The Bible Doctrine of the Weekly Sabbath.
By N. V. Hull
[The reader may not find in the following, any argument that he has not met with in substance before; but old truths treated from a new stand-point, or traced out through new lines of thought, are clothed with new interest. Such will be found to be the case with the subjoined article which is a concise and comprehensive view of the teaching of the entire Bible on the important subject of the Sabbath. ED. REVIEW.] I.—The Importance of the Sabbath.
By common consent, the weekly Sabbath is a necessary institution. It is an institution in the interest of both civilization and religion. Social life demands it. It is a fountain whence only good flows. It is not a burden, but a helper. It is the good man's joy, and the poor man's friend. It even stretches out its hand of kindness to the beast of burden. Its language is that of mercy, and it speaks well of its Author, at the same time that it blesses men. The loss of the Sabbath would be irreparable. The world without it would be in darkness and confusion. How good was God in giving us the Sabbath! II.—The Nature and Object of the Sabbath.
1. The Sabbath provides a season of rest for both man and beast. “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.” 2. It is a religious institution. “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy”—that is, religiously. 3. The Sabbath is a festival memorializing creation. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” III.—The Sabbath from Creation to the Giving of the Law.
The first chapter of Genesis contains an account of the six days' work of creation, and the second opens thus: “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all the work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which he had made.” Gen. ii, 1–3. Here we see the first seventh day of time consecrated as a season of rest: 1. By the action of Jehovah. 2. By his blessing it (speaking well of it) as a season of rest, for so had he employed it. 3. By sanctifying it, that is, setting it apart. Here we have, in these seven days, not only the first week of time, but also time arranged and organized for the use of man. The earth is now fitted up for the abode of man, and put under his control. It is impossible to conceive of properly organized and toiling humanity without a season of rest. Unceasing toil would be unendurable. Rest is a necessity. But let it be remembered, that now humanity is organized for all coming time, and its wants provided for. Let it be remembered, also, that the honor of God, as the architect of the universe, was concerned in the Sabbath, because man, his imitator, was not only to work six days, but to rest on the seventh, and rest on the seventh with direct reference to God's rest, which rest of God had reference to his previous six days of work; and hence the keeping of the Sabbath honors God as the creator. The week, with its six days for toil and the seventh for rest, is the type of the Creator's work and rest; and the Sabbath, as the head or chief day, because it declares the triumph of the wisdom and power of God over chaos, reducing it to order, is the world's jubilee, and a standing witness for God against atheism and every form of idolatry. Here, then, we take our stand in defence of the Sabbath at the birth of the world, and date it from the beginning. “For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.” Heb. iv, 4. From Genesis, chapter 2d, to Exodus, chapter 16th, the Sabbath is not formally mentioned; but the division of time into weeks of seven days, and the observance of that division in the arrangement of society, is mentioned. God, in arranging for the sending of the flood observes this order: “For yet seven days and I will cause it to rain on the earth.” Gen. vii, 4. “And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.” Gen. vii, 10. It will be seen, in the eighth chapter of Genesis, that Noah, in sending forth the raven and dove, thrice observes this order of seven days. In the transaction between Laban and Jacob, recorded in Genesis xxix, 21, 30, the week is distinctly mentioned, and in Judges xiv, 12, we find a nuptial week to consist of seven days. It is clear, then, that the week, as a divinely appointed arrangement of time, was providentially preserved amidst the general wreck of the times. Now, is it reasonable to suppose, that the week was thus remembered and employed, and the character of its chief day, the one upon which God had especially set his seal, forgotten? But if, under the circumstances, reason decides that the peculiar character of the seventh day of the week was remembered, then we are bound so to decide, and this settles the question in favor of the continuance of the Sabbath thus far; and if thus far, then always. We come now to great and mighty changes in the social and political condition of the world, culminating in the exode of the Hebrews from the Egyptian bondage. But let it be premised, that in the midst of the universal apostasy from God, when every nationality was founded in idolatry, he organized the Jewish commonwealth, to be his peculiar people. To them he gave the true religion—that religion which revealed him as the Infinite One, the creator and sustainer of all things, the redeemer and head of his people. And now, in teaching this infant colony of emancipated ones their first lesson—that of trusting in him as the possessor of all power and possible resources—he couples the observance of the Sabbath with the miraculous supply of their daily food, in such a way as to show them that the Sabbath and their food came from a common source, and that He who in the beginning wrought six days, and rested on the seventh, now gives them manna from heaven six days, and rests now, as then, on the seventh day, and bids them also to rest, having prepared them for it by giving their supply of bread for this day in the double quantity of the sixth day. Still further: When the rulers came to Moses and inquired concerning the double quantity of manna which fell on the sixth day, he replied, “This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.” Now, is not the connection of all this most natural with the account of God's resting on the seventh day, and sanctifying it? Gen. ii, 2, 3. But a little later the Israelites stood before Mount Sinai, in the presence of Jehovah, to receive from him the Ten Commandments, that matchless code of laws, in the midst of which he placed the Sabbath. This code is in two parts, the first guarding the honor of God, and the second the rights of men. The first three commandments in the first table are negative in their character, guarding the honor of God, telling us what we must not do. The fourth is affirmative, and the only one containing the worship element, and is in these words: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath250day, and hallowed it.” Let this commandment be stricken from the decalogue, and we should not only have no Decalogue, but the instrument would be imperfect and without meaning. If the writing of the other nine upon tables of stone was prophetic of their enduring nature, was it not equally so of this? If the Sabbath was a mere Jewish rite, one of the ceremonial laws, which was to pass away at the death of Christ, and thus unlike the others of that code, why was it written with the immortal nine? IV.—The Sabbath from the Giving of the Law to Christ.
That the Sabbath during this period, occupies a most important position, is known to every student of the Bible. No merely ceremonial regulation presents such a character. In no instance has the Divine One called the annual Sabbaths his holy days, and pronounced special benedictions upon those who observed them. Remissness in their observance called forth no severe maledictions, nor is sin charged upon the people for any such neglect. But that the violation of the weekly Sabbath was treated as a sin, and a grievous sin too, is a fact too notorious to need proof. That there was something about the Sabbath making it fundamental, is seen by every reader of the Bible. And now I ask, Why was this honor bestowed upon the Sabbath? Why did God set upon it such a high value? Because it was the institution, above all others, that witnessed for him and against idolatry; and hence, as the Jews were his witnesses, it was essential to their testimony that they observe his holy day. V.—The Teaching of Christ concerning the Sabbath.
Christ opens his ministry by emphatically declaring that he came not to destroy the law, and that one jot or tittle should not pass from it till all should be fulfilled. That at the death of Christ the ceremonial law had fulfilled its mission, and so passed away, is clearly taught. But had the Sabbath fulfilled its mission? It was not a type of Christ. The Sabbath existed before sin entered into the world, and therefore before a Saviour was revealed, and hence it was no part of the ceremonial law. In the twenty-second chapter of Matthew, Jesus sums up the first table of the law in one sentence, love to God; and one of the precepts of that law was the Sabbath commandment. If any one should deny this, my reply is, that with equal propriety he might deny that either of the other commandments was covered by this saying. Nothing is plainer than that Jesus here has reference to the Ten Commandments, in the phrase love to God and love to men. See Deut. vi, 5, seq.; Rom. xiii, 9, seq. But another and most significant feature of Christ's teachings concerning the Sabbath is his constant effort to free it from the embarrassments thrown around it by the false interpretations of the Jews. They had made the Sabbath a burden instead of a blessing—against man instead of for him. Against this Christ throws the whole weight of his authority, and supports his conduct by pleading his divinity and his lordship over the Sabbath, from which I infer that he was its author. Christ never taught the abrogation of the Sabbath, but rather its perpetuity, by freeing it from Jewish errors, and so restoring its true character as an institution in the interest of humanity. The Sabbath was made for man. Christ as much died in the interest of the Sabbath as of either of the other precepts of the decalogue. Why not? VI.—The Sabbath in the Book of Acts.
This book gives us an account of the principal doings of the leaders of the church down to about the years sixty-two or sixty-three, and during this period the Sabbath is frequently mentioned, and always by its own proper name, “The Sabbath-day.” It evidently had not lost its authority, nor was there even a hint that it had been abrogated or superseded. On the other hand, the writer proceeds in the most artless manner, and whenever he has occasion to refer to this day, does it as if it were still the Sabbath. Thus we trace this institution for some thirty years after the death of Christ. VII.—The Sabbath in the Epistles.
The weekly Sabbath is not mentioned in any of the Epistles, except in Heb. iv, 4. I am aware that Rom. xiv, 5, seq.; Gal. iv, 10, and Col. ii, 16, seq., are quoted as referring to the Sabbath, and they will be noticed hereafter. That they refer to the annual Sabbaths none will dispute; but that the weekly Sabbath is included with the annual Sabbaths is assumed, not proved. That, however, the Epistles everywhere recognize and enforce the doctrine that the law of God is the rule of conduct for believers, is accepted by all sound interpreters. Still further, that it is the mission of the gospel to work in the hearts and lives of men conformity to the spirit and letter of God's holy law, is manifest. In this way only is the sinner fitted for heaven. VIII.—The Sabbath in the Apocalypse.
The Sabbath is possibly referred to in Rev. i, 10, and probably so whenever the commandments are mentioned. IX.—The Change of the Sabbath.
The change of the Sabbath is not mentioned in the New Testament. The keeping of any other day than the seventh is not mentioned. That the practice of neglecting the observance of the seventh day, and the observance of the first day of the week, has obtained in the Christian Church, all know. I am also aware, that arguments are offered to show that the Scriptures authorize this custom. To an examination of some of these arguments, the remainder of this article will be devoted. The proposition upon which the argument for a change of the Sabbath is based, I conclude is fairly stated thus: “The work of redemption is greater than the work of creation. The work of creation was finished upon the seventh day of the week. The work of redemption was finished by the resurrection of Christ upon the first day of the week. Now, as God appointed the seventh day to commemorate the work of creation, so has he ordained the keeping of the first day to commemorate the work of redemption.” That the seventh day was appointed as a memorial of creation, all know, for the Scriptures so declare; but they nowhere say that the work of redemption is greater than the work of creation, nor that it was finished by Christ's resurrection, nor that he rose upon the first day of the week, nor that the work of redemption is to be celebrated by keeping the day of Christ's resurrection, nor any other day, whether of the week or year. That the work of redemption centers in the death and resurrection of Christ, especially in the former, is fully believed. The work of expiation was effected by the sufferings of Christ as taught by the system of sacrifices under the law, every where in the New Testament, and most emphatically by Christ on the cross, when he said, “It is finished.”—John xix, 30. But the work of redemption is not left without a witness, as the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper testify. As the death and resurrection of Christ go together in redemption, so do Baptism and the Lord's Supper, as symbols both of the facts involved and the doctrines taught. These ordinances cover the whole ground; and how beautifully they do it! Reader, can you think of a single fact stated, or doctrine taught, concerning redemption, which is not symbolized by one of these ordinances? Then why add another? Why volunteer an ordinance, or institution when the whole ground is already occupied by those divinely appointed, and well suited to the purpose? What significance is there in the keeping of a day to symbolize the fact of Christ's resurrection? None whatever. The next step in the argument is, the statement that after Christ's resurrection he frequently met with his disciples on the first day of the week, thereby honoring this day. But how is it known that Christ designed to honor the time on which he met with his disciples, since the Scriptures are silent about it? But, further, why say that Christ frequently met with his disciples on this day, when, after all, only two such meetings are claimed? Does “frequently” fairly represent the number two? And with respect to the first of these meetings, which was no meeting at all, but simply the assembling of the disciples in their own room, in which they were partaking of their ordinary meal, how can it be said that they came together to honor the time of Christ's resurrection, when—1. His resurrection occurred twelve or more hours before; and, 2. They did not believe the fact that he had risen?—See Mark xvi, 14. And here I raise another question, which let the Bible student answer, Did Christ spend this day as a Sabbath? After eight days, the disciples were again within, and Thomas with them, on which occasion he was cured of his unbelief as to the fact of Christ's resurrection; but nothing is said of its being a sacred season, or that the disciples were commemorating the time of Christ's resurrection, or the fact itself. Nor is it by any means certain that this gathering occurred as early as the evening of the next first-day, reckoning the evening which followed the day as belonging to it; for there are but seven days in a week, and the “being within” of the disciples was “after eight days.” I am aware that it is said, the Jewish mode of reckoning time made this meeting one week later than the other; but the proof of this statement I have not seen, while I have seen the opposite of it. Matthew and Mark, in speaking of Christ's transfiguration, say, “After six days Jesus taketh with him Peter and James and John,” &c.; but Luke, speaking of the same event says, “About an eight days after, Jesus taketh with him,” &c. Now, if “after six days” was about an “eight days after,” how can after “eight days” be only a week? I think it is not certain, then, that this was the next first-day evening. The next time that Jesus showed himself to his disciples was at the sea of Tiberias, and here a far more lengthy conversation is narrated than the other; but who thinks, on this account, that the time was holy? Now, if the first day of the week had become the “Christian Sabbath,” why were there no meetings held on it for the next thirty days and more before Christ's ascension? But that the disciples did not meet on this day in the instances referred to, because it was made sacred by the resurrection of Christ is certain inasmuch as the gatherings were not had because he had risen. I deny, then, that the disciples understood that the meetings of Christ with them on these occasions were designed to impress on them the idea of the sacredness of this day. I insist, that no other thought is contained in the account than the desire of Christ to impress upon the disciples the fact of his resurrection. The question of the sacredness of the day of Christ's resurrection, is an after thought, and found outside of the sacred record, not within it. It is an attempt to find a reason in the Bible for a practice unknown to it. Does the Bible teach us ordinances, rites, and ceremonies, through the law of inferences? Never. Is there an ordinance enjoined in the Scriptures, the nature of which is not described, and its object stated? Reader, pray let me ask you, Can you call to mind a reason given in the Bible for observing the first day of the week? There are plenty of human reasons given, but not one Divine reason! The next passage ordinarily quoted as evidence that the apostles and early Christians observed the first day of the week, is Acts xx, 7—“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his speech until midnight.” But this text says nothing of the sacredness of this day, his company having already started for Assos. See verse 13. The meeting was held in the night, not in the day time, the breaking of bread, which was stated to be the object of the gathering did not take place till after midnight. Besides, this meeting, for aught that appears to the contrary, was held on the night following the Sabbath, in which case Paul journeyed on the first day of the week, which of course must have been lawful. But if the meeting was held on the night following the first day, still the breaking of bread did not occur until after midnight; which shows that it was not essential that it should be broken upon the first day of the week. And it will be remembered, that in the case of baptism and the communion, they may be administered whenever the providence of God shall direct. “As oft as ye do eat this bread and drink this cup,” &c. Besides, in no instance is the time mentioned when the Eucharist was administered, save when it was instituted, except in this instance. There is, then, no weekly celebration of the Eucharist taught.251One thing is certain, that those who plead this text as authority for observing the first day of the week, and then do not administer the Lord's Supper in the evening, that being the object of the meeting, do grossly contradict themselves! Again, if we are to learn the duty under discussion from example, and not from precept, then the meeting should be held in the night, and not in the day time. Still further, more than twenty-five years had now passed since the death of Christ, and no meeting of his disciples had occurred in the day time on the first day of the week—at least, none is mentioned. Nor is it any where said, that we must observe this day, or commemorate the resurrection of Christ. That our emersion from the water in baptism symbolizes Christ's resurrection, and is prophetic of the believer's resurrection, is clear; but this ends the teaching of Scripture on this subject, so far as ordinances are concerned. The passage quoted from 1 Corinthians—“Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come”—is strangely pressed into this service, as there is in it no mention of a meeting, or even of a coming together. The duty enjoined is that of each person's laying by himself in store a certain amount of his earnings the previous week for the poor saints at Jerusalem. The inference that this service was performed at their regular weekly meetings, is not only gratuitous, but directly against the text, as each one is ordered to lay by himself. There is, then, here, no observance of the “Christian Sabbath,” no “honoring of the first day of the week as the resurrection day,” but simply an individual business transaction, in the interest of suffering brethren, ordered to be done at the beginning of each week, that when the apostle should come to them in his journey to Jerusalem, their benefactions might be in readiness. X. Down to the year sixty-two, then, we have no account of the observance of the first day of the week, nor have we it mentioned but once in the Acts, and once in the Epistles, and in neither instance as a sacred day; nor is there any clear evidence that it is again referred to in the New Testament. I am aware that interpreters have claimed that the phrase “Lord's day,” Rev. i, 10, applies to the first day of the week; but does the Bible say so? We have found the phrase “first day of the week,” once in the Acts, and once in 1 Corinthians, and in both instances written simply “the first day of the week,” which clearly proves that that was the name it then bore. The last of the Epistles in the New Testament, except the letters of John, were written in about the year sixty-six, in neither of which is the first day of the week mentioned. John's letters were written about the year ninety, and these make no mention of the first day of the week in any form. About the year ninety-six John writes the Apocalypse, and in chapter 1, verse 10, occurs the phrase “Lord's day.” Now, as up to this time no New-Testament writer, not even John himself, had called the first day of the week by any other name than “the first day of the week,” how can any man with certainty affirm that “Lord's day” here means the first day of the week? Indeed, how can any one be certain that any particular day of the week is meant, seeing that neither the text nor the context so indicates? 1. The word day in Scripture is used with a wide latitude of meaning, often describing a long period of time. 2. The time of Christ's manifestation and work or reign is called his day. “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day.” John viii, 56. Peter calls the day of judgment “the day of the Lord.” 2 Peter iii, 10. 3. In this instance it is fair to infer, the day in which John was in the “spirit” lasted until his writing was finished, because the message was peculiar, and covered all coming time, and certainly was not written out in a day of twenty-four hours. 4. But if any day of the week is meant by this phrase, the Sabbath must be that day; else the Revelator spoke unintelligibly, for the reason that in the Scriptures the other days are known only as first, second, third, and so on, while the Sabbath is everywhere marked and known as Jehovah's honored day, and often called his. Of this day Jesus says, he is “Lord.” Mark ii, 28. I conclude, then, the quality of certainty does not inhere in the interpretation which makes this passage refer to the first day of the week, and that such interpretation does not possess the nature of proof. XI. The argument that first asserts that the weekly Sabbath was appointed in Eden, before sin entered into the world, and before a Saviour was promised, and then affirms that Paul, in Rom. xiv, 5; Gal. iv, 10, and Col. ii, 16, classes it with those annual Sabbaths which were adumbrative of the good things of the gospel, is too illogical, one would think, to be entertained for a moment. How could the Sabbath be a memorial of creation, and a shadow of the gospel? How could Adam before he knew sin, keep an ordinance as a type of redemption? Those who argue thus, asserting that the day was Jewish, but the institution general, and then say that what Paul argued against was the keeping of the day, and that he reserved the institution, talk nonsense! I beg pardon, if need be, but can hardly refrain from the utterance. That my apparent severity may be excused, apply this argument to the whole ceremonial code, and see where it will lead you. Instead of having the code abolished, you have it changed! If you change the weekly Sabbath from one day to another, you do not by the same rule, change the annual Sabbaths from the days on which they were originally appointed to others? And so of all the rest. If the Sabbath day is abolished the institution goes with it. The day is essential to the institution. God rested on the seventh day, because it followed the day on which creation was finished. He blessed and sanctified the seventh day, because that in it he had rested from all the work which he had made. Jehovah never blessed the institution of the Sabbath, but the Sabbath day. Indeed, there is no such thing as the Sabbath institution without the day. Now, all this contradiction comes from attempting an impossibility—to make the fourth commandment accept of the first day of the week instead of the seventh. Read the commandment straight through, and all is well; but attempt this change and all is confusion. XII. A prominent argument for a change in the day is drawn from the fact that in the commandment the word week does not occur; and hence it is said, that Jehovah does not require the observance of the seventh day of the week, but only the seventh day after six days of labor. It is indeed true that the word week is not found in the commandment; but is not the thing there? Is not the seventh day of the commandment in reality the seventh day of the week? Let us see: The fourth commandment is founded on several facts, which must, I think be taken into account in its interpretation. For instance, is it not decisive in the controversy concerning the meaning of the formula used in baptism, that the early Christians did immerse? Now, what are the facts underlying the language of the fourth commandment? 1. It is a fact that God rested on the seventh day of the week. 2. It is a fact that he blessed and sanctified the seventh day of the week. 3. It is a fact that the seventh day of the commandment is the day Jehovah blessed. 4. It is a fact that the Jews rested on the day mentioned in the commandment, and that that was the seventh day of the week. How, then, can any one in fairness say, that the seventh day of the Sabbath law was not the seventh day of the week in fact, although the word week is not in the commandment? That our argument is sound, namely, that we are to interpret the language of the law by the facts upon which the law rests, will be admitted; for writers who object that the command does not specify the seventh day of the week, because the word week is not found in it, do themselves insist that Christians are not at liberty to choose to observe this day or that, as they may fancy, but the fact of Christ's resurrection on the first day of the week binds them to the keeping of that particular day, although the words of the commandment do not. We take it, then, that the conclusion is just, that in the light of the facts underlying the fourth commandment, it describes by the words “seventh day” the seventh day of the week. XIII. The attempt sometimes made to find proof in the fourth chapter of Hebrews, verse 10th, for a change of the Sabbath, is, to say the least of it, remarkable, as the sum of the apostle's reasoning is simply and only this, namely: That Christ furnishes rest to the believer, both in this world and in that which is to come, ESPECIALLY THE LATTER. For a sober and excellent comment on this whole question, I refer the reader to Stuart's Commentary on Hebrews, edited and revised by R. D. C. Robbins, 1865. XIV. In conclusion I call the attention of the reader to a few simple but important points: 1. The weekly Sabbath is a Bible institution. Neither ecclesiastical nor civil law has here the appointing power. If there be not a “Thus saith the Lord” upon which it rests, it can have no power over the conscience, nor can any man be charged with sin who violates it. 2. As the Sabbath law is clearly stated in the Bible, so must any modification of the law be matter of revelation; hence, if the law in this case has been abolished, we may expect to find it so revealed; or if the time of its observance has been changed from one day to another, the change certainly should be so revealed. It is, we know, often asserted, that the weekly Sabbath has been abolished, the proof text for the declaration being Colossians ii, 14, 17. “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross. And having spoiled principalities and powers he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” But it will be seen, that the Sabbaths here spoken of are a part of the hand-writing of ordinances, which were against us and were therefore the annual Sabbaths of the Mosaic dispensation, which of course are done away in Christ. That the weekly Sabbath is not mentioned here with the annual Sabbaths, is clear for two reasons. (a.) It was made for man, and therefore is not Jewish. (b.) It is not against us, but for us. If the Sabbath is an institution, in the interest of humanity, it certainly is not done away. Do we not need the Sabbath under the Christian dispensation as much as before, and shall we not need it until the end of time? Why, to charge Christ with abrogating the Sabbath is to accuse him of unmercifulness in its worst form! And to talk of a change of the Sabbath, is to talk of that of which the Bible makes no mention. That there is no command for observing the first day of the week, all admit. But if there is no command for it, then there is no law for it, and of course it is no sin to disregard it. 3. The phrases “Jewish Sabbath” and “Christian Sabbath” are unknown in the Bible. The Sabbath was not made for the Jews, nor for Christians, but for MAN. I protest against these forms of expression, because they are unscriptural and false. Neither is the word “Sabbath” applied in the Scriptures to the first day of the week, nor have we any right to so use it. When we do this, we rob Jehovah's holy day of its divinely-given name, and give that name to a day only known in the Bible by the phrase “The first day of the week.” If God had chosen to give this title to the first day of the week, would he not have done so? Then the fact that he did not do so is evidence that he did not want it so done. I affirm it as my full conviction, that if we were to return to the Scripture method of naming the days of the week, not five years would pass before such a change would occur in the public mind as would open a way for the re-enthronement of the true Sabbath, and the dethronement of its rival. 4. The time is fast approaching, when the ordinary methods of argument upon this subject must be abandoned. Every where around appear evidences showing that the public mind will not much longer be satisfied with the present state of the question. One reason why civil laws, passed in the interest of the “Christian Sabbath” are so fast losing the respect of the public mind, is because of the wide-spread belief that under the Christian dispensation the Sabbath is abolished, and this opinion receives great strength from the fact that the argument for the change of the Sabbath is so unsatisfactory; and, in my judgment this state of things will continue until we return to the simple teaching of the Bible, and accept the Sabbath as there presented to us.