grant him\nthe privilege of assuming that six of these meetings occurred when there\nis not a scintilla of evidence in the sacred narrative to favor his\nview.\n\nThat must be a desperate cause indeed which compels its advocates to\nsuch a resort to make out their case. Nevertheless, if the conception\nhas accomplished nothing more, it has furnished us a key by which we\nhave been able to unlock the secret conviction of the writer, and by\nthat means, we learn that he does not himself believe either that Christ\n_told_ his disciples on the day of the resurrection that that was holy\ntime; or that they had decided _in their own minds_ that his visit\nnecessarily pointed out this fact; or that the meeting of a Christian\nchurch on a secular day proves that they regarded that day as sacred; or\nthat it is necessary to suppose that any church _disregarded the\nSabbath_, simply because there is no _historic mention_ of their\nobservance of it. This being true, we hope from this time forward that\nwe shall see a line of argument pursued which will be consistent with\nthe admissions inadvertently made above.\n\nFinally\u2014as we have the concession of the writer, that the mention of the\nterm, \u201cfirst day of the week,\u201d in the texts under consideration,\naccorded with the use of language as employed twenty years after the\ncrucifixion\u2014let us glance at his proof-texts for ourselves. In doing so,\nthe reader will bear in mind that these texts furnish all the gospel\ntestimony in reference to the supposed repudiation of God\u2019s ancient\nSabbath and the substitution of a new one in its place, and also that\nthe terms employed, as stated above, were used with reference to their\nmeaning at the time they were penned.\n\nThe first is found in Matt. 28:1-6. In Matt. 28:1, the apostle says: \u201cIn\nthe end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the\nweek, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.\u201d Now\nwhich day, in the parlance of the disciples of our Lord, twenty years\nafter his death, was styled the Sabbath? Which was mentioned by the use\nof a secular title, whereas, custom, reason, and religion, all warranted\nand would have seemed to demand the application to it of a religious\ntitle, such as Sabbath, or Lord\u2019s day? We leave the reader to answer.\n\nThe next scripture is found in Mark 16:1, 2. Here, again, the same\ndistinction is preserved between the holy and the profane. \u201cWhen the\nSabbath was past,\u201d the women who had bought sweet spices came to the\nsepulcher very early in the morning, the first day of the week. The next\npassage is in verse 9 of the same chapter, where it is barely stated\nthat Jesus, having risen on the first day of the week, appeared first to\nMary Magdalene. Did the historian, Mark, ruthlessly wound the feelings\nof his Christian brethren, by neglecting two splendid opportunities for\nsettling the matter of a change of days for all future generations, or\ndid he not believe in such a change? Which view is the more consistent,\nunder the circumstances, with the manner in which he speaks?\n\nThe next test in order, with the context, will be found in Luke\n23:54-56, and 24:1. Let the reader turn to these passages in his Bible\nand examine them carefully. In Luke 23:56, it is stated that the women\n\u201crested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment;\u201d and in the first\nverse of the following chapter, it is said that \u201cupon the first day of\nthe week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher.\u201d\nHere, again, Luke\u2014than whom there is no sacred writer who uses terms\nmore frequently with reference to their technical meaning\u2014furnishes us a\ncomment in perfect harmony with that of the others. Mark him; he is very\nspecific. He says the women \u201crested the Sabbath day, according to the\ncommandment.\u201d Observe, it is not the \u201c_old_ commandment,\u201d but \u201c_the_\ncommandment.\u201d But again, What day was it upon which they rested? It was\nthe Sabbath day. How did it stand related in the order of the week to\nthe first day? It was the day before it. Did the women, according to his\nstatement, observe the first day? No; for they came to do that upon it\nwhich they would not do on the Sabbath, _i. e._, to embalm the body of\nChrist. But were they deceived, and was the day on which they came to\nthe tomb, after all, sacred to the Lord, because of the resurrection of\nChrist, which had occurred early in the morning? Was this indeed the\nLord\u2019s day, the Christian Sabbath? And had the old Sabbath expired at\nthe cross (Col. 2:16) before the deluded women rested upon it? Then we\ninquire again, Why should an inspired apostle pass by unimproved this\nmagnificent opportunity for recognizing the new order of things by\ndropping that plain, unpretending \u201cfirst day of the week,\u201d and stating\nfor the benefit of posterity that the day on which they repaired to the\nsepulcher was the Sabbath of the commandment, as changed by the\nauthority of Christ?\n\nThe remaining passages are those of John 20:1, 19. Here, once more, it\nis stated that \u201cthe first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early to\nthe sepulcher,\u201d and also in the 19th verse, that Jesus met with his\ndisciples in the evening of the first day of the week. In these words,\nJohn, the beloved disciple, like all before him, alludes to the day as\nthough it were a common one.\n\nThus we have seen that the four gospel historians all unite in ignoring\nthe sacred title of Sunday, if it had any, and merely designate it by\nits proper numeral; while three of them call the seventh day the\nSabbath, and locate it in the week as the day which precedes the first.\n\nNow we appeal to the candid reader in view of these facts, and ask him\nto decide which day of the week was looked upon as peculiarly sacred at\nthe time the gospels were written, provided the gentleman is _right_ in\nsupposing that the historians used language with reference to its\nacceptance when they wrote, instead of what it meant when the events,\nwhich they record, transpired. We believe the verdict will not be long\ndelayed. They call the seventh day \u201cthe Sabbath of the commandment.\u201d\nThat commandment, it is conceded, is still binding. If it reads the same\nnow that it did then, the day which was the Sabbath at that time,\naccording to that commandment, is still the Sabbath according to the\nsame commandment. But if that commandment has been changed, we once more\nchallenge the religious world to furnish us a copy of it as it now\nreads. Until they do so, we shall continue to observe the Sabbath upon\nwhich the devout women rested; on which our Lord himself rested in the\ntomb from his labors; and which four inspired men, twenty years later,\nmore or less, still persisted in calling \u201c_the_ Sabbath.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                           STATESMAN\u2019S REPLY.\n                             ARTICLE FOUR.\n ARGUMENT FOR THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH FROM THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT ON\n                         THE DAY OF PENTECOST.\n\n\nThe testimony brought forward in our last number from the Gospels for\nthe first-day Sabbath finds abundant confirmation in other portions of\nthe New-Testament Scriptures. We shall confine ourselves in this article\nto the argument drawn from the beginning of the second chapter of the\nActs: \u201cAnd when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with\none accord in one place.\u201d There has been so much discussion of this\npassage that a somewhat careful consideration of it may be of interest\nin itself, as well as from its important connection with the subject now\nspecially in hand. In regard to it, we note:\n\n1. The day of the outpouring of the Spirit was the day of Pentecost\u2014not\nsome day preceding or following. The correct rendering of the original\nwords is not, as Lightfoot gives it, \u201cwhen the day of Pentecost had\npassed,\u201d nor as Hitzig would have it, \u201cas the day of Pentecost was\napproaching its fulfillment;\u201d but, \u201cwhile the day of Pentecost was being\nfulfilled;\u201d that is, during the progress of that particular day, or, as\nour authorized English version has it, \u201cwhen the day of Pentecost was\nfully come.\u201d\n\n2. This day of Pentecost, on which the Holy Spirit was given, was the\nfirst day of the week. A number of eminent authorities, chief among whom\nis the chronologist Wieseler, compute it to have been the seventh. This\nquestion hinges upon that of the day of the Lord\u2019s death. It is almost\nuniversally admitted that Christ was crucified on Friday. But it is\ndisputed whether that Friday was the fourteenth or the fifteenth of\nNisan. From Leviticus 23:15, 16, we learn that Pentecost, signifying\nliterally the fiftieth, was counted from the second day of unleavened\nbread. The paschal lamb was killed at the close of the fourteenth day of\nthe month Abib or Nisan, and the next day, the fifteenth, was the first\nday of unleavened bread. This day was regarded as a holy Sabbath; and\nfrom the morrow following, that is, from the sixteenth of Nisan, fifty\ndays were to be reckoned to determine the day of Pentecost.\n\nWieseler contends that the Lord was crucified on the fifteenth of\nNisan\u2014the first day of unleavened bread. The sixteenth of the month\nwould therefore fall on the seventh day of the week, and fifty days,\nreckoned from and including this, according to the manner of the Jews,\nwould fix the day of Pentecost on the Jewish Sabbath. It is interesting\nto observe that many who agree with Wieseler in regarding the Friday of\nChrist\u2019s crucifixion as the fifteenth of Nisan, still reckon the fifty\ndays so as to make Pentecost fall on the first day of the week.\nProminent among these chronologists is Canon Wordsworth.\n\nIn all frankness, we would admit that Wordsworth\u2019s reckoning will not\nhold. If the Friday on which the Lord was crucified was the fifteenth of\nNisan, and if that day was observed as the first day of unleavened bread\nso that the specified fifty days would be reckoned from the following\nday, then Pentecost must have occurred on the seventh day of the week.\n\nOthers of our ablest scholars, such as Greswell, Elliott, and Schaff,\nmaintain that the day on which our Lord was crucified was the fourteenth\nof Nisan. An exhaustive discussion of this whole question would be out\nof place in these columns. We give a brief, and we think conclusive,\nargument in favor of the view that the Friday of our Lord\u2019s death was\nthe fourteenth of Nisan, and that therefore the fifteenth Nisan, or\nfirst day of unleavened bread, coincided with the Jewish Sabbath. The\nreasons in favor of this view are the following:\u2014\n\n(1.) The language of John, chap. 18:28, intimates clearly that the Jews\nhad not, on the morning of Friday, yet partaken of the passover. Friday\ncould not therefore have been the fifteenth of Nisan.\n\n(2.) The same day, Friday, John states that \u201cit was the preparation of\nthe passover.\u201d (Chap. 19:14.) It seems next to impossible to understand\nthis expression in any other way than as referring to that day, Friday,\nas the day of preparation for Passover observance, or, in other words,\nas the day preceding the fifteenth Nisan.\n\n(3.) John\u2019s statement, in chap. 19:31, that the Sabbath following the\nday of crucifixion was \u201ca high day,\u201d admits of no easy or natural\nexplanation except that of the coincidence of the first day of\nunleavened bread, or the fifteenth Nisan, with the seventh-day Sabbath.\n\n(4.) The anti-typical character of Christ, as the Paschal Lamb of God\nand the true Passover Sacrifice (John 1:29, 36; 1 Cor. 5:7), would lead\nus to expect that the very day and hour of his death would correspond\nwith the time of the killing of the typical Passover lamb. If it be\nurged that Christ himself, with his disciples, in obeying the\nrequirements of the law, killed the Passover on the evening of the\nfourteenth, and that the Synoptical Gospels intimate this, it may be\nreplied that such an interpretation of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is not\nrequired, and that the exceeding difficulty, not to say impossibility,\nof harmonizing it with the statements already quoted from John, is quite\ndecisive against it. It is much easier to interpret the Synoptists in\nthe light of John\u2019s Gospel. In this chapter, 13:1, we are informed of a\nsupper _before_ the passover. That this was the same supper spoken of by\nthe Synoptists, though one day before the usual time, in order that the\ntrue Passover lamb might be put to death at the time appointed, appears\nfrom the peculiar nature of the message sent by chosen apostle, to the\n\u201cgood man of the house\u201d\u2014a message of special direction, pointing out\nsomething of an unusual character. (See Matthew 28:18; Mark 14:14; and\nLuke 22:11.) There are also in the Synoptical Gospels a number of\nstatements showing that the Friday on which our Lord was crucified was\nnot marked by the Sabbatic sacredness belonging to the first day of\nunleavened bread. (See Matthew 27:59; Mark 15:42, 46; Luke 23:56.) This\nseems to be the easiest and most natural way of harmonizing the apparent\ndiscrepancies between the Synoptists and John.\n\n(5.) Wieseler\u2019s own chronological tables may be used against him to show\nthat the Friday of our Lord\u2019s crucifixion was the fourteenth of Nisan.\nWe would speak with becoming diffidence, in any attempt to make out a\nsystem of chronology for the events recorded in Scripture. There are,\nhowever, in Wieseler\u2019s elaborate book, tables independently proved to be\naccurate. By them, admitting the year of our Lord\u2019s crucifixion to have\nbeen A. D. 30, which is regarded by most chronologists as highly\nprobable, and admitting also that the day was Friday, which will not be\ndisputed, it is shown, beyond all doubt, that Christ died on the\nfourteenth of Nisan, and must have eaten the passover with his disciples\non the first hours of that day, the preceding evening. The tables\nreferred to show, by the most minute and accurate calculations, that in\nthe year, A. D. 30, the new moon for the month Nisan appeared on\nWednesday, the next to the last day of the preceding month,\ncorresponding to March 22, at eight minutes past eight o\u2019clock in the\nevening. Hence, it would follow that the first day of Nisan commenced on\nFriday evening, March 24, corresponding, as to daylight, with Saturday,\nMarch 25; of course, the Friday of the next week, would be the seventh\nNisan, and the same day, the following week, the fourteenth. Thus,\naccording to Wieseler\u2019s own tables, Friday of the week of our Lord\u2019s\npassion is made out to be the fourteenth of Nisan. The fifteenth of\nNisan, then, or the first day of unleavened bread, coincided at that\ntime with the seventh day of the week, or the Jewish Sabbath; and\nreckoning fifty days from the morrow, that day included, we find\nPentecost falling on the first day of the eighth week following our\nLord\u2019s crucifixion.\n\nSo clear and emphatic is the testimony of the primitive church to this\nfact that many who hold that the Friday of Christ\u2019s death was the\nfifteenth Nisan still do so in cordial indorsement of that fact. They\nreconcile the apparent difference between John and the Synoptists by\nsupposing that the Jewish authorities, probably because of the\ncrucifixion, or for some other reason, did not observe the Passover at\nthe usual time, but, passing by the fifteenth Nisan, in reality kept the\nsixteenth in its place; and thus counting the fifty days from the\nseventeenth of the month, instead of the sixteenth, Pentecost would fall\non the first day of the week.\n\nIt is worth mentioning, before we pass on, that the Karaite Jews, like\nthe Sadducces before them, understand the word \u201cSabbath\u201d in Leviticus\n23:11, 15, 16, to mean, not the first day of unleavened bread, which was\nkept as a Sabbath, on whatever day of the week it might fall, but the\nseventh day of the week, the regular weekly Sabbath of the Jews.\nAccording to this understanding, the fifty days would always be reckoned\nfrom the morrow after the seventh day, and Pentecost would always fall\non the first day of the week.\n\nHaving thus been at some pains to establish the fundamental position in\nthis argument a position to which scholars generally are coming with\nconstantly increasing unanimity, we need not dwell long upon the\nmanifest application of what has been proven. The facts here, after\nChrist\u2019s ascension, are full of significance, as we have seen the facts\nto be concerning the days just succeeding his resurrection. After the\nLord\u2019s ascension, his disciples abode in Jerusalem, awaiting the\npromised gift of the Spirit. Many days passed by, including two seventh\ndays, and still no fulfillment of the promise. On the first day of the\nsecond week after the ascension, the disciples were all with one accord\nin one place. Once more, the day which the Lord had singled out and\nhonored is specially honored by the plentiful effusion of the Spirit of\nGod. And thus the day which Christ taught his disciples to regard with\nspecial sacredness, by repeatedly appearing to them in their collective\ngatherings, and blessing them, is even more clearly and significantly\nmarked out from the other days of the week by this most marvelous\noutpouring of the Holy Spirit.\n\nIf it be objected that it was the Jewish festival, and not the first day\nof the week, that was honored, it is readily replied that there is no\ntrace of the services of the Jewish festival on that blessed day. The\nHoly Ghost was given, not to persons observing Jewish ordinances and\nkeeping the Pentecost of the old dispensation with a new meat-offering\nand first-fruits. He was given to Christian disciples met on the\nChristian\u2019s honored day; and the disciples who on that day had received\nimportant spiritual instructions from the Lord just after his\nresurrection, and who now, on the same day, received the promised\nSpirit, begin the true work of the Christian Sabbath by preaching the\ngospel of salvation, and three thousand souls are added to the church of\nChrist.\n\nThe objection, on the score that Pentecost only happened to fall on the\nfirst day that year, is unworthy of any one who believes that \u201cnot a\nsparrow falls to the ground, without our Heavenly Father\u2019s notice.\u201d It\nhas been admitted that if the view of the Karaite Jews were true, and\nPentecost occurred every year on the first day of the week, then would\nthere be a strong argument for the first-day Sabbath in the\npre-arrangements of God\u2019s providence. But to our mind, the argument from\nthe pre-arrangement of providence is stronger on the other and better\ninterpretation of Leviticus 23:11, 15, 16. He who in infinite wisdom\narranged everything from the beginning, so ordered all events connected\nwith Christ\u2019s death, as to make the day of Pentecost coincide with the\nChristian Sabbath, and then gathered to himself, not the first-fruits of\nthe fields of grain, but three thousand immortal souls, the first-fruits\nof the ingathering of the spiritual fields white to the harvest\u2014the\nharvest of all the Gentile nations yet to be brought into the church of\nChrist, with the restoration of the covenant people of old. This is a\nPentecost worthy of the church of Him who died for sinners of every\nrace, and of the honored day which commemorates his rising from the\ndead.\n\n\n\n\n                              A REJOINDER.\n\u201cARGUMENT FOR THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH FROM THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT ON\n                         THE DAY OF PENTECOST.\u201d\n\n\nIt is always a source of satisfaction to one, in examining opinions from\nwhich he is compelled to differ, to feel that the presentation of them\nwhich he is considering is the best which could be made under the\ncircumstances. With pleasure, therefore, we recognize the manifest\ntokens of research and erudition on the part of the author of the views\npresented in the columns of the _Statesman_, in the communication\nentitled, \u201cArgument for the first-day Sabbath from the gift of the Holy\nSpirit on the day of Pentecost.\u201d We do not flatter ourselves, however,\nthat all which has been said in that article was for our benefit. It is\nnot a little remarkable that three-fourths of its contents are devoted\nto the settlement of a point, which\u2014while indeed it affects the question\nat issue\u2014is not one upon which we bestowed many words, having preferred\nto consider, for the sake of argument, that the Pentecost did, on the\nyear of our Lord\u2019s crucifixion, fall upon the first day of the week; and\nthen, having done this, to prove that this coincidence in no way\naffected, necessarily, the nature of that day.\n\nNevertheless, we must beg leave here to express our gratitude that,\nnotwithstanding the concession in question, the readers of the\n_Statesman_ are at last instructed by an abler pen than our own in\nreference to the diversity of opinion which exists among the learned as\nto whether, indeed, it is safe to conclude that the Sunday, to the\nexclusion of the Sabbath, was the day upon which the Holy Spirit\ndescended upon the apostles. Be it remembered, also, that the learned\nmen who stand as the advocates of the seventh day as the one which God\nthus honored were not observers of that day as the Sabbath. All the\nauthorities quoted are men who, if they regarded any Sabbath at all,\ngave their preference to the first, and not to the last, day of the\nweek. This being the case, they certainly cannot be charged with any\nbias in favor of the creation Sabbath. Not only so, but all their\npredilections were doubtless against that day, and favorable to its\nrival. Hence we see that when, under these circumstances, it is admitted\nthat such distinguished men as Lightfoot, Weiseler, and Hitzig, have\nagreed that the last day of the week was the one on which the Pentecost\noccurred at the time in question, they did so\u2014not in the interest of\npreconceived notions, nor for the purpose of bolstering up a theory\nwhich was in desperate need of help\u2014but because there was, to their\nminds, at least, much which compelled a conclusion they would gladly\nhave avoided.\n\nRight here, also, in order to widen the breach in the wall of evidence,\nwe beg leave to act in harmony with the plan pursued by the writer, and\nto present a note from the pen of one no less distinguished than\nProfessor Hackett, which will make it manifest beyond dispute that the\nscholars who at the present time sympathize with those cited above, who\nregard the seventh day of the week and not the first as having been the\nday of the Pentecost, are both numerous and celebrated: \u201cIt is generally\nsupposed that this Pentecost, signalized by the outpouring of the\nSpirit, fell on the Jewish Sabbath, our Saturday.\u201d Quoted in \u201cHist. of\nSab.,\u201d by J. N. A., page 150. Let the reader bear in mind that we are\nnot assuming to decide between these long lines of doctors who differ so\nwidely upon a very important point, as regarded by some; but that our\npurpose is simply to call attention to the fact of this discrepancy, and\nto show its bearing upon the subject under discussion.\n\nThe first query which should be propounded, therefore, is this: Has God\never declared that the day of the Pentecost, which we are trying to\nlocate, was identical with the first day of the week? The answer is in\nthe negative. There is not one word in the text (Acts 2:1, 2), or in the\nTestament, in regard to the day of the week on which these events\noccurred. It is simply stated that they took place \u201cwhen the day of\nPentecost was fully come,\u201d How remarkable, if the object was not to\nhonor a feast which occurred annually, but especially for the purpose of\ndistinguishing the first day of the week! Before, however, that day\ncould be illustrated by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon it, it\nmust first he decided\u2014and that, too, from Bible evidence\u2014that such\noutpouring did occur on the day specified. Can this be done? We appeal\nfor a response to the average Christian men and women of this time. Tell\nme, after having read the three-column argument of the gentleman, has\nnot the effect of what he has said been to unsettle, rather than to\nestablish, your convictions upon the point before our minds? If never\nbefore, is it not now true that you feel somewhat shaken in regard to\nthe identity of the Sunday with the Pentecost, on the year of the\ncrucifixion? In view of what has been written, would you undertake to\nestablish your faith from any deduction which you yourself could make\nfrom plain Scripture declarations? Is it not true that your opinion in\nthe promises depends entirely upon the faith of the one or the other\nclass of scholars who have ranged themselves on both sides of this\nsubject? Has the religion of Jesus Christ then changed? Is it no longer\ntrue that its great and important practical truths are withheld \u201cfrom\nthe wise and prudent, and revealed unto babes\u201d? Has God left the\nimportant question of first-day sanctity, not upon the solid basis of\nexplicit command, but upon the doubtful inference which is to be derived\nfrom certain transactions which occurred on a certain day, and then left\nthe day of their occurrence to occupy a position in the week so doubtful\nthat the most learned of those who had a desire to keep it should be\nhonestly divided in opinion as to which day it was? We believe not. To\nour mind, it is simple presumption to intimate that God\u2014who is not\nwilling that any should perish, and who has said that he will do nothing\nbut he will reveal it to his servants the prophets\u2014should deal with his\ncreatures in a manner at once so indirect and so obscure.\n\nHaving seen that there is a wide divergence of views among the very men\nwho are the observers of the modern Sunday, in regard to its claims to\ndistinction on the score of its having been first honored by the\noutpouring of the Spirit on the fiftieth day after the resurrection, let\nus look for a moment at the situation with reference to the possible\neffect upon the seventh day, of the logic employed. Taking it for\ngranted that our friends would not fly from their favorite deduction\nprovided it should prove to be true that they are mistaken in regard to\nthe time of the Pentecost, let us concede, for the time being, that the\nlong line of celebrities, headed by such men as Lightfoot, Weiseler, and\nHitzig, were right in arguing that Saturday, and not Sunday, was the day\non which the great Jewish festival occurred; then, beyond all dispute,\nit must be conceded by our opponents that this was but another effort on\nthe part of Jehovah to illustrate, for the benefit of succeeding\ngenerations, the day which he had previously made memorable by his\nresting, his blessing, and his sanctification. In other words, with this\nview of the design of the outpouring of the Spirit, the effect upon the\nancient Sabbath would be the same as it is now claimed to have been upon\nthe first day of the week. The point, therefore, of the identity of the\ndays is to _them_ a _vital_ one. If they are wrong in this, they are\nwrong in all. We appeal to them, therefore, in view of the infinite\nconsequences which hang upon the proper celebration of the right\nSabbath, to at least make their logic so plain that it will be accepted\nby men of their own faith, before they speak of its strength with great\nassumption of confidence. Before any person has a right to employ the\nevents which transpired at the time of the Pentecostal outpouring of the\nSpirit in the interest of Sunday sanctity, he must be able to solve, at\nleast to the satisfaction of his own mind, all the difficulties which\ncomplicate this question. As God has never seen fit to say that the\nJewish feast, at the time under consideration, transpired on the first\nday of the week, he must be able to establish that proposition\nindependently of an explicit _thus saith the Lord_.\n\nThere are two ways by which this may be attempted. (1.) By proving that\nthe Pentecost always took place on the first day of the week; or, (2.)\nBy demonstrating that Christ was crucified on Friday, the fourteenth day\nof Nisan, and that consequently the Pentecost must have fallen upon a\nSunday following, and separated from that day by about fifty days. But,\nso far as the first proposition is concerned, which would be by far the\neasier of demonstration, if it were true\u2014should the reader be inclined\nto favor it\u2014he must convince himself that he could establish it against\nthe conviction and the learning of the writer in question; for he\nrejects it as being untenable. Should he therefore turn to the second,\nthen, as remarked above, he must be able to prove, not merely that\nChrist died on the fourteenth day of the Jewish month Nisan, but that\nlikewise that fourteenth day of the month was also the sixth day of the\nweek. When we say that this will be a task which few minds are capable\nof performing, and from which those who are best informed will the most\nreadily turn away, We but assert what the writer in question has very\ndistinctly shadowed forth in the facile manner in which he disposes of\nthe obscurity of the statements in the three Synoptical Gospels by\narbitrarily deciding that they must be interpreted by that of John.\n\nWhat the real object of the writer was in making the statement that the\nKaraites and the Sadducees hold to the first theory stated above, we are\nat a loss to decide, since he himself concludes that they were wrong in\ntheir hypothesis. But let us suppose for a moment that they were right,\nand that the Pentecost always followed the weekly Sabbath; would that\nprove that it occurred on Sunday? We answer, Yes. But would it prove\nthat Sunday was therefore holy time? We answer, No; it would not so much\nas touch this independent question. Or rather, it should be said, if it\naffected it at all, it would increase the strength of the seventh-day\nSabbath argument. Do you ask, How? We answer that, according to their\ntheory, you must first have a weekly Sabbath before you could decide\nwhen you had reached the Pentecost Sunday. The direction in Leviticus\nwas, that they should count to themselves seven Sabbaths from the day\nthat they brought the sheaf of the wave-offering, which would bring them\nto the feast in question.\n\nNow let it be supposed that the crucifixion answered to the ancient\nPassover, and that the apostles proceeded to the determination of the\ntime when the Pentecost would be reached, according to the theory of the\nKaraites. The first thing which would have been necessary was, the\nweekly Sabbath, which immediately followed the crucifixion of Christ.\nHaving found it, they would have numbered seven Sabbaths, and have\ndecided that the day immediately following the last of these answered to\nthe feast. But unfortunately for them they would have discovered\u2014had\nthey believed in the modern doctrine that the law of the Sabbath was\nnailed to the cross, Col. 2:16(?)\u2014that they were deprived of a starting\npoint; for the Sabbath institution is a thing of commandment. Take away\nthe commandment, and the institution is gone. Therefore, as the cross\nhad accomplished its work, and had been taken down on Friday, God had\nremoved the landmark from which they were commanded to measure the time\nwhich should bring them to the Pentecost at the very period when they\nneeded it most. In reality, there was left them no Sabbath which\nanswered to the one in Leviticus.\n\nShould it be replied, however, that the Sabbath, though gone in fact,\nexisted nevertheless in name, it might be responded that this would\nindeed be an anomalous condition of things. Mark it: it is not the\nincidental mention, by its proper name, of an institution which had\nceased to be, which we are considering; but it is the deliberate action\nof that God who knows the end from the beginning, in compelling the\ndisciples to treat the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, in order\nto the decision of an important fact; for eight weeks after, as is\nclaimed, it had lost its Sabbatic character.\n\nAgain; should it be urged, as a means of escape from the embarrassments\nof the situation, that God did not actually require them to count the\nseventh day as the Sabbath, since there was really no day of Pentecost\nwhich they were obliged to keep on the year of our Lord\u2019s crucifixion,\nwe answer, Very good. Then, of course, we shall hear nothing hereafter\nfrom the argument for Sunday sanctity which is based upon the hypothesis\nthat the day of Pentecost fell on the first day of the week in the year\nin question, since it will have been admitted that there was no\nPentecost that year, and consequently that it could not properly be said\nto have fallen upon any day.\n\nOnce more; should it be insisted that though the Pentecostal feast was\nnot binding in the year of our Lord 30, or thereabout, but that the\nantitype of the feast was the thing of importance, then, in reply, it\nmay be said that God rendered it necessary for them, in order to locate\nthat antitype according to the Karaite view, to count the Sabbath which\nfollowed the crucifixion as the Sabbath of emotion, a thing which\ncertainly will be very difficult of explanation by those who can speak\nas becomingly of the providence of God as did the gentleman in the\narticle which is passing under review.\n\nFinally, we repeat, therefore, that, if indeed there were a legal\nPentecost this side of the death of our Lord, and if the Karaite system\nfor locating it were the right one, then the seventh day which followed\nthe death of Christ was distinguished by three very significant facts.\n1. It was honored by the women (and therefore by the disciples) by their\nresting upon it. 2. Luke, in speaking of it thirty years subsequent to\nits occurrence, mentions it as the Sabbath, \u201caccording to the\ncommandment.\u201d 3. God made it necessary that the whole Jewish nation\nshould keep the Pentecostal feast fifty days after the crucifixion of\nthe Lord; and, in doing so, that they should count the seventh day of\nthe week as still continuing to be the Sabbath.\n\nIn passing to the last branch of the subject, which will be treated in\nthis article, we invite the reader to note the following facts, as we\nshall have occasion to employ them hereafter: 1. That the writer\nproceeds with his reasoning upon the hypothesis that the months at the\ntime of the crucifixion were Jewish months, commencing with the new\nmoon. 2. That the days were Jewish days, commencing and ending with the\nsetting of the sun. These points we have previously urged, and are happy\nto see that they are conceded as being correct.\n\nIn conclusion, we turn our attention to the remaining feature of the\ncommunication in the _Statesman_, _i. e._, that portion of the article\nwhich relates to the real matter in dispute, namely\u2014granting, for the\nsake of argument, that the first day of the week was the one on which\nthe Pentecost fell in the year under consideration\u2014whether that fact\nnecessarily affected the character of that day so as to mark it out as\none which God had chosen as peculiarly his own. For, be it remembered,\nthat\u2014though the whole argument which has been made respecting the\nidentity of those two days should be conceded\u2014we should then simply be\nprepared to decide whether the facts agreed upon would prove what is\nclaimed, or not.\n\nWe ask, therefore, the candid attention of all to the use which has been\nmade of the elaborate argument which we have been carefully considering,\npoint by point. We would naturally have expected\u2014if the gentleman felt\nthat he had proved what he desired to, namely, that the Pentecost fell\nupon the first day of the week\u2014that the real sinews of a masterly logic\nwould have been discovered in an effort to show that it followed of\nnecessity that it must therefore have been holy time. But has he done\nthis? Or, in other words, if he has, in what manner has he brought it\nabout? Has it been by fair logical deduction? We believe that there are\nvery few who will insist that he has attempted such a deduction, with\nany measure of success, at the very point where it should have been\nexpected most.\n\nWhat he has said in the connection is very _pretty_. Yes, pretty is the\nword which precisely expresses it. How handsomely he alludes to the\nanalogy between the natural harvest and the in-gathering of souls. But\nwho does not know that such analogies are cheap things, and that one\ngifted with a prolific fancy can multiply them indefinitely? What was\nexpected, and what we had a right to demand, was something which partook\nof the nature of certainty. How great was our disappointment at learning\nthat the writer did not even _pretend to have any authority from the\nLord_, so far as written statements are concerned. The whole thing he\nthought was fairly _deducible_ from the coincidence of days, since\nnothing ever merely \u201chappens\u201d to occur in the providence of God.\n\nWhat has been gained, then? Manifestly, simply the point that God had\nsome object in view in having the Pentecost fall on the first day of the\nweek in the year of our Lord 30, or thereabout. The next question to be\ndecided is, What was that object? Right here is where we _need help_.\n_God could have given_ it to us, had he _seen fit_ so to do. He has not\ndone so, therefore it is safe to conclude that it was not important that\nwe should know what his purpose was.\n\nBut if any gentleman can be found who is _wise above what is written_,\nand who is able to decide with unerring certainty as to the motives of\nGod at all times, and under all circumstances, we should like to\npropound a few questions to him. First, what did God mean when, in his\nprovidence, he allowed the Pentecost to fall upon Monday, Tuesday,\nWednesday, Thursday, Friday, or Saturday? It is said that God _had a\npurpose_ in it; but can any one tell us _what_ that purpose was? When he\nhas answered this, then we have a list of similar interrogatories, to\nthe solution of which his wisdom will be invited. In the meantime, we\nshall adopt the suggestions of men in regard to plans of Deity with\ngreat caution, for, if it should fall out in the day of Judgment that we\nhad followed their fallacious inferences, to the disregard of a\npositive, written law of God, we know not what defense could be made for\nour course of conduct, since we had been previously informed that \u201chis\njudgments are _unsearchable_,\u201d \u201cand his ways _past finding out_.\u201d\n\nNow let us look at the proposition concerning the outpouring of the\nSpirit. It is agreed on all hands that the manifestation occurred as\nwritten. It is inferred by the writer in question that it was done with\nreference especially to the honoring as sacred of the day of the\nresurrection. Here, again, is the assumption of knowledge which has\nnever been imparted by divine authority. God has never _said_ that he\nmeant any such thing. Not only so, but it cannot even be fairly inferred\nthat such was his purpose. First. Because he does not so much as\nmention, in the record, the first day of the week by name, an omission\nwhich can never be explained satisfactorily by those who insist that the\nevents which occurred on the day of Pentecost transpired with especial\nreference to the honoring above all others, on the part of Jehovah, of\nthe first day of the week. Secondly. Because, were we to judge at all in\nthe matter, as he passed over six first-days, waiting for the arrival of\nthe Pentecost, we must conclude that there was something in connection\nwith that feast which induced him to act when he did, and as he did.\nThirdly. Because the Pentecost furnished an opportunity for the display\nof the power of the ascended Christ before thousands of Jews and\nproselytes from all parts of the habitable globe, more advantageously\nthan could be done at any other time; thus rendering it unnecessary that\nany other reason should be sought in explanation of its selection from\namong the other days of the year for the great outpouring of the Spirit.\nFourthly. Because, in apostolic times, it was not an uncommon thing for\nthe Holy Ghost to fall upon men on all days of the week; thus proving\nthat God is not restricted in the outpouring of his Spirit to holy times\nand places, and that it is not safe to conclude that any display of his\npower in this direction was made at any one time because of a special\nregard for the particular hours on which it took place.\n\nIn conclusion, as the fabric of Sunday sanctity, in so far as it is\nbased upon the transactions of the day of Pentecost, is seen to rest,\npurely upon the opinions of men, and since those who observe the day are\ndivided in sentiment as to whether the Pentecost did indeed really fall\nupon it at all, we close this article, as we did the last, by stating\nthat we have a _positive commandment_ which is admitted to be binding,\nand which, as given in the Bible, says that the \u201cseventh day is the\nSabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.\u201d Also,\nthat our advice to those who are weary with threading the interminable\nlabyrinth of conjecture and hypothesis is, Place your feet upon the rock\nof the written word; there, and there only, you are safe. Should any one\nseek to lure you from this position by the assertion that the law upon\nwhich you have planted yourself has been amended, it will be safe to\nfollow them only when they are able to tell you when and where the\ncommandment, as given in Exodus, was changed, and exactly how it reads\nsince the change has occurred.\n\n\n\n\n                           STATESMAN\u2019S REPLY.\n                             ARTICLE FIVE.\n                    THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH AT TROAS.\n\n\nThe day on which the Saviour rose from the dead, the day which the risen\nSaviour singled out and blessed repeatedly with his presence, the day on\nwhich the Holy Ghost was given to the church,\u2014this honored day certainly\ncould not pass without stated observance by the disciples of the risen\nand ascended Lord. It is but reasonable to expect that the day which\nChrist and the Holy Spirit honored would be honored by the early church.\n\nPassing on in the sacred narrative, we come to the account of first-day\nSabbath observance some twenty-six or twenty-eight years after the\nPentecostal gift of the Spirit. In just such a matter-of-course way as\nthat in which a well known and established custom would be noted, is the\nobservance of the first day at Troas mentioned in Acts 20:6, 7: \u201cWe\nsailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came\n... to Troas in five days, where we abode seven days. And upon the first\nday of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul\npreached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his\nspeech until midnight.\u201d Several important points should here be noted:\u2014\n\n1. Paul and his companions remained at Troas seven days\u2014from the third\nday of one week until the second day of the next week.\n\n2. At this time, there was at Troas a company or church of Christian\ndisciples, who would, of course, hold regular religious services.\n\n3. Besides the Trojan Christians, there were at Troas, during these\n\u201cseven days,\u201d at least nine others, including Paul and Luke (see verse\n4), who would not let a week pass without observing a stated day of\nworship. And yet,\n\n4. Neither the disciples resident at Troas, nor Paul and his companions,\npay any regard to the seventh day. The whole narrative plainly intimates\nthat Paul held himself in readiness to depart waiting only for the\nstated weekly day of public service. And the seventh day has no more\nsacredness assigned to it than the fifth or sixth. Had it been the\ncustomary day of meeting, the disciples would have assembled on it, and\nPaul would have been ready to depart _on the morrow_, the first day of\nthe week. On the other hand,\n\n5. The first day of the week was observed as the stated, customary\nweekly day of divine service by the Christians at Troas. The word,\nrendered \u201ccame together,\u201d indicates this. It is most intimately related\nto the word in Hebrews 10:25, rendered \u201cassembling together.\u201d The latter\nis the noun, with an added preposition from the former word, the verb.\nThese two terms, and another kindred word, are the common terms for\nregular church meetings in the New Testament. (See Hebrews 10:25; 1 Cor.\n11:17, 18; 14:23, 26.) Again, it will be noticed that the meeting of the\ndisciples on this first day was for regular public services of the\nChristian church. They came together to \u201cbreak bread,\u201d or observe the\nLord\u2019s supper, and to hear the preaching of the gospel. Besides, let it\nbe noticed, it is not said that Paul summoned the disciples together;\nbut it is said that they \u201ccame together.\u201d Or, if we follow the reading\nof the oldest manuscripts, the customary character of this Christian\nfirst-day assemblage will be made even more manifest. This reading is as\nfollows: \u201cAnd upon the first day of the week, when _we_ came together.\u201d\nWhether this is the correct reading or not, it expresses undoubtedly the\nfact. Paul, Luke, and their companions, as well as the Trojan\nChristians, met for divine service, according to the usual practice of\nChristians generally, on the first day of the week.\n\nIt remains for us to consider the mode of reckoning time which would fix\nPaul\u2019s departure from Troas on the morning of the first day of the week.\nFrankness and justice require us to state that even so authoritative a\nwriter as Mr. Howson, in that able and scholarly work, \u201cThe Life and\nEpistles of St. Paul,\u201d adopts this mode of reckoning, and, in accordance\nwith it, pictures out Paul\u2019s solitary journey from Troas to Assos on the\nhallowed hours of the Christian Sabbath.\n\nNo one will dispute for a moment that, according to the Jewish mode of\nreckoning, the day would begin at sundown, and in this way the evening\nof the meeting at Troas would be the evening succeeding the seventh day,\nand Paul\u2019s journey of nearly twenty miles would be on the first day of\nthe week. But it is perfectly clear from the Scriptures that the Roman\nmethod of reckoning the commencement of the day had already, to some\nextent, supplanted the Jewish mode. Nor is it any wonder that the method\nof the Romans, who were at the time in authority in Palestine, should\nhave obtained some recognition, even among the Jews.\n\nJohn, in a passage quoted in a former article, uses the following\nlanguage: \u201cThe same day at evening, being the first day of the week.\u201d\n(John 20:19) The meeting at Troas, in the evening of the first day, may\nnot have been without reference to the meeting of the Lord with his\ndisciples late in the evening of the same day he arose from the dead.\nBut whether there is any reference in the meeting at Troas to the\nmeeting recorded by John or not, the passage above quoted clearly proves\nthat the late evening succeeding the first day of the week was reckoned\na part of the first day, and not a part of the day following\u2014\u201cThe _same_\nday at evening [_opsia_, late evening, after dark, it would appear],\nbeing the first day of the week.\u201d\n\nMatthew, writing particularly for Jewish Christians, adopts the Roman\nmethod in chap. 28:1, in the expression: \u201cIn the end of the Sabbath\n[literally, late of the Sabbath, _opse_, late, away on after dark], as\nit began to dawn toward the first day of the week.\u201d Here, manifestly,\nthe seventh day is reckoned as continuing during a number of hours,\nwhich, according to the Jewish mode, belonged to the following day. If\nMatthew, writing for Jewish Christians, employs the Roman mode of\nreckoning, is it not altogether probable that Luke, writing especially\nfor Gentiles, would adopt the same mode?\n\nBut we need only look carefully at Luke\u2019s own language to settle this\npoint. His statement is that Paul preached, \u201cready to depart _on the\nmorrow_.\u201d It is agreed on all hands that the Christian disciples at\nTroas came together on the first day of the week, and that Paul preached\nto them on that day. Now, if the time of meeting was the evening\nsucceeding the seventh day, according to the Jewish mode of reckoning,\ncould it be said that Paul, taking his leave at a later hour that same\nday, departed _on the morrow_? The original term, _epaurion_, is an\nadverb, literally signifying \u201cupon the morrow.\u201d But connected with it is\nthe feminine article, agreeing with the word, \u201cday,\u201d understood. This\nmakes the expression, if possible, still more explicit\u2014\u201cthe day which is\nthe morrow,\u201d the next day. Can there remain the slightest doubt as to\nLuke\u2019s meaning? The Christian congregation at Troas met on one day of\nthe week. Paul preached to them on that day. It was the first day. _On\nthe morrow_, not the same day, but another, the following, the second\nday of the week, Paul departed, as he had held himself for some days in\nreadiness to do, on his way to Assos. Thus, as we have a right to\nexpect, there is no violation by the apostle and his fellow-Christians\nof the law of the Sabbath.\n\nWe have not dwelt upon this question of different modes of reckoning\nbecause of any importance which may be claimed for it in connection with\nthe main inquiry before us. It is entirely immaterial to the point at\nissue in this discussion whether Luke employs the Jewish or the Roman\nmode. Even if it could be made to appear that he makes use of the\nformer, there could be found nothing in his narrative in favor of the\nseventh-day Sabbath. The argument for the first-day Sabbath would still\nremain in its integrity, leaving for consideration simply the question\nas to the consistency of certain acts, in a certain case, with the law\nof a holy day of rest and worship. For the sake of giving a pretty full\nexposition of a passage important in itself, and because a wrong\ninterpretation has been given by high authority in countenance of a\nmischievous theory of the Sabbath, we have occupied much of our space\nfor this issue in showing that the evening or night of the first day of\nthe week was the end of the Christian Sabbath, and that Paul and his\ncompanions, like good, Sabbath-keeping Christians, waited, though ready\nto depart, until Monday morning, before starting on their journey to\nAssos.\n\nWe propose to conclude the argument from Scripture in our next number.\nAfter this, we shall give the testimony of the standard authorities of\nthe first three centuries of the Christian era. And then, with the facts\nconcerning sacred time before us, we shall inquire what theory of the\nSabbath harmonizes all the authenticated facts into one consistent\nwhole.\n\n\n\n\n                              A REJOINDER.\n                   \u201cTHE FIRST-DAY SABBATH AT TROAS.\u201d\n\n\nIn entering upon an examination of the propositions laid down in the\narticle entitled, \u201cThe First-day Sabbath at Troas,\u201d it will be well for\nus first to inquire into the object which the writer had in view in\npresenting them for our consideration. In doing so, we shall find that\nhe does not claim that the test or context of Acts 20:7, furnishes any\npositive precept for Sunday observance. His effort is merely to\nestablish a custom. Suppose, therefore, that we should grant all that he\nasks, so far as the church of Troas is concerned, would that prove that\nChristians universally are under obligation to follow a like custom? We\nthink not, unless it can be shown that God has adopted this mode of\ninculcating religious duty. But this he has never done. If the writer\nhad first established a positive law, then he might, with some show of\nreason, appeal to custom to show that that law was interpreted as he\nunderstands it; but when he reverses the order, and endeavors to prove\nthe law by the custom, then he has reversed God\u2019s great plan, which is\nthat of teaching by explicit statute.\n\nFurthermore, even should a custom be established, the writer must be\nable to show that such a custom was kept up, not as a matter of\nconvenience or taste, but because of a conviction of religious duty. In\nother words, it is possible, to say the least, that the church at Troas\nwere in the habit of meeting on the first day of the week, not because\nthey looked upon it as holy time, but for certain utilitarian purposes,\nbest known to themselves. Let us furnish an illustration precisely in\npoint:\u2014\n\nShould some person, eighteen hundred years hence\u2014provided time should\nlast so long\u2014write a history of the present period, as he cast his eye\nover the literature of our day, he would find that, in all parts of this\ncountry, Christians were in the habit of assembling on Wednesday\nevening, for the purposes of worship. Would he, therefore, be justified\nin concluding that Wednesday is regarded by us as peculiarly sacred to\nthe Lord? You answer, No, and most properly, for you know that our\nmotives are entirely different from what he would understand them to be.\nSo, too, with Troas. Granted, for the sake of the argument, that, as the\nwriter claims, they were in the habit of assembling on the late Sunday\nevening; it by no means follows that they did so because they regarded\nit as devoted to the Lord. Does he say that they partook of the\nsacrament on that day? Grant that, for the sake of the argument. But\ndoes not every student of the Bible know, and is it not the conviction\nof the world to-day, that the Lord\u2019s supper can be partaken of with as\nmuch propriety at one time as at another? Is it not a fact that the time\nof its institution did not coincide with Sunday? Is it not true that\noriginally they partook of it on all days of the week? (Acts 2:42, 46.)\nIf so, it would manifestly be unsafe to attach any special significance\nto the fact that, at this time, it was celebrated on the Sunday, So much\nfor the hypothesis of the _custom_, in question.\n\nNow that we have said what we have with reference to a custom made out,\nit will be well to inquire in the next place, Has the writer established\nthe usage which he sought to prove? If so, we have failed to discover\nthe process by which it has been done. Has he found an explicit\nstatement that the church at Troas was in the habit of meeting on the\nfirst day of the week? Very far from it. Having traced the sacred\nnarrative for twenty-six years\u2014mark it, reader, over one-fourth of a\ncentury\u2014he has found a solitary assembly of Christians convened on the\nfirst day of the week. But what were the facts in the case? Was this an\nordinary occasion? Were they by themselves alone? No; it was a time of\nunusual interest. The great apostle to the Gentiles was there, paying\nthem a flying visit. He was about to depart on the morrow. It was\nperhaps the last time they would ever see him. They wanted to partake of\nthe emblems of the Lord\u2019s body from his venerated hand. They wanted to\nshake that hand in a final farewell, and to plant the kiss of love upon\nhis careworn face. The circumstances, then, were unusual. The same\ncombination of facts might never exist again. There is, therefore, so\nfar as the general view is concerned, nothing which would justify the\ndecision that they had ever convened for like reasons, previously, at\nthe same time of the week, or that they ever would thereafter. The\nwriter evidently felt this, and, with an acuteness of intellectual\nperception which to the common mind is almost incredible, he has\ndiscovered overwhelming support for his theory, where the ordinary\nreader would have discerned none.\n\nHow strange it is that, again and again, we find that the strongholds of\nSunday sanctity are located just beyond the boundary where the man of\naverage ability and learning is permitted to go. The Greek, he is told,\nhas a significance which, if lightly expressed, would establish a custom\nbeyond all doubt. Well, we have seen above what the value of a custom\nis, unless explained. But we ask\u2014and we ask it in the behalf of the\nmillions who have never so much as seen even the Greek alphabet, and yet\nto whom eternal life is as precious as to the man of letters\u2014can it be\npossible that God has suspended the terrible realities of Heaven and\nhell upon the discharge of a duty vailed from their eyes by the\nobscurity of a language whose mysteries they can never hope to\npenetrate? For, mark it, this is not one of those points which can be\nsettled without difficulty, even by those familiar with the tongue in\nquestion. Were our learning equal to that of the gentleman who has\npenned the criticism under consideration, we might flatly contradict the\nstatements which he makes; but this would simply serve to produce a\ndead-lock in the mind of the reader, while he remained as far from a\nsatisfactory solution of the difficulty as ever. The only reply which we\nshall make, therefore, is as follows:\u2014\n\nThe distinction drawn between the present text and the original is\neither obscure, or it is obvious. If it is obscure, it is unimportant;\nif obvious, then it could be seen by scholars, and is so important that\nit would have attracted universal attention and comment by first-day\nwriters and translators. What, therefore, are the facts in the case?\nCertain it is that, if it exists at all, it escaped the notice of the\ntranslators of our common version. That they would have given a\nrendering as favorable to the first day as the facts would warrant, no\nman will dispute. The suggestion that the text would bear the\ntranslation, \u201c_we_ having come together to break bread,\u201d &c.,[5] while\nit does not materially alter the sense, so far as the practice of the\nchurch at Troas is concerned, if admissible, renders it highly probable\nthat Luke and his associates were there until the breaking of the bread;\na point which we shall use hereafter. In the meantime, we give the\nfollowing translations in order to show the conviction of their authors,\nrespecting the meaning of the original:\u2014\n\n\u201cAnd on the first day of the week, when we assembled,\u201d &c.\u2014_Syriac._\n\n\u201cOn the first day of the week, when we were met together.\u201d\u2014_Wesley, N.\nT., with Notes._\n\n\u201cAnd upon the first day of the week, when the disciples were got\ntogether.\u201d\u2014_Wakefield._\n\n\u201cAnd on the first day of the week, the disciples being\nassembled.\u201d\u2014_Whiting._\n\n\u201cAnd on the first day of the week, we, having come together to break\nbread.\u201d\u2014_Am. Bible Union._\n\n\u201cAnd on the first day of the week, we being assembled to break\nbread.\u201d\u2014_Sawyer._\n\n\u201cAnd on the first day of the week, when the disciples met\ntogether.\u201d\u2014_Doddridge in Campbell and Macknight\u2019s Trans._\n\n\u201cAnd on the first day of the week, we having assembled.\u201d\u2014_Emphatic\nDiaglott._\n\nWe think the reader is now ready to admit that the traces of a custom\nwhich relies for its existence upon an original text, rendered as given\nabove by so many different persons, none of whom can be charged with\nfavoring the seventh-day Sabbath, are, to say the least, too faint to be\nof practical argumentative utility. To our mind, the inference is simply\nthis: Paul, about to depart on his journey to Jerusalem, appointed, for\nhimself and his companions and the disciples at Troas, a final meeting,\nat which it was announced that the Eucharist would be celebrated. At\nthis meeting, all the parties came together, agreeably to the\nannouncement previously made, and partook of the Lord\u2019s supper. A\nfitting close of a week of apostolic labor in an Asiatic city.\n\nThe next item worthy of our attention is found in the hypothesis, that,\nduring the time Paul was at Troas, the seventh day of the week was\npassed by without any religious meeting occurring thereupon; and that\nPaul waited until the arrival of the first day, because that was the one\non which the meetings of the church were regularly held. How a writer so\nintimately acquainted with the character and labors of St. Paul, the\nindividual in question undoubtedly is, could draw the inference which he\nhas, is more than we can fathom. Who, that has read the history of a man\nwhose nervous activity drove him to dispute daily in the school of\nTyrannus (Acts 19:9), and to seek every opportunity for the presentation\nof his gospel to the Jews in their synagogues, and the Greeks in their\nplaces of public gathering, could be induced to believe that he could\nremain for seven long days in the city of Troas without a solitary\nreligious assembly, until the expiration of that time? And yet this is\nthe very decision which we are called upon to indorse. Before we can do\nthis, however, we ask for the proof. The answer is, it must be so,\nbecause the record contains no account of the holding of such meetings\nuntil the first day of the week.\n\nBut is this satisfactory? Do not all the circumstances of the case, as\nwell as the temperament and character of Paul, render certain the act\nthat such meetings were held, even, though it is not stated in so many\nwords? Paul with a Christian church at Troas for one week, and not\npreach to them! Impossible. To show the writer that the mention of\nreligions meetings in brief history is not necessary in order to prove\nthat they occurred on a given day, or on stated days, let me call his\nattention to the fact, that, between the day of Pentecost and the\nmeeting at Troas, according, to his own showing, there were at least\ntwenty-six intervening years; that during those years, agreeably to his\nview, there were thirteen hundred and fifty-two first-days, all of which\nwere holy time, and nearly all of which must have been honored by stated\nmeetings on the part of the apostles; and yet, out of that whole number,\nhe only claims to produce the record of one solitary day on which such\nmeeting occurred. What are the facts, then? Paul probably preached every\nday of the seven, while he was at Troas. Do you ask why the account is\nnot given of such meetings in the book of the Acts? I answer that the\nHoly Spirit was giving, through Luke, a succinct history of the more\nstriking occurrences which transpired in their travels. The story of the\nfirst-day meeting at Troas found its way into the sacred narrative,\nbecause its importance to after generations was enhanced by the\naccidental fall, and the miraculous restoration to life of Eutychus, and\nperhaps by other facts connected with that event, of equal interest. I\nthink that one of them was a disposition on the part of God to provide\nhis commandment-keeping servants in succeeding generations with a\npassage in the life of Paul, which should forever silence the cavils of\nmen who should undertake to belittle his ancient Sabbath, and to foist\ninto its place a day which He never commanded. This we will further\nconsider in our next point.\n\nHaving endeavored to establish the point that the seventh-day Sabbath\nwas not observed at Troas, an effort is made to show that a change of\ntime had occurred, so that Luke, in giving his account of the\ntransactions mentioned above, treated the day as commencing and ending,\nnot according to the Jewish method, with the setting of the sun, but\nafter the Roman fashion, with midnight. The reader will readily discover\nthe object to be gained by this maneuver, if such I may be allowed to\ncall it. We had insisted that the first day of the week commenced at\nsunset; that Paul met with the disciples in the dark portion of that day\n(verse 8), preached to them during that night, and on the next morning\ncommenced a journey of nineteen and a half miles on foot, on that which\nanswered to the daylight portion of our Sunday. This, if true, with the\nmajority of readers, would have forever settled the question that Paul\ndid not believe in first-day sanctity. A remedy, therefore, must be had.\nThe gentleman thinks he has found one. That he has made a desperate\neffort to obtain it, we are compelled to admit. No man, it seems to us\nwould ever resort to an experiment so hazardous, who did not find\nhimself in the stress of a situation which otherwise would be utterly\ninsupportable. With the most deliberate calculation, and in the face of\nauthority which he himself highly honors, he has decided that the\njourney in question occurred on the second day of the week, instead of\nthe first, which ended at twelve o\u2019clock the previous night. Well,\nsuppose we admit, for a moment, that this was true; what then? The\nSunday is thereby rescued from profanation by Paul; but it is also true\nthat the second day of the week is thereby honored with the meeting of a\nChristian church, and that it was it, and not the first, after all,\nwhich was honored by the breaking of bread during its hours.[6] So much\nfor some of the consequences of the position, if well taken.\n\nBut now let us turn to the argument for the change. Is it really true\nthat Roman, and not Jewish, time, is employed in a portion of the New\nTestament? If so, the perplexities of the situation are very great. How\nshall we know when to apply the one, and when the other? How can we tell\nprecisely where the dividing line should be drawn? We hope, in all\nconscience, independently of the question at issue, that the writer is\nnot correct. He seems to find the first intimation of a change in the\ngospels. Matt. 28:1, and John 20:19, are referred to in support of his\nview. Now suppose we concede for a time the point which he desires, and\nadmit that these passages prove the use in them of Roman time; also\nthat, as he claims, the meeting spoken of in John 20:19, occurred in the\nevening (Roman time), and after the coming on of darkness. This done, we\ninquire, Was it a Jewish day or a Roman day that was sanctified by the\nresurrection of Christ, and his appearance to his assembled disciples?\nWe think that few will dispute that it was a Jewish day.\n\nBut when did the Jewish day commence? The undeniable answer is, At\nsunset. But when did Christ appear to the disciples, according to Roman\ntime, as argued? We answer, In the darkness of the evening, and,\ntherefore, after the ending of the Jewish first day. What is the\nnecessary conclusion? We reply, One of two things. 1. Either that the\nvisit of Christ had no reference to the sanctity of the day on which it\noccurred; or 2. That it was designed to honor the second day of the\nJewish week. We leave the writer in question to take whichever horn of\nthis dilemma he pleases. If he should insist that John employed Roman\ntime, then all which he has said in reference to the effect of the visit\nof Christ upon the first day of the Jewish week is emptied of all force.\nNever was self-stultification more complete. In his effort to escape\nfrom the paws of the Trojan bear (secular travel on Sunday), the writer\nhas thrown himself into the jaws of the lion (no Scripture precedent for\nSunday-keeping). For, if he is right in supposing that the meeting in\nJohn 20:19, occurred on the Roman evening of that day\u2014that is, after\nsunset, and the coming on of darkness\u2014then, of course, it did not\ntranspire on the Jewish first day of the week, which had previously\nended, according to his own admission, at the going down of the sun; but\nit actually took place after the commencement of the second day of the\nJewish week.\n\nNot only so, but the second meeting, of Christ with his disciples (after\neight days), according to his own reasoning, must have fallen on the\nsecond Jewish day of the next week. And, finally, accepting his logic\nthat the meeting of Acts 20:7, also fell on the Roman evening of the\nfirst day of the week, that precedent, so long cherished, and so often\ncited, is now forever disposed of, since it, too, illustrates the second\nJewish day of the week, and not the first, if, indeed, it adds luster to\nany. But, reader, it would be neither Christian nor manly to adopt an\nexegesis of Scripture presented by an opponent, simply because such an\nexegesis would prove his overthrow. Truth is worth more than mere\nvictory. The gentleman has made a mistake in deciding that Roman time is\nemployed in the Bible, and that mistake has brought him to confusion.\nBut now we propose to show that Roman time is not employed, even though\nin so doing we shall assist him out of his trouble for the time being.\nLet no one suppose, however, that the relief which we shall afford him\nwill be permanent, for, unfortunately for him, we shall rescue him from\none death simply to deliver him to another.\n\nThe whole question turns upon the commencement and end of the Bible day.\nIf it can be shown that it began and terminated with the setting of the\nsun, then, beyond all dispute, the meeting in Troas occurred at the\ncommencement of the first day of the week, at the coming on of darkness,\nthe only period in that day when lights could be employed to advantage\n(verse 8). We proceed, therefore, to our task. We have heretofore quoted\nfrom the Tract Society\u2019s Bible Dictionary, under the article, day, to\nprove a general agreement that the Hebrews commenced and ended their day\nwith the setting of the sun. In addition to this, we might refer the\nreader to Smith\u2019s Comprehensive Dictionary of the Bible on the same\nsubject. In fact, we might multiply authorities without end; but this is\nnot necessary here. By turning to Genesis, chapter 1, the reader will\nfind that God measured the day by \u201cthe evening and the morning\u201d\n(darkness and light). He will here observe that with the ancient Hebrews\nthe whole night preceded the day to which it belonged. Advancing to\nLeviticus 23:32, he will there read the command of God, that the people\nshould keep their Sabbaths \u201cfrom even to even.\u201d But as the Sabbath was\nthe last day of the week, and was to commence and end with the evening,\nhe will discover that it will be necessary that all the other days\nshould commence and end in the same manner.\n\nPassing now to the New Testament, he will find the same custom\nprevailing in the days of our Lord. Nay, more; he will there obtain the\nauthority of Luke himself, who wrote the book of Acts, for believing\nthat Christ and the Jews followed that system of beginning and ending\nthe day which God had inaugurated in the outset. We read in Luke 4:40:\n\u201cNow when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers\ndiseases, brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of\nthem, and healed them.\u201d By tracing back the event, as given by Luke, in\nits parallel, as found in Mark 1, we find that Christ was healing in the\nsynagogue on the Sabbath day, and that he subsequently repaired to the\nhouse of Peter, and healed his wife\u2019s mother; and that, \u201cat even, when\nthe sun did set,\u201d the Jews brought to him all those that were diseased,\nand possessed with devils, for the purpose of having him heal them.\nThis, however, they could not have done on the Sabbath day, according to\ntheir views; therefore they prove that the custom was still prevalent\namong them of ending the days with the setting of the sun. But,\nfurthermore, has it not been argued by the writer himself, that the day\nof Pentecost was coincident with the first day of the week? We think\nthis will hardly be disputed. If it be true, however, and if the logic\nbe sound, that the Spirit which was poured out on the day of Pentecost\nwas designed to indicate that it corresponded with the Christian\nSabbath, then we need not argue further, for no man will deny that that\nday was emphatically Jewish in its beginning and ending.\n\nThis army of Scripture testimony, gleaned from a history of 4000 years,\nif met at all, it will be necessary that it should be done by clear and\nemphatic statements emanating from the same source from which the\nauthorities in question are drawn. Has the gentleman furnished any such\nevidence? The reader will readily discover that he has not. The only\ntexts brought forward in support of the change upon which he insists are\nJohn 20:19, and Matt. 28:1. In reference to the first of these, it will\nonly be required that attention should be called to the fact that, with\nthe Hebrews, each day had two evenings. (Exodus 12:6, margin; and\nNumbers 9:3, and 28:4, margin.) On this point, the Bible Dictionary\nsays: \u201cThe Hebrews reckoned two evenings in each day.... According to\nthe Karaites, this time between the evenings is the interval from sunset\nto complete darkness, that is, the evening twilight. According to the\nPharisees and the Rabbins, the first evening began when the sun inclined\nto descend more rapidly; that is, at the ninth hour; while the second or\nreal evening commenced at sunset.\u201d (Art. Evening.) Now let it be\nsupposed that Christ met with his disciples somewhere between three\no\u2019clock and sunset, on the day of the resurrection, and the statement\nthat he met with them the \u201csame day at evening,\u201d is at once verified,\nand the necessity for the supposition of a change of time disappears.\n\nIn explanation of Matt. 28:1, we cannot do better, perhaps, than to\nappend the following comment from Albert Barnes: \u201cThe word _end_, here\nmeans the same as _after_ the Sabbath; _i. e._, after the Sabbath was\nfully completed, or finished, and may be expressed in the following\nmanner: \u2018In the night following the Sabbath; for the Sabbath closed at\nsunset, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.\u2019\u201d That Mr.\nBarnes is right in his criticism, will become apparent when we compare\nMatt. 28:1, with the parallel passage in Mark 16:1, 2, where the same\nhistoric fact is introduced with these words: \u201cWhen the Sabbath was\npast.\u201d A complete harmony is thus preserved between the two evangelists,\nand all requisition for the extreme resort to the hypothesis of a sudden\nand unprecedented employment of the Roman system for the computation of\ntime is dispensed with.\n\nAs it regards the objection, which is based upon the use made in Acts\n20:7, of the words, \u201con the morrow,\u201d we reply that it is not well taken.\nThat it was perfectly compatible with a Jewish custom, when speaking of\nthe daylight portion of any day from the stand-point of the previous\nevening, to allude to it as \u201cthe morrow,\u201d we cite the following\npassages: \u201cThen the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul, and\nbrought him by night to Antipatris. _On the morrow_ they left the\nhorsemen to go with him, and returned to the castle.\u201d Acts 23:31, 32.\n\u201cSaul also sent messengers unto David\u2019s house, to watch him, and to slay\nhim in the morning; and Michal, David\u2019s wife, told him, saying, If thou\nsave not thy life to-night, _to-morrow_ thou shalt be slain.\u201d 1 Samuel\n19:11.\n\nIn addition to the above texts, we might quote the authority of Mr.\nHowson, who is so justly complimented for his scholarship by the writer.\nHe cannot be charged with leaning toward our views of the Sabbath, and,\ntherefore, if he had any bias in the case, it would be against, and not\nin favor of, the position which we are trying to maintain. If there was\nreally any force in the criticism which is offered respecting the use of\nthe preposition and the term with which it is connected, assuredly the\ndiscriminating eye of this gentleman would not have allowed it to escape\ndetection. Nevertheless, he, as the writer admits, deliberately decides,\nwhile examining at length the very passages now before us, that the\nevents there spoken of, journey and all, did transpire on the Sunday. In\ndoing so, it follows, as a matter of course, that he did not regard the\ndifficulty which is urged concerning the words, \u201con the morrow,\u201d as one\nat all formidable.\n\nThus much by way of a brief refutation of the diversity theory for the\ncommencing of the days of the Bible. We have seen heretofore, that, if\nthe advocate of this theory were right and we wrong, he has lost to his\ncause the three precedental meetings of John 20:19, John 20:26, and Acts\n20:7, since they occurred on the second, and not the first, Jewish day\nof the week. Let us now view the situation from the stand-point of one\nwho believes that the sacred, instead of the heathen, method is followed\nconsistently throughout the Scriptures. In Acts 20:7, the text which is\npassing under review, it is said that there was a meeting held upon the\nfirst day of the week, and that Paul preached until midnight. It now\nbecomes important to know on what portion of the first day of the week\nthis meeting fell. By examining the record, we find the statement that\nthere were many lights employed in the chamber where they were gathered.\nWe know, therefore, that the meeting must have taken place during the\ndark portion of the first day of the week. But as we have seen that the\nJewish day commenced with sunset, the only hours of darkness which\nbelong to it were to be found between that time and the next morning.\nAdvancing, we learn that, having spent the night in preaching, breaking\nof bread, &c., the apostle devoted the daylight portion of the first day\nof the week to the accomplishment of a journey of nineteen and a half\nmiles, while his companions sailed the vessel a greater distance round\nthe headland to Assos. Here, then, is apostolic example for travel upon\nthe first day of the week. The writer endeavored to escape this\nconclusion, by asserting that the meeting in question and the travel\ntook place on the second day of the week. This view, we have met, and\nsuccessfully answered. The record states that it was upon the first day\nof the week when they came together. It then proceeds to give a\nconnected account of what transpired on that day, and among other\nthings, is found the story of Paul and his companions starting for\nJerusalem. Now, if the events related did really transpire on two days,\ninstead of on one merely, as would naturally be inferred from the\ncontext, the burden of the proof is with our opponent. We rest the\nmatter, therefore, right here. The only attempt which he has made has\nbeen a complete failure. That he thought it was the best he could do\nunder the circumstances, we doubt not.\n\nThere remains now no item of difference between ourselves and the writer\nin the _Statesman_ which should occupy us longer. For, between him and\nmyself there is no room for dispute respecting the morality of traveling\non the Sabbath, since, according to his own confession, the object which\nPaul had in remaining at Troas was that of a good \u201c_Sabbath-keeping\nChristian_,\u201d who was unwilling to violate the sacredness of holy time by\nthe performance of secular labor. Here, then, we pause. As we do so, we\nappeal to the judgment of the candid men and women who have read the\ncriticism of our friend and our reply thereto. Did Paul conscientiously\nregard the first day of the week, while traveling on foot nineteen and a\nhalf miles upon it, and did Luke and his six companions, in sailing a\nmuch greater distance on the same hours, transgress the law of God, and\nignore the example of Christ; or, did they look upon the first day of\nthe week as one which God had given to man for the purposes of labor and\ntravel? If you still decide that it was holy time, you must be able to\nreconcile their action with this theory. This, however, you can never\ndo. If, on the contrary, you shall determine that they treated it as a\nsecular day, then it remains so still, for its character has not changed\nfrom that day to this.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  As it is not insisted that this translation is a correct one, I shall\n  not turn aside for the purpose of showing, as might easily be done,\n  from the original, that it is not admissible where the rule of strict\n  construction is followed.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  The honoring of the second day here alluded to rests upon the\n  hypothesis that the breaking of bread spoken of in Acts 20:11, answers\n  to the Lord\u2019s supper. It is, however, by no means certain that this\n  was the case, since scholars differ widely in opinion respecting the\n  matter; some holding to the opinion that reference was made to the\n  Lord\u2019s supper, and others to the view that the breaking of bread\n  referred merely to a common meal.\n\n\n\n\n                           STATESMAN\u2019S REPLY.\n                              ARTICLE SIX\n          TESTIMONY OF PAUL AND JOHN TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.\n\n\nTwo important portions of the inspired records remain to be considered.\nThe first of these reads as follows: \u201cNow concerning the collection for\nthe saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do\nye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in\nstore, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I\ncome.\u201d (1 Cor. 16:1, 2.)\n\nFrom this passage it is clear that the churches of Galatia, as well as\nthe church at Corinth, or that Christians generally, were required to\nset apart a proportion of their worldly goods, as God prospered them,\nfor benevolent purposes. It is also clear that the act of setting apart\nthe required proportion of means was to be performed statedly, every\nweek, on the first day of the week.\n\nWhatever may be the correct interpretation of the words, \u201clay by him in\nstore,\u201d enough is beyond all doubt and agreed upon by all, to show that\nthe first day of the week was regarded by the apostle and the Christian\nchurches as a special day, and one more fitting than others for the\nbenevolent and religious duty enjoined.\n\nThe phrase rendered in our version \u201cby him,\u201d is unquestionably an\nidiomatic Greek expression for \u201cat home.\u201d (Compare Luke 24:12, and John\n20:10.) And even if we understand this phrase to be connected with the\nword rendered, \u201cin store,\u201d which is a participle signifying \u201ctreasure\nup,\u201d the proof of first-day sacred observance is still clear and strong.\nBut the true connection of the words, \u201cat home,\u201d is with what precedes.\n\u201cLet every one place or devote at home.\u201d Place what? The answer is not\nhard to find\u2014a proportion of the weekly earnings; a suitable part of\nwhat God in his bounty had given. When this proportion was separated by\neach Christian at home, from the rest of his weekly earnings, it was to\nbe treasured up. But where? This is the important question. Where was\nthe money each Christian set apart at home on the first day of the week,\nfrom his weekly receipts, to be kept in store? It appears that this\ntreasuring up was not at each Christian\u2019s home:\n\n1. Because the phrase, \u201cat home,\u201d grammatically connects, not with the\nword \u201ctreasuring,\u201d but with the preceding verb. This verb does not mean\n\u201clay by,\u201d but \u201clay,\u201d or \u201cplace.\u201d The preposition rendered \u201cby\u201d is part\nof the phrase, \u201cat home.\u201d If it is insisted that the idea of treasuring\nin store is in the word rendered \u201clay,\u201d then we have this tautology:\n\u201cLet every one place in store or lay by at home, placing in store.\u201d Paul\ndid not write in this way.\n\n2. The first day of the week must have offered a special facility for\ndoing what was required. True, if nothing more is meant than laying by\nat home, even that marks the first day with distinguishing honor. But\nthe placing or putting of God\u2019s portion by itself; separated from the\nremainder of the receipts of the past week, on each first-day, in each\nChristian\u2019s home, was in order to something else, for which the first\nday alone gave opportunity. On that day, as we have learned from Acts\n20:7, and other portions of Scripture, Christians were accustomed to\nmeet for public religious services, and at these public gatherings, each\nChristian put into the treasury of the church what he had set apart at\nhome from the rest of the gains of the week.\n\n3. The most conclusive argument, however, is drawn from the end that\nPaul desired to accomplish. He states expressly that his aim in giving\nhis directions was to avoid the necessity of gatherings or collections\nwhen he should come. The force of this consideration is evaded by\nexplaining the apostle\u2019s words as meaning \u201csmall collections.\u201d But if\nevery Christian had his money laid by at home, whether it were much or\nlittle, the \u201ccollections\u201d would still have to be made. Each Christian,\nit is true, would have his sum already made up, and would need to make\nno personal gathering. But the apostle\u2019s word is much more naturally and\nfittingly applied to collections on a larger and wider scale. And to\neffect the apostle\u2019s end, and avoid such collections at his coming, the\nCorinthians, like the Galatians, were to make a collection every Lord\u2019s\nday, of what each one at home had set apart or placed aside from the\nproceeds of his business during the preceding week. In no other way\nwould the moneys needed be in perfect readiness for the apostle. If left\nin the hands of individuals scattered around, there would be uncertainty\nabout the apostle\u2019s receipt of them, and there would still be trouble in\nconnection with collections on his arrival. But with the moneys already\ngathered, at the regular weekly meetings, into the common treasury of\nthe church, and there waiting his coming, his aim is satisfactorily\naccomplished.\n\nThe only remaining passage is Rev. 1:10: \u201cI was in the Spirit on the\nLord\u2019s day.\u201d It has been admitted by opponents of the first-day Sabbath,\nthat if, by the Lord\u2019s day in this passage, the first day of the week is\nmeant, their cause is lost. And lost it is; for no other day can be\nmeant. Three interpretations have been given of John\u2019s words:\u2014\n\n1. By the Lord\u2019s day is meant the day of Judgment. Wetstein, in his\nelaborate edition of the Greek New Testament, in the year 1752, first\nadvanced this view. His comment is; \u201cHunc diem judicii vidit in spiritu;\n_i. e._, pr\u00e6vidit representatum.\u201d \u201cJohn saw in Spirit the day of\nJudgment; that is, he foresaw it represented.\u201d The phrase, \u201cthe day of\nthe Lord,\u201d does mean in the Scriptures the day of Judgment. But that\nphrase is different from the one here employed. The literal rendering of\nthe former is, \u201cthe day of the Lord.\u201d The literal rendering of the other\nis, \u201cthe dominical day.\u201d This was not a day foreseen, but a day on which\nJohn was in the Spirit\u2014a day of weekly recurrence which the Lord claims\nas his own, as he claims the dominical supper.\n\n2. By the Lord\u2019s day, it is maintained again, is meant the seventh-day\nSabbath. In support of this view it is said that the phrase employed by\nJohn corresponds with such Old-Testament expressions as \u201ca Sabbath to\nthe Lord,\u201d and with the Saviour\u2019s language: \u201cThe Son of man is Lord even\nof the Sabbath.\u201d But the very fact that the seventh day had a well-known\nand distinctive name by which it was always designated, is strong\npresumptive proof that this new and unusual phrase used by John cannot\napply to it. It would be most natural to suppose that some other day is\nmeant, and this is clearly proved to be the fact.\n\n3. The phrase, the Lord\u2019s day, was the common expression for designating\nthe first-day Sabbath from John\u2019s time onward. As the meal which the\nLord hallowed as his own was called the Lord\u2019s supper, so the day\nhallowed by the Lord\u2019s resurrection, by his repeated meeting with his\ndisciples after rising from the dead, by the descent of his Spirit, by\nthe weekly religious assemblies of his people with their communions,\npreaching and hearing the word, prayers and almsgiving, was properly\ntermed the Lord\u2019s day. It has been argued on the other side of the\nquestion that the Lord had a day, and but one in the week, called\nspecially his own. But as has been shown, Jesus himself, after his\nresurrection, paid no regard to the seventh day. His disciples did not\nobserve it. It could not, therefore, have been the Lord\u2019s day. On the\nother hand, Jesus did honor the first day, and the Christian churches\neverywhere did the same; and thus this honored day is the only one of\nwhich John could speak when he said he was \u201cin the Spirit on the Lord\u2019s\nday.\u201d By this name, as will be seen in our next article, the first day\nof the week was known in the early church.\n\n\n\n\n                              A REJOINDER.\n         \u201cTESTIMONY OF PAUL AND JOHN TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.\u201d\n\n\nWith no small degree of interest we have perused the article entitled,\n\u201cTestimony of Paul and John to the First-day Sabbath,\u201d The two texts\nwhich it brings forward in defense of the theory of a changed Sabbath,\nare regarded by the friends of that theory, generally, as among the\nstrongest of its supports. The first of them (1 Cor. 16:1, 2), we had\nassailed, and adduced a criticism, from the pen of Mr. J. W. Morton,\nwhich was of great importance. In it, the very stronghold of the Sunday\nargument had been fearlessly attacked, and, to our mind, carried beyond\nall question. The writer whom we quoted presented twelve versions and\ntranslations, all of which clearly sustained the position that the\nexpression, \u201cby him,\u201d was equivalent to the term, \u201cat home\u201d If this were\ntrue, then beyond all dispute the Sunday argument had been denuded of\nall its strength, provided it ever had any; for the support of its logic\nwas the assumption that the transaction brought to view in this text was\nto take place in the respective assemblies of the saints.\n\nIt is, therefore, with the most profound satisfaction that\u2014if we rightly\napprehend the remarks of our reviewer\u2014we accept his concession of the\npoint that the words, \u201cby him,\u201d do indeed answer to a Greek idiom, of\nwhich the original terms are equivalent to the expression, \u201cat home.\u201d\nThis being true, we are agreed that at least a _portion_ of the duty\nwhich Paul commanded was to be performed, not at the house of assembly,\nbut at the _dwelling_ of _the individual Christian_. In other words, he\nadmits that the money which they were to \u201cplace or devote\u201d to charitable\npurposes, was first to be estimated and separated while yet they were in\ntheir own houses. Having conceded thus much, he reasons that the money\nwas to be carried to the place of worship, and laid up in store, or\ndeposited among the collections regularly made on the first day of the\nweek. In order to sustain this view, he offers a grammatical criticism\nto which it cannot be objected that it is not drawn finely enough to\nmeet the taste of the most fastidious. But the writer does not seem to\nplant himself so squarely upon it as we would naturally expect one would\nwho feels that he is standing upon solid ground.\n\nThe _force of his logic_ seems to be drawn from the _object_ which Paul\nhad in view, in ordering beforehand this weekly laying aside of money\nfor the poor saints at Jerusalem. The writer thinks that the evident\nreference of Paul, in the words, \u201cthat there be no gatherings when I\ncome,\u201d is to contributions to be taken up in the congregation when he\nshould have reached the place. If he is wrong in this, he is wrong in\nall; for no one will dispute that money _could_[7] be \u201claid by in store\u201d\n_at home_, as well as in the church, since to lay by in store, is to put\nin some safe and accessible place.\n\nRight here, then, we inquire, What were the \u201cgatherings\u201d which Paul\nsought to avoid on his arrival? They could refer to but one of two\nthings; either, first, the collection of moneys in the church; or,\nsecondly, the collecting of them by individuals from those who were\nindebted to them. That the first was not the sense in which Paul\nemployed the word, we submit is apparent, from the fact that the end to\nbe gained by writing months beforehand, in order to prevent the taking\nup of a collection in the church, was not commensurate with the dignity\nwhich is given to it by so prominent a place in the sacred epistle. So\nfar as the collection itself was concerned, it could have been brought\nabout, unquestionably, within the space of fifteen minutes. The amount\nof time, therefore, which it would consume, is too insignificant to be\nworthy of mention.\n\nAgain, as it regards the moral complexion of the act, it will not be\nobjected by our reviewer that it was to be avoided from any scruples in\nthat direction, since he believes that such collections were taken up on\nevery first day of the week. On the other hand, taking the second view\nas being the one which properly expresses the facts, we find that it is\nin perfect harmony with the circumstances of the case, and consistent\nwith the notion that Paul had a sufficient motive for writing before\nhand, as he did, concerning the collections. He was about to make a\nbrief visit to Corinth. How long he should remain, he could not tell.\nWhile there, he wanted the undivided attention of the people to be given\nto religious purposes, and also that the money which he expected, should\nbe in readiness, so that no delay might be necessary.\n\nThis, however, could not be, since, not knowing the exact time of his\narrival, they would not be likely to have it on hand when he should\ncome, unless they laid it by, weekly, at their homes. Should he,\ntherefore, drop in upon them suddenly, they would be thrown into a\nconfusion of mind illy compatible with the purposes of daily worship\nduring his visit, since they would be annoyed and distracted by the\nnecessity of gathering from this direction and that, the amounts of the\nweekly contribution which they had agreed to make for the benefit of the\nsuffering saints at Jerusalem.\n\nBut once more: Having settled the point that the explanation claimed\ndoes not satisfactorily account for the mention of the subject in an\nepistle, while the one which we present meets the requirements of the\ncase in every particular\u2014since it both supplies the money, and furnishes\nthe apostle with a body of Christians ready to listen to the preaching\nof the word\u2014let us look at the matter from another stand-point.\n\nThe plan proposed by Paul could have been arrived at in but one of two\nways. Every Christian was expected, either, first, to give a fixed sum,\nevery week, of an amount equal to that which the general valuation of\nhis property would require; or, secondly, he was, as the writer\nsupposes, to pay in a fluctuating amount weekly, that amount to be\ndetermined by the gains or losses of the week.\n\nWe will suppose, for a moment, that the first theory is correct, and\nwill test the plan in question thereby. While doing so, for convenience\u2019\nsake, we will employ the currency of our own time. Here is a Corinthian\nChristian who is worth, say $10,000. He decides that he will give, for\nthe purposes mentioned, ten dollars per week. He has money in his purse,\nand nothing to prevent his doing it at any time. Being anxious to obey\nthe injunction of Paul, he proceeds as the writer suggests. On Sunday\nmorning he is at home, knowing just what he must contribute on that day,\nwhen he goes to church, having previously decided this point. The\namount, as we have seen, is precisely ten dollars. But Paul says he must\ndo something with it \u201cat home,\u201d before going to church. What was he to\ndo with it? The writer says, \u201cto place or devote it.\u201d Well, he takes out\nhis purse; from it he extracts just ten dollars. He holds it in his\nfingers. Now, what shall he do with it? The writer says he must \u201c_place_\nor _devote_ it.\u201d Yes, but we inquire. What does _place_ or _devote\nmean_, in such a connection as this? In other words, What shall he do\nwith the money at home? Shall he take it out, and turn it over, and look\nat it, and put it back into his purse again, and then go to church and\nplace it in the contribution box? We answer that this would be a solemn\nfarce. To say, also, that having taken it out of his purse he must not\nput it back again, but must place it in some other pocket, and then\ncarry it to church, is simply ridiculous. So far, therefore, as the men\nwere concerned whose property was fixed, and whose contributions were\nthe same, weekly, all that was said by Paul about \u201cdevoting or placing\u201d\nat home was pure nonsense, in the light of the exposition offered.[8]\n\nNow for the other class, or the men of fluctuating resources. How shall\nthey proceed? Were they to estimate the amount of their weekly gains,\nand to collect in the sum, on the last day, which they were to give on\nthe first day of the week? If so, then in their cases, as well as in\nthose of the first order, the whole process was a mere sham, an empty\nand meaningless form. For they also, at their homes, would simply have\nto take out their money and look at it, and then put it back and go to\nthe church for the purpose of donating it.\n\nBut again; as we have seen, that unless the work of deciding how much\nthey ought to give, and separating the amount for that purpose while at\nhome on the first day of the week, was a part of the plan of the\napostle, the whole suggestion had in it neither rhyme nor reason, we now\nturn to the only alternative left our opponent; which is the conclusion\nthat the work indicated by the term, \u201cplace or devote at home,\u201d was that\nof _deciding upon_, and _separating_ the sum which they could spare to\nthe weekly contribution.\n\nWhat are the consequences of such a position? We reply, It overturns and\nutterly uproots the whole theory of Sunday sanctity; for the lesson\ntaught by 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, instead of being favorable to the conception\nthat Paul held to such a theory, shows that he regarded the first day of\nthe week as secular time. Do you ask, How do you reach such a\nconclusion? I answer, It is inevitable, since the men who were acting\nunder the instruction of Paul could not carry out the work prescribed by\nhim without devoting at least the morning of the first day of the week\nto worldly business, such as that of figuring up and deciding upon the\nlosses and profits of the preceding week, and, perhaps, collecting from\noutstanding matters the pro-rata amount necessary for the stated\ncollection at the church.\n\nShould it be objected that our suggestion is open to the criticism that\nthe well-to-do class of Christians could have furnished their means at\nany time, we answer, Very true; but that, should week after week elapse\nwithout the separation, on the part of the wealthy, of the stipulated\nsum, it might, before the arrival of the apostle, reach figures which it\nwould be difficult even for them to meet without perplexity. And\nbesides, the better, easier, more natural, and we think, spiritually,\nthe more profitable method, even for them, would be found in doing it\nweekly. We might offer many reasons for this conviction, had we space.\nPaul was giving a general rule to meet the condition of all classes. The\npoor comprised the larger portion of these classes, and a principle was\nlaid down, therefore, which, while it was better for the rich than any\nother, was indispensable, for the purposes in question, to the men of\nmoderate circumstances.\n\nOur interpretation, stated in brief, is simply this: The apostle\ninstructed them on the first day of the week to lay by in store, at\nhome, what they proposed to give to the saints at Jerusalem, hoarding it\nup until he should visit them, so that at his arrival they might put it\ninto the common treasury; thus avoiding the possibility of being unable,\non the one hand, to meet their pledges, and on the other, of being\nnecessitated to have their minds occupied with temporal affairs, during\nhis stay. This conception is free from embarrassments. Even were the\ngentleman\u2019s translation of the passage correct, it cannot be shown to be\nunsound. He would read the scripture substantially as follows: \u201cLet\nevery one of you devote at home, treasuring up, that there be no\ngatherings when I come.\u201d To our mind, there is no tautology, even in the\ndeclaration of the apostle thus expressed, which is worthy of mention;\nfor should the term, \u201ctreasuring up,\u201d be interpreted to mean the same as\nplacing or devoting at home, it is explanatory, not of the command, but\nof the purpose of the command. A paraphrase, which is often employed\nwith profit in the writings of Paul, will make it all clear: \u201cUpon the\nfirst day of the week, let every one of you lay aside, or devote to the\nLord, an amount commensurate with the prosperity which he has bestowed\nupon you, treasuring it up, so that there need be no gatherings when I\ncome.\u201d\n\nThe only difference between the gentleman and myself, therefore, would\nbe as to the _place where_ it was to be treasured up; he insisting that\nit was at the church, and we, at the house of the individual Christian.\nWe have shown that his opinion is not only unnecessary, but that it is\nalso absurd, since it divides a transaction which Paul does not divide;\nand, after admitting that a part of it transpired at the home of the\nindividual, it represents the other part as having taken place at the\nchurch; whereas, neither the _church_, the _contribution box_, nor the\n_assembly_, are so much as mentioned. And besides, it presents Paul in\nan attitude which certainly does not compliment his sagacity. Mark you,\nit is \u201cevery one of you\u201d that he instructs to \u201clay by at home.\u201d It must\ntherefore be, not the church collectively, but its individual members\nwho are called upon to treasure up, or lay by in store. Just here we\nsubmit that the language employed is literal, and not figurative, and\nthat, this being true, the moment that the saints at Corinth placed\ntheir funds in the common treasury, they violated the injunction of the\napostle, which was that they should treasure it up, or lay it by in\nstore, individually. By way of enforcing our logic, we inquire of the\nreader, who has doubtless contributed many times to church collections,\nCan you look upon money thus bestowed as in any proper sense of the term\nbelonging to you individually? or as still treasured up or laid by in\nstore? We think that your answer will not be equivocal. To lay by in\nstore, as before stated, is to put in some safe and accessible place;\nbut money once donated is not accessible to the individual contributor,\nsince he has no longer any individual property in it.\n\nHere we must terminate our remarks on 1 Cor. 16:1, 2. As we do so, we\nhave disposed of the last Bible text which will be cited in the support\nof a supposed practice of Sunday-keeping on the part of the early\nchurch. Error begets error. Having rejected the obvious teaching of Acts\n20:7, that Paul, after holding a meeting on the first day of the week,\ntraveled nineteen and a half miles on foot, and having endeavored to\nexplain away this journey by inferring that it took place on the second\nday of the week, which is not mentioned in the connection, our opponent\ncomes to the consideration of 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, lugging along in his arms\na precedent which God had clearly taught him was not designed to teach\nthe lesson which he sought to extract from it. With this precedent, thus\nillegitimately obtained, he seeks to explain the language of Paul which\nwe have been considering. By this means, he has been led to indorse\nerror. But we need not recapitulate.\n\nIn conclusion on this point, we remark: How admirable is the providence\nof God! He has instructed us in his word, in regard to duty, by clear\nprecepts, and has never told as to study its requirements simply in the\nlight of human example. How remarkable, therefore, that he should have\ncondescended to so order, by his Spirit, the record which has been made\nin the case of every precedent brought forward, that the text and\ncontext would utterly overthrow every effort of him who should attempt\nto employ them in the interest of a false doctrine. On the day of the\nresurrection, as if to show that it was not holy time, two disciples are\nbrought to view as traveling fifteen miles; a portion of the distance in\ncompany with their approving Lord, and the remainder of it after he had\nappeared to, walked and conversed with, them. In Acts 20:7, apparently\nperceiving the use which might be made of it, he places, in the\nforeground of the sacred record, the apostle, threading a weary journey\non foot from Troas to Assos; and lastly, in 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, he framed\nthe language so that it should inculcate, not the idea that the first\nday of the week was holy time, but, on the contrary, that it might be\ndevoted to the secular work of casting up accounts and collecting funds.\n\nWith the exposition offered of the words, \u201cI was in the Spirit on the\nLord\u2019s day,\u201d Rev. 1:10, we shall make short work. What we have\npreviously said on that passage is not sufficiently disturbed to warrant\nextended remark. Be it remembered, then, that, as said above, the\npassage proves that God has a day in this dispensation. At this point\ncommences our divergence. We say that the term, \u201cLord\u2019s day,\u201d refers to\nthe seventh-day Sabbath. The writer says that it refers to the first day\nof the week. The declaration that Christ paid no attention to the\nseventh-day Sabbath after his resurrection, needs no reply here, except\nthat he was under no obligation to do so, and there was no good reason\nwhy he should, since he regarded it strictly in his lifetime, and\nenjoined it upon his followers. Perhaps, however, it would be well to\nadd that he at least never did anything after his resurrection which\nmight be construed into a desecration of it; whereas, in the case of the\nonly first-day on which it can be _proved_ that he ever met with his\ndisciples, after his death, be devoted a portion of its hours to travel\non the highway.\n\nTo the objection of the writer that, if the term, \u201cLord\u2019s day,\u201d in the\ncase before us, does apply to the seventh-day Sabbath, it is strange\nthat it should have been called in every case but this \u201cthe Sabbath,\u201d we\nreply that, were this true, this would simply prove a choice in titles,\nand implies no disrespect to the day itself, since the term \u201cSabbath,\u201d\nequally with that of \u201cLord\u2019s day,\u201d was a sacred denomination. Not so,\nhowever, if he be right in the supposition that the term, \u201cLord\u2019s day,\u201d\napplies to the Sunday; for, if he be correct in this, then indeed we\nhave something which is _passing strange_. For, in all the New\nTestament, that which he is pleased to style the \u201cChristian Sabbath,\u201d\nand to which, according to his theory, belonged the honorable name of\n\u201cLord\u2019s day,\u201d is not only so called but once; but, being spoken of nine\ntimes by inspired men, it is mentioned eight times out of the nine by\nthem in an utter disregard of its hallowed nature, in the terms\nemployed, since it is referred to by its secular name, first day of the\nweek, in all these instances. The reader will recollect that, in our\npositive argument, we showed that the term, \u201cLord\u2019s day,\u201d was a fitting\none for the last day of the week, provided the term translated \u201cLord\u201d\nwas applicable to God, the Father, as well as to Christ, the Son. 1.\nBecause it was the day which he blessed and sanctified in Eden, thus\nclaiming it as his own (Gen. 2:3). 2. Because, in the commandment, he\ncalls it \u201cthe Sabbath of the Lord.\u201d 3. Because, in Isa 58:13, 14, he\nmakes mention of it in the use of the terms, \u201cSabbath,\u201d \u201cmy holy day,\u201d\n\u201cthe holy of the Lord,\u201d &c.\n\nIn addition, we might cite other honorable and distinguishing terms by\nwhich it is pointed out in the Bible as a day which belongs peculiarly\nto the Lord our God, but these are sufficient.\n\nIf it be replied that the word translated \u201cLord\u201d in Rev. 1:10, is\nnecessarily limited to Christ, we answer: 1. As we have argued formerly,\nthat he said he was Lord of the Sabbath. Mark 2:27, 28. 2. That the\nfollowing texts show conclusively that the divine Son of God was\nengaged, equally with the Father, in the creation of this world; and,\ntherefore, that he undoubtedly shared in the rest which furnished the\nfoundation for the Edenic Sabbath, as well as in the act of blessing and\nsanctifying it, or setting it apart for religious purposes. \u201cAll things\nwere made by him [Christ]: and without him was not anything made that\nwas made.\u201d John 1:3. \u201cHe was in the world, and the world was made by\nhim, and the world knew him not.\u201d John 1:10. \u201c... Who [God] created all\nthings by Jesus Christ.\u201d Eph. 3:9. \u201cFor by him were all things created,\nthat are in heaven, and that are in earth; ... all things were created\nby him, and for him.\u201d Col. 1:16. \u201cGod ... hath in these last days spoken\nunto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom\nalso he made the worlds.\u201d Heb. 1:1, 2. Even though we should grant,\ntherefore, which we do not, that the term translated \u201cLord,\u201d as above,\napplies exclusively to the Son of God, we cannot see why the seventh day\nmight not, with all propriety, be called after him, the Lord\u2019s day.\n\nIn the concluding remarks on this branch of the subject, it will not be\nconsidered out of place for us to remind the reader of the protest which\nwe offered, in the rejoinder to the second article of the gentleman of\nthe _Statesman_, against his effort to obtain all the benefit which\ncould be derived from his interpretation of Rev. 1:10, before he had\nstruck a single blow, either in the direction of overturning our\nconstruction, or establishing, by fair argument, his own. The reason why\nthis protest was offered is now apparent. The gentleman there, by\nanticipation, _assumed_ that John meant by the term, \u201cLord\u2019s day,\u201d the\nfirst day of the week. He _promised_ that in due time he would make good\nhis assertion. But how has it proved, now that he has reached the very\npoint where he should have fulfilled this engagement? Every one must see\nthat he has utterly failed. _Proof_ was the very thing which was\n_promised_, and which was _needed_, right here. It is the very thing,\nalso, which he has neglected to adduce. All that is said in reference to\nthe theory of Wetstein, may have served to give respectability, in point\nof length, to the treatment of that which he has regarded a most\nimportant scripture in his line of evidence; but it was utterly\nirrelevant to anything which we had said; for the reader will remember\nthat we emphatically planted ourselves on the position that it was the\nweekly Sabbath to which allusion is made.\n\nTo the restatement of the scriptures employed in vindication of this\nlast opinion, there can be no objection, but we inquire again, Where are\nthe passages, where the deductions from Scripture teachings, by which\nthe gentleman has proved that the Lord\u2019s day is the first day of the\nweek? He has not so much as cited one. He has not made even a\nrespectable effort at argument; but, with a haste which is irreverent,\nif not indecent, he rushes away from the book of God, as if impelled by\nthe conviction that his view will find no support there, and plunges\nheadlong into the regions of patristic myth and moonshine. At this we\nare not surprised. It is just what we expected. Sabbatarians are as well\nacquainted with this device as they are with the emptiness of the\nso-called Bible argument for the Sunday. It simply serves to strengthen\ntheir conviction, so often expressed in these articles, that the\nstronghold of first-day observance will ever be found in writings which\nhave been manipulated, retrenched, and interpolated, by the church of\nRome. For, be it remembered, it is from the authorities to which the\ngentleman now appeals, that the papacy brings its stoutest testimonials\nfor apostolic succession, papistic supremacy, and the other heresies\nwhich blacken the record of its apostasy.\n\nAll it is necessary to say to the reader here is, therefore, that he\nshould bear in mind that Sabbatarians are willing to leave the\narbitrament of this whole question where it can be determined from the\nstandpoint of Bible evidence. It is the opposition, and not we, who make\nit necessary, in the investigation of this subject, to go upon forbidden\nground. \u201cAll Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable\nfor doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in\nrighteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished\nunto all good works.\u201d 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. If, therefore, first-day sanctity\nhas no warrant in the Bible, which we have seen to be the case, then it\nis not among those things which are _profitable_, or which, as Christian\ndoctrines, are _necessary to furnish the man of God unto all good\nworks_.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  This point is an important one; and as we are anxious to satisfy the\n  reader that it is well taken, we append the following remarks of\n  Albert Barnes, who\u2014though agreeing with the writer in the _Statesman_\n  that this passage furnishes proof for Sunday observance\u2014nevertheless\n  frankly concedes, as will be seen, that the construction of the\n  original phrase for \u201ctreasuring up,\u201d is such as to admit of the idea\n  that the work was to be done at home. He says: \u201cThe phrase in Greek,\n  \u2018treasuring up,\u2019 may mean that each one was to put the part which he\n  had designated into the common _treasury_. This interpretation seems\n  to be demanded by the latter part of the verse. They were to lay it\n  by, and to put it into the common treasury, that there might be no\n  trouble of collecting when he should come. Or, it may, perhaps, mean\n  that they were individually to _treasure it up_, having designated in\n  their own minds the sum which they could give, and have it in\n  readiness when he should come.\u201d\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  Instead of selecting a wealthy person, able to contribute ten dollars\n  per week, as has been done above, let an individual be chosen from the\n  poorer classes of Corinthians\u2014say from among these who would be able\n  to donate only twenty-five cents per week\u2014and the reader will be more\n  forcibly impressed with the unreasonableness of that construction\n  which makes it necessary that so small a pittance should first be\n  placed or devoted at home, and then carried to the church, and there\n  deposited in the general collection.\n\n\n\n\n                           STATESMAN\u2019S REPLY.\n                             ARTICLE SEVEN.\n        TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.\n\n\nBesides the inspired records of the Scriptures, there have come down to\nus the writings of men who were contemporaneous with some of the\napostles, and the writings of others who lived in the immediately\nsucceeding generations. We shall quote from the writings of those who\nlived during the two centuries following the close of the canon of\ninspiration. These writers give evidence enough that they were not\ninspired, as were the penmen of the Divine Word. But it will be borne in\nmind that we appeal to them here simply as witnesses to a matter of\nfact. Many of their opinions and interpretations of Scripture may not be\nworthy of acceptance; but their testimony to the existence of the Lord\u2019s\nday, an admitted fact, cannot be disputed. As there has been a great\ndeal of loose citation from the early fathers on this question, we have\nbeen at considerable pains to translate carefully from the original in\nevery case, and accompany each quotation with minute and accurate\nreference.\n\nThe first writer from whom we shall quote is Ignatius. This father stood\nat the head of the church at Antioch at the close of the first century\nand the beginning of the second. After occupying that position for many\nyears, he was condemned to death, as a Christian, by Trajan, transported\nin chains to Rome, and there thrown to lions in the Coliseum for the\namusement of the populace, probably in the year 107. On his way to Rome,\nhe wrote seven epistles to various churches. Eusebius and Jerome arrange\nthese writings as follows (1) To the Ephesians; (2) to the Magnesians;\n(3) to the Trallians; (4) to the Romans; (5) to the Philadelphians; (6)\nto the Smyrneans; (7) to Polycarp, bishop, or presbyter, of Smyrna.\nThese seven epistles, in connection with a number of others confessedly\nspurious, have come down to us in two Greek copies, a longer and a\nshorter. A Syriac version of three epistles has recently been found.\nWithout entering into the controversy concerning these Ignatian\nEpistles, we give the conclusion reached by Dr. Schaff, which is very\ngenerally accepted: \u201cThe question lies between the shorter Greek copy\nand the Syriac version. The preponderance of testimony is for the\nformer, in which the letters are no loose patch-work, but were produced,\neach under its one impulse, were well known to Eusebius, probably even\nto Polycarp, and agree also with the Armenian version of the fifth\ncentury.\u201d (History of the Christian Church, vol. i. p. 466.) It is\nadmitted, even by those who do not accept the Greek copy as genuine,\nthat it is the work of the close of the second century, or a little\nlater. In any event, then, it is important testimony. In the epistles to\nthe Magnesians occurs the following language: \u201cBe not deceived with\nfalse doctrines, nor old, unprofitable fables. For, if we still live in\naccordance with Judaism, we confess that we have not received grace. For\neven the most holy prophets lived according to Jesus Christ.... If,\nthen, they who were brought up in ancient things arrived at a newness of\nhope, no longer keeping the Sabbath, but living according to the Lord\u2019s\nlife, ... how can we live without him?... Since we have been made his\ndisciples, let us learn to live according to Christianity.\u201d[9]\u2014_Ad\nMagnes._ capp. 8, 9; Coteler\u2019s Edition, vol. ii. pp. 19, 20. Amsterdam,\n1724.\n\nIn this passage, it will be observed, the writer draws a contrast\nbetween Judaism and Christianity. To keep the seventh-day Sabbath was to\nlive according to Judaism. To live according to the dominical life, or,\nas the thought is otherwise expressed, to live according to\nChristianity, was opposed to the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath. The\nargument of Ignatius tells strongly in favor of the first-day Sabbath.\nIf Jews, he argues, brought up in the old order of things, on turning\nChristians, no longer keep the seventh-day Sabbath, but live according\nto the dominical life, observing as part of that life, the dominical\nday, the day on which the Lord rose from the dead, surely those who\nnever had been Jews should live according to Christianity, and not give\nheed to Judaizing teachers.\n\nPassing on, we come to a document called \u201cThe Epistle of Barnabas.\u201d This\nletter, though not the composition of the Barnabas of the New Testament,\nwas written in the early part of the second century. It cannot be\ndetermined who was the author, but _the early date_ of the letter is\nfully established; and that is the main point. Its language is: \u201cWe\ncelebrate the eighth day with joy, on which Jesus rose from the\ndead.\u201d\u2014_Coteler\u2019s Edition of the Apostolic Fathers_, vol. i. p. 47.\n\nThe testimony of Justin Martyr is full and explicit. As an itinerant\nevangelist for many years during the first half of the second century,\njust after the time of the apostle John, he enjoyed an excellent\nopportunity of becoming, acquainted with the customs of the whole\nchurch. Writing in the year 139 to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, in\nvindication of his Christian brethren, he gives the following account of\ntheir stated religious services: \u201cOn the day called the day of the sun\nis an assembly of all who live either in cities or in the rural\ndistricts, and the memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the\nprophets are read;\u201d _i. e._, the Old and New Testaments. Then he goes on\nto specify the various parts of their first-day services. Just as at the\npresent day, in Christian congregations, there were preaching, prayer,\nthe celebration of the Lord\u2019s supper, and the contribution of alms. As\nreasons why Christians should observe the first day, he assigns the\nfollowing: \u201cBecause it was the first day on which God dispelled the\ndarkness and chaos, and formed the world, and because Jesus Christ, our\nSaviour, rose from the dead on it.\u201d\u2014_Robert Stephens\u2019 edition of the\nworks of Justin Martyr_, p. 162. Luteti\u00e6, 1551.\n\nIn another of his works, the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, written about\nthe same time as the Apology, from which we have quoted, occurs this\npassage: \u201cThe command to circumcise infants on the eighth day was a type\nof the true circumcision by which we were circumcised from error and\nevil through our Lord Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead on the first\nday of the week; for the first day of the week remains the chief of all\nthe days.\u201d (Stephens\u2019 Edition, p. 59. See also Trollope\u2019s edition of the\nDialogue with Trypho, pp. 85, 86.) The careful reader of Justin Martyr\nwill observe that, in addressing Trypho the Jew, he uses different terms\nfor the days of the week from those which he employs in addressing the\nEmperor Antoninus. Addressing a heathen emperor, he employs the heathen\nnames for both the seventh and the first day of the week.\n\nTwo important notices of the Lord\u2019s day, all the more important because\nof their incidental character, are found in the History of Eusebius.\nDionysius, bishop or presbyter of Corinth, A. D. 170, in a letter to the\nchurch at Rome, a fragment of which is preserved by Eusebius, says:\n\u201cTo-day we kept the Lord\u2019s holy day, in which we read your letter.\u201d\n(Hist. Eccles. iv. 23, Paris Ed. 1678, pp. 117, 118.) The other of these\nnotices is in regard to a treatise on the Lord\u2019s day, by Melito, bishop\nof Sardis, A. D. 170. This treatise, Eusebius remarks, along with others\nby the same writer, had come to the historian\u2019s knowledge.\u2014_Hist.\nEccles._ iv. 26, Paris Ed. 1678, p. 119.\n\nAlthough the letter of Pliny to Trajan is so well known as hardly to\nneed quotation, we shall close this article with its interesting\ntestimony in confirmation, from a pagan quarter, of what has already\nbeen adduced from Christian writers: \u201cThey [the Christians] affirmed\nthat the sum of their fault, or error, was that they were accustomed to\nassemble on a stated day\u2014_Stato die_\u2014before it was light, and sing\npraise alternately among themselves to Christ as God\u2014_carmenque Christo,\nquasi Deo, dicere secum, invicem_.\u201d (Plin. Epist. x., 97.) Here we have\nthe fact that Christians in the early part of the second century met\nregularly on a stated day, and this stated day, as all the Christian\nauthorities of the same date prove, was the first day of the week, the\nLord\u2019s day.\n\nAdditional patristic evidence will be given in the next article.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  Not a few eminent writers, such as Dwight, and Wilson, of Calcutta,\n  who are followed by many lesser authors, quote Ignatius, as saying:\n  \u201cLet us no more Sabbatize, but keep the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d From the literal\n  rendering of the original above given, it will be seen that these\n  writers take an unwarrantable liberty with their author. The words of\n  Ignatius are, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. To separate the noun\n  \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd from the preceding adjective, and connect it with the following\n  participle, so as to read, \u201cLiving a life according to the Lord\u2019s\n  day,\u201d is an unnatural separation of the words of the original. To drop\n  out the word \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd is unwarranted. If this word were spurious, then the\n  rendering would be, \u201cLiving according to the Lord\u2019s day,\u201d the\n  adjective \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b7 without the noun for \u201cday\u201d being expressed occurring\n  frequently for \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day.\u201d But there is no ground for rejecting\n  the word \u201clife.\u201d To color the language of an author for the sake of\n  giving it point in favor of one side of a question is unworthy of a\n  seeker after truth. In the present case there is really nothing gained\n  by departing from the precise language of the writer. Another passage,\n  often quoted as from Ignatius, is part of the spurious epistle to the\n  Galatians. It is as follows: \u201cDuring the Sabbath, Christ continued\n  under the earth, in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathea had laid\n  him. At the dawning of the lord\u2019s day, he arose from the dead. The day\n  of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Lord\u2019s day\n  contains the resurrection.\u201d This certainly has some weight as the\n  testimony of comparatively early writer, but it must not be ascribed\n  to Ignatius.\n\n\n\n\n                              A REJOINDER.\n       \u201cTESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.\u201d\n\n\nThere is one feature which has characterized this debate, hitherto,\nwhich has been a source of considerable satisfaction. The controversy,\nup to this point, has been urged purely with reference to the teaching\nof the Bible, as drawn from its sacred pages. Henceforth, however, this\nis not to be the case. We are now to have, not the \u201csure word of\nprophecy,\u201d with the clear and forcible lines of textual evidence, drawn\nfrom its inspired utterances, but that \u201cword of prophecy,\u201d supplemented\nand explained by the apostolic fathers.\n\nIt has been said, and well said, that history repeats itself. If there\nwas one thing which marked the religious impulse that Protestantism gave\nto the world, it was an utter rejection, in the decision of religious\nopinions, of everything but Bible authority. The voice of Martin Luther\neven now seems to reverberate in our ears, as\u2014when fighting the very\nbattles which Sabbatarians am being called upon to fight over again\u2014he\nretorted in sharp and stinging words upon his cowled and priestly\nopponents, who were ever citing patristic evidence, The Bible, and the\nBible alone, is our rule of faith. Again, as we read the words addressed\nby him to those friends who were hopefully waiting the expected reply\nfrom the Romanists of his time, to a courageous assault which he had\nmade upon them from the stand-point of the Bible, it seems as if they\nwere designed to be prophetic of our time, rather than descriptive of\nhis own. He said: \u201cYou are waiting for your adversaries\u2019 answer; it is\nalready written, and here it is: \u2018The fathers, the fathers, the fathers;\nthe church, the church, the church; usage, custom; but of the\nScriptures\u2014nothing!\u2019\u201d\u2014_D\u2019Aubirgne\u2019s Hist. Ref._, vol. viii., p. 717.\n\nWearisome as these repeated conflicts may be to the child of God, there\nis a satisfaction in the thought that we hold in our hands the same\nweapons, and bear aloft the same banners by which, under the blessing of\nGod, victory, complete and universal, has been attained in the past. The\nopponents of Bible truth have never yet been able to stand before the\nthunder of its power, or to balance the ponderous weight of its\ninfluence, in the decision of religious questions. The homely phrase of\nthe great reformer is just as potent and irresistible in the present\ncontest as it was in that for which it was framed \u201cWhen God\u2019s word is by\nthe fathers expounded, construed, and glossed, then, in my judgment, it\nis even like unto one that straineth milk through a coal-sack, which\nmust needs spoil the milk, and make it black; even so, likewise, God\u2019s\nword of itself is sufficiently pure, clean, bright, and clear; but\nthrough the doctrines, books, and writings, of the fathers, it is very\nsurely darkened, falsified, and spoiled.\u201d\n\nThe elegant and convincing logic of Philip Melancthon, the greatest\ntheologian of the sixteenth century\u2014who, in the following brief lines,\ndiscussed and summed up the whole question\u2014is just as sound and\nunanswerable now as it was when, under the blessing of God, it carried\nconfusion and defeat into the ranks of the papacy, three hundred years\nago. He says: \u201cHow often has not Jerome been mistaken! how often\nAugustine! how often Ambrose! How often do we not find them differing in\njudgment\u2014how often do we not hear them retracting their errors! There is\nbut one Scripture divinely inspired, and without mixture of error.\u201d\n(_Idem._, p. 219.) In fine, we might prove from history that nearly\nevery Protestant writer, for the last three centuries, has forged for us\nweapons which could be employed with the most telling effect in the\ncontroversy in which we are now engaged.\n\nThis, however, we have not space to do, but must content ourselves with\nseveral brief citations, by which we will show that the authorities of\nour own times\u2014equally with those of the past\u2014are uniform in their\nexpressions of contempt for testimony which is so largely relied upon by\nour reviewer in the present discussion. \u201cTo avoid being imposed upon, we\nought to treat tradition as we do a notorious and known liar, to whom we\ngive no credit, unless what he says is confirmed to us by some person of\nundoubted veracity.... False and lying traditions are of an early date,\nand the greatest men have, out of a pious credulity, suffered themselves\nto be imposed upon by them.\u2014_Archibald Bower._\n\n\u201cBut of these, we may safely state that there is not a _truth_ of the\nmost orthodox creed that cannot be proved by their authority; nor a\n_heresy_ that has disgraced the Romish church, that may not challenge\nthem as it abettors. In point of _doctrine_, their authority is, _with\nme, nothing_. The WORD of God alone contains my creed. On a number of\npoints, I can go to the Greek and Latin fathers of the church, to know\nwhat _they believed_, and what the people of their respective communions\nbelieved; but after all this, I must return to God\u2019s word to know what\nhe would have me to believe.\u201d (A. Clark, Com. on Prov. 8.) \u201cWe should\ntake heed how we quote the fathers in proof of the doctrines of the\ngospel; because he who knows them best, knows that on many of those\nsubjects they blow hot and cold.\u201d (Quoted in Hist. of Sab. from\nAutobiography of Adam Clarke.)\n\n\u201cMost of the writings, bearing the name of the apostolic fathers, are\nregarded as spurious by various modern critics. The genuineness of all\nhas been disputed; but the fragments that remain are curious as relics\nof an early age, and valuable as indicating the character of primitive\nChristianity.\u201d (Am. Cyc., Art. Apostolic Fathers.) Thus much for the\nestimate which Protestants place upon the authorities which are brought\nforward by the gentleman in the _Statesman_. Assuredly, he would never\nhave appealed to them, had he not felt that his cause was hopeless one,\nwhen left to the arbitrament of Scripture.\n\nShould it be pleaded in extenuation of his cause that they have not been\nadvanced with a view to influencing the judgment of the reader in\nreference to the continuity of the old Sabbath, but were introduced\nsimply to furnish, as suggested in the outset, a criticism showing the\nuse of the term, \u201cLord\u2019s day,\u201d in the first three centuries, then, we\ninquire, why cite Ignatius at all? It will be perceived at a glance\nthat, according to the rendering which he has given us\u2014and for which,\nand his note thereon, he will receive our thanks, since it will save us\nmuch labor\u2014there is not in it a single mention of the term, \u201cLord\u2019s\nday.\u201d If the passage conveys any meaning at all, it is either that the\nSabbath should be observed in a manner differing from that in which it\nwas kept by the Jews, or else that it should not be observed at all.\n\nBut the last of these propositions, the writer will not admit to be\nsound, since he has fairly repudiated such a conception, and has, in so\nmany words, stated that he heartily agrees with us in the perpetuity of\nthe Edenic Sabbath. He has also stated that the fourth commandment\u2014which\nit will be admitted commences with the words, \u201cRemember the _Sabbath\nday_, to keep it holy\u201d\u2014is a Sabbath law which is still binding, and\nwhich, the words of Ignatius to the contrary notwithstanding, forever\nsettles the question that this is not a Sabbathless dispensation.\n\nWhat shall be done, then, with the language of the venerable father? We\nare well acquainted with the office which it has performed hitherto, and\nare anxious to know where it is to throw its baleful shadow hereafter.\nIn the past, hundreds of individuals whose consciences have been aroused\nby appeals to the Bible on the subject of the perpetuity of God\u2019s holy\nday, have had their fears quieted, and have been lulled into security by\nthe very extract with which we are here favored. Why, they have said,\nwas not Ignatius a disciple of John, and did he not therefore know what\nJohn believed? Did he not also prove his integrity by becoming a martyr\nto the faith? Since, therefore, he was possessed of both knowledge and\npiety, and since he has called the first day of the week the Lord\u2019s day,\nare we not justified in keeping the day which he kept, and rejecting the\nday which he rejected? Supported and encouraged in this position, as\nthey have been by the brethren of the writer who\u2014having either less\ncandor, or less scholarship, than he\u2014have insisted again and again that\nIgnatius did call the first day of the week the Lord\u2019s day, it has been\nin many cases utterly impossible for Sabbatarians to disabuse their\nminds of this impression. With gratitude, therefore, we shall add the\nname of the gentleman to the rapidly increasing list of scholars who,\nheaded by Kitto, and others of equal distinction, frankly concede that\nSabbatarians have been in the right, and that Ignatius did not speak of\nthe Lord\u2019s day at all, but simply alluded to the Lord\u2019s life.\n\nBut what shall we say for those who have been deluded upon this point,\nand have thus been prevented from doing what they felt that duty\nrequired? There is a terrible responsibility somewhere. For the scholars\nwho have abetted this deception, there can be no defense. For the\nunfortunate victims of the fraud, it may be said that their situation\nwould be more hopeful had they not brought themselves into the\ndifficulty by going upon forbidden ground. Should one be led astray by\nan incorrect translation of the Scriptures, God would undoubtedly pardon\nthe mistake; for the person had done the best he could under the\ncircumstances, and had sought for light where God had instructed him so\nto do. But to those who, having left the only true source of trustworthy\nknowledge, have allowed any class of persons, ancient or modern, to\nshape their belief differently from what it would have been had they\nrelied wholly upon the Bible, we fear that Christ will say\u2014as he did to\nthose in like circumstances in his day, who, having followed the\ntraditions of their ancestors, were found violating the law of God\u2014\u201cIn\nvain do ye worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.\u201d\n\nBefore closing on this point, and in order that the citation may not be\nemployed in the interest of no-Sabbath views, let the reader consider,\nfor a moment, another feature, and a very important one in this\nargument. Having seen that Ignatius\u2014if he wrote the above\u2014did not\nmention the Lord\u2019s day, it is proper now to inquire whether it is\ncertain that he ever penned the language in question, at all? To this it\nmay be replied, that it is very far from being so. Nay, it is in the\nhighest degree probable, as the following extracts will prove, that the\nvenerable man either never wrote a word of those which are cited, or, if\nhe did, what he said has been so manipulated that it is very far from\nconveying the impression which he intended. \u201cFrom Smyrna, he (Ignatius)\nwrote to the churches at Ephesus, Magnesia, Trallia, Rome, and\nPhiladelphia, and on his voyage, to Polycarp, and the church at Smyrna.\nThese letters are still extant, though the genuineness of the first\nthree is doubted by some learned men.\u201d (_Cyc. Relig. Knowl. Art.\nIgnatius._)\n\nThe distinguished historian and scholar, Kitto, speaks on this point in\nhis Cyclopedia, Art. Lord\u2019s Day, as follows: \u201cWe must notice one other\npassage as bearing on the subject of the Lord\u2019s day, though it certainly\ncontains no mention of it. It occurs in the epistle of Ignatius to the\nMagnesians (about A. D. 100). The whole passage is evidently obscure,\nand the text may be corrupt.\u201d Originally, there were fifteen letters\nattributed to Ignatius. Centuries ago, however, eight of them were\nrejected as hopelessly spurious. The remaining seven have been also\ndenounced as forgeries, by many writers, with John Calvin at their head.\nOthers, while holding on to four of the seven, have condemned three, and\namong them the letter to the Magnesians, from which the citation which\nwe are considering was taken. A poor stone, this, which purports to come\nfrom Antioch, for the head-stone of the corner of the temple of\npatristic testimonials to the Sunday.\n\nThe way is now prepared for the consideration of the second extract,\nnamely, that of Barnabas. Here, again, the confession of the gentleman\nis of service to us, by way of saving labor, since he unequivocally\nadmits that the Barnabas who wrote the letter from which he quotes, was\nnot the Barnabas of New-Testament fame. It becomes important, however,\nthat we should know just who he was who wrote this epistle, before it\nshould be received as authority in a grave religious discussion. Few\npersons would have the temerity to commit their spiritual interests to\nthe hands of nameless individuals who lived 1700 years ego, unless they\ncould feel some assurance that the men in whom they were thus confiding\nwere persons whose judgment should have weight in the decision of\nmatters of faith.\n\nIt is not enough that it should be established, even beyond doubt, that\nthe writer in question lived in the second century. For no one will\ninsist that _all the men_ who lived at that time were proper exponents\nof the views held by Christians in that period. It is, therefore, but\nreasonable that, before any man is brought forward to testify in so\nimportant a matter, he should have either a name which will show that he\nwas qualified, both morally and intellectually, to act the part of a\npublic teacher of the opinions held in his time, or, at least, that what\nhe has written must be of a nature to commend his utterances to our\njudgments. Neither of these requisitions, however, is met in the case of\nthe Barnabas (if his name was really Barnabas) quoted above.[10]\n\nThat his epistle has been employed in a gigantic fraud, no one will\ndispute. It is headed, \u201cThe general Epistle of Barnabas.\u201d At its close,\nas given in the apocryphal New Testament, is the subscription,\n\u201cBarnabas, the apostle, and companion of Paul.\u201d Now, if he wrote these\nwords himself, the gentleman will admit that he is unworthy of the\nslightest confidence, since he has told a deliberate falsehood. If, on\nthe other hand, it be insisted that this was the work of subsequent\ngenerations, then we must move with extreme caution. In the region where\nthis epistle lies, are the unmistakable footprints of men base enough to\npervert the facts, and to employ its contents for an unworthy purpose.\n\nThe only alternative left us, therefore, since the author of the\ndocument is unknown to history, is that of examining what he has said,\nwith reference to its character. Before doing this, however, it will be\nwell to state\u2014by way of putting the reader on his guard\u2014that the history\nof this epistle is of a nature to awaken the most serious suspicion. By\nconsulting the Am. Cyc., Art. Epistle of Barnabas, he will find it there\nstated that this epistle was lost to the world for eight hundred years,\nnamely, from the ninth to the seventeenth century, and that, when it\ncame to the surface after its long disappearance, it was found in the\nhands of one Sigismond, a Jesuit of that age. The desperate character of\nthe order to which this man belonged, and the recklessness with which\nits members treat documents of the most sacred character, when they can\nthereby serve a favorite purpose, need no comment here.\n\nProf. Stowe, while arguing favorably to the epistle, in some respects,\nemploys the following words, which have in them great significance, in\nview of what has been said above: \u201cWe admit that the epistle of Barnabas\nis strongly interpolated.\u201d\u2014_Hist. of Books of the Bible_, p. 423.\n\nIt is now time to ponder, for a moment, the words of the nondescript\nwriter quoted above. They are as follows: \u201cWe celebrate the eighth day\nwith joy, on which Jesus rose from the dead.\u201d In them is found not a\nsingle fact which, granting their authenticity, is at all decisive in\nthe matter at issue. For, be it remembered, the controversy is not as to\nwhether the ancients were in the habit of holding convocations for any\npurpose whatsoever, on the first day of the week, but, whether they\ncalled it the Lord\u2019s day. It will, therefore, be admitted that the term,\nLord\u2019s Day, is not so much as mentioned; whereas, the day which it is\nsupposed was entitled to the honor of being thus designated, is termed\nthe \u201ceighth day, the one on which Jesus rose from the dead.\u201d Nor is it\nso much as intimated that the day in question was observed as a Sabbath,\nor esteemed as holy. The statement employed is that \u201cthey celebrated it\nwith joy.\u201d But this could be said with perfect propriety of any day of\nthe week on which there regularly occurred a religious festival.\n\nAs an illustration of this, it might be mentioned here that a\nhistorian of the present time, while mentioning the usages of this\nperiod, could not be charged with inaccuracy should he declare that\nthe 25th of December, which is supposed by some to be the day of the\nLord\u2019s nativity, is regularly celebrated. Should he do so, and should\ncoming generations infer therefrom that it is now regarded as holy,\nyou will readily perceive the mistake into which they would fall. What\nwe want, if we must have recourse to such _miserable material_ as that\nwhich we are handling over, is something positive and definite. This\nthe text undeniably fails to give. We leave it, therefore, as\nworthless; 1st. Because we do not know _who_ wrote it. 2d. Because we\ndo not know _when_ it was written. 3d. Because it is found in an\nepistle so corrupted by interpolations that it is not at all reliable\nas authority. 4th. Because it has no direct bearing upon the subject.\n5th. Because its author\u2014by the absurd and ridiculous sentiments to\nwhich he gave expression\u2014manifestly had a judgment too weak to allow\nus to suppose that, in the providence of God, in which nothing falls\nout by mistake, he should constitute a pillar in any way necessary to\nthe establishment of sound religious doctrine.\n\nThe third authority brought forward is Justin Martyr. From him we learn\nthat, on the day of the sun, the church at Rome were in the habit of\nconvening, partaking of the Lord\u2019s supper, listening to preaching,\nengaging in prayer, and in the contribution of alms.\n\nIt will be at once perceived that here is the nearest approach yet made\nto the accomplishment of the task which our reviewer assigned himself,\nand for which he has led the reader away from the oracles of God to the\nopinions and practices of men liable to error and mistake. Let it not be\nforgotten that the _prominent_ object to be gained by this departure,\nwas the production of patristic authority for the use of the term,\nLord\u2019s day, in the first three centuries. That this purpose has not been\naccomplished, hitherto, all must admit. The next inquiry, therefore, is,\nshould all points of dispute respecting the reliability of what has been\nquoted above, be waived, and should it be granted that Justin Martyr\nsaid what is attributed to him, Has the desired object been reached? The\nanswer is emphatically in the negative. Justin Martyr avoids the\napplication of Lord\u2019s day to the day of the sun, as if prevented from\nusing it by the same fatality which has withheld all the others from\ndoing so, who have thus far been cited.\n\nHere we might pause, and insist that the gentleman has utterly failed,\nin the citation before us, to prove anything which is really relevant to\nthe subject. It is in vain that he urges, in extenuation of the fact\nthat Justin calls the first day of the week, the \u201cday of the sun,\u201d that\nhe is addressing a heathen emperor. He was not afraid to speak to that\nemperor of the Old and New Testaments, of the preaching of the word, of\nthe Lord\u2019s supper, and of the resurrection of Christ; and why should he\nthus carefully avoid mention of the Lord\u2019s day? Surely, he did not wish\nto convey the impression that Christians observed the day of the sun\nbecause of its heathen character, since he gives the reasons for their\ndoing so.\n\nBut, again, it is claimed that at this period the chosen and peculiar\nappellation which had been given by the Holy Spirit, was that of Lord\u2019s\nday, and that the Lord\u2019s day, or the Sunday, had become the holy Sabbath\nwhich God commanded. This being true, assuredly we might expect that, in\nthe work of Justin entitled, \u201cA Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew,\u201d he would\nset forth, in the use of its peculiar title, the claims of that day\nwhich had been elevated, by divine command, to the position of the\nancient Sabbath. But does he do this? The gentleman does not urge it. He\ndoes say that, in writing to the Jew, he drops the heathen titles of\nSunday and Saturday, and speaks of the first, and the seventh, day of\nthe week. But mark again; it is not urged that he anywhere calls the\nfirst day the Lord\u2019s day. Once more, therefore, he has failed on this\nbranch of the subject.\n\nNow it will be well to regard the matter from the other side of the\nquestion. It must be conceded, as remarked above, that what Justin\nMartyr says furnishes stronger support for the idea of worship on the\nSunday than anything else which has been adduced. But here again, we\nprotest that the Bible, alone and unexplained, is sufficient for the\nsettlement of this point. Others, if they like, may form their religious\nfaith upon the practice of uninspired men, handed down to us through the\nperilous transit of the ages, protected and shielded from corruption and\ninnovation by no denunciation of divine wrath against those who change\nits phraseology; but we much prefer to stand under the covering \u00e6gis of\nthese words: \u201cIf any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto\nhim the plagues which are written in this book.\u201d (Rev. 22:18.) Nor do we\nthink that the gentleman himself would seriously urge that this position\nis unsound. Let us test it. Justin Martyr is assumed to be a fair\nexponent of the religious sentiment of his time. Now, therefore, what he\nbelieved they believed; and what they believed, we ought to believe, if\nour position, taken above, is not correct. Proceeding a step farther, we\ninquire, what was the faith of Justin Martyr and his contemporaries,\nallowing his writings to be the criterion of judgment? To this it may\nreplied:\n\n1st. That they believed in no Sabbath in this dispensation. Proof: \u201cFor\nif before Abraham there was no need of circumcision, nor of Sabbaths,\nnor of feasts, nor of offerings before Moses; so now in like manner\nthere is no need of them, since Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was, by\nthe determinate counsel of God, born of a virgin of the seed of Abraham,\nwithout sin.\u201d (Dial. of Trypho.) Does the writer believe this? The\nreader well knows that he does not, for he has nobly repudiated it,\nagain and again.\n\n2d. They believed that the Sabbath was imposed upon the Jews for their\nsins. Proof: \u201cIt was because of your (_i. e._, Jews) iniquities, and the\niniquities of your fathers, that God appointed you to observe the\nSabbath.\u201d (_Idem._) But our reviewer holds\u2014as must all who accept the\nwords of Christ (Mark 2:27, 28)\u2014that it was given to Adam in the garden\nof Eden, as their representative head, for the benefit of the whole\nrace, more than two thousand years before there was a Jew in the world.\n\n3d. They believed that, in the administration of the Lord\u2019s supper,\nwater should be employed. Proof: \u201cAt the conclusion of this discourse,\n_i. e._, that of the Bishop on Sunday, we all rise up together and pray;\nand prayers being over, there is bread, and wine, and water offered.\u201d\n(First Apol. Tras. by Reeves.) But modern Christendom look upon this as\nan innovation of popery.\n\n4th. They believed that the reasons why Christians should observe the\nfirst day of the week were found in the facts that God dispelled the\ndarkness and chaos on the first day of the week, and that on that day,\nChrist rose from the dead. Proof: Extract given above by the writer in\nhis article. But the first of these opinions, modern Christians will not\nadmit at all, and the latter furnishes only one-half of the obligation,\nsince it ignores all positive law upon the subject.\n\nSo we might proceed, but enough has been said to show that Justin\nMartyr, as quoted above, is no criterion for the faith of those who have\nthe Bible in their hands, from which they can learn, contrary to his\nviews: 1st. That we have a Sabbath. 2d. That it was given to all mankind\nas a blessing, and not to the Jews for their sins. 3d. That both the\nbread and the wine belong to the laity, as well as to the priests. 4th.\nThat the reasons for the observance of the Lord\u2019s day do not rest upon\nthe circumstance that God dispelled the darkness on the first day, but\nupon an explicit command of Heaven.\n\nIf the reader would satisfy himself from other sources that the\nstatements of Justin Martyr are to be taken with extreme caution, and\nthat his judgment was so easily imposed upon as to render him an unsafe\nguide in the plainest matters of fact, he will read the following\nextract from a publication of the Am. Tract Society: \u201cJustin Martyr\nappears indeed peculiarly unfitted to lay claim to authority. It is\nnotorious that he supposed a pillar erected on the island of the Tiber\nto Semo Sanchus, an old Sabine Deity, to be a monument erected by the\nRoman people in honor of the impostor, Simon Magus. Were so gross a\nmistake to be made by a modern writer, in relating a historical fact,\nexposure would immediately take place, and his testimony would\nthenceforward be suspected. And, assuredly, the same measure should be\nmeted to Justin Martyr, who so egregiously errs in reference to a fact\nalluded to by Livy, the historian.\u201d\u2014_Spirit of Popery_, pp. 44, 45.\n\nIn concluding the remarks which will be offered here\u2014in reference to\nthose productions which are attributed to Justin Martyr, and which have\nbeen brought forward for the purpose of influencing the mind of the\nreader in favor of a cause which has found no support in the\nScriptures\u2014it is proper to state that their authenticity is by no means\nabove suspicion; or, to speak more accurately, that some of them have\nbeen tampered with, is a matter which is settled beyond dispute. Already\nthe reader has seen that by some means they have been made to contribute\nto the interests of the Romish doctrine of the use of water in the\nsacrament, as early as the first part of the second century. If it be\ngranted that the statement in question is historically true, then the\nleaven of the papacy had begun to work so manifestly in the lifetime of\nJustin, that the opinions of his associates, as well as of himself,\nought to have no weight with us who have repudiated the great apostasy.\n\nOn the other hand, should it be denied that water was then employed, as\nstated by the venerable father, there remain but two conclusions between\nwhich the reader can take his choice; either, 1st. Justin did not\ncorrectly represent the faith of his time; or, 2d. What he did say\noriginally has been molded and fashioned by the plastic hand of the man\nof sin, until it is made to support the heresies of the hierarchy. To\nour mind, the latter conclusion is undoubtedly the true one. Below will\nbe found an extract from a distinguished historian of the church, which\nproves that what is said above respecting the treatment which the\nwritings of Justin Martyr have received is correct: \u201cLike many of the\nancient fathers, he [Justin] appears to us under the greatest\ndisadvantage. Works really his have been lost, and others have been\nascribed to him, part of which are not his; and the rest, at least, of\nambiguous authority.\u201d\u2014_Milner\u2019s History of Church_, Book 2, Chap. 3.[11]\n\nThe fourth historic mention of the Lord\u2019s day, as brought forward, is in\nthe following words of Dionysius. \u201cTo-day we kept the Lord\u2019s holy day,\nin which we read your letter.\u201d By turning to Eusebius, the curious\nreader will discover that the citation incidentally given occupies but\nlittle more space than is required for the words as quoted. Their\nimportance in this discussion does not demand for them any more room\nthan was assigned them by the historian from whom they are extracted.\nThe dispute is not whether there is indeed a Lord\u2019s day, for both\nparties are agreed respecting this question. What we wish to ascertain\nis, Which day of the week is entitled to this appellation? The reference\nbefore us in no way helps in the settlement of this point. It simply\nstates that the letter was read on the Lord\u2019s day. Whether that was the\nfirst or the seventh in the cycle of the week is not stated, so we pass\nthe language as unworthy of further consideration.\n\nThe allusion to the fifth authority is even more unsatisfactory than\nthat of the fourth. It seems that Melito, bishop of Sardis, had written\na discourse on the Lord\u2019s day, which had been seen by Eusebius. As to\nits contents, the letter says not one word, neither shall we; for, as it\nis not now in existence, it is impossible that any person should be able\nto decide which view it would favor, provided it were in being.\n\nThe sixth proof is brought from the writings of Pliny. It is couched in\nthese words: \u201cThey [the Christians] affirmed that the sum of their\nfault, or error, was, that they were accustomed to assemble on a stated\nday, before it was light, and sing praise alternately among themselves,\nto Christ, as God.\u201d Without debating the propriety of bringing forward a\nheathen writer to prove the practice of a Christian church, we proceed\nto examine the testimony itself. Its utter inability to fill the place\nassigned to it will be discerned by every intelligent person who\nexamines its phraseology. In it is the declaration that Christians were\nin the habit of assembling on a stated day, at which time they sang\npraises alternately among themselves, to Christ, as God.\n\nNow that the statement of the facts is not incompatible with the idea\nthat they were observers of the seventh day, all must admit. For surely,\nthere is no incongruity in the notion that it would be in the highest\ndegree proper for the observers of the ancient Sabbath of the Lord to\ndevote its sacred hours to the delightful task of singing hymns of\npraise, and worshiping Christ, as God. That the language itself as\ncompletely harmonizes with this view, as with any other, will be felt\nwhen we remember that the writer does not say that they assembled on the\nfirst day of the week, or the Lord\u2019s day, at all; but, simply, that it\nwas on a stated day that they gathered themselves together for the\npurposes of worship. A stated day is one which recurs at fixed\nintervals. The Sabbath might have been the stated day; or, so far as\nanything to the contrary in the passage is concerned, the Sunday might\nhave been the one. Pliny does not decide the point for us. His\ndeclarations, therefore, have not the slightest force in proving\nanything favorable to the opinions of the gentleman.\n\nFurthermore, if inference is to be taken at all, the preponderance would\nrather be in favor of the last day of the week, since, in devoting it to\nthe worship of Christ, they would not only bring upon themselves the\nwrath of the heathen, because of their acknowledgment of our Lord\u2019s\ndivinity; but, also, in the sum of their fault would be found the fact,\nthat they ignored the sacredness of the day of the sun, and celebrated\nanother, as holy, by divine command.\n\nThus much for the uninspired witnesses, brought forward from the first,\nand the early part of the second, century of the Christian era. Had they\nflatly contradicted what we have seen the teachings of the Bible to be,\nthey would not have moved us one hair; for we remember that the great\napostle has said, that, though \u201can angel from Heaven preach any other\ngospel unto you, let him be accursed.\u201d But, strangely enough, their\ntestimony is utterly worthless for the purpose for which it has been\nintroduced. Not one of them has styled the Sunday the Lord\u2019s day; not\none of them has called it the Sabbath; not one of them has stated that\nit was regarded as holy, or that its hours might not, without sin, be\ndevoted to secular pursuits. Here, then, we leave them, and wait for a\nfresh inundation of such as will answer the purpose for which they are\ncalled in a more satisfactory manner than the foregoing.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  Did it not appear to be indispensable to the enlightening of the\n  reader, as to the consummate folly of the author of the epistle of\n  Barnabas, we should not append, as we do, his language in the\n  following note, since it is hardly worthy of a place in a chaste and\n  dignified discussion. For its citation we hold those, responsible who\n  have made this action necessary, and who value the testimony of a man\n  so utterly devoid of common-sense: \u201cNeither shalt thou eat of the\n  hyena; that is, again, be not an adulterer; nor a corrupter of others;\n  neither be like to such. And wherefore so? Because that creature every\n  year changes its kind, and is sometimes male and sometimes female.\u201d\n  Chap. 9:8.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  Since, writing the above, the following interesting item in the\n  _Christian Union_, for Feb. 19, has been brought to my notice, and\n  will serve to show that continued investigation on the part of\n  scholars is rendering the authenticity of the writings of Justin\n  Martyr more and more doubtful:\u2014\u201cDr. Franz Overbeck has lately\n  examined, with great care, the \u2018epistle to Diognetus,\u2019 which has been\n  regarded as one of the most precious relics of the age succeeding that\n  of the apostles. He urges several reasons for coming to the conclusion\n  that the work was written later than the era of Constantine, and was\n  intended by its author to pass as a work Justin Martyr\u2019s. Critics had\n  already proved it no genuine work of Justin, and if Dr. Overbeck is\n  right, it can no longer be assigned to the age of Justin.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                           STATESMAN\u2019S REPLY.\n                             ARTICLE EIGHT.\n             PATRISTIC TESTIMONY TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.\n\n\nThe testimony already adduced from the early fathers in our last issue\nwill be regarded by most of our readers as sufficient in itself. But for\nthe sake of giving a complete view of the patristic testimony to the\nfirst-day Sabbath up to the close of the third century, we shall occupy\nsome additional space with extracts, on the accuracy of which our\nreaders may confidently rely.\n\nFirst among the witnesses now cited is Iren\u00e6us, bishop or presbyter of\nLyons, A. D. 178. Let it be remembered that in the case of this witness\nwe have the testimony of one who was brought up at the feet of Polycarp,\nthe disciple and companion of the Apostle John. The first point to be\nnoted in the testimony of Iren\u00e6us is the abrogation of the seventh-day\nSabbath. As the rite of circumcision was no longer required, so the\nobservance of the seventh-day Sabbath had ceased. Each was a sign or\nshadow of the substance to come. This thought is dwelt upon at great\nlength. (See _Contra H\u00e6reses_, book iv. ch. 30, Grabe\u2019s Edition, Oxford,\n1702, pp. 318, 319; also Benedictine Edit., Paris, 1710, p. 246.)\n\nLest his statements might be understood to be opposed to the authority\nof the ten commandments, Iren\u00e6us adds the following sentences: \u201cThe Lord\nspoke the words of the decalogue in like manner to all. They remain,\ntherefore, permanently with us, receiving, through the Lord\u2019s advent in\nthe flesh, extension and increase, not abrogation.\u201d (Book iv. ch. 31, p.\n320.) Thus the law of the Sabbath remains, though not binding to the\nobservance of the seventh day.\n\nWe now come to this writer\u2019s clear and distinct testimony, in its more\npositive aspect, to the Lord\u2019s day. Iren\u00e6us took a prominent part in\nwhat has been called the Quarta-Deciman controversy. The question at\nissue was\u2014Should the anniversary of the Lord\u2019s resurrection be in\nconnection with the Jewish passover, on whatever day of the week that\nmight occur, or on the Lord\u2019s day invariably? This question first arose\non a visit of Polycarp, bishop or presbyter of Smyrna, to Aniest, bishop\nof Rome, about 160, and was discussed for many years. Iren\u00e6us, acting as\nthe representative of the Christians in Gaul, wrote to Victor, then\nbishop of Rome, in these terms: \u201cThe mystery of the Lord\u2019s resurrection\nshould be celebrated only on the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d (_Euseb. Hist. Eccles._\nbook v. chap. 23, 24; Paris ed., 1678, pp. 155, 156.) It will be\nremarked here that while there was diversity of view in regard to the\n_yearly_ celebration of the Lord\u2019s resurrection\u2014a celebration of which\nwe have no account whatever until the year 160, there was no question\nconcerning the sacred observance of the first day as the _weekly_\ncommemoration of the Lord\u2019s rising from the dead.\n\n\u201cWe simply add a reference to one of the best known of the fragments of\nIren\u00e6us in which there is further explicit testimony to the Lord\u2019s\nday\u2014testimony all the more important, because it occurs incidentally in\na treatise concerning the passover, and in connection with a statement\nin regard to Pentecost.\u201d (_Fragmentum lib. de Pascha_, Bened. ed.,\nParis, 1742, p. 490.[12])\n\nFor the sake of presenting a complete view of the testimony of the\nfathers for the first three centuries, we had thought of quoting from\nClement of Alexandria, A. D. 194; Minucius Felix, 210; Commodian, about\n270; Victorinus, 290; and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, 300. But as the\ntestimony will be perfectly conclusive without these witnessess, and as\nspace is valuable, we shall cite only three more authorities\u2014three\nwell-known fathers, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian.\n\nAt the close of the second century, Carthage, the metropolis of Northern\nAfrica, was the center of numerous flourishing Christian congregations.\nLiving in Carthage for many years, Tertullian knew well the practice of\nthe African churches. And although he became, about 202, one of the\nerrorists known as Montanists, his testimony, however unreliable as to\ndoctrines, is still indisputable as to facts. From the frequent\nreferences to the Lord\u2019s day in this author we select the following: \u201cBy\nus, to whom the [Jewish] Sabbaths are strange, and the new moons and\nfestivals once pleasing to God, the Saturnalia, January, and mid-winter\nfeasts, and Matronalia [of the heathen] are frequented. O better\nfidelity of the heathen to their own religion! They would not share with\nus the Lord\u2019s day, nor Pentecost, even if they knew them, for they would\nfear lest they should seem to be Christians.\u201d (_De Idolatria_, cap. xiv,\nSemler\u2019s edit., Hal\u00e6 Magdeburg, vol. iv., pp., 167, 168.) The testimony\nof this passage is decisive in three points: (1.) The Jewish, or\nseventh-day, Sabbath was not observed by Christians. (2.) They were\nenjoined not to observe heathen festivals. (3.) To the Lord\u2019s day, as\nthe proper day for Christian service, belonged the honor to which Jewish\nand heathen days had no claim.\n\nThe exercises of the Lord\u2019s day, when Christians assembled for public\nservice, are described by Tertullian in a manner very similar to that of\nJustin Martyr, whose account has already been quoted. Prayer, reading\nthe Scriptures, exhortation, and collections for benevolent purposes are\nall mentioned. (_Apol._, cap. xxxix, vol. v., pp. 92-94.) It is to be\nnoted that Tertullian, like Justin Martyr, in addressing the heathen,\ncalls the first day of the week \u201cthe day of the Sun,\u201d as he also\ndesignates the Jewish Sabbath by its heathen name. (See _Apol._, cap.\nxvi.)\n\nWe close these citations from Tertullian, with one which is of the\ngreatest importance in proving that the early Christians observed the\nfirst day of the week, not as a mere holiday, but as a day of rest and\nworship\u2014a holy Sabbath to the Lord. \u201cOn the Lord\u2019s day, the day of the\nResurrection, we should not only abstain from that,[13] [bending the\nknee,] but also from all anxiety of feeling, and from employments,\nsetting aside all business, lest we should give place to the devil.\u201d\n(_De Oratione_, cap. xxiii., vol. iv., p. 22.)\n\nContemporary with Tertullian at the beginning of the third century was\nOrigen of Alexandria, one of the most scholarly and learned of all the\nearly fathers. This writer contrasts the Lord\u2019s day with the Jewish\nSabbath, and shows the superiority of the former. We may not agree with\nhim when he maintains that the superiority was indicated by the giving\nof manna to the Israelites on the first day of the week, while it was\nwithheld on the seventh. His testimony to the fact of the sacred\nobservance of the Lord\u2019s day instead of the seventh-day Sabbath is\nvalid, though his reasons for the admitted superiority may not all be\nsatisfactory. In the same connection he remarks: \u201cOn our Lord\u2019s day the\nLord always rains manna from heaven.\u201d (_Comment on Exodus_, Delarue\u2019s\ned. of Works of Origen, Paris, 1733, vol. ii., p. 154.) In another of\nhis works he contends that it is one of the evidences of a true\nChristian \u201calways to keep the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d (_Contra Celsum_ lib. viii,\nvol. i., pp. 758, 759.)\n\nThe most important passage in the writings of Origen is found in his\nHomilies on the Book of Numbers. Here we first meet with the name\n\u201cChristian Sabbath\u201d for the first day of the week, or the Lord\u2019s day:\n\u201cLeaving, then, the Jewish observance of the Sabbath, let us see what\nthe observance of the Sabbath by the Christian ought to be. On the\nSabbath should be performed no worldly acts. If, therefore, you desist\nfrom all secular works, and do nothing of a worldly nature, but occupy\nyourselves with spiritual duties, assembling at the church, listening to\nthe sacred readings mad instructions, thinking of celestial things,\nconcerned for the hopes of another life, keeping before your eyes the\nJudgment to come, and looking not at the things which are present and\nvisible, but at those which are invisible and future\u2014this is the\nobservance of the Christian Sabbath.\u201d (_Hom. xxiii in Numeros_, vol.\nii., p. 358.)\n\nCyprian, bishop of Carthage, about the third century, gives this\nexplicit testimony to the Lord\u2019s day: \u201cSince in the Jewish circumcision\nof the flesh the eighth day was celebrated, the ordinance was\nforeshadowed in the future, but completed in truth at the coming of\nChrist. For inasmuch as the eighth day, that is, the first day after the\nSabbath, was the day on which the Lord rose and gave us life and\nspiritual circumcision, this eighth day, that is the first after the\nSabbath and the Lord\u2019s day, preceded in an image, which image ceased\nwhen the truth afterwards came, and spiritual circumcision was given to\nus.\u201d (_Epistle_ lxiv., Works of Cyprian, Brem\u00e6, 1690, vol. ii., p. 161)\nThe weight of this testimony is not a little augmented by the fact that\nthe epistle, in which it is found is a synodical epistle, which was sent\nforth in the name and with the authority of the Third Council of\nCarthage, A. D. 253. The epistle bears this inscription at its head:\n\u201cCyprianus et ceteri Colleg\u00e6 qui in concilio affuerant numero LXIV. Fido\npatri Salutem.\u201d\n\nWith this authoritative statement of Cyprian and his sixty-six\ncolleagues, or co-presbyters, we close our citations from the fathers.\nThe testimony of succeeding writers is equally clear, but it simply\nconfirms what has already been fully proved. And now, with the facts of\nhistory in view, as we have learned them from inspired writers and their\nimmediate successors, it remains for us to examine opposing theories of\nthe institution of the Sabbath. We shall endeavor to dispose of this\nconcluding, and perhaps most interesting part of our subject, in two or\nthree articles.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  The culpable carelessness of Dwight, Wilson, and other authors, in\n  citing from the early fathers, is nowhere more noticeable than in the\n  case of Iren\u00e6us. These writers quote him as saying: \u201cOn the Lord\u2019s\n  day, every one of us Christians, keeps the Sabbath, meditating on the\n  law, and rejoicing in the works of God.\u201d There is no reference given\n  to the writings of Iren\u00e6us. And for good reason. After a most careful\n  examination, we are persuaded no such passage is to be found in his\n  writings. The mistake was probably first made by President Dwight,\n  whose weakness of sight compelled him to depend upon an amanuensis.\n  \u201cFor twenty years of his presidency,\u201d we are informed by his\n  biographer, \u201che was rarely able to read as much as a single chapter in\n  the Bible in the twenty-four hours.\u201d (_Dwight\u2019s Theology_, London,\n  1821, vol. i. pp. 91, 95.) Others followed this high authority.\n\n  In order to guard our readers against injuring the cause they would\n  advance, we must mention another important instance of considerable\n  negligence. In a number of works on the Sabbath, Dr. Justin Edwards\u2019\n  \u201cSabbath Manual,\u201d for example, we find not only the blunders already\n  noticed, but another quite as bad. The language\u2014\u201cBoth custom and\n  reason challenge from us that we should honor the Lord\u2019s day, seeing\n  on that day it was that our Lord Jesus completed his resurrection from\n  the dead,\u201d is ascribed to Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, about A. D.\n  162. The words quoted are in reality those of another Theophilus, who\n  was bishop of Alexandria, at the close of the fourth century. We hand\n  over these criticisms upon advocates of the first-day Sabbath to our\n  seventh-day Sabbatarian friends, trusting to their honor and fairness\n  not to separate them from the rest of this discussion. For our own\n  part, whether it may be pleasant to the advocates of the seventh-day\n  Sabbath, we desire to have for ourselves, and to aid others to have,\n  the whole truth. It was in this spirit that we gave room in our\n  columns for a full presentation of the arguments on the other side of\n  this question.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  As a matter of independent interest and importance, we would ask all\n  who are interested in the question of the posture in prayer of\n  worshipers in the early church, to compare with Tertullian\u2019s\n  statement, that of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, A. D. 300, who says:\n  \u201cWe keep the Lord\u2019s day as a day of joy, because of Him who rose on\n  that day, on which we have learned not to bow the knee.\u201d (_Bibl.\n  Patrum, apud Gallard_, vol. iv., p. 107.) To the same effect is the\n  decision of the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, requiring, as there were\n  certain ones who bent the knee on the Lord\u2019s day, that it should be\n  the uniform practice to give thanks to God, standing. (_Canon_, xx.)\n\n\n\n\n                              A REJOINDER.\n             \u201cPATRISTIC EVIDENCE TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.\u201d\n\n\nIn the rejoinder to the previous article on patristic testimony, the\nattention of the reader was called to the fact that our opponent had\nutterly failed to find a single instance in which the first day of the\nweek was called the Lord\u2019s day, by the authorities which he cited, or in\nwhich it was stated by them that it was observed by divine command. Had\nwe possessed the space necessary for the purpose, the significance of\nthis failure would have been enlarged upon; for it must be borne in mind\nthat in the one hundred and thirty-nine years which intervened between\nthe death of Christ and the writing of the latest citation produced in\nhis seventh article, lies the most important, and the most promising,\nfield for such testimonials as would be of the highest value to the\nopposition. This is so, not only from the fact that the period in\nquestion was the one in which it is alleged that the transition from the\nold to the new Sabbath occurred; but, also, because it was one, which,\nfrom their premises, was the most likely to yield reliable evidence in\nregard to apostolic faith, since it lay the nearest to apostolic times.\nIt is true that even then apostasy had begun its career; for Paul states\nthat, in his time, \u201cthe mystery of iniquity had begun to work.\u201d\n\nBut all will agree that the farther we come this side of the\nfountain-head, the more natural it would be to find that the pure waters\nof the original stream should become steadily darker and more turbid,\nuntil they lost themselves in the sloughs of those corrupt teachings,\nwhich were so far to excel all others, that they were thought to be of a\nnature to demand especial attention in the prophecies. But here we are,\nas already remarked, seventy-five to eighty years this side of the\ncross, and the case of our reviewer in no-wise helped by his effort. In\nfact, not only has he failed to place his Sabbath upon the foundation of\nthe successors of the apostles, but he has also greatly weakened his\nprobabilities for the future, since in the territory over which we have\npassed, we have seen not only the utter unreliability of the fathers\nthemselves, as teachers, but, also, that their sayings have been\ntampered with by the \u201cman of sin,\u201d who, reaching backward as well as\nforward, is reckless in his efforts to make everything contribute to the\npower and authority of the hierarchy.\n\nBut we must proceed in the examination of those individuals who are now\nintroduced as additional witnesses for the Christian Sabbath. The first\nin order is Iren\u00e6us, Bishop of Lyons, A. D. 178. It will not be\nnecessary to consider the language of the gentleman, in which he states\nthat Iren\u00e6us taught the abrogation of the seventh-day Sabbath, since we\nhave not quoted that father in the defense of an institution which _God\nhas commanded_. Nor shall we enlarge upon the fact that Iren\u00e6us\ninculcates the binding obligation of the ten commandments, since it is\nenough for us to know that this doctrine is plainly set forth in the\nBible.\n\nThe witness is the gentleman\u2019s. He has brought him forward to prove\nthat, in his time, the year of our Lord 178, the term, Lord\u2019s day, was\napplied to the Sunday. Has he succeeded, at last, in the achievement of\nhis purpose? If so, it is the first instance in which he has\naccomplished the desired object. Apparently, he has triumphed here. But\nlet us proceed with caution. Has he produced the writings of Iren\u00e6us\nhimself? No, he has not. The words quoted are these: \u201cThe mystery of the\nLord\u2019s resurrection should be celebrated only on the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d By\nturning to the Hist. of Eusebius, book v., chap. 23, the reader will\nfind that the language employed does not purport to be that of Iren\u00e6us,\nas penned by himself, but that of Eusebius, who is giving an account of\na decree passed by certain bishops, which decree was in harmony with a\nletter from Iren\u00e6us. We quote enough in the 23d chapter to verify our\nstatement:\u2014\n\n\u201cHence there were synods and convocations of the bishops, on this\nquestion; and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which\nthey communicated to all the churches, in all places, that the mystery\nof our Lord\u2019s resurrection should be celebrated on no other day than the\nLord\u2019s day; and that on this day alone we should observe the close of\nthe paschal fasts. There is an epistle extant, even now, of those who\nwere assembled at the time.... There is an epistle extant, on the same\nquestion, bearing the name of Victor. An epistle, also, of the bishops\nof Pontus, among whom Palmas, as the most ancient, presided; also of the\nchurches of Gaul, over whom Iren\u00e6us presided, ... and epistles from many\nothers, who, advancing one and the same doctrine, also passed the same\nvote, and this their unanimous determination was the one already\nmentioned.\u201d\n\nIt will be observed here that the historian does not quote the language\nof the decree as being the exact language of the bishops; also that he\ndoes not pretend to give the precise words of Iren\u00e6us, but that he\nsimply recounts the fact that the epistle of Iren\u00e6us was in harmony with\nthe decree which he had previously given. This it was legitimate for a\nhistorian to do. Eusebius died one hundred and fifty years after\nIren\u00e6us, and in his time, we frankly admit that the term, Lord\u2019s day,\nwas frequently applied to the first day of the week. The historian,\ntherefore, using the nomenclature of his own period, represents the\nbishop of Lyons as favoring the celebration of the Passover on the\nLord\u2019s day, simply because he had said it ought to be observed on the\nfirst day of the week. If we are right in this, then, of course, our\nopponents will throw up the whole passage as irrelevant to their present\npurpose\u2014since they have not assumed to employ Eusebius, who lived in the\nfourth century, as a witness\u2014but have cited his statement because it was\nsupposed to contain the declaration of Iren\u00e6us, who lived at a much\nearlier period.\n\nFor the purpose of clinching the argument, and showing that the historic\nfact is in harmony with what we have said, we quote the following on the\npoint from Eld. J. N. Andrews, in which it will be seen that in the\noriginal, the term, first day of the week, and not the Lord\u2019s day, as\nsupposed, might have been employed:\u2014\n\n\u201cObserve ... Eusebius does not quote the words of any of these bishops,\nbut simply gives their decisions in his own language. There is,\ntherefore, no proof that they used the term, Lord\u2019s day, instead of\nfirst day of the week; for the introduction to the fiftieth fragment of\nhis lost writings, already quoted, gives an ancient statement of his\nwords in this decision, as plain first day of the week. It is Eusebius\nwho gives us the term, Lord\u2019s day, in recording what was said by these\nbishops concerning the first day of the week.\u201d\n\nThat which has been said above in reference to the testimony found in\nbook v., chap. 23, of Eusebius, will largely apply, in principle, to the\ncitation found in chap. 24, of the same book. In the latter, as in the\nformer, case, the historian is not giving the exact utterance of\nIren\u00e6us, but simply declares, in substance, his decision in regard to\nthe proper time for the celebration of the passover festival.\n\nBefore passing from Iren\u00e6us to the consideration of another case of the\nfathers, it would be proper to commend the candor of our opponent, as\nmanifested in his hearty condemnation of the looseness of Dwight and\nothers in their statements of historic facts. In making the concession\nwhich the gentleman has, he will doubtless bring upon himself the\ncondemnation of those who exalt success above truth. He has taken from\nsuch one of their most potent weapons. The language of Iren\u00e6us, which is\nhere admitted to be of spurious origin, has figured largely in the\ndiscussion of this question, in the past. It was pointed and decisive,\nand seemed to furnish just the material necessary to the satisfactory\nmaking out of a case, otherwise sadly deficient in the proofs which it\nneeded. It will, therefore, be yielded up with reluctance. Nevertheless,\nwe hope that the acknowledgment, made by our opponent in this article,\nwill lead clergymen, for the future, to desist from the use of it, until\nthey are able to refute what the writer in the _Statesman_ here asserts.\n\nIn the meanwhile, the reader must not allow himself to suppose that the\ngentleman, by saying what he has, has really brought Sabbatarians under\nobligation to hint for new light, since what he here asserts is but a\nfact with which they have been familiar for years, and which they have\niterated and re-iterated until they have almost despaired of bringing\ntheir opponents to an acknowledgment of the real state of things.\nOccasionally, others outside of their ranks have, as does the gentleman,\nborne testimony to the accuracy of their statements. If the reader would\nhave an illustration of this, taken from the writings of an\nanti-Sabbatarian author, he will find it in the works of Domville, in\nwhich, substantially, the same conclusions are reached, Mr. Domville not\nonly tracing the mistake to Dr. Dwight, but also allowing that the\nlanguage cited was probably taken from the interpolated epistle of\nIgnatius to the Magnesians.\n\nUp to this point, we have carefully examined, one by one, the historic\nquotations from ancient writers, which have been presented for our\nconsideration; henceforth, we shall pursue a different course. As we\nhave now reached, in the person of Tertullian, the close of the second,\nand the opening of the third, century of the Christian era, we find\nourselves in a period when it is so generally acknowledged that the work\nof apostasy was so manifest that the utterances of the men of those\ntimes\u2014even though they were pointed and explicit in regard to the\nsanctity of the first day of the week, as looked upon by\nthemselves\u2014could furnish no reliable standard of Christian faith in our\nday.\n\nThe gentleman himself is compelled to admit that his own witness,\nTertullian, became, in the second year of the third century, an ardent\nadvocate of the errors, follies, and heresies, of Montanus. Not only so,\nbut the writings of that father are proverbial, among scholars, for the\nfanciful conceits and the false notions which are so conspicuous upon\ntheir pages. Tertullian was a fiery zealot and a bitter partisan,\nmanifestly credulous beyond bounds, and more earnest for his sect than\nanxious for the reliability of the sources of his information. Zell, in\nhis popular Encyclopedia, speaks of him as follows:\u2014\n\n\u201cAfter he was past middle age, he embraced the doctrines of Montanus, to\nwhich his ardent, sensuous imagination, and ascetic tendencies would\nincline him. He is said to have been determined to that course by the\nill-treatment he received from the Roman clergy. Whether he remained a\nMontanist till his death, cannot be decided.... They [his works] are\ncharacterized by vast learning, profound and comprehensive thought,\nfiery imagination, and passionate partisanship, leading into\nexaggeration and sophistry. His style is frequently obscure.\u201d\n\nMontanus was a false prophet of the second century, who believed himself\nto have received, from the Holy Ghost, revelations which were withheld\nfrom the apostles; he denied the doctrine of the trinity, the propriety\nof second marriage, and the forgiveness of certain sins. The disciple of\nsuch a man is surely a strange witness to be found in the employ of\northodoxy. Should his appearance, however, be excused, as it is above,\nby the statement that he was introduced, not because of the reliability\nof his own opinion, but simply to testify of the usage of his own times;\nit may be replied, first, that an ardent partisan, a person of strong\nimagination, and a notorious heretic, is hardly qualified to speak\nreliably, even in a matter of this nature, since, from the very\nconstitution of his mind, he would almost of necessity allow what he\nsaid to be warped by prejudice, or biased by conceptions of interest;\nsecondly, that in the quotation presented from his pen, it is not a\nlittle remarkable that, instead of asserting a general usage of\nSunday-keeping, he is manifestly finding fault with a large class of his\nfellow-Christians for not regarding the day in the same light, and\nobserving it with the same rigor, that he did; thirdly, that it is by no\nmeans impossible that the very men, whom in his fiery zeal he thus\nupbraids, were, after all, sounder than himself in the faith, and would,\ncould they be fairly heard upon this subject, vindicate their supposed\ndesecration of the first day, from the same grounds as do the\nSabbatarians now, _i. e._, because they did not look upon it as holy\ntime.\n\nIf the above responses are not satisfactory, and if it be insisted that\nthe testimony of the witness shall, after all, he received, then we\npropose that he be called to the stand once more, and be allowed to fill\nup the measure of what he has to say upon this subject. We have seen\nthat, according to his opinion, many of his fellow-disciples were lax in\ntheir Sunday-keeping habits, and that to one who believed that no labor\nshould be performed upon it, whatever, they treated it very much as men\nwould treat a mere festival occasion. But where did Tertullian and his\nsympathizers obtain their notions of the manner in which Sunday should\nbe kept? Was it from the Scriptures? We shall see; here is the witness;\nlet him speak for himself:\n\n\u201cAs often as the anniversary comes around, we make offerings for the\ndead as birth-day honors. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the\nLord\u2019s day, to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege, also, from\nEaster to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, though\nour own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at\nevery going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we\nbathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat,\nin all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead\nthe sign (of the cross). If for these and other such rules, you insist\nupon leaving positive Scripture injunctions, you will find none.\nTradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom,\nas their strengthener, and faith, as their observer. That reason will\nsupport tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself\nperceive, or learn from some one who has.\u201d\u2014_De Corona_, sects. 3 and 4.\n\nThe reader will at once observe that tradition is the foundation which\nis here laid for that kind of Sunday observance for which Tertullian was\nso great a stickler. Not only so, but the fact is brought to light,\nalso, that the men whom he represented were in the habit of offering\nprayers for the dead; of signing themselves with the sign of the cross;\nand going through other ceremonies, which to us, at the present time,\nare not only ridiculous in the extreme, but bear upon their face the\nimpress of the man of sin so unmistakably that none will be deceived.\n\nIf Tertullian was indeed a fair specimen of the Christian men of his\ntime; if his writings have not been tampered with; and if the opinions\nof the men of his day, as expressed by himself, should have weight with\nus in the decision of religious questions, where shall we stop in our\nacceptance of their creeds? If, because they believed with him in the\nchange of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week,\nthis fact should have weight with us in bringing us to the same\nconclusion, independently of Scripture proof, then how can we stop short\nof their faith in other particulars? such as the acceptance of tradition\nin doctrinal matters, prayers for the dead, the sign of the cross, etc.,\netc. In fact, how can we avoid becoming papists ourselves, in the\nlargest sense of the term, since, having gone as far as we have for the\npurpose of making out Sunday sanctity, we have surrendered nearly all\nthe distinctive principles of Protestantism?\n\nOf course each individual is at liberty to use his own discretion as to\nthe measure of confidence which he will give to the writings before us;\nso far as we are concerned, personally, we would not attach to them the\nslightest weight in the decision of a grave religious question. From the\nvery nature of that which has been already cited, it is manifestly a\nserious slander upon the true church of the second, and the first part\nof the third century, to hold them responsible for the fanciful conceits\nand destructive errors of this reputed defender of the faith.\n\nCertain it is, that if Tertullian is correctly reported, his writings\nare not a safe criterion of the sentiments of the Christians of his age\nin very many points, and it may be fairly concluded, that among them is\nthat concerning the Sabbath, since what he has said of it finds no\nwarrant in the open Bible, which the men of this day hold in their\nhands. Not only is what he has written absurd and dangerous in the\nextreme, but his productions are characterized by the most glaring\ncontradictions. Another has said of him: \u201cIt would be wiser for\nChristianity, retreating upon its genuine records in the New Testament,\nto disclaim this fierce African, than identify itself with his furious,\ninvectives, by unsatisfactory apologies for their unchristian\nfanaticisms.\u201d (Milman, in note on Gibbon\u2019s Dec. and Fall of the Rom.\nEmp., chap. xv.)\n\nWe leave him, therefore, with his follies and foibles, his errors and\nfaults, his assertions and contradictions, with those who have a taste\nfor this kind of literature.\n\nWith the case of Origen it will not be necessary that much time should\nbe consumed. Mr. Mosheim has well remarked of him, that had \u201cthe justice\nof his judgment been equal to the immensity of his genius, the fervor of\nhis piety, his indefatigable patience, his extensive erudition, and his\nother eminent and superior talents, all encomium must have fallen short\nof his merits.\u201d Unfortunately, however, with an erudition which was\ntruly remarkable, he united a credulity almost without parallel. So\nnumerous and so grave were the errors of his personal faith, that his\nindividual opinions, unsupported by facts and arguments, are utterly\nworthless in the decision of any theological proposition. Having adopted\nthe mystical system of interpreting the Scriptures, he reached\nconclusions utterly unsound and preposterous in many cases.\n\nThat this is so, the orthodox reader will at once perceive, when we\nstate, first, that he was a believer in the pre-existence of the human\nsoul, and that souls were condemned to animate mortal bodies, because of\nsins committed in a pre-existent state; secondly, that he was a\nRestorationist, and believed in the final universal salvation of all\nmen, after enduring long periods of punishment. Nor does the advocacy of\nsuch sentiments furnish the only difficulty in the way of his testimony,\nas drawn from his writings now extant. There would indeed be some\nsatisfaction derived from the study of these documents, fanciful though\nthey might appear to be in many respects, if we could only feel assured\nthat they represented correctly the sentiments of the alleged author.\n\nUnhappily, this is not the case. Those who admire Origen most, while\nattributing much in what he is said to have written, to that weakness of\ndiscrimination which is everywhere so manifest in his productions, are\ncompelled to go beyond this, in order to explain many of the grosser\nviews therein contained, by admitting that they were not his own, but\nthat they are the result of fraud and interpolation.\n\nOn this point, another, with great candor and friendly charity, when\nspeaking of the sect known as Origenists, after first stating that \u201che\nwas a man of great talents, and a most indefatigable student, but having\na strong attachment to the Platonic philosophy, and a natural turn to\nmystical and allegorical interpretations, which led him to corrupt\ngreatly the simplicity of the gospel, declares that these circumstances\nrender it very difficult to ascertain exactly what his real sentiments\nwere.\u201d He says, also, \u201c1. Being a man of unquestionable talents and high\ncharacter, his genuine works were interpolated, and others written under\nhis name, in order to _forge_ his sanction to sentiments of which,\npossibly, he never heard.... 3. Origen had many enemies, who probably\nattributed to him many things which he did not believe, in order, either\nto injure his fame, or bring his character under censure.\u201d\u2014_Encyc. of\nRel. Knowl._, Art. Origenists.\n\nHaving said thus much in reference to the testimony before us, it would\nbe possible to take up the writings of this distinguished father, and\nshow from them that there is room for a difference of opinion as to\nwhether he believed that the so-called Christian Sabbath was indeed to\nbe regarded as of twenty-four hours\u2019 duration, merely, or whether it\ncovered alike all days of the week, and the whole of our dispensation.\nThis, however, would be a tedious and unprofitable expenditure of time\nand labor. We leave the whole question, therefore, respecting the\nteaching of the works of Origen, as one of no significance in this\ncontroversy; first, because if we know anything about what he did\nbelieve, he was wholly unreliable, either as a teacher of sound\ndoctrine, or as a representative of the better men of his own time; and,\nsecondly, because what he has written has been so corrupted, that we\nhave no guarantee that it truthfully expresses what he believed.\n\nAs we presume the majority of our readers are not particularly\ninterested in reference to which posture was assumed in prayer on the\nfirst day of the week, by the early church, and as Peter of Alexandria\nand the Council of Nice are quoted solely in reference to \u201cthis\nindependent question,\u201d we shall not discuss the note in which reference\nis made to them. There remains, therefore, only the case of Cyprian,\nbishop of Carthage, to occupy us longer. What this author says was\nwritten about A. D. 253. It will be observed, that in what is declared\nby him and the Council, the first day of the week is called the Lord\u2019s\nday; beyond this, his testimony is of no value. It is neither stated\nthat the title was applied by divine authority, nor is it affirmed that\nthis day had superseded in Sabbatic honor the ancient Sabbath of the\nLord.\n\nThere is, however, in reference to circumcision as something which\nprefigured the Lord\u2019s day, or eighth day, enough of mysticism to furnish\nus with a clue to the character of the men whose intellectual\nperceptions were so fine that they could discover in an institution\nwhich was administered on the eighth day after the birth of the male\nchild, on whatever day of the week that eighth day might fall, a\nprefiguring of the distinction which was to be bestowed on the definite\nfirst day of the week, which had in it, not eight, but only seven, days,\nin all. Mr. Mosheim, in alluding to a period in close proximity to that\nin which Cyprian lived, mentions it as one in \u201cwhich the greater part of\nthe Christian doctors had been engaged in adopting those vain fictions\nof Platonic philosophy and popular opinions, which, after the time of\nConstantine, were confirmed, enlarged, and embellished in various ways,\u201d\nand from which he declares \u201carose that extravagant veneration for\ndeparted saints, and those absurd notions of a certain fire destined to\npurify separate souls, that then prevailed, and of which the public\nmarks were everywhere to be seen.\u201d\u2014_Eccles. Hist._, Fourth Century, part\nii., chap. iii.\n\nIt is now time to take a retrospective view of the territory over which\nwe have been passing. Be it remembered that the reader was lured from\nthe contemplation of the Scriptures, with this precious promise, that\noutside of them were to be found the most convincing proofs that the\nLord\u2019s day was and had been the proper title of the first day of the\nweek since the resurrection of Christ; but what have we seen?\nManifestly, not that which we had anticipated:\n\nFirst, we have discovered that Ignatius, the first witness introduced,\ndoes not mention the Lord\u2019s day at all, but simply speaks of the Lord\u2019s\nlife.\n\nSecondly, that the epistle of Barnabas was a forgery, made up of the\nmost absurd and ridiculous fancies, and written by an unknown character\nsomewhere, perhaps in the second or third century, though purporting to\nbe the work of the companion of Paul.\n\nThirdly, that it is becoming more and more a matter of doubt whether\nthat which is attributed to Justin Martyr was ever seen by him, and that\nhe not only does not call the Sunday the Lord\u2019s day, but also inculcates\nin what he says, the Romish heresy respecting the use of water in\nsacrament, &c., &c.\n\nFourthly, that Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and Melito, bishop of\nSardis, while indeed they do speak of the Lord\u2019s day, do not furnish any\nclue by which we can determine which day they regarded as such.\n\nFifthly, that Pliny, a heathen writer, employs neither the term Lord\u2019s\nday nor Sabbath, but simply speaks of a stated day, without\nidentification.\n\nSixthly, that Iren\u00e6us is not properly represented as speaking of the\nSunday in the use of the title Lord\u2019s day, since that expression, in\nboth the instances alluded to, was the language of Eusebius, who lived\nin the fourth century, and not of Iren\u00e6us, who lived in the second.\n\nSeventhly, that Tertullian, who lived at the close of the second and the\ncommencement of the third century, and who was a wild fanatic of the\nMontanist school, utterly unworthy to represent the sentiments of his\ntimes, is the first witness from whom the gentleman has succeeded in\nobtaining an unequivocal application of the term, Lord\u2019s day, to the\nfirst day of the week; also, that he had connected with it, prayers for\nthe dead, the sign of the cross, &c., &c.\n\nEighthly, that Origen was a man of great learning; that it was\nquestionable whether he believed in a septenary Sabbath, or in one that\ncovered the whole dispensation; and that, in fact, it is admitted by his\nfriends that his works have become so corrupt as to be utterly\nuntrustworthy in the matter of deciding respecting his real opinions.\n\nNinthly, that Cyprian and his colleagues addressed us from a point of\ntime too far removed from the period of the alleged change of Sabbaths,\nand too fully within that of the great apostasy, to be of service in an\nexegesis of the Scriptures.\n\nTenthly, that three of the most pointed and satisfactory of the\ntestimonies heretofore employed by first-day writers, are now abandoned\nas having been the result of mistake in translation, or in the matter of\nattributing them to the proper persons. Summing, up, therefore, in a\nword we inquire again, What has been gained by this departure? We\nbelieve that all must see that it has been an entire failure; for, so\nfar as the Sabbath is concerned, we think the reader will hesitate long\nbefore he will leave the Scriptures, in the matter of deciding upon its\nobligation, in order to build the structure of his faith from such\nmaterial as we have been handling over.\n\nAlso, as to the question of what day John referred to in Rev. 1:10, when\nhe said, \u201cI was in the Spirit on the Lord\u2019s day,\u201d he will deliberate\nvery much before he will decide that it was the first day of the week,\nsimply because an untrustworthy man, admitted to have been heretical on\nmany points, called it such 200 years after the birth of Christ, while\nJehovah himself has given to the seventh day that honor, styling it the\n\u201cSabbath of the Lord,\u201d \u201cthe holy of the Lord, honorable,\u201d &c., and while\nChrist himself has declared in so many words, that he was the Lord of\nthe Sabbath day. Mark 2:27, 28.\n\n\n\n\n                           STATESMAN\u2019S REPLY.\n                             ARTICLE NINE.\n                   THEORIES OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.\n\n\nWith the facts of history before us concerning sacred time for nearly\nthree centuries after the resurrection of Christ\u2014facts drawn from the\ninspired writers of the New Testament and their immediate successors, we\nare prepared to consider the different theories of the Christian\nSabbath. These theories may be summed up in three. Of one or another of\nthese, all the remaining theories are simply modifications.\n\nThe first of these three leading theories is as follows: \u201cThe Sabbath\nwas a Jewish institution, and expired with the Jewish dispensation. The\nLord\u2019s day is not in any proper sense a Sabbath. It has an origin, a\nreason, and an obligation, not drawn from the fourth commandment, but\npeculiarly its own, as an institution belonging specially to the\nNew-Testament dispensation.\u201d\n\nThe second theory, in the order in which we notice these different\nviews, maintains that the observance of the Sabbath, as required under\nthe Old-Testament dispensation, knows no change in any particular. The\nobservance of the seventh day of the week is essential to the proper\nobservance of the Sabbath under the gospel dispensation. The observance\nof the first day of the week is without divine warrant\u2014a departure from\nthe law of God through the corruptions which crept into the church.\n\nThe third theory agrees with the second in maintaining that the Sabbath\nexisted from the beginning, and that it has never been abolished or\nsuperseded. It disagrees with the second theory in maintaining that the\nessential idea of the law of the Sabbath is not the holiness of a\nportion of time, but the _consecration of a specified proportion of\ntime_, one day in seven; that, in accordance with this, a change of day\nwas admissible; that a change was actually made by divine warrant from\nthe resurrection of Christ; and that the first day of the week, the\nLord\u2019s day, is the true Christian Sabbath, having its moral sanction in\nthe fourth commandment.\n\nBy many of those who hold the first of these theories, the Lord\u2019s day is\nmade a purely ecclesiastical institution, without any other warrant for\nits observance than the action of the church, by whose authority and in\nwhose wisdom, the day is set apart for divine service. By others who\naccept the same general theory, apostolic authority in the early church\nis admitted to afford a divine warrant for the observance of the day. In\na complete treatise on the Lord\u2019s day, a careful discussion of this\ntheory would be required. Its want of any sufficient foundation could be\nsatisfactorily shown by a presentation of the following points: (1.) The\ndeclaration of the Lord of the Sabbath is explicit\u2014\u201cThe Sabbath was made\nfor man.\u201d It was not made for any portion of the human family, but for\nthe race of mankind. (2.) Thus, from the design of its Lord, and the\nvery nature of the institution, the Sabbath cannot be limited to any\nlocality or dispensation. (3.) Accordingly, it was given to man at his\ncreation. (Gen. 3:3.) (4.) For the same reason, the law of the Sabbath\nhas its proper place, not among ceremonial, local, or positive\nenactments, but among the immutable moral precepts of the decalogue.\n(5.) This law is, therefore, of universal and perpetual obligation upon\nour race. These points would give room for many articles; but, inasmuch\nas on all of them there is entire agreement between our seventh-day\nSabbatarian friends and ourselves, we pass to a consideration of the\nsecond theory, which they accept as correct.\n\nTo make good their case, the advocates of the second theory must show\nthat the seventh day continued to be the Sabbath observed by the church\nafter the resurrection of Christ, just as before; and that, in the\nobservance of the first day, a great departure took place from the\noriginal practice of the Christian church. They must not make _bare_\nstatements, but they must furnish proof. Instead of appealing to the\nletter of the law, and insisting that fact must conform to their\ninterpretation of it, they must accept the facts of history, and put\ntheir interpretations to the test. It is more reasonable to conclude\nthat an interpretation of law is wrong, than to reject the attested\nfacts of history, when the interpretation and the facts do not\nharmonize.\n\nLet us briefly sum up the facts already fully brought to view. Christ\nhimself, after his resurrection, passed by the seventh day, and\nrepeatedly put special honor on the first day of the week. This same day\nwas honored by the Pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit. Christian\ncongregations met for regular weekly service, not on the seventh day,\nbut on the first day of the week. The inspired apostle Paul pointedly\ncondemned the Judaizing teachers who insisted on the observance by\nChristians of the seventh-day Sabbath. The early writers, companions of\nthe apostles, and others of the succeeding generations, bear the\nclearest and most explicit testimony to the same facts\u2014the\nnon-observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, and the stated meetings of\nChristians for divine service on the first day of the week, the Lord\u2019s\nday. Now, if their theory is correct, how will the seventh-day\nSabbatarians explain the fact that Christ himself, the Holy Spirit,\ninspired apostles, and Christian congregations all through the early\nchurch, ignored the seventh day and honored the first? A general and\nvague statement to the effect that an unwarranted change was made from\nthe original practice of the Christian church will not do here. Was not\nthe practice of the apostles and first organized congregations of\nChristians the original practice of the Christian church? That practice\nwas, as we have seen, to observe the first day of the week. We repeat\nwhat we have already proved at length, viz., that there is not an\ninstance in the Scriptures of the observance of the seventh day by any\nChristian church, nor of any regard to that day, after Christ\u2019s\nresurrection, by apostles or their fellow-laborers, except as they\navailed themselves, in their missionary work, of the meetings of Jewish\nassemblies in Jewish places of worship. \u201cAn unwarranted change!\u201d Let\nthose who take such language upon their lips consider that their charge\nlies at the door of Christ and his Spirit, and the inspired apostles.\n\nBut now, for the sake of the argument, let us leave all the testimony of\nthe inspired writers of the New Testament to the first-day Sabbath out\nof view. Again we have the vague charge of unwarranted change. Perhaps\nthe most definite form of this charge is that which makes the change the\nwork of the little horn in Daniel\u2019s prophecy, chapter seven. But will\nthe expounder of Daniel be a little more explicit, and tell us who the\nhistorical personage is, and give us the dates and names of history?\nDoes the little horn represent Antiochus Epiphanes? if so, then, of\ncourse, his change of the law of the Sabbath must have been before the\nChristian era. Will our expositor give us some facts just here? If the\nlittle horn means the papacy, then, according to the prophecy itself, it\ndid not arise until the Roman Empire, represented by the fourth beast,\nwas broken into ten fragments, represented by the ten horns. The little\nhorn sprang up after these, and its change of the law of the Sabbath\nmust date after the fall of the old empire of Rome. But for centuries\nbefore this event, we have the testimony of numerous writers that the\nChristian churches everywhere observed, not the seventh, but the first,\nday of the week, the Lord\u2019s day. Again we ask for facts, not mere\nstatements and theories.\n\nLeaving this vague attempt to connect the assumed unwarranted change\nwith Daniel\u2019s prophesy, we come to what is, if possible, still more\nvague and indefinite. A change, it is asserted, was made by some\nparticular officer or council of the church, as it became corrupt and\nbegan to depart from the practice of the original church of Christ. Who\nwas this officer? or where did this council meet? But we will not make\nunreasonable demands for historical testimony. Let us grant that such an\nofficer or such a council there was at some time or other. The question\nthen arises, When did the change take place? In the days of Cyprian, A.\nD. 250? The answer is clear. The change most have been made before his\nday. Origen and Tertullian, fifty years earlier, knew only the first day\nof the week, the Lord\u2019s day, as the Christian Sabbath. Was the change\nthen made in their day? We might assume that it was, only for the clear\ntestimony of Iren\u00e6us and Justin Martyr, carrying us back another half\ncentury, and the equally explicit testimony of still earlier writers,\ncarrying us back to the apostles themselves.\n\nNotwithstanding all this dearth of historical testimony as to the\nexistence of the supposed ruler or council, let it be further granted\nthat by some such corrupting authority, at some time a decree changing\nthe day for Sabbath observance was issued. How did the supposed\nlegislators establish their decree? How did they make it effectual over\nall the different parts of the church? Must we we suppose that a change\nlike this was effected in the church, and not a scrap of a record left\nconcerning it? The attempt made by the church to establish a common day\nfor the anniversary of Christ\u2019s resurrection gave rise to long and\nbitter controversy, and led to division. And yet, as Prof F. D. Maurice\nhas well said, \u201cIt is supposed that this far more important change,\naffecting all the daily relations and circumstances of life, took effect\nby the decree of some apostle or some ecclesiastical synod, of which no\nrecord, no legend, even is preserved! Or, perhaps, a half-heathen, more\nthan half-heathen, statute of Constantine,[14] about the _Dies Solis_\naccomplished what the legislators of the church could not\naccomplish\u2014succeeded not only in securing its adoption by Athanasians,\nArians, Semi-Arians, whose controversies Constantine could never heal,\nbut in securing the allegiance of all the barbarous tribes which\naccepted the gospel under such various conditions in later times. Can\nany suppositions make greater demands on our credulity than these?\u201d A\nProcrustean bed indeed must be that interpretation of the law of the\nSabbath which, to conform them to itself, must thus deal with the facts\nof history and the probabilities of historical evidence.\n\nJust here is the difficulty in the theory of Seventh-day Sabbatarians.\nThey have somehow got lodged in their mind the idea that the last one of\nthe seven days of the week is the sacred day, the observance of which is\nabsolutely essential to the proper keeping of the Sabbath. What has\nalready been proved from history, inspired and uninspired, is sufficient\nto show that this theory is unworthy of men who, like Christ and his\napostles, would grasp the true significance of the law of the Sabbath.\nBut as so much stress is laid upon the question of time, we shall devote\nour next article to this crucial and very practical point.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  The attempt to attribute the change of day to Constantine\u2019s decree is\n  hardly worth noticing. It is enough to remember that it was issued in\n  the beginning of the fourth century. No one who knows anything of the\n  writings of Tertullian and Origen dating back more than a century\n  before Constantine, to say nothing of still earlier writers, will\n  venture to ascribe the change to Roman Emperor\u2019s decree. Besides, the\n  language of the very decree referred to recognizes the honorable\n  diameter of the first day of the week. It recognizes that day as\n  already \u201cvenerable.\u201d\u2014_The Christian._\n\n\n\n\n                              A REJOINDER.\n                  \u201cTHEORIES OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.\u201d\n\n\nThe thoughtful reader need not be told that the article which he has\njust read, entitled, \u201cTheories of the Christian Sabbath,\u201d has advanced\nthe discussion of the question before us in no material respect. The\nspace devoted so generously to the consideration of theories, in regard\nto the unsoundness of which there is no difference of opinion between\nthe gentleman and myself, is thrown away, so far as the present argument\nis concerned. While this is true, however, if it serves no other\npurpose, it has at least made it clear that, if the gentleman fails to\nmake out his case in the end, it will not be because he has not had\nample room for the presentation and elaboration of facts and arguments,\nsince one who was crippled in his effort by a lack of space would hardly\nbe willing to devote so much time and attention to subjects foreign to\nthe present issue.\n\nThat which is said with reference to these theories might also be\nrepeated in reference to the statement and restatement of points which\nit is claimed have been proved. Of course, it is the prerogative of any\nwriter to conduct his own argument in his own way. All that we would\ncall attention to is the fact that the line of policy pursued, in these\nthings, is of a nature to satisfy even the most casual observer, that\none who felt that he had resources upon which to draw, without limit,\nwould not compel us to pass again and again over the same ground. There\nis, however, an apology which might properly be offered in the case of\nthe gentleman, for calling our attention to these trivial points so\nrepeatedly, which is found in the fact that his articles were written\nbefore our rejoinders were in print. We believe that, were not this the\ncase, and had he perused what has been said in reply to them, we should\nbe spared the monotony of answering them again. However, lest we should\nseem to avoid them, it will only be necessary that we say enough,\nbearing upon each point, to revive, in the mind of one who has followed\nus thus far, the fuller consideration given to all of them heretofore.\n\nTo the statement that Sabbatarians, in order to make good their case,\nmust make their views harmonize with the facts of history, it is enough\nto say that, if it is meant by this, the facts of sacred history, as\ncontained in the Bible, this we have already done; for before it can be\nurged that the opposite is true, as we have elsewhere seen, it must be\nshown that there is some transaction found in the sacred record which is\nin conflict with our interpretation of the law. This has not been done;\nfor not only has it been made to appear that the Sabbath law is explicit\nin its requirement of the observance of the seventh day of the week, but\nalso that there is not a single case of its violation, by a good man, to\nbe found in the inspired pages.\n\nNor is this all; we have gone beyond this, and proved, by the record,\nthat the opposite was true of the Sunday, since upon it Christ and two\nof his disciples, on the day of his resurrection, as well as Paul and\nLuke and others at a subsequent period, did perform upon it labor, which\nthe gentleman himself has not attempted, and will not undertake, to\nharmonize with any just conception of intelligent Sabbath-keeping. So\nfar as it regards the absence of any mention of meetings of Christians\non the Sabbath, it is sufficient to say, as we have already done, that,\nas in the history given, the account relates largely to missionary\ntrips, where there was no church as yet developed, and, consequently, no\npossibility of separate meetings, such a record would be out of the\nquestion; also, that the argument is only a negative one, and really can\nhave no force, until it can be demonstrated that God\u2019s plan is first to\ncommand, and then show, in every instance what the commandment means, by\npractical illustrations furnished from the history of his people; a\ndoctrine which is not only unsound and untrue, but absurd in the\nextreme.\n\nIf, on the other hand, the gentleman means to be understood as insisting\nthat the history of the church since the close of the canon of\ninspiration must be made to teach the faith which we hold as one which\nhas always been entertained by the church, and therefore sound, we\nrepudiate, in the name of Protestantism, this most pernicious view, and\nin all matters of practical duty, such as Sabbath-keeping, we decide\naccording to the written word. To the first source (church history), the\ngentleman has appealed, and if every candid man and woman who has\nwitnessed his effort has not been disgusted with the source to which he\nhas applied, then we know of nothing which would be calculated to create\nin him this condition of mind.\n\nWith the summary, in which it is claimed that Christ, and the apostles,\nand the Holy Spirit, and the early church, did repeatedly honor the\nfirst day of the week, we will not weary the reader here. We have\ndisproved every one of these points, and we trust to the intelligence of\nthose whom we are addressing, in the confident belief that what has been\nsaid, in the absence of even an attempt at refutation, needs not to be\nreproduced here.\n\nWe had barely mentioned, in our original articles, that Seventh-day\nAdventists held to the opinion that the pope of Rome had been\ninstrumental in bringing about the change of the Sabbath. No effort was\nmade to develop the argument on that point, since we did not dare to\npresume that room would be granted for the perfecting of the work; in\nfact, what was said was uttered rather with a view to calling the\nattention of the curious to our published works upon that subject, than\nfor any other purpose. Now, however, this point is made to assume a\nprominence which does not really belong to it, in an argument so largely\ndoctrinal rather than historic.\n\nWith this, nevertheless, we have no fault to find. Nothing is more\nsatisfactory than the awakening of a spirit of investigation on all\nbranches of this great subject; at the same time, we submit that the\nattitude of the gentleman must be very unsatisfactory to himself, since\nhe will readily perceive that to an opponent, chafing under a denial of\nthe privilege of answering him in the columns of his own paper, this\nwhole affair wears the aspect of an empty bravado. \u201cTell us,\u201d says the\neditor, and he repeats his invitation again and again, \u201cWhom did this\nlittle horn represent? Was it Antiochus? or the pope? If the latter,\nthen how, and when, and where, did he bring about the transition?\u201d\n\nBut we reply, Whom do you mean, sir, by the term, \u201cus\u201d? Truly, you would\nnot require us to come to Philadelphia to enlighten you personally upon\nthat point. Certainly, you are not particularly anxious that we should\nwrite a series of articles for the benefit of the readers of the\n_Review_, on a matter with which they are as familiar as they are with\nthe history of their own country; but if, indeed, you had in your mind\nthe readers of the _Statesman_, then it may be inquired again, How has\nit been possible for us to reach them, under the circumstances? since,\nthrowing your forces behind the wall of your editorial prerogative, and\nclosing against us the gate of possibility, you have shut us out from\nall access to them. Gladly would we have availed ourselves of the\nopportunity of doing that which we have been denied the privilege of\nattempting before the men, many of whom, we believe, would have been\nglad to follow this matter to the end; but as this cannot be done, a\nbrief reply will be made here.\n\nThe first inquiry, relating, as it does, to the point whether Antiochus\nEpiphanes or the pope, was meant by the \u201clittle horn,\u201d in the seventh of\nDaniel, need not consume time. It has been urged by some that the\n\u201clittle horn,\u201d of Dan. 8:9, applied to the former character. We believe\nthe papists still insist upon this; but the gentleman, upon\nreflection\u2014if in what he has said he has confounded the two\u2014will not\nseriously argue against the almost universal admission of Protestant\nwriters, that the power brought to view in the seventh chapter of\nDaniel\u2019s prophecy, is that of the papacy. In fact, reasoning as he does\nhimself, most satisfactorily, that it could not arise until after the\nappearance of the original ten, which represented the final breaking up\nof the Roman Empire into ten parts, he more than intimates his personal\nconviction that it could not represent Antiochus Epiphanes, who reigned\none hundred and seventy-five years before Christ, since the Roman Empire\nwas not partitioned among the barbarians who invaded it, until A. D.\n483, more than six hundred years after the death of the Syrian king.\n\nThe following, from a standard authority, will serve to show an almost\nuniversal agreement on this subject; and with its presentation we pass\nto the investigation of questions more difficult, and more worthy of our\nreflection. \u201cAmong Protestant writers, this (\u2018the little horn,\u2019 of Dan.\n7:8) is considered to be the popedom.\u201d\u2014_A. Clarke, Com. in loco._\n\n\u201cTo none can this (\u2018He shall speak great words againt the Most High\u2019)\napply so well, and so fully, as to the popes of Rome.\u201d\u2014_Idem_, v. 25.\n\nThe real point of debate, as intimated above, is the question whether\nthe Roman Catholic church has been instrumental in bringing about the\nchange of the Sabbath. The gentleman errs in asserting that we have\nanywhere stated that such a change was brought about by any particular\nofficer or council. This we have never urged, nor does it accord with\nthe view held by us. The \u201clittle horn\u201d represented, not one, merely, but\na whole line of priest-kings, who were to extend from the time of their\nrise, to the Judgment, and the setting up of the kingdom of God. Of this\nline of rulers, it is stated\u2014not that they should really succeed in\nbringing about an actual change in the requirements of the law of\nGod\u2014but that they should \u201c_think_\u201d to accomplish this end. It is also\nsaid that, for a time, times, and dividing of time (1260 years), the\nsaints of God and the law of God should be delivered into their hands.\nNot, indeed, that God would forsake either his people or his law,\nutterly, but that, for the period in question, they should be permitted\nto pursue a course destructive to the one, and antagonistic to the\nother. In other words, that they should put to death the saints, and\npresume to alter the commandments of God.\n\nThese specifications are simply introduced by way of identification. It\nis not said that the power indicated should spring into life suddenly,\nand without a previous stage of development; nor is it declared that the\nprinciples which were to characterize it in its mature life should be\nwholly peculiar to itself. Other powers, such as pagan Rome, might have\npersecuted the people of God before the rise of the papacy, as they\nunquestionably did. Other men might have begun the work of tampering\nwith the law of God, long before the days of the hierarchy, and might\nhave prepared to its hands the materials necessary to the accomplishment\nof the final blasphemous work of the man of sin.\n\nIn the days of Paul, \u201cthe mystery of iniquity began to work,\u201d and from\nthat point, its history was one of gradual development. Some of the most\ndestructive heresies afterward incorporated into the faith of papists,\nit is well understood, were fully fledged, and quite generally accepted,\nbefore the installation of the first pope. So, too, concerning the\nfirst-day Sabbath. There can be little doubt that before the bishop of\nRome became the \u201cCorrector of Heretics,\u201d in A. D. 538, or entered the\nchair of St. Peter, the Sunday had come to be regarded, by many, as the\nrival, if not the superior, of the ancient Sabbath. Just how extensively\nthe sentiment prevailed, however, it is hard to determine from church\nhistory, because, as has been shown in a previous article, the sources\nof our information have been so corrupted by unprincipled Romanists,\nthat it is difficult to arrive at the facts in the case.\n\nOne thing is certain; there was a mighty struggle on this question, the\ngentleman to the contrary, notwithstanding, which has left the marks of\nits existence in the records of the past. Clear down to the rise of\nRoman Catholicism, there were men who were strenuous for the observance\nof the seventh day, and rejecters of its rival. Doubtless the Sunday, by\nslow degrees, had worked itself into almost universal acceptance as a\nfestival resting upon human, and not divine, authority; but the Sabbath\nof the Lord still continued in the faith of many, especially in the\nEast, as a day to be sacredly devoted to the worship of God. On this\npoint, Neander, the learned church historian, has given distinct and\nunequivocal utterance:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was only a human\nordinance, and it was far from the intention of the apostles to\nestablish a divine command in this respect; far from them and from the\nearly apostolic church to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday.\nPerhaps at the end of the second century, a false application of this\nkind had began to take place; for men appear, by that time, to have\nconsidered laboring on Sunday as a sin.\u201d\u2014_Rose\u2019s Translation of\nNeander_, p. 186.[15]\n\nGiesler also remarks as follows: \u201cWhile the Christians of Palestine, who\nkept the whole Jewish law, celebrated, of course, all the Jewish\nfestivals, the heathen converts observed only the Sabbath, and in\nremembrance of the closing scenes of our Saviour\u2019s life, the passover,\nthough without the Jewish superstitions. Besides these, the Sunday as\nthe day of our Saviour\u2019s resurrection, was devoted to religious\nworship.\u201d\u2014_Church Hist., Apostolic Age to A. D. 70._\n\nLyman Coleman, in his \u201cAncient Christianity Exemplified,\u201d testifies as\nfollows: \u201cThe observance of the Lord\u2019s day as the first day of the week\nwas at first introduced as a separate institution. Both this and the\nJewish Sabbath were kept for some time; finally, the latter passed\nwholly over into the former, which now took the place of the ancient\nSabbath of the Israelites. But their Sabbath, the last day of the week,\nwas strictly kept in connection with that of the first day for a long\ntime after the overthrow of the temple and its worship. Down even to the\nfifth century, the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the\nChristian church, but with a rigor and solemnity gradually diminishing,\nuntil it was wholly discontinued.... Both were observed in the Christian\nchurch down to the fifth century, with this difference, that in the\neastern church, both days were regarded as joyful occasions; but in the\nwestern, the Jewish Sabbath was kept as a fast.\u201d Chap. 26, sect. 2.\n\nWm. Twisse, whose antique style comports with that of the period in\nwhich he wrote, most pointedly declares the same fact in a work\nentitled, \u201cThe Morality of the Fourth Commandment:\u201d \u201cYet for some\nhundred years in the primitive church, not the Lord\u2019s day only, but the\nseventh day also, was religiously observed, not by Ebion and Cerinthus\nonly, but by pious Christians also, as Baronius writeth and Gomaius\nconfesseth, and Rivut also.\u201d Page 9, London, 1641.\n\nMorer, in speaking of the early Christians, remarks of them as follows:\n\u201cThe primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and\nspent the day in devotion and sermons, and it is not to be doubted but\nthey derived the practice from the apostles themselves.\u201d\u2014_Morer\u2019s Lord\u2019s\nDay_, p. 189.\n\nEdward Brerewood, professor in Gresham College, London, writes: \u201cThe\nancient Sabbath did remain, and was observed by the Christians of the\neast church above three hundred years after our Saviour\u2019s death, and\nbesides that, no other day, for more hundred years than I spoke of\nbefore, was known in the church by the name of the Sabbath.\u201d Page 77,\ned. 1631.\n\nProf. Stuart, in speaking of the period between A. D. 321 and the\ncouncil of Laodicea, A. D. 364, furnishes the following interesting\nstatement, which discloses the historic fact concerning the ebb and flow\nof discussion on this subject in the early church: \u201cThe practice of it\n[the keeping of the Sabbath], was continued by Christians who were\njealous for the honor of the Mosaic law, and finally became, as we have\nseen, predominant throughout Christendom. It was supposed at length that\nthe fourth commandment did require the observance of the seventh-day\nSabbath [not merely a seventh part of time], and reasoning as Christians\nof the present day are wont to do, viz., that _all_ which belongs to the\nten commandments was immutable and perpetual, the churches in general\ncame gradually to regard the seventh-day Sabbath as altogether\nsacred.\u201d\u2014_Appendix to Gurney\u2019s Hist. of Sabbath_, pp. 115, 116.\n\nConcerning the same council, Prynne has made a similar historic record;\n\u201cThe seventh-day Sabbath was solemnized by Christ, the apostles, and\nprimitive Christians, till the Laodicean Council did, in a manner, quite\nabolish the observance of it.... The Council of Laodicea, A. D. 364,\nfirst settled the observance of the Lord\u2019s day, and prohibited keeping\nof the Jewish Sabbath, under an anathema.\u201d\u2014_Dissertation on the Lord\u2019s\nSabbath_, pp. 33, 44, ed. 1633.\n\nIn alluding to the differences in practice between the eastern and the\nwestern churches, Neander distinctly sets forth the resolute animosity\nof the latter to the ancient Sabbath of the Lord, and the manner in\nwhich they sought to bring it into disrepute, while elevating the Sunday\ninto favor. He says: \u201cIn the western churches, particularly the Roman,\nwhere opposition to Judaism was the prevailing tendency, this very\nopposition produced the custom of celebrating the Saturday as a fast\nday. This difference of customs would, of course, be striking, where\nmembers of the Oriental church spent their Sabbath day in the western\nchurch.\u201d\u2014_Hist. Chris. Rel. and Church, First Three Centuries. Rose\u2019s\ntrans._, p. 186.\n\nPeter Heylyn also marks the peculiar favor shown to the first day of the\nweek in the western church; and while he declares at one time that it\nwas near \u201cnine hundred years from the Saviour\u2019s birth before restraint\nof husbandry on this day [Sunday] had been first thought of in the\neast,\u201d he elsewhere records the fact that in the fifth and sixth\ncenturies general unanimity respecting the exaltation to divine honor\nwas reached. He writes: \u201cThe faithful, being united more than ever\nbefore, became more uniform in matters of devotion, and in that\nuniformity did agree together to give the Lord\u2019s day all the honors of a\nholy festival, yet this was not done all at once, but by degrees, the\nfifth and sixth centuries being fully spent before it came unto that\nhight which has since continued. The emperors and the prelates in these\ntimes had the same affections, both earnest to advance this day above\nall others; and to the edicts of the one, and to the ecclesiastical\nconstitutions of the others, it stands indebted for many of those\nprivileges and exemptions which it still enjoyeth.\u201d\u2014_Hist. Sab._, part\n2, chap. 4, sect. 1.\n\nThus it has been proved, by citations from men who have possessed the\nresources, as well as the disposition, to make themselves acquainted\nwith the history of the first centuries of the Christian church, first,\nthat the first day of the week was looked upon for a long time as a\nmerely human institution; secondly, that the Edenic Sabbath was for\ncenturies after the crucifixion of Christ quite generally celebrated;\nthirdly, that prejudice against it seems to have been strongest and to\nhave originated earliest at Rome, where, in order to bring it into\nodium, it was made a day of fasting, while the Sunday was treated as a\nfestival; fourthly, that after a struggle, which extended through\nhundreds of years, the ancient Sabbath was finally quite generally\nrepudiated, and the Sunday, through the united efforts of prelates,\ncouncils, and emperors, was enthroned and enforced upon all.\n\nInto the details of this long and varying conflict, in which victory\nseems first to have favored the one side and then the other, we are\nrestricted by the limits of our communication from entering. The\nintelligent reader can readily fill in the outlines which have been\ngiven, and will not be slow to perceive that the contest, from the very\nnature of things, must have been one of intense interest and heated\ndebate. If he would satisfy himself most fully that the gentleman is\nmistaken in saying that it has left no traces, we refer him for a more\nfull discussion to the authorities quoted.\n\nChanging now the point of view, we will come to the present time. We\nreturn once more to the charge that the church of Rome, availing itself\nof the condition of things which preceded its rise, has consummated the\nterrible work which was begun with the great apostasy, long before the\npapacy proper was fully developed. In prosecuting the labor thus entered\nupon, the reader is invited to pause a moment and decide upon certain\nprinciples which ought to govern in the decision of the question. He\nwill remember that if he has been educated in the observance of Sunday,\nhe will be in danger of requiring more testimony than could reasonably\nbe demanded, since his education, and personal interest, and standing,\nwould all incline him to a conservatism which needs to be guarded with a\njealous care, lest it should result in a bias which would terminate in\nthe rejection of sufficient light.\n\nAll that we ask him to do is to treat this subject the same as he would\nany other matter of fact. To illustrate: If the body of a murdered man\nwere discovered upon the street, and if there should be found in the\ncommunity one whose character was bad in every respect, concerning whom\nthose who knew him best had given warning; if on the garments of this\nsuspicious personage blood stains were found; if, in the meantime, a\ncareful examination of the wounds should show that they had been\ninflicted by a weapon peculiar to the notorious individual; and if, in\naddition to the foregoing, he should step forward and frankly confess\nthat he had done the deed, no court in the world would hesitate to\ninflict the penalty of the law, because of any doubt regarding the guilt\nof the offending party. Now applying the same principles to the case in\nhand, if every one can be shown to hold good in every particular, then\nconsistency demands that they should produce a conviction equally clear\nand strong with that in the mind of the court, in determining in the\ncase of the homicide upon the infliction of punishment.\n\nBut is it true that the charge against the Roman Catholic church can be\nmade out as conclusively as that against the individual mentioned above?\nLet us see. The first point there brought forward was the unquestionable\nfact that the man had been murdered. This was the starting point of the\nwhole affair. That which answers to it in the case before us is the fact\nthat the change of the Sabbath has been made out beyond reasonable\ndoubt; for God commanded the observance of the seventh day, while,\nsomehow, Christendom is generally observing the first, though utterly\nincapable of furnishing Scripture warrant for the change.\n\nThe second point was that respecting the bad reputation of a certain\ncharacter in the community\u2014its parallel in the persons of the popes is\nfound in the fact that, as we have seen, their rise and history were\nsymbolized centuries before their appearance under the type of the\n\u201clittle horn\u201d of the seventh of Daniel, by one who never errs in his\nanalysis of character, and who declared of the \u201cman of sin\u201d that he\nshould \u201cthink to change times and laws,\u201d and that they should be given\ninto his hands for \u201ca time and times and the dividing of time,\u201d thus\nproving that this blasphemous power who was to open his mouth in\nblasphemy against God is capable of attempting the transfer of God\u2019s\nholy Sabbath to a day different from that pointed out in the\ncommandment.\n\nThe third point, which related to blood stains upon the garments of the\nsuspected person, finds its counterpart in the teachings of Romanism,\nmost clearly. We learn, in the writings of Moses, that the blood is the\nlife of the individual. This, however, is not more true than it is that\nthe fourth commandment is the life of the Sabbatic institution. If you\nmar that commandment, you mar the Sabbath in the same ratio. If you\ndestroy that commandment, you destroy the Sabbath. But the assumed\nability to alter this precept as well as others of the decalogue is one\nof the very crimes of which Rome has been guilty, by which she has\nblotched all over in the most loathsome manner the garments of a once\nspotless Christianity, and a profoundly reverent faith. That this is so\nwill become manifest when we present a copy of the decalogue as it has\nbeen mutilated by the Romish church in the exercise of a pretended\ndivine right to accomplish such a work. For this purpose we append the\nten commandments as they stand in Butler\u2019s catechism.[16]\n\n\u201c1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me,\n&c. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 3.\nRemember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day. 4. Honor thy father and\nthy mother. 5. Thou shalt not kill. 6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.\n7. Thou shalt not steal, 8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against\nthy neighbor. 9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor\u2019s wife. 10. Thou\nshalt not covet thy neighbor\u2019s goods.\u201d\n\nHero it will be seen that the second commandment is dropped out\naltogether, and that the tenth is divided; a portion of it retaining its\nancient number, and the remaining portion of it being numbered as the\nninth commandment, thereby making the complement of the original ten,\nwhich would have been reduced to nine by ignoring the one against image\nworship. It will also be perceived that with the exception of the words,\n\u201cRemember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day,\u201d the fourth commandment\nis left out entirely. True, it may be that in the Douay Bible the\noriginal commandments are allowed to remain intact, but we shall see\nhereafter that the above arrangement is not accidental, and that the\npower to make these changes is unhesitatingly claimed.\n\nThe fourth point was that concerning the form and nature of the wound,\nwhereby it was discovered that it was made with a weapon precisely such\nas one possessed by the suspected party. The correspondence in this\nparticular will be found in the boundary of the new Sabbath; in its\nbeginning and ending, occurring as they do at twelve o\u2019clock, midnight,\nare the unmistakable marks of the band of one who most assuredly did not\nlive at Jerusalem, and who left upon the creature of his own power the\nbadge of its origin at Rome.\n\nThe Jews, as we have seen heretofore, by the agreement of commentators\nand scholars generally, as well as by the testimony of the Bible,\ncommenced and ended their days with the setting of the sun. At Rome, on\nthe other hand, as well as in other parts of the world, the day began as\nwe now begin the Sunday\u2014at midnight. In this, it is made apparent that\nsome one has been tampering with a day which it is claimed was hallowed\nby Christ eighteen hundred years ago; since, if it had originated at\nthat time and in that place, it would have conformed in its beginning\nand ending to the weekly Sabbath, the day of Pentecost, and the other\ndays in the Jewish calendar. The presumption concerning whom this person\nis, is already made out. The certainty respecting it will be established\nunder the next heading.\n\nThe fifth point cited above was the confession of the culprit. Under\nordinary circumstances, this alone would have made a conviction\ninevitable. Answering to it in the fullest degree are the oft-repeated\ndeclarations of Romanists, that they have changed the Sabbath from the\nseventh to the first day of the week, and that they had the ability and\nthe right thus to do. Respecting these assumptions, we might introduce\nquotations almost without number, but we must content ourselves with a\nfew brief but pointed ones.[17]\n\n\u201c_Ques._ What are the days which the church commands to be kept holy?\u201d\n\n\u201c_Ans._ 1. The Sundays, or our Lord\u2019s day, which we observe by\napostolical tradition instead of the Sabbath. 2. The feasts of our\nLord\u2019s nativity, or Christmas day; his circumcision, or New Year\u2019s day;\nthe Epiphany, or twelfth day; Easter day, or the day of our Lord\u2019s\nresurrection, with the Monday following,\u201d &c.\n\n\u201c_Ques._ What was the reason why the weekly Sabbath was changed from the\nSaturday to the Sunday?\u201d\n\n\u201c_Ans._ Because our Lord fully accomplished the work of our redemption\nby rising from the dead on Sunday and by sending down the Holy Ghost on\nSunday; as therefore the work of our redemption was a greater work than\nthat of our creation, the primitive _church_ thought the day in which\nthis work was completely finished was more worthy her religious\nobservation than that in which God rested from creation, and should be\nproperly called the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d\n\n\u201c_Ques._ But has the church power to make any alterations in the\ncommandments of God?\u201d\n\n\u201c_Ans._ The commandments of God, as far as they contain his eternal law,\nare unalterable and indispensable, but as to whatever was only\nceremonial they cease to oblige, since the Mosaic law was abrogated by\nChrist\u2019s death; hence, as far as the commandment obliges us to set aside\nsome part of our time for the worship and service of our Creator, it is\nan unalterable and unchangeable precept of the eternal law in which the\nchurch cannot dispense. But, forasmuch as it prescribes the seventh day\nin particular for this purpose, it is no more than a ceremonial precept\nof the old law which obligeth not Christians, and therefore, instead of\nthe seventh day and other festivals appointed by the old law, the\n_church_ has prescribed the Sundays and holidays to be set apart for\nGod\u2019s worship, and these we are now obliged to keep in consequence of\nGod\u2019s commandment, instead of the ancient Sabbath.\u201d\n\n\u201c_Ques._ What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday preferable to the\nancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday?\u201d\n\n\u201c_Ans._ We have for it the authority of the Catholic church and\napostolic tradition.\u201d\n\n\u201c_Ques._ Does the Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for\nthe Sabbath?\u201d\n\n\u201c_Ans._ The Scripture commands us to hear the church (Matt. 18:17, Luke\n10:16), and to hold fast the traditions of the apostles. 2 Thess. 2:15.\nBut the Scriptures do not in particular mention this change of the\nSabbath. John speaks of the Lord\u2019s day (Rev. 1:10); but he does not tell\nus what day of the week this was, much less does he tell us that this\nday was to take the place of the Sabbath ordained in the commandment;\n... so that truly the best authority we have for this, is the testimony\nand ordinance of the church. And, therefore, those who pretend to be so\nreligious of the Sunday, whilst they take no notice of the festivals\nordained by the same church authority, show that they act by humor, and\nnot by reason and religion, since Sundays and holy days all stand upon\nthe same foundation, viz., the ordinance of the church.\u201d\u2014_Cath.\nChristian Instructed_, pp. 209-211.\n\n\u201c_Ques._ Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to\ninstitute festivals of precept?\u201d\n\n\u201c_Ans._ Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which\nall modern religionists agree with her\u2014she could not have substituted\nthe observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance\nof Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scripture\nauthority.\u201d\u2014_Doctrinal Catechism._\n\n\u201c_Ques._ If keeping the Sunday be a church precept, why is it numbered\nin the decalogue, which are the commandments of God and the law of\nnature?\u201d\n\n\u201c_Ans._ Because the substance, or chief part of it, namely, that the day\nbe set apart for the service of God, is of divine right and of the law\nof nature; though the determining this particular day, Sunday, rather\nthan Saturday, be a church ordinance and precept.\u201d\u2014_Abridgment of Chris.\nDoc._, pp. 57, 59.\n\nThus much for the connection of the papacy with the change of the\nSabbath. The reader, repudiating the claim for apostolical tradition,\nwhich is of no value with Protestants, and rejecting as fallacious the\nassumed antiquity of the Roman Catholic church, will discover that there\nstill remains the bold assumption of the ability on the part of that\nchurch to change the Sabbath, and also of the historic fact that it has\ndone so. Mr. Gilfillan, while, of course, from his standpoint rejecting\nthe notion that the pope has either in reality changed, or even\npossessed the ability to change, the divinely appointed day of rest,\nfrankly acknowledges that he arrogates to himself the power so to do, in\nthe following language:\u2014\n\n\u201cRome, professing to retain, has yet corrupted every doctrine,\ninstitution, and law of Jesus Christ, recognizing for example, the\nmediator between God and man, but associating with him many other\nintercessors; avowing adherence to the Scripture, but the Scripture as\nsupplemented and made void by the writings and traditions of men; and,\nin short, without discarding the Lord\u2019s day, adding a number of\nencumbering holidays, giving them in many instances an honor equal and\neven superior to God\u2019s own day, and claiming for the \u2018Vicar of Christ\u2019\nlordship even of the Sabbath.\u201d\u2014_The Sabbath_, p. 457.\n\nInto the details respecting the fasts; the decrees of councils; the\nbulls of popes: the myths concerning the calamities which have befallen\nthose laboring on the Sunday; the forgery of an epistle in its\ninterests, which it was claimed fell from Heaven; and the astounding\nmiracles with which the hierarchy has accomplished the prodigious task\nof making the transfer, we are not permitted to enter here, nor will it\nbe required that we should do so. Any person acquainted with the arts\nusually employed at Rome will readily perceive the methods which she has\ncalled to her assistance. All that a reasonable man could possibly ask\nis found in the transition from one day to another, in the fact that the\nlaw of God was to be tampered with by a persecuting power which was to\ncontinue its oppressions of the saints of God for twelve hundred and\nsixty years, and in the further consideration that no persecuting power\nexcept that of Rome has ever continued for that length of time.\n\nConcerning the decree of Constantine, the only place which we assign to\nit in the controversy between the friends of the Lord\u2019s Sabbath and its\nrival, is that which it holds because of its having made the transition\neasy. The first day of the week being the one generally observed by the\nheathen and by this decree enforced by statute, had in its favor the\npractice and sympathy of the masses of men. This law, though passed by a\nheathen, and in the interest of the heathen religion, was, as would\nnaturally have been the case, of great service to those who subsequently\nfavored the change of day, since it gave to their effort not only the\ncolor, but also the material advantage, of legality; by it, men, under\ncertain circumstances, were compelled to celebrate the day of the sun\neven though they had previously regarded that of the Lord. This, of\ncourse, was burdensome, and worked greatly to the advantage of the\nheathen festival.\n\nOne of two views must be taken of the statute of Constantine: If it were\nChristian, then it proves that Sunday observance, at the time of its\npassage, was exceedingly lax, since by its terms only men in the cities\nand towns were prohibited from laboring upon it, while those in the\ncountry were by it allowed and encouraged to carry on the vocations of\nthe farm. If, on the other hand, it were heathen in its origin, then the\nsuggestion that it recognizes the venerableness of the day of the sun,\neven at so early a period as that of its promulgation, is entirely\nwithout force, since it thereby becomes manifest that it received this\ndignifying appellation, not because it had long been venerated by the\ndisciples of our Lord, but because from time immemorial it had been\nhonored by the heathen\u2014a doubtful compliment to the Christian Sabbath.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  For the extracts given in this connection, the reader is referred to\n  \u201cSabbath and Sunday,\u201d by A. H. Lewis, and to \u201cThe History of the\n  Sabbath,\u201d by J. N. Andrews.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  The commandments as given above are supposed to be repeated by the\n  individual Romanist in response to the injunction, \u201cSay the ten\n  commandments of God.\u201d\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  The following citations will be found in a small tract published at\n  the \u201c_Review_ and _Herald_\u201d Office, entitled, \u201cWho Changed the\n  Sabbath?\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                           STATESMAN\u2019S REPLY.\n                              ARTICLE TEN.\n            THE PRINCIPLE AS TO TIME IN SABBATH OBSERVANCE.\n\n\nOur readers will recollect that the chief difference between the second\nand the third theories of the Christian Sabbath, as we stated them in\nour last issue, is in reference to the question of time. Seventh-day\nSabbatarians, on the one hand, maintain that the last one of the seven\ndays of the week is _the_ sacred day, and that the observance of this\nvery day is absolutely essential to the proper observance of the Sabbath\nof the Lord, and the keeping of the fourth commandment. On the other\nhand, we set forth what we believe to be the true theory of the\nChristian Sabbath, according to which the essential idea of the law of\nthe Sabbath is the consecration to God of an appointed proportion of\ntime\u2014one day in seven, and not the essential holiness of any particular\nday.\n\nWe have already seen that the interpretation of the fourth commandment\nwhich insists on the essential holiness of the last day of the week\nwould convict the risen Lord, and his inspired apostles, and the whole\nchurch of Christ, even in its purest days, of the violation of that\nprecept of the divine law. But let us now examine a few practical points\nin connection with this second theory.\n\n1. If the seventh day of the week is to be rigidly adhered to, as the\nlaw of the fourth commandment, it must be the seventh from the creation,\nin regular weekly succession. Will any seventh-day Sabbatarian venture\nto affirm that, through all the changes of our race, through all the\nbreaks of history, through the bondage in Egypt, and the repeated\ncaptivities of God\u2019s ancient people, to say nothing of the miracles in\nconnection with Joshua\u2019s victory, and Hezekiah\u2019s sickness, unbroken\nsuccession of the weekly divisions of time has been maintained? Does the\nlast day of our week answer, in an exact numbering of days, to the\nseventh day on which God rested after completing the work of creation?\nThe interpretation which we are now considering demands this conformity\nto the fourth commandment in its letter. He would be a bold man indeed,\nwho would affirm that his seventh day in this nineteenth century is the\nexact day which his own view of the law of the Sabbath would require him\nto keep holy. Our present first day may correspond to the original\nseventh day. Who knows?\n\n2. But admit that these essentially holy twenty-four hours, at the close\nof each week, may be marked without doubt, how can all Christians in\ndifferent parts of the world keep them? How can men in different\nlongitudes and latitudes so mark off the week as to have it end with\nthis intrinsically holy portion of time? The difference in local time in\ndifferent parts of the earth is a fact familiar to every school-boy. The\ncircumference of the earth, for the convenience of calculation, is\ndivided into three hundred and sixty degrees. As the sun appears to make\na circuit round the earth every time the earth rotates on its axis, that\nis, every twenty-four hours, the apparent motion of the sun from east to\nwest will be fifteen degrees each hour. Let it be noon of the seventh\nday at any given point in our land, and it will be sunset ninety degrees\neast, and sunrise ninety degrees west. At what point of the earth\u2019s\nsurface shall men claim the right to have the seventh or holy day begin\nwith their sunset or their midnight, and demand that all others east and\nwest shall measure their holy day from so many hours before or after\ntheir own midnight or sunset, as their portion may require?\n\nOr, again, in extreme northern and southern latitudes, where perpetual\nday and constant night alternate with the annual revolution of the\nearth, how shall the seventh day be marked? How shall this essentially\nholy day of twenty-four hours be known? As God, in his infinite wisdom,\nhas seen fit to make our earth, and ordain the laws of its diurnal\nrevolution on its axis, and its annual orbit round the sun, it is simply\nimpossible for the inhabitants of the world to keep holy the same\nidentical period of time. The interpretation of the law of the Sabbath\nat which we are looking is in conflict, therefore, with the laws of the\nsolar system.\n\n3. Our seventh-day friend, perhaps, retreats to his last refuge. There\nis no portion of absolute time essentially holy. That was never meant.\nVery well, then, what is meant? Why, that each one in his own longitude\nor latitude should observe the seventh day as it is measured by his own\nlocal time. We apprehend that, in some latitudes, the seventh day,\nmeasured by local time, running through some thousands of hours, would\nbe a weariness to the strictest even of seventh-day Sabbatarians. But we\nwill leave these extreme cases. They must keep holy the appointed\nproportion\u2014one-seventh of their time. That must be the law of the\nSabbath to them. But in the belt of the earth nearer the equator, local\ntime, measured by the natural division of days, must be followed.\n\nNow, let it be said, we have no desire to treat a serious subject\nlightly. But our friends insist on an interpretation of the fourth\ncommandment which can hardly be treated seriously. We can scarcely blame\nDr. Geo. Junkin for employing this shaft of ridicule. He says,\nsubstantially, suppose all our seventh-day Sabbatarians (and their\nnumber is not an insuperable objection to the experiment), having\nlabored six days, according to the commandment, come to the night of\nFriday. By an excusable artifice, sponges, saturated with a powerful\nan\u00e6sthetic agent, are held to their noses, and they are laid up, in\nperfect unconsciousness, for a whole day beyond the close of their usual\ntime of sleep. They awake, supposing it to be the seventh day of the\nweek, as to them, so conscious intelligent beings, and subjects of law,\nit certainly would be to all intents and purposes. But in fact, by the\nactual measurement of time, it is the first day of the week. Might there\nnot be in this way a practical solution of the whole difficulty?\n\nBut the actual rising and the setting of the sun may be insisted on\nwhether our seventh-day advocates are conscious or not. Suppose, then,\nthat one of them takes the now rather popular trip of a tour round the\nworld. Going west at the rate of, say thirty degrees a week, starting\nfrom New York, he would lengthen each of his days from sunrise to\nsunrise\u2014supposing the sun to rise at six o\u2019clock, local time, all along\nthe belt of his course\u2014a little over seventeen minutes; and thus,\nkeeping his own count of time, and observing every seventh solar day, on\nhis return to New York at the end of twelve weeks, his seventh-day\nSabbath would really be the first day of the week. Though he might not\nbe _mentally_ converted to the first-day theory of the Christian\nSabbath, he would at least be _physically_ converted, and would either\nbe compelled to accept the change, or make a week of six solar days to\nharmonize in Sabbath observance with his seventh-day brethren at home,\nor take to his journeying again, and complete the circuit of the earth\nin the opposite direction, in order to maintain unbroken the succession\nof weeks of seven days each, and have his Sabbath fall on the one and\nonly day which will suit his interpretation of the fourth commandment.\n\nIf, instead of going by the west, our traveler should go by the east,\njourneying at the same rate of thirty degrees each week, he would\ndiminish the length of each of his days a little over seventeen minutes,\nand on arriving once more at New York, at the end of twelve even weeks\nby the time of that city, but twelve weeks and one day by his own time,\nhis seventh-day Sabbath would fall on the sixth day of the week, and we\nwould have a new order of Sabbatarians.\n\nThe reason of the diversity is obvious. The trip around the world,\naccording to the supposed rate of travel, would occupy just twelve\nweeks, or eighty-four days of twenty-four hours each, measured by local\ntime at New York. The total number of hours, reckoning each day\ntwenty-four even hours, would be 2,016. The traveler, proceeding\nwestward at the rate of thirty degrees a week, would add to each day\u2019s\nlength just seventeen and one-seventh minutes\u2014making each day from\nsunrise to sunrise, reckoning this always at six o\u2019clock, local time,\ntwenty-four hours, seventeen and one-seventeenth minutes long. He would,\ntherefore, in the whole number of hours of his trip, 2,016, see the sun\nrise only eighty-three instead of eighty-four times. Going east, he\nwould shorten each day\u2019s length, reducing it from sunrise to sunrise, to\ntwenty-three hours and forty-two and six-seventh minutes. In this case,\nthe whole number of hours, 2,016, would divide up into eighty-five solar\ndays. To one remaining at New York, there would be eighty-four solar\ndays; to the one going west around the world, the same absolute time\nwould be summed up in eighty-three solar days; and to the one going\neast, it would extend itself to eighty-five solar days. Thus at the\nclose of every trip round the world, the Christian traveler or sailor\nmust readjust the reckoning of his days, in order to observe the Lord\u2019s\nday with his brethren at home. When our Constitution shall have been\namended, and a true Christian regard shall be shown to all citizens, if\nour seventh-day friends feel grievously oppressed by the Sabbath laws,\nwhich will then be no dead letter, we shall do our utmost to have the\nnational government provide a number of comfortable vessels, and give\nour friends a gratuitous trip round the world. We shall take care that\nthe officers are instructed not to sail by the east; for our seventh-day\nSabbatarians would then go away only to come home and be sixth-day\nSabbatarians. Due care will be taken to have them proceed in the right\ndirection, and to induce them on their return to stay at home, and\ngovernment\u2019s oppression of them by Sabbath laws will then forevermore\nhave ceased.\n\nIn all seriousness, we ask, How can a thoughtful man, in view of the\nfact of the earth\u2019s revolution round the sun, and its effect on the\nmeasurement of time, hold to the second theory of the Christian Sabbath?\nWe have a matter of fact to record just here. In 1790, nine mutineers\nfrom the English vessel, the Bounty, along with six men and twelve women\nfrom Tahiti, landed on what is known as Pitcairn\u2019s island in the Pacific\nOcean. John Adams, one of the mutineers, after the violent death of the\nother men, was converted by reading a copy of the Bible, and became a\ntrue Christian. Keeping his own count of the days, he observed the\nweekly Sabbath, with the community which was growing up, and which he\nwas at great pains to instruct in the Christian religion. Some time\nafter, an English vessel visited the islands, keeping their count of the\ndays. The officers and crew of this vessel landed at the island on\nSaturday, but, to their astonishment, found a Christian community\nkeeping the Christian Sabbath. The original settlers and the visitors\nhad gone to the island in different directions. Did the sailors, who\nkept one day, not observe the Sabbath? Or did the islanders, who kept\nanother day, violate the fourth precept of the decalogue?\n\nTwo colonies of seventh-day advocates might leave the same port, one\ngoing east and the other west, and might locate on islands on the same\nparallel of longitude, but on different parallels of latitude. Each,\nkeeping its own record of time, would be found, on settling in their\npermanent home, to be observing a different day as the weekly Sabbath.\nWould either colony admit that it was in the wrong? If they were to live\napart, each might properly observe its own day; if together, would it\nmatter which day might be observed?\n\nThus the principle as to time in Sabbath observance insists, not on the\nessential holiness of any twenty-four hours in themselves, but on the\ndedication to God of one day in seven, one seventh of the time as nearly\nas that proportion can be measured by the most convenient means\navailable. This, the third theory does, while it accepts all the facts\nof history. With one more article, in favor of the third theory of the\nChristian Sabbath, we shall close this whole discussion.\n\n\n\n\n                              A REJOINDER.\n           \u201cTHE PRINCIPLE AS TO TIME IN SABBATH OBSERVANCE.\u201d\n\n\nWere it not true that we had long since ceased to be surprised at\nanything which an individual could say when opposing the claims of the\nLord\u2019s Sabbath, after having received the light concerning them, our\nastonishment at the position taken by the gentleman of the _Statesman_,\nin the foregoing article, would have no bounds.\n\nTo one who has followed him thus far in an elaborate argument, running\nthrough a series of nine communications, all for the purpose of\nestablishing, from both Scripture and history, the change of the Sabbath\nfrom the seventh to the first day of the week, and the obligation under\nwhich all men are now placed to observe the latter instead of the\nformer, it will be extremely difficult to explain, on grounds honorable\nto himself, this sudden repudiation of all which he has said in the\npast, while endeavoring to defend the newly found theory of the\nobservance of one day in seven, to the exclusion of any definite day\nwhatever.\n\nIn his second article, he says, \u201cWe are concerned here and now simply\nwith the transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of\nthe week.\u201d In the third article, when speaking of apostolic times, he\nremarks again, \u201cIt was also seen that while the observance of the\nseventh day was not continued, another day of the week, the first, took\nits place as the stated day for religious assemblies and services.\u201d\nFarther on, he writes again, as follows: \u201cOn the last seventh day on\nwhich the disciples rested, according to the commandment, the Lord\nhimself is lying in the tomb. The glory of the seventh day dies out with\nthe fading light of that day, throughout the whole of which the grave\nclaimed the body of the Redeemer. But the glory of the Sabbath of the\nLord survives. It receives fresh luster from the added glories of the\nLord of the Sabbath. \u2018The Stone which the builders refused has become\nthe head of the corner.\u2019 It is very early in the morning, the first day\nof the week. Again, \u2018God said, Let there be light; and there was light\u2019\nThe Sun of Righteousness has risen with healing in his wings. This is\nthe day which the Lord has made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. The\nfirst day of the week has become the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d\n\nBut we must cease from our quotations, for them is no limit to\nexpressions synonymous with the above. Not only so, but were additional\nproof necessary, by more ample extracts, it could be made to appear that\nthe whole theory of his defense, as already declared, has rested\nentirely upon the change of the day from the seventh, which was observed\ntill the death of Christ, to the first, which was honored especially by\nour Lord, by his personal appearance to the disciples on the first and\nsecond Sundays following the resurrection, and by the outpouring of the\nHoly Spirit on the day of Pentecost, with the especial view of teaching\nthe disciples that it had become holy time; also, that they, grasping\nthe moral of the lesson imparted by example, if not by positive precept,\ninculcated the doctrine of the change, and made it binding upon all.\n\nIf we are right in this, and the reader who has followed the debate thus\nfar will unhesitatingly admit that such are the facts, then, of course,\nthe gentleman is arrayed against himself in a manner most distasteful,\nno doubt, to his personal feelings, as well as disastrous to his\npolished logic; for to the mind of the merest school-boy it must be\napparent that a change of Sabbath from one day of the week to another,\ninvolves the definiteness of the day thus honored; _i. e._, if the first\nday of the week is now the Christian Sabbath because of the nature of\nevents which transpired upon it in particular, then, of course, it\noccupies that position to the exclusion of all other days; but this\nutterly demolishes the seventh-part-of-time theory, which the gentleman\nhas adopted, the very essence of which is, that there is now no\nsuperiority in days, and the individual is left free to choose any one\nwhich may best accord with his tastes or subserve his interests.\n\nHere, then, we come to a dead halt. Which shall we believe, the nine\narticles of the gentleman, or the tenth, which is in direct conflict\nwith their teachings? Should we go by the bulk of the testimony, then we\nmust decide that there is a definite day, according to the conviction of\nour opponent. But if he still holds to that doctrine, then that which he\nhas said against the seventh-day Sabbath, on the ground that the earth\nis round, and, therefore, that the Edenic Sabbath could not be kept in\nall portions of it, is deprived of all its force. For, assuredly, if he\nbelieves that God now requires all men to honor the first day of the\nweek, the world over, then he must admit that it is possible for them to\ndo so.\n\nBut if it is possible for men both to find and to celebrate the first\nday of the week, on a round world, then, beyond all dispute, the same\nprocess which will enable them to do this, will also qualify them to\nlocate and to observe the seventh-day Sabbath. For it is just as certain\nas mathematical demonstration can make it, that in a week consisting of\nseven days, having found the first of the number, in order to discover\nthe last, you have but to take the one which preceded the known day, or,\nif you please, count forward six days from the one already established,\nand you have the last day of the Week to which it belongs.\n\nSo, too, with every objection urged in the communication. The one in\nregard to the difficulties which would be experienced in an attempt to\nkeep the Sabbath of the commandment at the poles, is just as fatal to\nthe first day as it is to the seventh. All this talk, also, in regard to\nthe impossibility of preserving a correct count, and of the lengthening\nand shortening of the days, as the traveler passes from the east to the\nwest, if it has any force at all, or even the semblance of force, must\nbe met and answered equally by the observers of the so-called Christian\nSabbath, with those of the Sabbath of the Lord. This being true, we\nmight pause right here, and roll the burden onto the opposition. Having\nraised the dust which is blinding the eyes of the ignorant, yet\nconscientious, it would be but substantial justice for Sabbatarians to\nfall back and say to them, Take the field, gentlemen, and wrest from the\nhand of the infidel and the atheist the weapons with which you have\narmed them to be employed against you in the very work in which you are\nengaged; for, be it remembered that the children of this world are wiser\nin their generation than the children of light, and they will readily\nperceive the advantage which they have gained by such doctrines and\ndifficulties as those to which the gentleman has called their attention.\n\nThis, however, we shall not do, but shall ourselves, in due time, strike\nat the very root of the error, in the interest of a definite and\nuniversal day of holy rest. Before entering upon this work,\nnevertheless, there is a matter which concerns Sabbatarians most deeply,\nto which attention should be directed.\n\nThe gentleman and his friends are pressing upon the nation the necessity\nof the Constitutional Amendment\u2014contrary to his former declaration, in\nwhich he said there was no necessary connection between the Sabbath and\nthe amendment. He now justifies our strictures upon the disingenuousness\nof his argument, by deliberately stating, in the article before us, with\nan air of triumphant exultation, that, the amendment once secured, the\nSabbath laws in this country will then cease to be a dead letter. By\nthis, he means, of course, that they will be carried into operation. But\nwhat are those Sabbath laws? They are laws enforcing the first day of\nthe week, in nearly every State in the Union.\n\nNow, we believe that what the gentleman says will be fulfilled; but\nright here is the proper place to offer a solemn protest. Will the\ngentleman fine and imprison my brethren and myself for disregarding the\nfirst day of the week, after having conscientiously kept the seventh? If\nso, we ask for the logic by which such a course could be justified, on\nthe ground that the seventh-part-of-time theory is correct? Now, mark\nit, the object of the amendment is to make the Bible the fountain of\nnational law. All the enactments of the Congress and all the decisions\nof the judiciary are to be in harmony with it. If, therefore, Sabbath\nlaws are passed, they must be such as the Scriptures would warrant; for\nthe Sabbath, be it remembered, which this movement seeks to enforce, is\nthe one which the Bible teaches.\n\nBut, according to the last theory, the day which God now requires to be\nobserved is not any one in particular, but simply one in seven, the\nindividual being left to make the selection of the one which he prefers\nthus to honor. Now, therefore, it is submitted that if God has given to\nman this prerogative of choice, then be has done so because this course\nwas the one which commended itself to infinite wisdom, and no person or\nset of persons has a right to come between the creature and the Creator,\ndepriving the former of rights which the latter has guaranteed to him.\nIf the Bible Sabbath is indeed an indefinite one, we say to these\ngentlemen, Hands off; in the name of religion and the Bible you shall\nnot perform a work which twill do violence to a large class of\nconscientious citizens, and which, according to your own argument, is\ncontrary to the doctrine of the Christian Sabbath, as laid down in the\nword of God. Be consistent with yourselves and your views of Scripture.\n\nIf, indeed, you are sincere in believing that Sabbatarians violate no\ndivine law in the keeping of the seventh day, then we say to you in the\nname of charity, Why not allow them, so long as they are Christian men\nand women, and obedient citizens, to carry out their convictions of\nduty, without compelling them, by the appliances of persecuting\nlegislation, to keep the particular first-day Sabbath which indeed you\nhave chosen for yourselves, but for which you have now ceased to claim\nany special divine honor? To form them, either to disregard their own\nconvictions of duty, or to keep two days holy, would lie an act of\ndespotism but one remove from that terrible bigotry which, in the\nInquisition, resorted to the rack and the thumbscrew; not, indeed, to\nmake men better Christians or better citizens, but to coerce them into\nthe acceptance of institutions for which there was no divine authority.\n\nBut we must pans to the consideration of other points. To the objection\nthat the seventh day may have been lost since creation, and that he is a\nbold man who would affirm his ability to locate it now, it may be\nreplied that, while Sabbatarians claim for themselves no unusual amount\nof courage, they do insist that it is an easy matter to demonstrate the\nsuccession of weeks, and the proper place of the original seventh day in\nthe septenary cycle at the present time. The way in which this may be\ndone is as follows: At the creation of the world, God blessed and\nsanctified the seventh day, because that on it he had rested. At the\nexodus from Egypt, he gave to the people a written law, enforcing the\nSabbatic observance of the day on which he had originally ceased from\nhis labors. On the sixth, Moses said to the people, \u201cTo-morrow is the\nrest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.\u201d For forty years subsequent to\nthis, God marked out this day from the others by causing that no manna\nshould fall upon it whatever, whereas it fell upon every other one of\nthe seven.\n\nThus we have the authority of God himself, who assuredly could not\nmistake, that the people of Israel, in the outset, had committed to them\nthe original seventh day, since God not only gave them a Sabbath, but\nalso, according to the reason of the commandment, the Sabbath of the\nLord. Descending the line of history to the days of Christ, we find him\ndeclaring that he had kept his Father\u2019s commandments (John 15:10). But\none of these commandments was that relating to the Sabbath; in order,\ntherefore, to the proper observance of it, Christ must have been able to\ndecide which day in the week it was. That this was the case, none will\ndispute. Thus the day is located in his time satisfactorily, since he\nkept the same one which the Jews regarded, and which preceded the day of\nhis resurrection. From that time to this, we have the general agreement\nof Jews, Christians, and heathen, in regard to the precise place in the\nweek of both the first and the seventh day. Surely, this is all which\ncould be demanded in order to reach reasonable certainty.\n\nThe difficulty which the gentleman finds in harmonizing the will of God,\nas expressed in the law of nature and that of a definite Sabbath for the\npeople living near the poles, is apparently possessed of some force. It\nis, however, not peculiar to him. These barren wastes of ice and snow,\nthough far removed from our civilization, are apparently destined to\nfigure as largely in the spiritual world as they do in that of\nscientific research; not only on the Sabbath question, but also in that\nof baptism, it has a part to act. Think, says the advocate of\nsprinkling, as a shudder runs through his whole system, think of an\nimmersion administered in the regions of eternal ice. Then having\nsuitably impressed his auditors with the physical difficulties in the\nway of Bible baptism, he concludes that God never could have ordained\nimmersion as the only method, since it is impracticable in the extreme\nnorth, and God surely would have commanded a form of ordinance which\ncould be carried out in all parts of the world.\n\nIn harmony with this line of deduction is the difficulty stated by our\nfriend. Chiming in with the theory that the laws of nature and the law\nof God must run harmoniously together, it is shown that at the poles the\ndays and nights are six months long; and, therefore, that a twenty-four\nhour Sabbath, definitely located upon the last day of the week, is out\nof the questions. The conclusion drawn is that, as the theory of the\nseventh-day Sabbatarians is in conflict with the ordinance of nature in\nthese portions of the globe, it must be contrary to the original design\nof God.\n\nBut pause a moment; suppose we should grant that in the region in\nquestion there are men who cannot keep the seventh-day Sabbath as\noriginally ordained, does that prove of necessity that it ought not to\nbe hallowed in those portions of the world where there is no difficulty\nin the way of its observance? We think not. To illustrate: Were a man to\npass his life in a coal mine, hundreds of feet beneath the surface,\nlaboring continually, and never seeing the sun at all, would he,\ntherefore, be exempted from the definite Sabbath? You answer, No. But\nwhy is this reply returned? Manifestly, because the difficulty is not\nwith God and Isis laws, or the sun, but with the individual who has\nvoluntarily placed himself under abnormal circumstances. In other words,\nhe has located himself where the God of nature never designed that he\nshould, and, in so doing, he has himself created a difficulty which he\nhimself can remove.\n\nSo, too, with the Northman. If he finds it impossible to keep a Sabbath\nwhich is most perfectly adapted to the wants of mankind, it is simply\nbecause he has placed himself in a region which God has doctored waste\nand uninhabitable as emphatically as can be done by nature speaking\nthrough the language of eternal ice and snow, and the disappearance for\nsix months in a year of that great luminary whose light and heat are so\nindispensable to the comfort and advancement of the race. But, if this\nis true, then the argument from the conflict between the law of the God\nof nature and that of revelation, concerning a definite day of rest,\nloses all of its force; for the whole trouble arises, not from any want\nof adaptation on the part of such a rest to the circumstances of those\nwho are where God would have them located, but from a disregard, in the\nfirst place, on the part of the nations in question, of the manifest law\nof prohibition to the settlement of regions which were designed to\nremain unoccupied.\n\nTheir relief can be found in one of two directions: They can, in the\ninterest of their own progress, retrace their steps to localities where\nthe more advanced portion of the race feel the genial influence of a\ndiurnal sun; or, should they insist upon remaining in the bleak regions\nof their choice, it is possible for them, according to the accounts of\ntravelers, to mark by the variations of the twilight, even in their six\nmonths\u2019 night, the boundaries of the Sabbath and the week days as they\ncome and go to those residing in more temperate regions.\n\nIt is now time to grapple with the theory that it is impossible for\nthose traveling around the world and those living in different portions\nof it to keep one and the same day. The first thing to be settled is the\nmatter of what is meant by the expression, \u201cthe same day.\u201d Upon this\npoint, the gentleman has wasted many words. We have never insisted upon\nthe identical hours. All that we demand is that the mine day should be\nobserved throughout the habitable globe, _i. e._, each individual should\ncelebrate in his own particular locality the seventh day of the week as\nit comes to him in its passage round the earth\u2014to use the language of\ncommon parlance.\n\nWhether this can be done or not is a question which involves the wisdom\nof God; for, granting that he gave the fourth commandment as a Sabbath\nlaw, and the regulations concerning the Sabbath, as found in the books\nof Moses, there is no room for dispute that he understood the statute to\nenforce the keeping of a definite day, and not merely one-seventh part\nof time, In the sixteenth chapter of Exodus, where the Sabbath is first\nintroduced, is found an excellent opportunity to test this matter. He\nthere marks out the day which he had hallowed as the one which followed\nthe sixth, and the only one on which no manna fell. For forty years,\nalso, this practice of separating the day of his rest by a weekly\nmiracle from all others was continued. But why should he have done this\nif there was no choice, and if the keeping of the seventh part of time\nwas all that was necessary? Nay, more, why did he make it absolutely\nimpossible for a man to celebrate any other day but the seventh day of\nthe week? That he did so, we can prove in a few words.\n\nWe will suppose that a person entertaining the sentiments of the\ngentleman should have attempted to carry them out in the forty years\nduring which God led the people in the wilderness; also, that his first\nexperiment was that of Sunday rest. In this he would have failed\nutterly. Do you ask, How? I answer that God had decreed that no manna\nshould fall on the seventh day (Ex. 16:26), and that the manna which was\nto be eaten on the Sabbath should be gathered on the day before (Ex.\n16:5). It would therefore have been impossible for the individual in\nquestion to provide food for his Sunday rest. But, disgusted with this\nkind of Sabbath-keeping, suppose he should have tried, in order, Monday,\nTuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, the result would not have\nvaried materially. On Sunday, there was an utter absence of all food; on\nthe other days, that which had been previously gathered, instead of\nbeing fit for use, would have been found corrupted and changed into\nloathsome worms, since God had told the people that only the manna which\nwas gathered on the sixth day should be kept until the day following;\nand some of them, having made the experiment of disobeying in the\nparticular in question, found the result as cited above (Ex. 16:19, 20).\nOn the other hand, should the same individual have decided finally to\nconsecrate the seventh day of the week, he would have found no\ndifficulty whatever. Gathering his double portion of the manna on the\nsixth day, by a miracle of God it would have been preserved pure and\nwholesome through the last day of the week.\n\nBut how can this be accounted for on the hypothesis that no particular\nday was chosen by the Lord? If, indeed, he had adopted the indefinite\nplan, and had left the people to choose for themselves, it is certain\nthat he did this because it was the best method. But if it were the best\nmethod, and if it were in accordance with his view of the statute, then,\nassuredly, he would not have stultified himself and mocked the people by\nfirst granting them a privilege and then, by his providence, preventing\nthem from carrying it out.\n\nShould it be suggested that this law was confined to the land of\nPalestine and to the Jews in its operation, I answer; first, that at the\ntime spoken of the people were in Arabia, not in Judea, and that even\nshould that be granted, which is not true, viz., that the fourth\ncommandment related simply to the Hebrews, this does not affect the\nquestion at all, for no one will insist that Jews were only obliged by\nit when in Judea. Wherever they might be, they were required to keep the\nSabbath, whether in bondage in Assyria, or traversing the known world in\nquest of gain. From Spain to India, from Scythia to Africa, this law was\ndesigned to apply and did apply for hundreds of years before it will be\neven claimed that it was abolished. This being true, it is established\nbeyond question that God himself imposed upon men, traversing the whole\nof the eastern continent, a uniform day of worship.\n\nDo you inquire when they commenced it? I answer, At sunset, agreeably to\nthe direction in Lev. 23:32. Did they go eastward to the Pacific, or\nwestward to the Atlantic, they were required to commence their rest at\nthat hour. Was it impossible for them to do so? He that says so charges\nGod with folly. Were they capable of carrying out the requirement? Then,\nat least on the eastern continent, the definite day was a practicable\nthing. God knew how his people would be scattered; he gave them the\ninstitution of the Sabbath, adapted to whatever circumstances they might\nbe placed in; he marked out that Sabbath from the rest of the week, and\nin the outset settled beyond controversy the question that it was not\nmovable in its nature. Therefore, he who would accept the theory which\nwe have been considering and repudiate the one which we indorse, must do\nit in the face of God\u2019s explanatory providence, in the teeth of his\nwritten law, and against the practice of his people, Israel, who for\ncenturies have had no difficulty in finding the Sabbath in every\nlatitude.\n\nSo much for the law and its history, making clear, as it does, that our\nopponents do not understand the possibilities of the case as God looks\nupon them. We will now proceed to the consideration of the difficulties\nwhich they discover in the realization of our theory.\n\nIt is claimed that, in going around the world eastward, a day is gained;\nand in going around westward, a day is lost, to the traveler. From these\npremises it is argued that a definite day cannot be kept. Has it ever\noccurred to the gentleman that his own theory would be somewhat\ndisturbed by the same trip? Mark it, it is exactly one-seventh part of\ntime which is to be kept. It will hardly be urged that all the old\nwatches in the land are reliable enough to be trusted in a journey of\nthis length, and, besides, suppose we had lived in a period when such\ntime-pieces were not known, then what? Oh! says the objector, we would\nhave gone by the sun. Then you agree with us, after all, that the sun\npresents the most available method of marking the day; but remember,\nnow, that you are on your journey round the earth, westward; you travel\nsix days, each one considerably lengthened out by the fact that you are\ngoing with the sun; you stop and rest on the seventh day, which you call\nthe Sabbath. Unfortunately, however, as you have been lying still, it is\nconsiderably shorter than your six days of work; by this means you have\ncheated the Lord out of one-seventh of the whole time which all of the\nsix days had in excess over the one on which you rested. Traveling\neastward, the opposite would be true, and your days of rest would be\nlonger than your days of labor, and would not, therefore, represent\none-seventh part of time.\n\nAgain, we might show by argument the complete anarchy into which the\ncommunity would be thrown by the realization of this doctrine, that each\nman for himself is at liberty to fix upon his weekly Sabbath. Nothing\nwould be easier to prove than that it would seriously obstruct your\ncourts of justice; that it would render stated worship impossible; in\nfine, that it would bring confusion into every walk in life.\n\nDo you reply that you will obviate the difficulty by legislative\nenactment, and that you will make this whole nation, from New York to\nSan Francisco, regard the Sunday for the sake of uniformity and good\norder? I answer; first, have you then improved upon God\u2019s great plan?\nDid he not know that a definite day would be the best, and would he not\nhave been likely to give it to us? Secondly, then you admit that it is,\nafter all, possible to keep one and the same day across the whole of\nthis continent; for were this not true it would be idle for you to\nattempt to produce uniformity by legislation. But putting this\nconcession of yours in regard to the western, alongside of God\u2019s\nenforcement of a definite day for centuries, on the whole of the\neastern, continent, the circuit of the globe is made, and the\npossibility of keeping a definite Sabbath on both hemispheres is\nestablished.\n\nBefore me lies the draft of an electrical clock, which is styled, \u201cThe\nclock of all nations.\u201d The design is an ingenious one, and serves to\nshow at a glance the difference in time between prominent cities in all\nparts of the globe. For this purpose, a central dial is drafted,\nrepresenting the meridian of New York. The hands on this dial indicate\nthe precise hour of noon. Around this central figure are arranged twenty\nadditional dials, on each one of which is marked by the hands the time\nof day as it will exist in the cities named, commencing on the east of\nNew York with Pekin, and terminating to the west of it with San\nFrancisco. By it, you perceive at a glance the precise variation of time\nin the different longitudes to which these cities belong.\n\nFor example, while the clock of New York indicates twelve, noon, the one\nin Pekin indicates twenty minutes before one in the morning; the one in\nRome, fifteen minutes to six P. M.; the one in London, five minutes of\nfive P. M.; and so on until you reach New York, where it is twelve M.\nThen passing westward of that point, where the time is, of course,\nslower, the dial for Chicago marks seven minutes past eleven A. M.; that\nof St. Louis, five minutes of eleven A. M.; that in San Francisco,\nfifteen minutes before nine A. M. By this means, the variation between\nPekin and San Francisco is shown to be about sixteen hours, or nearly\ntwo-thirds of one whole day. By the same method, the reader will at once\ndiscern that it is possible to locate the commencement of the day at any\none of these points in its passage around the world.\n\nIn order to do this, let it be supposed that the day begins when it did\nin Bible times, with the setting of the sun. It is, if you please,\nSunday at Pekin, and those who keep that day commence to celebrate it at\nsunset. Now, if we would ascertain just when the citizens of Rome would\nenter upon a like service, it is only necessary to determine how long it\nwould take the sunset to travel the distance separating these two\ncities. By consulting the draft in question, we find that the time at\nRome is six hours and fifty-five minutes slower than that at Pekin. This\nbeing the case, the sunset would reach them, and they would enter upon\nthe first day of the week just six hours and fifty-five minutes after\nthose dwelling on the meridian of Pekin have done so.\n\nSo we might go through the whole list. As the world revolves upon its\naxis, it would bring London to the same point where the people of Rome\nsaw the sun sink in the west and entered upon the Sunday, just fifty\nminutes subsequent to that event. The citizens of New York would begin\ntheir Sunday, also, with the sunset, four hours and fifty-five minutes\nafter those of London did so; and those of Chicago, fifty-five minutes\nlater than those of New York; and those of San Francisco, two hours and\ntwenty minutes subsequent to those of Chicago. All, however, would be\nhallowing the same day, though not, for a portion of the time, the same\nhours.[18] Each, in his own proper locality, would commence to keep the\nday when it reached him, and continue to keep it until by a complete\nrevolution of the earth he is brought around to the commencement of\nanother day, as indicated by another decline of the sun. This is as God\nwould have it.\n\nIn the passage from Egypt to Palestine there was a variation of some\nminutes; but there was no change in the time of commencing the Sabbath.\nFrom even to even shall you keep your Sabbaths, was the divine edict,\nand his people, in going eastward or westward, obeyed this injunction.\nIn doing so they needed no time-piece; nor would the traveler at the\npresent time. In every habitable region, according to God\u2019s plan, the\ngreat luminary of heaven visibly marks the boundaries of sacred time.\nThe day began in the east, and travels to the west. A complete\nrevolution of the earth brings it, with its complement of light and\ndarkness, to the home of every man, no matter as to the meridian of\nlongitude in which he lives. It is the same day, in the Bible sense, as\nthat kept by the Christian thousands of miles to the east of him, though\nit may not begin at exactly the same moment.\n\nPractically, this question has no real significance whatever. Though it\nmay puzzle the brain of one who has not before him the facts, it has\nbeen settled forever in a most remarkable manner by the usage of\nmankind. The fact is beyond cavil that, from the extreme eastern\nboundary of the eastern continent to the extreme western verge of the\nwestern continent, there is such a perfect agreement upon this point\nthat each day of the week, commencing on the western shore of the\nPacific, continues its course across Asia, Europe, and America, until it\narrives at the eastern shore of the same sea. So true is this that, were\nthere a line of churches surmounted with bells, in hearing distance of\neach other, they could ring in the commencement of any day; say at\nYokohama in Japan, and its march could be made known along the whole\nline from that place to San Francisco by a like practice in each of the\nchurches, without a solitary break until the last bell on the Pacific\ncoast had announced its arrival there. Whether it be admitted that it\ncan be done or not, it is a fact that the Christians from China to\nCalifornia do observe the same Sabbath or Sunday all along the line\nbetween the two points.\n\nShould it be replied that, although there is a uniform reckoning of the\ndays to those passing from San Francisco eastward to China, or from\nChina westward to San Francisco, that, nevertheless, should they cross\nthe Pacific Ocean from San Francisco westward to China, or from China\neastward to San Francisco, it would be necessary for them in the first\ncase to add a day, and in the last, to drop one, in order to make their\ntime harmonize with that of the people in these two countries, the reply\nis, that this is very true. It does not, however, prove that there is no\ndefinite day which can be kept alike by the inhabitants of the two\ncontinents; for in order to the keeping of the same day on a round world\nthere must somewhere be a day-line, in other words, there must be a\npoint where the day begins. In crossing that line the same result would\nensue as that claimed in the passage from California to China _via_ the\nPacific, _i. e._, a day must be either dropped or added in the reckoning\nof the individual making the transit.\n\nWe have already seen that God\u2019s plan was to measure the days by the\nsetting of the sun. This being the case, the fourth day, on which the\nsun was made, commenced at the precise point where at the time of its\ncreation it would have appeared to a person to the east of it as sinking\nout of sight in the west. The day commencing at that point passed around\nthe earth until every portion of it had in succession witnessed the\nsetting of the sun on the fifth day. The only difficulty that remains in\nthe case, consequently, is that of deciding where the day-line should be\nlocated. As already discovered, the practice of nations has fixed it in\nthe Pacific Ocean. It is not a little remarkable that sailors change\ntheir reckoning while crossing that ocean backward or forward, and\ncircumnavigate the globe at will without the slightest confusion. The\nonly instance which has been cited in which any trouble has occurred, or\nany confusion of date has arisen, is that of Pitcairn\u2019s Island, in which\nthey failed to make the change under consideration.[19] Had they done\nthis, they would have found themselves in harmony with the great mass of\nmen living on the same meridian with their insignificant island.\n\nThe only matter of debate which remains is that concerning the proper\nlocation of the day-line. Has there or has there not been a mistake made\nin fixing upon the place where it belongs? Certain it is that the\nprovidence of God seems to harmonize with the present arrangement. Man\ncommenced his existence in the east. The progress of empire has been\nwestward. Emigration has carried with it a harmonious system of counting\nthe days, by which they have been recognized as beginning on the\neastern, and traveling to the western, continent. Especially is this\ntrue of the Christian world.\n\nBut, again, is there not, aside from this providential arrangement and\nfrom the universal opinion that the day does begin in the east, as well\nas the fact that scientific men have established the point of changing\nthe reckoning somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, some additional reason for\nsupposing that God would choose this locality for the beginning of the\nday? We answer, There is. Should the day-line run through any continent\nor large body of land, it will be readily perceived that it would\nproduce great confusion, since, on the one side of it, though imaginary\nin its character, individuals would be keeping the seventh day of the\nweek, while on the other, their neighbors in close proximity to them\nwould not yet have made their exit from the sixth.\n\nTo avoid this difficulty, therefore, the only remedy which could be\nfound would consist in the employment of some great natural boundary,\nsuch as a range of mountains or an expanse of water, by which those on\none side of the day-line would be so separated as to prevent the\ndisorder which must arise from constant and uninterrupted\nintercommunication. That there is any range of mountains stretching\nnorthward and southward from pole to pole which would answer the purpose\nin question, no one will insist. The only resource left, consequently,\nis that of those vast bodies of water called seas or oceans.\n\nTurning now to the one which is known as the Atlantic Ocean, it is found\nthat the day-line could not be run through it without intercepting some\nhabitable portion of the globe. The only resource which remains is found\nin the Pacific Ocean, which, as has been seen, has been selected by the\nmass of mankind as a suitable place in which to make those changes that\nwould be necessary in case the day-line was actually located therein.\nHappily, an examination of a large globe will prove that a line drawn\nfrom Behring\u2019s Straits southward across the latitudes which are\navailable for the homes of mankind will not touch any portions of land\nwhatever, or at least if it strikes any they would be so insignificant\nin their character that they would not be worthy of mention.\n\nWith these remarks, the subject of the day-line is dismissed with the\nconviction that the necessity of its existence, the fact that it must be\nfound in the Pacific Ocean if anywhere, and the uniform recognition in\npractice, if not in theory, by all nations, of its location in that sea,\nunite in furnishing a combination of facts which render assurance\njustifiable in the mind of one who does not insist upon more testimony\nthan he ought to demand.\n\nThere remain now but two matters in the article of the gentleman which\nneed to be disposed of. These are found in the contemptuous sneer at the\ninsignificance of the numbers of Sabbatarians, and the witticisms, if\nsuch they may be called, which are indulged in in the employment of the\nsuggestion concerning the use of the sponges saturated with stupefying\nchemicals and the gratuitous trip around the world, which it is proposed\nto give them.\n\nTo answer these sallies to the satisfaction of some would be impossible,\nwhile with others, possessing the power of logical discrimination and\nknowing that the office of mere wit is most frequently that of diverting\nthe attention from a course of reasoning which it is felt cannot be met,\nsuch an effort would be uncalled for. The paucity in numbers is the same\nold, threadbare objection which every great reform has been compelled to\nmeet since the world began. While the administration of narcotics and\nthe trip round the world would be just as fatal to the exact observer of\nthe seventh part of time as it would to one celebrating a definite day,\neven though it were admitted that the consequences of such a journey\nwould be as claimed by the writer.\n\nBut besides all this, it will be discovered that the basis of the whole\ntransaction, both in the case of the sponge and the vessel, is fraud,\ndeceit, and force. Stupefy a man with narcotics for twenty-four hours;\nor nail him down under the hatches of a circumnavigating vessel; break\nthe compass; send him round the world; let the whole community conspire\nto falsify the facts in the case; do not let him know where he has been;\nfalsify the truth regarding the day observed by first-day keepers; and\nthen, forsooth, you have changed the practice, if not convinced the\njudgment, of a little handful of conscientious, definite Sabbath-day\nkeepers. Wonderful, gentlemen! Wonderful in the extreme! What results\nfor such prodigious efforts! Alas, for truth, when it must pass such an\nordeal as this! We blush, but not for ourselves. We would almost be\nwilling to inhale the an\u00e6sthetic or run the hazard of the voyage at sea,\ntaking our chances respecting the proper preservation of the\nHeaven-appointed day of rest, if, by so doing, we might prevent our\nbrethren of the Amendment school, for whose welfare we have the most\nearnest desire, from making so sorry a show of the low estimate which\nthey place upon the importance of employing in a controversy like this,\narguments which appeal only to the Christian\u2019s head and heart, instead\nof those which appeal to the baser faculties of the mind.\n\nA summary of the ground traveled in this rejoinder would run somewhat as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n1. That in adopting the seventh-part-of-time theory, the gentleman has\nabandoned the definite first day which he sought to establish in the\nfirst nine of his articles.\n\n2. That the seventh-part-of-time theory is just as fatal to the Sunday\nas it is to the Sabbath.\n\n3. That it overturns the practicability of the proposed Amendment, since\nit seeks to enforce a definite day, and since, according to it,\nSabbatarians have a Bible right to observe the seventh day in the\nexercise of a divinely given choice of days.\n\n4. That it is possible to establish the identity of the last day of the\nweek at the present time with that upon which God rested at the\ncompletion of the emotion; from the providential manner in which God\npointed it out in the exodus from Egypt; the fact that Christ and his\ndisciples kept the Sabbath according to the commandment; the general\nagreement among Jews, Christians, and heathen concerning its place in\nthe week from that time to this.\n\n5. That the objection concerning the conflict between a definite Sabbath\nand the laws of nature at the poles does not array the God of nature\nagainst himself, or our version of his commandment, since the trouble\ndoes not imply any want of foresight on the part of the Deity, but\nrather a disregard of the plainest teachings of both providence and\nnature on the part of those who have placed themselves where it was\nnever designed that men should locate.\n\n6. That if a definite day is impossible, then the wisdom of God is\nimpeached, since, both by the letter of the commandment and by his\nprovidential interpretation of it for forty years, that is the very\nthing which it inculcates.\n\n7. That a definite day can be kept on the eastern continent, since this\nhad been done for hundreds of years before the change of the law will be\neven claimed.\n\n8. That a definite day can be observed on the western continent, since\nthis is the very object which the Amendment is designed to secure.\n\n9. That the trip around the world would render it as impossible to keep\nan exact seventh part of time as it would a definite seventh day.\n\n10. That the seventh-part-of-time theory would introduce into society\nthe direst confusion, defeating even the administration of justice.\n\n11. That, practically, the whole world from the extreme east to the\nextreme west does keep a definite day.\n\n12. That the loss and gain of time creates no disturbance except in the\ncrossing of the Pacific Ocean.\n\n13. That with a definite day, there must be a day-line.\n\n14. That that day-line is, by the uniform practice of nations, and the\nprovidence of God, which renders it impossible that it should exist\nanywhere else, drawn through the Pacific Ocean.\n\n15. That it only remains for us to do just what we are doing and have\nbeen doing for centuries in order to prove by actual demonstration that\nall the difficulties in the way of a definite Sabbath can be readily\ndisposed of by those who are desirous of keeping the law of God as it\nreads.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  By consulting the figures given above, the reader will be able to\n  demonstrate, not only the fact that the inhabitants along the line\n  from Pekin to San Francisco, can hallow the same day, but also that\n  the day which they hallow will be identical in some of its hours. For\n  example: It was shown that the people of Rome commence their day six\n  hours and fifty-five minutes later than do those of Pekin. Deducting\n  these six hours and fifty-five minutes from twenty-four hours we have\n  left seventeen hours and five minutes as the period of time during\n  which the citizens of these two cities would be celebrating the\n  Sabbath in common. Applying the same principle to other cities, we\n  find that London and Pekin would worship together for sixteen hours\n  and fifteen minutes; New York and Pekin, eleven hours and twenty\n  minutes; Chicago and Pekin, ten hours and twenty-five minutes; S.\n  Francisco and Pekin, eight hours and five minutes.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  The gentleman might have cited the case of Alaska, also, as a parallel\n  to that of Pitcairn\u2019s Island. The inhabitants of this region, like\n  those of the island mentioned, sailed eastward to this continent\n  across the Pacific Ocean, and failed to drop the required day in their\n  reckoning. The result was, that when we purchased that territory, they\n  were found to be keeping Saturday instead of Sunday. We believe,\n  however, that the mistake is now rectified.\n\n\n\n\n                           STATESMAN\u2019S REPLY.\n                            ARTICLE ELEVEN.\n               THE TRUE THEORY OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.\n\n\nThe third theory of the Christian Sabbath, in the order in which we have\nbeen considering the different theories, affirms that the Sabbath was\ninstituted at the creation of man, and that it has never been abolished\nor superseded. This theory further maintains that the essential idea of\nthe law of the Sabbath is not the holiness of any particular portion of\ntime, but the consecration of a specified proportion of time, viz., one\nday in seven; that, in accordance with this essential idea of the\nSabbath, a change of day was admissible; that a change was actually made\nby divine warrant, on account of, and dating from, the resurrection of\nChrist; and that the first day of the week, the Lord\u2019s day, is the true\nChristian Sabbath, having its moral sanction in the fourth commandment.\n\nEnough has already been written in these columns, in disproving the\nopposing theories, to show that this theory of the Sabbath is the true\none. Two things being admitted, there appears to be no escape from this\ntheory. Let it be admitted, first, that God instituted the Sabbath for\nall mankind, and that its law is of unchanging as well as universal\napplication. This is readily conceded by those with whom we are now in\ndiscussion. Then, in the second place, let it be admitted that the\ninspired apostles, under the guidance of Christ and his Spirit, and with\ntheir manifest approbation, ceased to observe the seventh day, and\nactually observed the first day of the week. This our opponents are very\nloth to admit. But the testimony given by us at considerable length is\nsimply overwhelming and incontrovertible. The third theory, and it\nalone, harmonizes the immutable law of the Sabbath with the actual\nchange of day.\n\nIn further confirmation of the correctness of this theory, it remains\nfor us, in concluding this discussion, to show that this third theory\naccords with the fourth commandment, and meets every aspect of the\ndesign of the institution of the Sabbath.\n\nThe principal feature of the design of the Sabbath is the setting forth\nof God\u2019s sovereign control, as creator, of man and the time of man, as\nGod\u2019s creature. Called into being by the Creator, and made lord over the\nirrational and material creation, man was taught that his time was to be\nused for God\u2019s honor. It was a trust from the Creator; and that man\nmight not forget this, one-seventh of the time in regular recurrence was\nmarked out to be consecrated specially to the Lord of all. This is the\nvery idea in the commemoration of the work of creation. It is to keep\nalive the knowledge of God as the Creator and Sovereign Ruler of man. To\ncommemorate the creation, is to keep before the mind, week by week, the\nduty of using our time for the honor of the Author and Upholder of our\nbeing.\n\nNor is the example of God\u2019s resting the seventh day made insignificant\nby this theory of the Christian Sabbath. \u201cIn six days God made the\nheavens and the earth, and rested the seventh day.\u201d God\u2019s people in\ndifferent parts of the world do and must begin their work at different\ntimes, and yet in each locality they labor six days and rest the\nseventh. It is the proportion of time which is the law of the\ncommandment, enforced by the divine example; and hence the Christian\nSabbath, in the true import of the commandment, is as really the seventh\nday as the Jewish Sabbath. The Christian labors six days, and not the\nseventh, according to the divine example and the divine command.\n\nIn this way, also, the true theory of the Christian Sabbath meets the\ndesign of the institution as it was intended to arrest the current of\nthe outward life and lead up the soul to unseen and eternal verities.\nAnd here there is a most important argument for the change of the day\nfor Sabbath observance. It is most reasonable to believe that, if there\nbe any work which more gloriously manifests the perfections of God, and\nserves better to turn the thoughts of men to things above, than the work\nof creation, the day which commemorates such a work would be the\nappropriate time for Sabbath observance.\n\nSo far as the essential idea of the Sabbath connects itself with a\nparticular day, the argument is of great weight in favor of a change\nfrom the seventh to the first day of the week. The weekly division is\nthe main thing, let the week begin when it may. It may begin on what we\nnow call the third, or fourth, or any other, day. It will matter little.\nBut as the first day, in our enumeration of the days, will always bring\nto mind the great work of redemption, accomplished by the Saviour, who\non the first day of the week rose from the dead, the observance of this\nday as the Sabbath best answers one of the principal designs of that\ninstitution.\n\nAnd then, how fittingly does the observance of the first day, the day of\nthe Lord\u2019s resurrection, correspond to the design of the Sabbath as a\nforetaste of the heavenly rest\u2014the _Sabbatismos_ or Sabbath-keeping that\nremains for the people of God. Rejoicing here on the Christian Sabbath\nin what our Redeemer has done for us, we look forward with joyful\nanticipations to the many mansions which he has gone before us to\nprepare, that we may be \u201cforever with the Lord.\u201d\n\n           \u201cBright shadows of true rest; some shoots of bliss;\n             Heaven once a week;\n           The next world\u2019s gladness prepossessed in this,\n             A day to seek\n\n           Eternity in time; the steps by which\n             We climb above all ages; lamps that light\n           Man through his heap of dark days; and the rich\n             And full redemption of the whole week\u2019s flight.\n\n           \u2018The milky way chalked out with suns; a clue\n             That guides through evening hours; and in full story\n           A taste of Heaven on earth; a pledge and cue\n             Of a full feast; and the out-courts of glory.\u2019\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                              A REJOINDER.\n              \u201cTHE TRUE THEORY OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.\u201d\n\n\nIt is a peculiarity of this discussion that we are prevented, in our\nrejoinders, from anticipating the positions which our opponent has in\nstore for us. Were it possible to proceed upon principles of\nconsistency, in debate, and conclude that he, having adopted such and\nsuch views, would continue to maintain them steadily for the future,\nthere would be a sort of satisfaction found in preparing material to be\nemployed hereafter. But we have learned, by actual experience, that in\nthis debate such anticipatory action would be labor lost. For example:\nIn the last reply, which had to do with the seventh-part-of-time theory,\nwe had intended to show that, were it true, and that, were the\nobservance of one day in seven all that is now required, even then\nSabbatarians stood upon a footing as safe as that of their opponents,\nsince the observance of the seventh day answered to the keeping of\none-seventh part of time, equally with that of the celebration of the\nfirst day of the week.\n\nBeing prevented by want of space from indulging in these reflections, we\nlaid them over for another week, supposing that they would come in play\nequally well at this time, Alas! what a mistake! We should have struck\nwhen the iron was hot. Unfortunately, we are not now confronting the\nno-day-in-particular doctrine, as we were then; but it is the \u201cLord\u2019s\nday\u201d again, the first day of an indefinite week, \u201ca particular, definite\nday, enforced by the command and the example of Christ and the\napostles,\u201d which once more stands before us. How it is that we have been\nborne so rapidly over the space which separates these antagonistic\npositions, the reader will have to decide for himself; for we confess to\na perfect want of ability, on our own part, to render him any\nassistance. Without the slightest attempt at logical deduction, we are\nfirst informed that the essential idea in Sabbath observance is not that\nof the keeping of a particular day, but the consecration of one day in\nthe week, allowing the week to begin wherever it may. This, we are told,\nwould suitably commemorate God\u2019s rest at the creation of the world; and,\nalso, that if, in addition, we make the day of our rest identical with\nthe first day of the week, we can thereby celebrate both creation and\nredemption. For this very purpose, we are informed, the Sabbath\ncommandment was changed, so as to admit of the introduction of a new\nday.\n\nBut pause a moment. Has the gentleman told us just what change was made?\nHas he told us what words were stricken out? and how it now reads? The\nreader has not forgotten that this is the very thing the opposition were\nchallenged to perform. He will perceive that this, also, is the very\nthing which the gentleman has failed to accomplish, and cannot hereafter\ndo, since the reply under review is the last of his series. If it be\nsaid that he has cited us to the fourth commandment, as given in the\ntwentieth of Exodus, as containing the law as it now reads, then he is\nself-condemned; for he admits that the phraseology of that commandment\ndid enforce a definite day, and that, the last day of the week.\n\nBut once more: Passing over the absurdity of claiming a change in the\nlaw, where there is no ability to produce the statute as amended, let us\ngo back from Sinai to Eden, along with the gentleman, and see if we\ncannot find, independent of the commandment, evidence that the creation\nSabbath was not a portable institution, to be trundled about at the\ncaprice of any and every individual. Mark it, now, it is granted that\nwhat is called the Jewish Sabbath law enforced the keeping of the\nseventh day, and admitted of no other as a substitute. But whence is\nthis conclusion drawn? Undeniably, from the words, \u201cThe seventh day is\nthe Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.\u201d\n\nBut where has the gentleman learned that the creation Sabbath was\nenjoined in the use of language less explicit and limited in its meaning\nthan are the words of the decalogue? If he knows anything about the\noriginal decree of Jehovah, and the limitations with which he guarded\nthe Sabbath in the outset, he, like ourselves, is compelled to go to the\nsacred record for information. If, in going there, he has been able to\nfind anything which would prove that the Edenic Sabbath was less fixed\nin its character than that of Sinai, then he has made some progress. The\nonly scripture which will throw any light upon the subject will be found\nin Gen. 2:1-3.\n\nUnhappily for the gentleman, however, it is fatal to his conception that\nthe original Sabbath varied in any way from that of the Jews\u2014so-called.\nIn the account of its institution, the language employed is almost\nprecisely the same with that subsequently traced upon the tables of\nstone. It is there declared that God sanctified (_i. e._, set apart to a\nholy use) the _seventh day_. The reason for this action is the fact that\nhe had rested upon it. Now, it will be observed that it was the\n\u201c_seventh day_\u201d that God blessed and sanctified, and no other. It is\nsubmitted, therefore, as the gentleman concedes, that the same\nexpression (_i. e._, the seventh day), when employed in the commandment\ngiven to Moses, did locate the Sabbath institution immovably upon the\nlast day of the week, until the law was changed; that the same language,\nwhen employed originally, must have produced the same result; in other\nwords, if the command to keep the seventh day, as given on Mount Sinai,\nheld the people strictly to the observance of the last day of the week,\nso, too, Jehovah, in the beginning, restricted the whole race to a\nSabbath which was, equally with the other, the seventh, and, therefore,\nthe last day of the week.\n\nIn order to avoid this conclusion, it will be required that, by some\nmeans, he should be able to show that the same terms which were employed\nby God, at one time, have a different meaning from that attached to\nthem, as employed by him at another time. Not only so, the Sabbath in\nGenesis, like that in Exodus, is further limited and defined by two\nadditional facts. First, it was the day on which God rested; secondly,\nit was the day which he blessed because He had rested upon it.\nTherefore, before any other day could be substituted for it, these two\nthings must be true of it, as matter of history. This, however, can\nnever be the case, as it regards any day of the week, save the last;\nconsequently, he who celebrates any other is not celebrating the one\nwhich God imposed in the beginning. So much for the definiteness of the\nSabbath which was given to Adam.\n\nShould it be replied that what has been remarked is correct, and that it\nis not argued that any one was at liberty to keep any other day than the\nseventh of the week, until Christ changed the law, and thereby\nauthorized them so to do, we reply, Very good; that brings us back again\nto the original proposition, which is, Did he make such a change? If he\ndid, then it is just as important that we should have clear and\nconclusive evidence that such an alteration was made by him, as it is\nthat we should have the abundant testimony which we now possess that a\ndefinite Sabbath was originally given to mankind.\n\nAll this speculation in regard to what might have been done with perfect\nconsistency under a given state of facts is worse than idle. What we\ndemand is this\u2014What _has been_ done? Instead of concluding that Christ\ndid a certain thing because it would have been right so to do, first\nshow us, by actual Scripture quotation, that he really performed the\nwork in question, and the consistency of his action will take care of\nitself. A theology which has no broader, firmer basis than individual\nconception of the propriety of certain occurrences which may never have\ntaken place at all, is not worth the paper on which it is drawn out.\nThis, nevertheless, is the very material with which we are dealing.\n\nEleven articles, ostensibly written to afford divine authority for the\nchange of days, are concluded; and, from beginning to end, there is not\nfound in them a \u201cThus saith the Lord\u201d for the transfer. Again and again\nit is inferred that such and such transactions meant so-and-so. Again\nand again it is concluded that such and such things are admissible, not\nbecause of any scriptural warrant, but because they seem good in the\neyes of those with whose practice they best conform. The reason why this\nis so, the reader will readily perceive. It is found, not in the fact\nthat the learned gentleman who represents the opposition is insensible\nto the superiority of positive Bible statements over individual surmise,\nbut in the necessity under which he is placed, to employ the only\nmaterial which he has at hand. Meeting him, therefore, where he is, let\nus prove the unreliability of such deductions as he is indulging in by\nactual test. The points which he is attempting to establish are these:\n1. The original idea of the Sabbath can be met by the observance of the\nfirst day of the week, as well as by that of the last. 2. That the\ncommemoration of Christ\u2019s resurrection can only be suitably carried out\nby hallowing the first day of every week.\n\nNow, as to the first of these propositions, it will only be safe to\ndecide that it is correct after giving it mature reflection. We have\nalready seen that God\u2019s original plan for preserving the memory of\ncreation week was that of setting apart the last day of each subsequent\nweek for the imitation, on our part, of his rest thereon. To say,\ntherefore, that it would have answered just as well to allow the\nindividual to take any other day\u2014say the first day of the week\u2014for this\npurpose, is to argue that God acted without cause in making the\nselection which he did and enforcing it for four thousand years. If the\nquestion were one of indifference, why did he not leave the day unfixed?\nWhy not allow them then to commemorate his rest on the first day, as the\ngentleman would have done now, arguing that the ends of the original\nSabbath would, in this way, be fully met. Certain it is that no good\nreason can be assigned why it would now be more proper to commemorate\nthe rest of Jehovah by a variable Sabbath than it has been heretofore.\nThis being true, the gentleman\u2019s logic is found to be unsound, or else\nthe action of the Deity was inconsiderate.\n\nTurning, now, to the second proposition, the reader will be instantly\nstruck with its unqualified antagonism to the first point which is\nsought to be made out.\n\nRemember, now, that the gentleman is arguing stoutly for first-day\nsanctity. He is not so particular when the week begins, but it must have\njust seven days, and the first of them must be devoted to the\ncommemoration of the Lord\u2019s resurrection, Should you ask him why he is\nthus particular in the selection of the first day of the week, he would\nreply, \u201cWhy, that is the day on which the Lord arose, and it is his\nresurrection, as the crowning act in the work of redemption, which we\nseek to honor.\u201d But, reader, would it not occur to you, immediately,\nthat this is a repudiation of all which he has said concerning the\nEdenic Sabbath? Nosy, mark it; what God demands, is, that we should\nhonor the seventh day of the week, as the one which he rested upon,\nblessed, and sanctified. If, therefore, the rest, the blessing, and the\nsanctification of that day can be suitably remembered by the observance\nof another day differing from it, then the assumption that an event is\nmost impressively handed down by the dedication, for this purpose, of\nthe very day on which it transpired, is unsound.\n\nBut if this assumption be unsound, then all of the gentleman\u2019s talk in\nregard to the necessity for a change of days, in order to the suitable\ncommemoration of the resurrection of Christ and the completion of the\nwork of redemption, is without force. For, assuredly, if he is right in\nsupposing that God\u2019s rest in Eden, on the seventh day, can he\ncommemorated as well on the first day as on the seventh, then the same\nprinciple will hold good in regard to the events which transpired on the\nfirst day of the week, _i. e._, they can be kept in remembrance by the\nhallowing of the seventh day as well as by that of the first. But this\nbeing true, his argument for the necessity of the change of Sabbaths is\ngone, and his philosophy of the change proved to be unsound. The only\npurpose which it has served in this controversy has been the revelation\nof that which is really the conviction of its author, as it is that of\nmen generally, that there is no time in which great transactions can be\nso suitably commemorated as that of the day on which they took place.\nWhen the nation wishes to celebrate the anniversary of its independence,\nit sets apart for this purpose the fourth of July, which answers exactly\nto the day of the month on which the Declaration of Independence was\nmade. Substitute for this another day, and you have marred the\nimpressiveness of the occasion.\n\nSo, too, with God\u2019s rest on creation week; it must be so celebrated that\nall the associations connected with it will be calculated to lead the\nmind back to its origin and object. Turn it around, as the gentleman\nproposes to do, _i. e._, substitute the first day of the week in the\nplace of the last, and you have precisely reversed God\u2019s order. You have\nput the rest-day first, and cause the six laboring days to follow;\nwhereas, God, knowing that rest was only needed _after_ labor, worked\nsix days and then rested the seventh, not because he was weary, but\nbecause he desired to put on the record for us an example to be strictly\nfollowed. The gentleman, however, without the slightest warrant, has,\nwith a rash hand, laid hold of the divine procedure, and now says that\nthe order pursued was not necessary to the inculcation of the great\nlessons which God designed to impart.\n\nTo this, I reply, 1. That God\u2019s actions are never superfluous. 2. That,\nif we err at all, it is safer to err on the side of the divine example.\n3. That if the idea of God\u2019s working six days is in any way connected\nwith a proper Sabbath rest, then it is indispensable that the Sabbath\nshould follow, and not precede, the working portion of the week. 4. That\nif the rest of God, merely, is the object which we should keep before\nour minds by a proper regard for the Sabbatic institution, the gentleman\nhas himself shown, by the logic which he has employed, that the only\nsuitable period for the keeping of that rest is found in that portion of\nthe week on which God ceased from his labors.\n\nThe remark of the gentleman that the work of redemption furnishes a\nsubject worthy of being remembered by observance with Sabbatic honor of\nthe day on which it was completed, is worthy of passing notice. The idea\nwhich he advances is one which is quite prevalent, and employed with\ngreat satisfaction by clergymen generally, when controverting the claims\nof God\u2019s ancient rest-day. The strength of the position lies in the fact\nthat it distinguishes between redemption and creation, assuming, perhaps\ncorrectly, that the latter is more exalted than the former. Having won\nthe assent of the mind to this proposition, the reader is quietly\ncarried over to conclusions much less obvious than the first. Almost\nunconsciously he is led to decide, with his instructor, that, since\nredemption is a greater work than creation, it ought, therefore, to be\nhonored by a day of rest.\n\nNow we shall not enter into this matter largely, but we simply suggest\nthat either this decision is the result of human, or else it is the\nproduct of divine, wisdom. If it is human wisdom, then its teachings\nshould be followed with extreme caution. If it is divine wisdom, then\nthey can be obeyed with the most implicit confidence. Just at this\npoint, therefore, it is all-important that the test be applied. Has\nJehovah ever said that the commemoration of creation week had become\nless desirable on account of the possible redemption of a fallen race,\nby the death of his Son? The most careful reader of the Bible has failed\nto find any such language; in fine, the intimation that such is really\nthe fact is rather a reflection upon the Deity himself, since, from it,\nit might be inferred that the glory of his work had been dimmed by the\nfall of the race.\n\nBut, again, if the Lord has not said that he would not have the memory\nof creation cherished still, has he ever said that he would have the\nwork of redemption signalized by a weekly rest? Once more the student of\nthe Scriptures unhesitatingly answers in the negative; but if God has\nfailed to make this declaration, who shall presume to put words in his\nmouth, and read the thoughts of his mind, as those having authority so\nto do? The man who will undertake to do it is venturing upon ground\nwhich lies hard by that of blasphemy. God never neglects to say that\nwhich ought to be said; he never calls upon any man to go beyond his\ncommandments, for in them, says Solomon (Eccl. 12:13), is found the\nwhole duty of man.\n\nFurthermore, were we to reason upon this matter at all, every\nconsideration would lead us to the conclusion that the inference of our\nopponents is not correct. In the first place, redemption is not yet\nfully completed in the case of any individual. In the second place, the\nScripture says we have (are to have) redemption through his _blood_\n(Col. 1:14). But his blood, it is generally supposed, was shed upon\nFriday, and, therefore, it is not impossible that the hallowing of that\nday would more suitably commemorate redemption than that of any other\nday. In the third place, it was proved at length in a former article,\nthat if creation was suitably commemorated by a day of rest, redemption,\nwhich is an event entirely opposite in its character, would naturally be\ncelebrated by some institution of an entirely different nature. In other\nwords, the Sabbath inculcates cessation from labor by the indulgence of\ninaction, while all the events connected with the resurrection of Christ\nrendered inactivity impossible.\n\nBut finally, we are not left, in a matter of this significance, to the\nunreliable decisions of the human mind. Not only is it true that God has\nnever appointed a day of septenary inactivity, as the Heaven-chosen\nmemorial of the resurrection of the divine Son of God; but it is also\ntrue that God himself, in the exercise of a wisdom which will hardly be\nimpugned by finite beings, has selected an institution entirely\ndifferent from that under consideration for the illustration of that\nphase of the work of redemption which was seen in the resurrection of\nChrist.\n\nSays the great apostle to the Gentiles: \u201cTherefore we are buried with\nhim by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the\ndead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness\nof life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his\ndeath, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.\u201d Rom. 6:4,\n5. \u201cBuried with him in baptism, wherein also we are risen with him\nthrough the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the\ndead.\u201d Col. 2:12.\n\nBaptism, that is, Bible baptism, or the immersion of the individual\nbeneath the water, most forcibly commemorates the death of our Lord. As\nthe administrator lowers the body of the passive subject beneath the\nyielding wave, by the very necessity of the case, breathing is, for the\ntime, suspended, and the person, as nearly as may be while in life, as\nhe lies motionless in the hands of the individual to whom he has\ncommitted himself in the exercise of an act of faith, shadows forth the\ndeath and burial of his Lord in a most impressive manner. As he rises,\nalso, from that position, and, proceeding to the shore, unites once more\nwith the throng of living beings who surround him, he most forcibly\nillustrates the coming back again of our Lord from death and the grave\nto a life of infinite activity and glory.\n\nAll, therefore, which is necessary in order to the remembering, by\noutward expression, of that most glorious event, which gave back to the\ndisciples, from the nations of the dead, the body of the beloved Master,\nis that we go forward in the fulfillment of an ordinance which has been\nprovided for that purpose, and which sets forth the events which are\nthought worthy of a memento in a manner as superior to that in which it\ncould be done by mere inaction, as God\u2019s conception of what would be\nsuitable under such circumstances is higher than that of man. The wonder\nis that any one should have lost sight of the original design of an\ninstitution which is remarkably expressive of the purpose for which it\nwas created. In fact, had not the same power which has changed the\nSabbath also tampered with the ordinance of baptism by changing the\noriginal form into one less expressive of its historic associations, we\nbelieve that the view which is now passing under consideration never\ncould have suggested itself to any mind.\n\nBut, reader, it is now time that our labor should be drawn to a close.\nIn the providence of God, we have walked together over the territory\ndevoted to the great and important Sabbath question. With pleasure, we\nare about to lay down our pen for the last time, and submit the whole\nmatter to you for the pronouncing of the final verdict of your\nindividual judgment. As we do so, it is with feelings of most profound\ngratitude to God for a truth which, while there is underlying it a cross\nso heavy that it cannot be lifted by human strength unaided, is,\nnevertheless, so plain that its mere statement is its most complete\ndemonstration. Were it not true that society is at present so organized\nthat the keeping of the seventh day involves social, political, and\npecuniary sacrifice, much greater than he is aware of who has not\nconsidered the matter, we would not hesitate to say that a complete and\nspeedy revolution could be wrought upon this subject in a brief space of\ntime. Never, in the history of any reformation which has heretofore\noccurred, were men covered with a more complete panoply of defense, and\narmed with more destructive weapons of offense, than are God\u2019s\ncommandment-keeping people at the present period. The only mystery\nconnected with the subject is, that, being as plain as it is, the fact\nof the change should not have attracted universal attention before.\n\nTraversing again the ground over which we have come with the gentleman\nwho has managed the opposition in this debate, the poverty of his\nresources is most striking. In all that he has said, he has proved\nnothing which has in any way relieved his case, nor can his failure be\nattributed to any lack of capacity on his part. In the handling of the\nmaterial with which he has had to do, he has displayed not a little\ningenuity. The arguments which he has employed and the positions which\nhe has taken are those of the orthodox ministry generally at the present\ntime. His failure is entirely attributable to the natural weakness of\nthe position which he has sought to defend. His was indeed a hard task.\nHe felt the moral necessity of a Sabbath, as a Christian man; and,\nfinding the religious world keeping the first day of the week, he sought\nto defend this practice from the Bible stand-point. But, alas for his\ncause! The more he has appealed to this source, the more certain has it\nbecome that the Bible, and the usages of Christendom in this matter, can\nnever he harmonized. In its pages we find the most ample authority for a\nday of rest, but none for the one which is generally honored as such.\nThe record in brief stands as follows:\u2014\n\n1. There is a Sabbath.\n\n2. That Sabbath is the seventh, and not the first, day of the week, for\nthe following reasons:\u2014\n\n(1.) In the beginning God rested on the seventh day, thereby laying the\nfoundation for its Sabbatic honor (Gen. 2:3); whereas, he never rested\nupon the first day.\n\n(2.) He blessed the seventh day; whereas, he never blessed the first\nday.\n\n(3.) He sanctified the seventh day, or devoted it to a religious use;\nwhereas, he never sanctified the first day.\n\n(4.) The day of his rest, his blessing, and his sanctification, he\ncommanded to be kept holy, in a law of perpetual obligation; whereas, he\nnever commanded the observance of the first day.\n\n(5.) The Lord Jesus Christ recognized the obligation of the seventh day\nby a life-long custom of observing it (Luke 4:16); whereas, the Lord\nJesus Christ never rested upon the first day of the week; but always\ntreated it as a secular day.\n\n(6.) He also recognized its perpetuity forty years after his death, when\nspeaking of events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, by\ninstructing his disciples to pray that their flight might not occur\nthereon (Matt. 24:20); whereas, he never spoke of the first day as one\nto be honored in the future, nor, indeed, so far as we know, did he ever\ntake it upon his lips at all.\n\n(7.) It is the day which the holy women kept, according to the\ncommandment, after the crucifixion of our Lord (Luke 23:66); whereas,\nthere is no account that any good man has ever rested upon the first day\nout of regard for its sanctity.\n\n(8.) It is the day on which Paul, as his manner was, taught in the\nsynagogue (Acts 17:2); whereas, Paul never made the first day of the\nweek, habitually, one of public teaching, a thing which he would have\nbeen sure to do had he looked upon it as sacred to the Lord.\n\n(9.) Being mentioned fifty-six times in the New Testament, it is in all\nthese instances called the Sabbath; whereas, the first day is mentioned\neight times in the New Testament, and in every case it is called,\nsimply, the first day of the week.\n\n(10.) In the year of our Lord 95, it is spoken of by John as the Lord\u2019s\nday (Rev. 1:10); whereas, the first day is in no case mentioned in the\nuse of a sacred title.\n\n(11.) It is mentioned not only as the Sabbath, but it is also spoken of\nas the next Sabbath, and every Sabbath, thus proving that it had no\nrival (Acts 13:4; 15:21); whereas, the day before the first, and the\nsixth day after it, being spoken of as the Sabbath, it (_i. e._, the\nfirst day) is classed with the other days of the week.\n\n(12.) In the Acts of the Apostles, and, in fine, in the whole canon of\nthe New Testament, there is not a single transaction which is related as\nhaving occurred upon the seventh day in the least incompatible with the\nnotion that it continued to be regarded as holy time, while the law\nwhich enforces its observance is inculcated in the clearest and most\nemphatic terms (Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:31; Jas. 2:8-12); whereas, the\nfirst day was one on which Christ indulged in travel on the highway in\ncompany with others, after his resurrection, without informing them of\nits character or rebuking them for sin. It is also a day on which two of\nthe disciples walked the distance of fifteen miles on one occasion,\nwhile on another, Paul performed the journey of nineteen and one-half\nmiles on foot, while Luke and seven companions worked the vessel around\nthe headland for a much greater distance (Luke 24:13, 29; Acts 20:1-13.)\n\nIn view of the above, the whole question of obligation may be summed up\nin the following words: Shall we keep a day which God has commanded,\nwhich Christ inculcated, and which holy men regarded from the opening\nuntil the close of the canon of Scripture? or shall we disregard that,\nputting in its place one which neither God, nor Christ, nor a holy\nangel, nor an inspired man, ever, anywhere, under any circumstances,\nenjoined, and which, in addition, God and Christ, and holy men and\nwomen, are everywhere in the sacred word brought to view as treating in\na manner such as they would only treat a day of secular character?\n\nIn fine, it is simply the same old test applied once more to human\naction, which has in all ages been the measure of moral character, _i.\ne._, Shall we obey God? or shall we not? Shall we gratify our own\ninclination and have our own way by pertinaciously persisting in a\ncourse of action for which we have no Scripture warrant? or shall we\ntake the Bible in one hand and, accepting its doctrines as the words of\nlife, follow them to their legitimate consequences in our daily walk?\nSays John, \u201cThis is the love of God, that ye keep his commandments.\u201d\nSays James, \u201cShow me your faith without works, and I will show you my\nfaith by my works.\u201d\n\nSublime sentiments, indeed! In them is expressed the moving, controlling\nprinciple of every Christian heart. Oh! that all men in the ages of the\npast had held to the noble purpose of taking God at his word, believing\nthat he meant just what he said, and walking out with a noble courage\nupon their confidence in his wisdom to legislate, and his right to\ncommand. Had they done so; had they been willing to be taught instead of\ngoing uninstructed; had they submitted to be led instead of insisting\nupon independent action, how much misery would have been spared our\nkind. Take, for example, the case of Eve\u2014God exempted one tree in the\ngarden from the rest, saying, \u201cThou shalt not eat of it; for in the day\nthat thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.\u201d Unhappily, the mother\nof all living ventured to deviate from the command of God in what\nappeared to her an unimportant particular, and, as the result, a race\nwas plunged into the terrible consequences of rebellion.\n\nIt would seem as if this should have been enough to teach all, that it\nis only safe to do just what God requires in small, as well as great,\nthings. Alas! however, this has not been the case. Nadab and Abihu, with\nthe example of Eve before them, contrary to the directions of the Lord,\nventured to substitute natural fire for the hallowed fire of the altar.\nTo them, there was no apparent difference; but in a moment the curse of\nGod fell upon them and they were borne lifeless, and without the honors\nof an ordinary funeral service, away from the camp of Israel. Uzzah,\ndespising the commandment of the Lord, by which the Levites alone were\nto touch the ark, in an unguarded moment, reached out his hand to steady\nit, and God made a breach upon him in the presence of the people. Uzzah\nfell lifeless before the ark which contained the same law which is under\nconsideration. It was not the ark that sanctified the law; but, rather,\nthe law that sanctified the ark.\n\nIf, therefore, God was so jealous of that which was merely the vehicle\nof the ten words spoken by his voice and written by his finger, how must\nhe feel in regard to those words themselves? In them, is found the\nembodiment of the whole duty of man. With them, God now tests, as he has\nalways tested, the characters of men. \u201cKnow ye not,\u201d says Paul, \u201chis\nservants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of\nobedience unto righteousness?\u201d\n\nTrue, it may be, that we can transgress that law at the present time\nwithout suffering the _visible_ displeasure of God, as did those whom,\nin the past, he set forth as examples of his wrath. But let us not\ndeceive ourselves on this account; God is no respecter of persons. Moral\ncharacter is what he admires, exact obedience is what he demands. In his\nprovidence, at the present time, it is our fortune to live in an epoch\nwhen great light is shining upon the long dishonored and mutilated\nSabbath commandment. A worldly church, having departed from the\nsimplicity of gospel teaching and gospel method for the propagation of\ntruth, has called to her aid the elements of force and the appliances of\nlaw. Closing their eyes to light, ample in itself for all the purposes\nof duty and doctrine, they have entered upon a crusade, determining to\nventure the experiment, so oft repeated, of enforcing, as doctrines, the\ncommandments of men.\n\nThe end of this matter God knows, and has pointed out in his word. With\noutward success they may meet; but it will be at the terrible cost of\nthat vital godliness which is alone found where the arm of God is made\nthe arm of our strength. For those who, in the past, have ignorantly\nbroken the law of Jehovah, God has ample forgiveness; but for those who,\nin the face of God\u2019s providential dealings, and in diametrical\nopposition to the plain teachings of his word, to which their attention\nis being called, shall still persist, not only in disobedience, but,\nalso, in acts of oppression against those who prefer the narrow and\nrugged path of Bible fidelity, there can be nothing in reserve but the\nterrible displeasure of him whose right it is to command.\n\nReader, whoever you may be, and whatever may have been your past\nconvictions and life, we turn to you in a final appeal. As you revere\nGod, as you love Christ and his precious word, we exhort you in this\nmatter to seek wisdom from the only true source. Be not discouraged by\nthe disparity in numbers, neither tremble before the hosts which may\nfrown upon you in the coming contest. \u201cThe Lord, he is God.\u201d Under the\nshadow of his wing we can safely abide. No nobler destiny was ever\nvouchsafed to the obedient among the children of men, than is prepared\nfor those who shall prove their fealty to the God of Heaven by a noble\ntestimony to their love for him, by the keeping of his holy Sabbath,\nunder circumstances, in the near future, which shall indeed try the\nsouls of men.\n\nMay God grant that both reader and writer, nay more, also our opponent\nin this discussion\u2014toward whom we entertain none but the kindliest\nfeelings\u2014also, all, everywhere, who are indeed the children of the\nliving God and the brethren of our blessed Lord, may come to see eye to\neye in this matter, so that, finally, we shall be brought safely through\nthe perils of this last great conflict, which the true church is to\nendure, and stand victorious over all our enemies upon the Mount Zion of\nour God, there to sing the song of a deliverance complete and eternal,\nin a world where, from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to\nanother, all flesh shall come to worship before the Lord. (Isa. 66:23.)\n\n\n\n\n                       INDEX OF POINTS DISCUSSED.\n\n\n PART FIRST:\n\n ELD. LITTLEJOHN\u2019S ARTICLES IN THE STATESMAN.\n\n ARTICLE ONE.\n   Tendency toward Sabbath Discussion, 5\n   Various Views concerning Reform, 6\n   Inquiry as to Proper Action, 13\n\n\n ARTICLE TWO.\n   Religious View of Sabbath Reform, 16\n   Sabbath Commandment, 19\n   Has this Law been Changed? 22\n\n\n ARTICLE THREE.\n   Reasons for Sunday Observance Examined, 28\n   The Resurrection, 30\n   Example of Christ, 32\n\n\n ARTICLE FOUR.\n   Texts on First Day of the Week, 36\n   They do Not Prove its Sacredness, 39\n   The Meeting of John 20:19, Considered, 42\n\n\n ARTICLE FIVE.\n   John 20:26, Examined, 48\n   Act of Worship does Not Consecrate the Day, 50\n   1 Cor. 16:2, Examined, 54\n\n\n ARTICLE SIX.\n   Acts 20:7, Examined, 57\n   Acts 2:1, Considered, 63\n   Pentecost Not First Day, but Fiftieth Day, 64\n   Rev. 1:10, Examined, 66\n   Proposed Amendment of the Constitution Not in Harmony with Bible\n      Truth, 68\n\n\n ARTICLE SEVEN.\n   Bible View of the Sabbath, 71\n   The Law Changed by the Catholic Power, 76\n   Position of Seventh-day Adventists, 79\n   Proposed Amendment Dangerous to our Liberties, 83\n\n\n\n\n PART SECOND:\n\n REPLIES AND REJOINDERS.\n\n\n REPLY ONE.\n   Seventh-day Sabbatarianism and the Christian Amendment, 87\n   Supposed Action of Missionaries, 89\n   The Proposed Amendment Expresses only Fundamental Principles, 91\n\n\n FIRST REJOINDER.\n   Amendment Not Related merely to Principles, but to Sunday in\n      Particular, 96\n   Supposition of Missionary Action Examined, 103\n\n\n REPLY TWO.\n   The Seventh Day Not Observed by the Early Christian Church, 107\n   Examination of New-Testament Proofs, 108\n\n\n SECOND REJOINDER.\n   Our Common Ground, 116\n   The Seventh Day, only, the Sabbath in the New Testament, 119\n   No Effort Has been Made to Place Sunday upon Precept, 124\n   Consideration of Col. 2:14-17, 125\n   Rom. 14:5, Examined, 129\n   Survey of the Ground Passed Over, 131\n\n\n REPLY THREE.\n   Testimony of the Gospels for the First-day Sabbath, 133\n   Resurrection of Christ, 134\n   John 20, 136\n\n\n THIRD REJOINDER.\n   No Evidence of First-day Sacredness, 140\n   The Gospels do Not Call First Day the Sabbath, 150\n\n\n REPLY FOUR.\n   Argument for the First-day Sabbath from the Gift of the Holy Spirit\n      on the Day of Pentecost, 154\n   Authors Differing Concerning the Day of the week, 155\n   Argument for the First Day, 156\n\n\n FOURTH REJOINDER.\n   Value of Testimony\u2014First-day Keepers Witnessing that Pentecost Fell\n      on the Sabbath, 163\n   No Reason Stated, nor Commandment Found, for First-day Sabbath, 172\n\n\n REPLY FIVE.\n   First-day Sabbath at Troas, 177\n   The Reckoning of Time Considered, 179\n\n\n FIFTH REJOINDER.\n   No Custom Found in Acts 20, 183\n   Argument for Change of Time Considered, 191\n   Evidence of Acts 20 Favorable to the Sabbath, 201\n\n\n REPLY SIX.\n   Testimony of Paul and John to the First-day Sabbath, 202\n   Examination of 1 Cor. 16:2, 203\n   Of Rev. 1:10, 205\n\n\n SIXTH REJOINDER.\n   1 Cor. 16:2, 207\n   \u2014Testimony of J. W. Morton, 207\n   \u2014Concession of Albert Barnes, 209\n   \u2014Paul\u2019s Plan of Systematic Beneficence, 211\n   \u2014Devotion at Home, 214\n   Rev. 1:10, 219\n   \u2014The Sabbath is the Lord\u2019s Day, 220\n   \u2014Christ Lord of the Sabbath, 221\n   \u2014No Proof Given that First Day is the Lord\u2019s Day, 222\n\n\n REPLY SEVEN.\n   Testimony of the Early Fathers to the First-day Sabbath, 225\n   Testimony of Ignatius, 225\n   Errors of Dr. Dwight, etc., Corrected, 227\n   Barnabas and Justin Martyr, 228\n   Dionysius, 229\n   Pliny, 230\n\n\n SEVENTH REJOINDER.\n   Value of Traditional Testimony, 231\n   Ignatius, 235\n   Barnabas, 239\n   Justin Martyr, 243\n   What Justin Martyr Believed, 246\n   Dionysius, Melito, Pliny, 250\n   Deficiency of Testimony for First-day as a Sabbath, 253\n\n\n REPLY EIGHT.\n   Patristic Testimony to the First-day Sabbath, 254\n   Iren\u00e6us, 254\n   Errors of Dr. Dwight and Others in Quoting this Father, 256\n   Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, 257\n\n\n EIGHTH REJOINDER.\n   The Apostasy, 261\n   Testimony of Iren\u00e6us, 262\n   Of Tertullian, 267\n   Of Origen, 273\n   Of Cyprian, 276\n   Summary View of the Case, 277\n\n\n REPLY NINE.\n   Theories of the Christian Sabbath, 280\n   Claim of an Unwarranted Change of the Sabbath Considered, 284\n\n\n NINTH REJOINDER.\n   No Advance Ground Taken, 287\n   Harmony of Sabbath Law and Sacred History, 289\n   Roman Apostasy and Change of Sabbath, 293\n   Seventh-day Sabbath in the Early Church, 296\n   Testimony of Romanists, 304\n\n\n REPLY TEN.\n   The Principle as to Time in Sabbath Observance, 313\n   One Day in Seven, not the Seventh Day, Required, 313\n   Difficulties of Keeping Definite Day, 314\n\n\n TENTH REJOINDER.\n   Inconsistency of the _Statesman\u2019s_ Positions, 321\n   No-Definite-Day Argument Fatal to First Day, and to any Sabbath, 325\n   Inconsistency of his Position on Necessity of Legislation, 326\n   Difficulties of Sabbath-Keeping Considered, 329\n   Absurdity of the Theory of an Indefinite Day, 333\n   Definite Time Around the World, 339\n   Summary, 348\n\n\n REPLY ELEVEN.\n   The True Theory of the Christian Sabbath, 351\n   First Day of the Week the True Christian Sabbath, 351\n   A Memorial of Redemption, 353\n\n\n ELEVENTH REJOINDER.\n   Inconsistency of the Replies, 355\n   No Amendment of Sabbath Law Produced, 356\n   A Gospel Memorial of the Resurrection, 367\n   Sabbath Keeping Involves Sacrifice, 369\n   Summary of Evidence for the Sabbath, 371\n   The Commandment, or Tradition? 374\n   Conclusion, 377\n\n\n\n\n                               CATALOGUE\n\n\nOf Books, Pamphlets, Tracts, &c., Issued by the Seventh-Day Adventist\nPublishing Association, Battle Creek, Mich.\n\n\nHYMNS AND TUNES; 320 pages of hymns, 96 pages of music; in plain\nmorocco, $1.00.\n\nA COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. By J. N.\nAndrews. $1.00.\n\nTHE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY, Vols. 1 & 2. By Ellen G. White, Each $1.00.\n\nTHE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: Or The Sunday, The Sabbath, The Change,\nand The Restitution. A Discussion between W. H. Littlejohn and the\nEditor of the _Christian Statesman_. Bound, $1.00. Paper, 40 cts. First\nPart, 10 cts.\n\nTHOUGHTS ON THE REVELATION, critical and practical. By U. Smith. 328\npp., $1.00.\n\nTHOUGHTS ON THE BOOK OF DANIEL, critical and practical. By U. Smith.\nBound, $1.00; condensed edition, paper, 35 cts.\n\nTHE NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN. By U. Smith. 384 pp., bound, $1.00,\npaper, 40 cts.\n\nLIFE INCIDENTS, in connection with the great Advent movement. By Eld.\nJames White. 373 pp., $1.00.\n\nAUTOBIOGRAPHY OF ELD. JOSEPH BATES, with portrait of the author. 318\npp., $1.00.\n\nHOW TO LIVE: comprising a series of articles on Health, and how to\npreserve it, with various recipes for cooking healthful food, &c. 400\npp., $1.00.\n\nSABBATH READINGS; or Moral and Religious Reading for Youth and Children.\n400 pp., 60 cts.; in five pamphlets, 50 cts.\n\nAPPEAL TO YOUTH; Address at the Funeral of Henry N. White; also a brief\nnarrative of his life, &c. 96 pp., muslin, 40 cts.; paper covers, 10\ncts.\n\nTHE GAME OF LIFE, with notes. Three illustrations 5x6 inches each,\nrepresenting Satan playing with man for his soul. In board, 50 cts., in\npaper, 30 cts.\n\nTHE UNITED STATES IN PROPHECY. By U. Smith. Bound. 40 cts.; paper, 20\ncts.\n\nHYMNS AND SPIRITUAL SONGS for Camp-meetings and other Religious\nGatherings. Compiled by Eld. James White. 196 pp. Bound, 50 cts., paper,\n25 cts.\n\nREFUTATION OF THE AGE TO COME. By J. H. Waggoner. Price 20 cts.\n\nPROGRESSIVE BIBLE LESSONS FOR CHILDREN; for Sabbath Schools and\nFamilies. G. H. Bell. Bound, 35 cts., paper, 25 cts.\n\nTHE ADVENT KEEPSAKE; comprising a text of Scripture for each day of the\nyear, on the subjects of the Second Advent, the Resurrection, &c. Plain\nmuslin, 25 cts.; gilt. 40 cts.\n\nA SOLEMN APPEAL relative to Solitary Vice, and the Abuses and Excesses\nof the Marriage Relation. Edited by Eld. James White. Muslin, 50 cts.;\npaper, 30 cts.\n\nAN APPEAL to the Working Men and Women, in the Ranks of Seventh-day\nAdventists. By James White. 172 pp., bound, 40 cts.; paper covers, 25\ncts.\n\nSERMONS ON THE SABBATH AND LAW; embracing an outline of the Biblical and\nSecular History of the Sabbath for 6000 years. By J. N. Andrews. 25 cts.\n\nTHE STATE OF THE DEAD. By U. Smith. 224 pp., 25 cts.\n\nHISTORY of the Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul. By D. M.\nCanright. 25 cts.\n\nDISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION, between Elds. Lane and Barnaby. 25\ncts.\n\nTHE ATONEMENT; an Examination of a Remedial System in the light of\nNature and Revelation. By J. H. Waggoner. 20 cts.\n\nOUR FAITH AND HOPE, Nos. 1 & 2\u2014Sermons on the Advent, &c. By James\nWhite. Each 20 cts.\n\nTHE NATURE AND TENDENCY OF MODERN SPIRITUALISM. By J. H. Waggoner. 20\ncts.\n\nTHE BIBLE FROM HEAVEN; or, a dissertation on the Evidences of\nChristianity. 20 cts.\n\nDISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION, between Elds. Grant and Cornell. 20\ncts.\n\nREVIEW OF OBJECTIONS TO THE VISIONS. U. Smith, 20 cts.\n\nCOMPLETE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS, concerning the Sabbath and First Day\nof the Week. By J. N. Andrews. 15 cts.\n\nTHE DESTINY OF THE WICKED. By U. Smith. 15 cts.\n\nTHE MINISTRATION OF ANGELS; and the Origin, History, and Destiny of\nSatan. By D. M. Canright. 15 cts.\n\nTHE MESSAGES OF REV. 14, particularly the Third Angel\u2019s Message and\nTwo-Horned Beast. By J. N. Andrews. 15 cts.\n\nTHE RESURRECTION OF THE UNJUST; a Vindication of the Doctrine. By J. H.\nWaggoner. 15 cts.\n\nTHE SANCTUARY AND TWENTY-THREE HUNDRED DAYS. By J. N. Andrews. 10 cts.\n\nTHE SAINTS\u2019 INHERITANCE, or, The Earth made New. By J. N. Loughborough.\n10 cts.\n\nTHE SEVENTH PART OF TIME; a sermon on the Sabbath Question. By W. H.\nLittlejohn. 10 cts.\n\nREVIEW OF GILFILLAN, and other authors, on the Sabbath. By T. B. Brown.\n10 cts.\n\nTHE SEVEN TRUMPETS; an Exposition of Rev. 8 and 9. 10 cts.\n\nTHE DATE OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS OF DAN. 9 established. By J. N. Andrews.\n10 cts.\n\nTHE TRUTH FOUND; the Nature and Obligation of the Sabbath of the Fourth\nCommandment. By J. H. Waggoner. 10 cts.\n\nVINDICATION OF THE TRUE SABBATH. By J. W. Morton. 10 cts.\n\nSUNDAY SEVENTH-DAY EXAMINED. A Refutation of the Teachings of Mede,\nJennings, Akers, and Fuller. By J. N. Andrews. 10 cts.\n\nMATTHEW TWENTY-FOUR; a full Exposition of the chapter. By James White.\n10 cts.\n\nTHE POSITION AND WORK OF THE TRUE PEOPLE OF GOD under the Third Angel\u2019s\nMessage. By W. H. Littlejohn. 10 cts.\n\nAN APPEAL TO THE BAPTISTS, from the Seventh-day Baptists, for the\nRestoration of the Bible Sabbath. 10 cts.\n\nMILTON ON THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 5 cts.\n\nFOUR-CENT TRACTS: The Two Covenants\u2014The Law and the Gospel\u2014The Seventh\nPart of Time\u2014Who Changed the Sabbath\u2014Celestial Railroad\u2014Samuel and the\nWitch of Endor\u2014The Ten Commandments not Abolished\u2014Address to the\nBaptists.\n\nTHREE-CENT TRACTS: The Kingdom\u2014Scripture References\u2014Much in Little\u2014The\nEnd of the Wicked\u2014Infidel Cavils Considered\u2014Spiritualism a Satanic\nDelusion\u2014The Lost Time Question.\n\nTWO-CENT TRACTS: The Sufferings of Christ\u2014Seven Reasons for\nSunday-Keeping Examined\u2014Sabbath by Elihu\u2014The Rich Man and Lazarus\u2014The\nSecond Advent\u2014Definite Seventh Day\u2014Argument on Sabbaton\u2014Clerical\nSlander\u2014Departing and Being with Christ\u2014Fundamental Principles of S. D.\nAdventists\u2014The Millennium.\n\nONE-CENT TRACTS: Appeal on Immortality\u2014Brief Thoughts on\nImmortality\u2014Thoughts for the Candid\u2014Sign of the Day of God\u2014The Two\nLaws\u2014Geology and the Bible\u2014The Perfection of the Ten Commandments\u2014The\nComing of the Lord\u2014Without Excuse.\n\nCHARTS: THE PROPHETIC, AND LAW OF GOD, CHARTS, painted and mounted, such\nas are used by our preachers, each $1.50. The two charts, on cloth,\nunpainted, by mail, with key, without rollers, $2.50.\n\n=The Way of Life.= This is an Allegorical Picture, showing the way of\nLife and Salvation through Jesus Christ from Paradise Lost to Paradise\nRestored. By Eld. M. G. Kellogg. The size of this instructive and\nbeautiful picture is 19x24 inches. Price, post-paid, $1.00.\n\nWorks in Other Languages.\n\nThe Association also publishes the _Advent Tidende_, Danish monthly, at\n$1.00 per year, and works on some of the above-named subjects in the\nGerman, French, Danish, and Holland languages.\n\nAny of the foregoing works will be sent by mail to any part of the\nUnited States, post-paid, on receipt of the prices above stated. A Full\nCatalogue of our various Publications will be furnished GRATIS, on\napplication.\n\nAddress, REVIEW & HERALD,\nBATTLE CREEK, MICH.\n\n\n\n\n                              PERIODICALS.\n\n\nTHE ADVENT REVIEW & HERALD OF THE SABBATH, weekly. This sheet is an\nearnest exponent of the Prophecies, and treats largely upon the Signs of\nthe Times, Second Advent of Christ, Harmony of the Law and the Gospel,\nthe Sabbath of the Lord, and, What we Must do to be Saved. Terms, $2.00\na year in advance.\n\nTHE YOUTH\u2019S INSTRUCTOR, monthly. This is a high-toned, practical sheet,\ndevoted to moral and religious instruction, adapted to the wants of\nyouth and children. It is the largest and the best youth\u2019s paper\npublished in America. Terms, 50 cts. a year, in advance.\n\nTHE HEALTH REFORMER. This is a live Journal, devoted to an Exposition of\nthe Laws of Human Life, and the application of those laws in the\nPreservation of Health, and the Treatment of Disease. The _Reformer_\nwill contain, each issue, thirty-two pages of reading matter, from able\nearnest pens, devoted to real, practical life, to physical, moral, and\nmental improvement. Its publishers are determined that it shall be the\nbest Health Journal in the land.\n\nTerms, $1.00 a year, in advance. Address. HEALTH REFORMER, Battle Creek,\nMich.\n\n\nBOOKS FROM OTHER PUBLISHERS.\n\n\nFUTURE PUNISHMENT, by H. H. Dobney, Baptist minister of England. The\nScriptural Doctrine of Future Punishment, with an Appendix, containing\nthe \u201cState of the Dead,\u201d by John Milton, author of \u201cParadise Lost,\u201d\nextracted from his \u201cTreatise on Christian Doctrine.\u201d\n\nThis is a very able and critical work. It should be read by every one\nwho is interested in the immortality subject. It is also one of the best\nworks upon the subject to put into the hands of candid ministers, and\nother persons of mind.\n\nPrice, post-paid, $1.00.\n\nTHE VOICE OF THE CHURCH, on the Coming and Kingdom of the Redeemer; or,\na History of the Doctrine of the Reign of Christ on Earth. By D. T.\nTaylor. A very valuable work, highly indorsed on both sides of the\nAtlantic.\n\nPrice, post-paid, $1.00.\n\n       The Great Reformation, by Martin, 5 Vols.,         $ 7.00\n       D\u2019Aubigne\u2019s History of the Reformation, 5 Vols.,     4.50\n       Scripture Biography,                                 4.50\n       Cruden\u2019s Concordance, sheep,                         2.00\n       \u201c         \u201d        muslin,                           1.50\n       Bible Dictionary, sheep,                             2.00\n       \u201c        \u201d     muslin,                               1.50\n       Cole\u2019s Concordance,                                  1.50\n       Prince of the House of David,                        2.00\n       Pillar of Fire,                                      2.00\n       Throne of David,                                     2.00\n       The Court and Camp of David,                         1.50\n       The Old Red House,                                   1.50\n       Higher Christian Life,                               1.50\n       Pilgrim\u2019s Progress, large type,                      1.25\n       \u201c          \u201d     small   \u201c                            .60\n       Biography of George Whitefield,                      1.25\n       History of English Puritans,                         1.25\n       Story of a Pocket Bible,                             1.25\n       Captain Russell\u2019s Watchword,                         1.25\n       The Upward Path,                                     1.25\n       Ellen Dacre,                                         1.25\n       The Brother\u2019s Choice,                                1.15\n       Climbing the Mountain,                               1.15\n       The Two Books,                                       1.15\n       Awakening of Italy,                                  1.00\n       White Foreigners,                                    1.00\n       Lady Huntington,                                     1.00\n       Young Man\u2019s Counselor,                               1.00\n       Young Lady\u2019s Counselor,                              1.00\n       Paul Venner,                                         1.00\n       Among the Alps,                                      1.00\n       Poems of Home Life,                                   .80\n       Edith Somers,                                         .80\n       Nuts for Boys to Crack,                               .80\n       Anecdotes for the Family,                             .75\n       Pictorial Narratives,                                 .60\n       Bertie\u2019s Birthday Present,                            .60\n       Songs for Little Ones,                                .60\n       Memoir of Dr. Payson,                                 .60\n       Mirage of Life,                                       .60\n       Huguenots of France,                                  .50\n       The Boy Patriot,                                      .50\n       Springtime of Life,                                   .50\n       May Coverly,                                          .50\n       Glen Cabin,                                           .50\n       The Old, Old Story, cloth, gilt,                      .50\n       Poems by Rebekah Smith,                               .50\n       Charlotte Elizabeth,                                  .40\n       Save the Erring,                                      .40\n       Blanche Gamond,                                       .40\n       My Brother Ben,                                       .40\n       Hannah\u2019s Path,                                        .35\n       Star of Bethlehem,                                    .30\n       Father\u2019s Letters to a Daughter,                       .30\n\nA more full Catalogue of books of this nature, for sale at this Office,\ncan be had on application.\n\n\n\n\n                      HEALTH REFORM PUBLICATIONS.\n\n\n=Good Health=, and How to Preserve It. A brief treatise on the various\nhygienic agents and conditions which are essential for the preservation\nof health. Just the thing for a person who wishes to learn how to avoid\ndisease. Pamphlet, price, post paid, 10 cents.\n\n=Disease and Drugs.= Nature and Cause of Disease and So-called \u201cAction\u201d\nof Drugs. This is a clear and comprehensive exposition of the nature and\ntrue cause of disease, and also exposes the absurdity and falsity of\ndrug medication. Pamphlet. Price, 10 cents.\n\n=The Bath=: Its Use and Application. A full description of the various\nbaths employed in the hygienic treatment of disease, together with the\nmanner of applying them, and the diseases to which they are severally\nadapted. Pamphlet. Price, post-paid, 15 cents.\n\n=Hydropathic Encyclopedia.= Trall. Price, post-paid, $4.50.\n\n=Uterine Diseases and Displacements.= Trall. Price, post-paid, $3.00.\n\n=Science of Human Life.= By Sylvester Graham, M. D. Price, post-paid,\n$3.00.\n\n=Domestic Practice.= Johnson. Price, post-paid, $1.75.\n\n=Hand Book of Health=\u2014Physiology and Hygiene. Price, post-paid, 75\ncents; paper cover, 40 cents\n\n=Water Cure in Chronic Diseases.= By J. M. Gully, M. D. Price,\npost-paid, $1.75.\n\n=Cure of Consumption.= Dr. Work. Price, post-paid. 30 cents.\n\n=The Hygienic System.= By R. T. Trall, M. D. Recently published at the\nOffice of the HEALTH REFORMER. It is just the work for the time, and\nshould be read by the million. Price, post-paid, 15 cents.\n\n=The Health and Diseases of Women.= By R. T. Trall, M. D. A work of\ngreat value. Price, post-paid, 15 cents.\n\n=Tobacco-Using.= A philosophical exposition of the Effects of Tobacco on\nthe Human System. By R. T. Trall, M. D. Price, post-paid, 15 cents.\n\n=Valuable Pamphlet.= Containing three of the most important of Graham\u2019s\ntwenty-five Lectures on the Science of Human Life\u2014eighth, the Organs and\ntheir Uses; thirteenth, Man\u2019s Physical Nature and the Structure of His\nTeeth; fourteenth, the Dietetic Character of Man. Price, post-paid. 35\ncts.\n\nAddress, =Health Reformer=, _Battle Creek, Mich._\n\n\n\n\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n    \u25cb Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.\n    \u25cb Typographical errors were silently corrected.\n    \u25cb Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only\n      when a predominant form was found in this book.\n    \u25cb Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n    \u25cb Footnotes have been moved to follow the sections in which they are\n      referenced.","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","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":99921}