EXAMINATION OF T. M. PREBLE'S FIRST-DAY SABBATH.
By John Nevins Andrews
EXAMINATION OF HIS REMAINING ARGUMENTS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT FOR THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH.
Several matters of interest from the New Testament remain to be noticed before we pass to Eld. P.'s argument from the Old Testament for the change of the Sabbath. According to him, the Saviour intended, by the events of his resurrection day, and by those of the day of Pentecost, “to institute a new day as the Sabbath for his people, thenceforth to be distinguished from other days as ‘THE LORD'S DAY.’” p. 113. The new Sabbath dates, of course, from the events which made it such; its title of Lord's day dates from the same point. So, if we can believe Eld. P., it was Christ's intention that the first day of the week should be distinguished from other days as the Lord's day, from the very day of his resurrection, or, at least, from the day of Pentecost. But if it was “thenceforth” to be thus distinguished, why did no one of the evangelists, who certainly knew our Lord's intention as well as Eld. P. can know it, second his intention, or obey his appointment, and thus designate the day in one of the six instances in which they mention it? If they could not prudently do this in recording the resurrection of Christ, what hindered Luke from doing it when he had occasion to mention the day in recording events which occurred some thirty years later? Acts 20: 7. And what hindered Paul from doing this in his mention of the first day of the week about A. D. 59? 1 Cor. 16: 2. The answer is plain: They did not know what Eld. P. knows so well, that Christ intended by the events of the day of his resurrection, and of the day of Pentecost, to institute a new day as the Sabbath, “THENCEFORTH to be distinguished from other days as the Lord's day.” It is remarkable that they should know nothing of this when Eld. P. knows it so perfectly. And what is very strange, it required a revelation so late as A. D. 96, in order that John should be able to call the first day by this sacred name. It is our friend Eld. P. who gives us this information in the following words: “This is why John could call ‘the first day of the week’ ‘the Lord's day.’ He was ‘in the Spirit.’ Rev. 1: 10.” p. 86. To be “in the Spirit,” as John uses the term, is to be in vision. Compare Rev. 1: 10; 4: 2; 17: 3; 21: 10. Even Eld. P. will not claim that it merely signifies that he was a spiritual man; for John's use of the term forbids such an idea; and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, who all mention “the first day,” were men imbued with the Spirit of God, yet they give the day no such name. Eld. P. will not deny that John, in saying “I was in the Spirit,” means to say, “I was in vision.” And this being the reason why, according to him, “John could call ‘the first day of the week’ ‘the Lord's day,’” it follows, as a certainty, that this day was not known by that name before his vision in A. D. 96. If Christ had given it this name, John needed no vision in order to be able to call it such. It is plain, however, that Eld. P., notwithstanding his statement that Christ intended by the events of his resurrection day, and of the day of Pentecost, “to institute a new day as the Sabbath for his people, thenceforth to be distinguished from other days as ‘the Lord's day,’” has no faith that this day was ever called such prior to the year 96. In this we are happy to agree with him. He can excuse the first three evangelists and St. Paul, that they called the day plain “first day of the week;” for they did not know it to be anything else. It was Paul's rule to render to all their dues. Rom. 13: 7. He is excused that he did not render to the first day of the week this honorable title, inasmuch as its right to be called Lord's day was unknown till shown to John in vision. But it being true that the sacred name was absolutely unknown as an appellation of the first day of the week prior to A. D. 96, and it also being true that John when he uses the term does not intimate that he means by it the first day of the week, how does Eld. P., or any one else, know that John did give it that name? No one had ever heard of the first day by that name before, nor by any other name implying any sacredness of character. If the Spirit of God intended to confer a sacred title upon this new day, it is certain that John would have defined the day. And when, some two years later, he wrote his gospel and had occasion twice to mention the day, he must have regarded the name which was given him for it in Patmos, had such sacred name been given. The case then stands thus: 1. The first day had never been called Lord's day before John had his vision A. D. 96.
2. John does not say that by the term Lord's day then used he means first day of the week.
3. Two years afterward, he speaks in his gospel of the first day of the week twice, but he neither gives it this sacred name, nor any name implying sacredness.
4. At this very time, there was a day hallowed from the beginning, sacred to the Father and to the Son, and claimed by both as theirs, and bearing a title given it by the Lord—“my holy day”—the same in meaning, and nearly the same in form, as the title here used by John—“The Lord's day”—and this day Eld. P. summarily rejects, that he may award this title to a day never thus honored by any inspired writer. He can by no means endure the thought that the Lord's day of Rev. 1: 10 is indeed the day hallowed in Eden to commemorate the work which God the Father wrought by our Lord Jesus Christ. Eph. 3: 9. Thus he says: “Here shines the clear, blazing light of the Christian Sabbath, according to the gospel of THE LIVING JESUS; notwithstanding so many are trying, with a veil upon their hearts, to throw a dark cloud over the whole thing, by saying that the ‘Lord's day’ here spoken of is the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, as found in Ex. 20: 8–11. But how many, through ignorance, or something worse, pervert the gospel of Christ.” p. 39. We have offered decisive proof that “the Lord's day” of Rev. 1: 10 is “the seventh day” of the fourth commandment. And now, as constituting one of the many self-contradictions of Eld. P.'s book, we call attention to the fact that to satisfy his own conscience in keeping his so-called Lord's day, the first day of the week, he endeavors to prove that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is identical with the day which he calls both Lord's day and Christian Sabbath. Thus he challenges the proof that the definite seventh day ever was ordained in the Scriptures, and teaches that the only weekly Sabbath of the Bible is an indefinite seventh day. Listen to his words: 1. “Is there a passage in all the Bible to prove that the seventh day of the week is to be observed as the Sabbath? If so, where is it to be found? Understand us: The question is not whether the ‘seventh day’ following ‘six days shalt thou labor’ is to be observed; but the seventh day of the week.
2. “Is there a place in all the Bible but what shows clearly that the seventh day to be observed as the Sabbath, was always the seventh day following six days shalt thou labor—the day of the week not particularly specified? If such a passage is to be found, where is it?” p. 5. But he is not content with these general teachings which deal with the Sabbath in the whole Bible. He must say of the decalogue in particular, that the Sabbath therein embodied is not the seventh day of the week, but this indefinite seventh day after six days of labor. Hear him again: “And be it ever remembered, that it was the ‘Sabbath,’ as an institution, that was sanctified, as mentioned in the decalogue; and not the seventh day of the week. This seventh day was the seventh following six working days.” pp. 118, 119. And now, having shown to his own satisfaction that the only weekly Sabbath of the Scriptures as a whole, and of the decalogue in particular, is this indefinite seventh day, just observe the pleasant manner in which he shows that this peculiar kind of seventh day is the veritable first day of the week: “If, then, it is the Sabbath that was made for man, and not the seventh day of the week, are not Christians observing the Sabbath when they rest on the first day of the week, it being really ‘the seventh day’ following six days of labor?” p. 5. “The first day of the week is therefore the very Sabbath ordained in the fourth commandment. And that it is also the Lord's day, he affirms in the following words: “This is why John could call ‘the first day of the week’ ‘the Lord's day.’ He was in the Spirit.” p. 86. And so the Lord's day is actually the very Sabbath of the fourth commandment on Eld. P.'s own showing! To be sure he denounces those who teach their identity, but he means this denunciation for those who hold that the Sabbath of the commandment is the definite seventh day of the week. It is wholesome doctrine that the day enjoined in the commandment is the Lord's day, if at the same time the commandment is shown to establish the sacredness of the first day of the week. But it is plain that he cannot long at a time believe his own comfortable doctrine that the day ordained in the commandment is merely “the seventh day following six days of labor.” Somehow the conviction will force itself upon his mind that the real seventh day is in the commandment. It was in one of these moments that he so severely denounced those who teach the identity of the day which in the fourth commandment the Lord claims as his, and the day which John calls the Lord's day. Though Eld. P. asserts that the Sabbath of the decalogue is “not the seventh day of the week,” but “the seventh following six working days” (p. 119); and though he claims that people observe “the Sabbath when they rest on the first day of the week, it being really ‘the seventh day’ following six days of labor” (p. 5), yet it is certain that he has no faith in his own doctrine. For if this were true, then first-day people are now keeping the very Sabbath ordained in the fourth commandment. But having defined the seventh-day Sabbath in the commandment to be “not the seventh day of the week,” but “the seventh following six working days,” he declares that the last of these Sabbaths was observed the day after Christ's resurrection. Thus he says: “There is no doubt but the women mentioned in Luke 23: 55, after they had ‘prepared spices and ointments’ for the body of Jesus, returned and rested the Sabbath day according to the ‘commandment;’ yea, the ‘fourth commandment.’ Good, says the Sabbatarian. And I too say, Good; because I have no doubt of its truth. But when this matter shall be critically examined, I think all candid minds will acknowledge that this was THE LAST SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH EVER KEPT ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT.” p. 44. Though the fourth commandment is here expressly recognized, as even Eld. P. confesses, yet he uses the following language: “In confirmation of this truth, that the seventh-day Sabbath was to cease after the resurrection of our Lord from the dead, is found the fact, that out of the whole number of times the seventh-day Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament, it is never spoken of by either Christ or any of the apostles as a precept or command; but it is only spoken of as a historical fact.” p. 47. If he had said that the Sabbath is never mentioned as a commandment in the New Testament, the words of Luke, “and rested the Sabbath day according to THE COMMANDMENT” (chap. 23: 56), would prove his statement false. His qualifying clause, that it is never thus mentioned by “Christ or any of the apostles,” saves him from direct falsehood, and yet gives to most readers the idea that the New Testament never speaks of it as a commandment. But Luke does speak of it thus, as even Eld. P. confesses in the quotation preceding the present. He was not indeed an apostle, but according to Smith's “Dictionary of the Bible,” he wrote his gospel at Cæsarea during the imprisonment of Paul at that place, A. D. 58–60, and while the intimate companion of the great apostle to the Gentiles. And this work adds, “The ancient opinion that Luke wrote his gospel under the influence of Paul, rests on the authority of Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius.” Vol. 2, p. 1696. But it matters not that Luke was not an apostle, nor is it a necessity that Paul should be associated with him. Luke was inspired of God to write, and he speaks of the Sabbath commandment after our Lord's death, though writing nearly thirty years after that event. After the assertion that the seventh-day Sabbath of the commandment is “not the seventh day of the week,” but only “the seventh following six working days,” the claim that men observe “the Sabbath when they rest on the first day of the week, it being really the seventh day following six days of labor,” though palpably false, is at least consistent with the premises. But all this labor ends in smoke! After all his pains to show that first-day observance answers exactly to the law which demands the seventh day as the Sabbath, he now declares that the seventh-day Sabbath ceased at the resurrection of Christ! It could not have been the seventh day of the week which ceased to be sacred at that point; for Eld. P. tells us that that kind of Sabbath was never enjoined in any part of the Bible. The Sabbath which ceased at the time he fixes was therefore the seventh day after six days of labor, the only kind of a weekly Sabbath which he owns to have been commanded, and the very kind which he claims to find in the first day of the week! To assert that God ordained the indefinite seventh-day Sabbath and never the definite seventh day, and after claiming that this indefinite seventh-day Sabbath is observed by those who keep the first day of the week, to then declare the seventh-day Sabbath at an end, would seem to be absolutely fatal to the so-called Christian Sabbath. But Eld. P. has another position. Speaking of the passover and the Sabbath he says: “Both had a substitute appointed, viz.: for ‘the passover’—‘THE LORD'S SUPPER’ (1 Cor. 11: 20); and for ‘the Sabbath’—‘THE LORD'S DAY’ (Rev. 1: 10).” p. 37. Elsewhere Eld. P. informs us that the Lord's day is the first day of the week. pp. 84, 86. Here he declares that this day was “appointed” as “a substitute” for the Sabbath. Both these statements are coined out of his own heart. But he furnishes us as a direct answer to his own question on page 5: “Are not Christians observing the Sabbath when they rest on the first day of the week, it being really ‘the seventh day following six days of labor?’” It is plain that when he framed the series of questions on page 5, of which this is the sixth, he so constructed the previous five as to secure if possible an affirmative answer to this one. (See the entire series, and their answers in the REVIEW of October 10, 1871.) But that was when he had not learned the whole truth. When he wrote those questions (p. 5) he really thought “Christians observing the Sabbath when they rest on the first day of the week.” But further consideration has given him clearer light. He has since discovered that the day which he calls Lord's day is not the Sabbath even on the poor ground that it is “the seventh day following six days of labor.” For the seventh-day Sabbath which is abolished (pp. 3, 44, 47, 124) is not the seventh day of the week, which according to him was never commanded to be observed (pp. 5, 118, 119), but is the indefinite seventh day after six days of labor. So Sunday is not even a Sabbath of this kind; for this indefinite seventh-day Sabbath is the very one which the several declarations of Eld. P. show to be abolished. But he has given us a fitting designation for the day which he calls the Lord's day. It is “a substitute” “for the Sabbath.” And it is thus plainly shown that first-day observance is not Sabbath-keeping, much as Eld. P. wishes to make it appear such. Here we would do well to enumerate several of his positions before quoting again from his book: 1. That the title of Lord's day was given to the first day of the week by the Spirit of God. p. 86.
2. That “the time was when to call the first day of the week the Sabbath would lead to confusion; as it was not an easy thing, or the work of a few years, to establish the change from the old Jewish seventh day, to that of the Christian first day, for the Sabbath.” p. 6.
3. That the indefinite seventh-day Sabbath, the only one ever commanded in the Bible (p. 5), is abolished. p. 3.
4. That the first day of the week, which he calls Lord's day, is “a substitute” “for the Sabbath.” p. 37. And now let us read again from Eld. P.: “By the following historical facts, we think it will be readily seen that, in our times, the first day of the week had better be called the Sabbath, instead of calling it by the name Sunday, or Lord's day.” p. 6. These words are certainly very remarkable. Though the first day was never called the Sabbath in the early church and could not be, and though it is not in fact the Sabbath but only a substitute for it, and though he asserts that it was named Lord's day by divine inspiration, he now expressly declares that it had better “in our times” be called the Sabbath instead of Lord's day. It cannot be that he believes his own teaching or he would not recommend that the name of Lord's day be discarded though given by inspiration to the first day—as he asserts—and the name of Sabbath be adopted in its stead, though it is not the Sabbath but only a substitute for that sacred institution. And he proposes thus to deliberately reverse his own statement of Bible facts on the authority of historical statements. And what is very remarkable, is, that one of these quotations declares that the term Sabbatum, i. e., Sabbath, is applied to the seventh day exclusively for more than one thousand years after Christ. Thus he cites Dr. Heylyn: “So that when even for a thousand years and upwards, we meet with Sabbatum, in any writer of what name soever, it must be understood of no day but Saturday.” p. 6. And he quotes another writer as follows: “The following important historical facts are from Coleman's ‘Ancient Christianity Exemplified,’ p. 527: ‘The observance of the Lord's day or the first day of the week was at first introduced as a separate institution. Both this and the Jewish Sabbath were kept for some time; then the Christian began to take precedence of the Jewish Sabbath; finally the latter passed wholly over into the former, which now took the place of the ancient Sabbath of the Israelites. But their Sabbath, the last day of the week, was strictly kept in connection with that of the first day for a long time after the overthrow of the temple and its worship. Down even to the fifth century, the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church; but with a vigor and solemnity gradually diminishing until it was WHOLLY DISCONTINUED.’” p. 7. And he also quotes Gilfillan at some length, the extract concluding with these words: “As ‘the Sabbath’ had been for so long a time the well-known title of the weekly holy day among the Jews, it was obviously needful, for preventing mistakes, that the institution which had passed to a new day should have a new name. But as time advanced, and (may we not add) as the Lord's day came to be no longer in danger of being confounded with the Jewish Sabbath, the old name was gradually resumed and attached to the Christian holy day.” p. 8. It is on the strength of what these three writers have said that Eld. P. advises that Sunday be called the Sabbath and not the Lord's day. We have given his entire quotation from Coleman, and specimens of those from Heylyn and Gilfillan. And what authorities are these to use in setting aside what he professes to find in the Scriptures! The day was never called Sabbath for more than a thousand years after Christ, but “in our times” it had better be called such! Though Gilfillan calls Sunday observance a continuation of the ancient institution of the Sabbath, Coleman denies this, and testifies that it came in “as a separate institution;” and Eld. P. indorses this as an “important historical fact.” But how this can harmonize with the idea that Christians observe the Sabbath in keeping the first day (p. 5), or how it can establish the claim of that day to the title of Sabbath, no one but Eld. P. can explain. The first day was never called Sabbath either by Christ or by any inspired writer, nor did any one call it thus—if we can believe Dr. Heylyn—till more than half the gospel dispensation had elapsed. But when the ancient Sabbath had been effectually suppressed, and this day had gained the complete ascendancy, then by a gradual process, it acquired the title of Sabbath. Originally first-day observance came in, not as a continuation of the Sabbath, but as Coleman in this quotation expresses it, “as a separate institution;” and Eld. P. himself characterizes it, as “a substitute” “for the Sabbath.” These are poor grounds for maintaining its claim to the title of “the Sabbath.” But this is not all. Though Eld. P. earnestly seeks to dignify first-day observance as Sabbath-keeping on the ground that this day is “really the seventh day following six days of labor,” yet he asserts that this indefinite seventh-day Sabbath is the only kind ever commanded, and that it is abrogated. Compare pages 3 and 5. So Sunday observance, if it really were a continuation of the original Sabbatic institution, would be only the perpetuation of an abolished institution, and the matter of its name or of its observance would not be of the slightest consequence, both of them resting solely upon human authority. But we must view this from another standpoint. If we can believe Eld. P., the first day of the week was honored with the title of Lord's day by divine appointment. pp. 86, 112, 113. Now he recommends that this divine appointment of the name be discarded and that the title of “the Sabbath” be conferred upon this day, though it be done solely by human authority, and though it be in contradiction of every fact in the history of the day. One of two things must be true:
1. He does not believe that the title of Lord's day was ever given the first day by divine authority. Or,
2. He is willing that this divine authority should be made to give way to the authority of man, and so teaches “that in our times the first day of the week had better be called the Sabbath instead of calling it by the name Sunday, or Lord's day.” When he asserted that the title of Lord's day was given to the first day by divine authority, he doubtless, for the time, cherished that idea as truth. But when he classed the name of Lord's day with that of Sunday, and recommended that both should be superseded by the title of “the Sabbath,” and that on the authority of a custom that sprang up in the Dark Ages, after the complete development of the great apostasy, it is manifest that he believed the first day of the week to have no title, but that of custom and human authority, to the name of Lord's day; a fact fully proved in the chapter preceding this. One further argument from the New Testament for the change of the Sabbath remains to be noticed, and we shall then be ready to follow Eld. P. to the Old to learn what that says respecting this change. Here is the passage on which his remaining New-Testament argument is based: “Matt. 9: 15: ‘And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.’” It requires two pages for Eld. P. to present the argument from this text for the change of the Sabbath, and especially for the abrogation of the seventh day. We shall be pardoned for stating his argument this time rather than quoting it. 1. Christ was taken from his disciples when he was crucified and placed in the tomb. 2. He lay in the tomb over the seventh day. 3. This day thus became the proper season for fasting. 4. He was restored to them on the first day of the week. 5. The Sabbath is properly a joyful day, and is to be such to the Christian church, as proved by Isa. 56: 6, 7; Ps. 118. 6. But Saturday is a mournful day and Sunday a joyful one; therefore Sunday and not Saturday is the Sabbath of the New-Testament church, as shown by Isa. 56: 6, 7. 7. Because of the Saviour's humiliation and the disciples' distress throughout the seventh day, they never afterward regarded the seventh day as a joyful, holy rest-day of God, but “they transferred this festival to the first day of the week.” pp. 125, 126. And so it appears that a text which makes not the slightest allusion to the Sabbath, furnishes Eld. P. with some of his strongest arguments for the abrogation and change of that institution! The Sabbath during which our Lord lay in the grave, was, no doubt, one of deep distress to his disciples, though the evangelists have not definitely recorded the fact. But for all this it is upon record concerning the holy women, who were the deepest mourners, that they “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment.” Luke 23: 56. This proves positively that deep sorrow does not incapacitate one for the acceptable observance of the Sabbath. But while we read nothing in particular respecting the sorrow of the disciples upon that Sabbath day, we do read of their sorrow upon that first day of the week, and we learn that it was not removed until the very closing hours of that day. Thus it is recorded that Mary Magdalene reported the resurrection of Christ to the disciples as they mourned and wept; but they believed her not. Mark 16: 9–11. In the latter part of the day he appeared to those who were on their way to Emmaus, and asked them of their sadness. Luke 24: 13–17. And in their answer they spoke of their disappointment and their loss. Verses 19–21. When the day was far spent they discovered that it was Christ who was with them. Verses 29–31. Then they returned with the tidings to the eleven at Jerusalem and they believed it not. Mark 16: 12, 13. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them for their unbelief respecting his resurrection. Mark 16: 14. So they could not have spent that first day much more joyfully than they did the seventh day which preceded it. But what a foundation is this on which to build the doctrine of the abrogation or change of the Sabbath! The comparative sadness or joyfulness of two individual days, which the Scriptures mark but indistinctly, is made the ground for changing the Sabbath, though no such change is mentioned in that book, and of course no such reason for it is ever given. And the assertion that they never afterward observed the Sabbath, but “transferred this festival to the first day of the week,” is one which has been fully shown to be without a particle of support in the New Testament, unless, indeed, Eld. P. has here furnished the necessary testimony by quoting what our Lord has said concerning fasting! But how sadly does this exposition of Eld. P. belittle as well as pervert the words of the Saviour! Properly speaking, the time when he was taken from his disciples was when “he was taken up and a cloud received him out of their sight.” Acts 1: 9. The days of his absence constitute the period from his ascension to the time when the same Jesus, which was taken up from them, shall return in like manner. Acts 1: 11. During all this period his disciples have mourned and fasted, prayed and wept. Take the affliction, mourning, and fasting, of Paul as a single example. 2 Cor. 4: 8–11; 11: 23–28. And see the entire book of Acts. Take also the pagan and papal tribulation of the church as indicating the days of mourning and fasting for the people of God while Christ is absent. Dan. 7: 21–26; Matt. 24: 21, 22; Rev. 13: 5–7. But according to Eld. P. he was taken from them on sixth day, and restored on first day, and “those days” in which they fasted was the single seventh day which intervened between these two points! The reader may be tempted to think this argument for the change of the Sabbath from Matt. 9: 15 was written by a Sabbatarian as an ironical imitation of first-day arguments in general. I confess that such a supposition is by no means unpardonable. Nevertheless, the argument is really given by Eld. P. on pages 124–126; and I am persuaded that no candid man will assert that my statement of his argument does not present it in its full strength. Here ends the argument for the change of the Sabbath from the New Testament. We shall next listen to Eld. P. on this subject from the Old. A correspondent sends me a criticism on my examination of Acts 20: 7–13, in volume 38, number 26. He does not deny that I did therein establish the fact that Paul set out from Troas for Jerusalem on first-day morning. But he objects to my remark that Paul's action on this occasion “is entirely consistent with a sacred regard for the ancient Sabbath, but is absolutely fatal to the idea that he regarded the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath.” He denies this conclusion on the ground “that Paul's mission was a religious one, and his traveling a necessary part of that work,” like the ordinary assembling of Christians for worship on the Sabbath. He further remarks that Paul must have spent the Sabbath upon the water between Philippi and Troas, and asserts that this is quite as fatal to the seventh-day Sabbath as was the action of Paul at Troas to the so-called Christian Sabbath. In reply, I call attention to the following facts: 1. The distance between Neapolis, the port of Philippi, and Troas was only about one hundred and twenty miles. Prof. Hackett remarks on the length of this voyage: “The passage on the apostle's first journey to Europe occupied two days only. See chapter 16: 11. Adverse winds or calms would be liable at any season of the year to occasion this variation.” Commentary on Acts, p. 329. This shows how little ground there is to claim that Paul broke the Sabbath on this voyage. There was ample time to reach Troas before the Sabbath when he started from Philippi, had not providential causes hindered. 2. When Paul set out from Troas on first-day morning, it was not simply to go a few miles to attend meeting, but it was to make what progress he could on his long journey toward Jerusalem. And it is specially to be noticed that the ship at this time in use was virtually controlled by the apostle. See verses 13, 16, 17, 38. 3. Paul tarried at Troas seven days. At the close of the Sabbath he held an unusual meeting occupying all night, as he was never to see that church again, verse 25; and a night meeting on the first day of the week, is of necessity on what is now called Saturday night. And thus at break of day on first-day morning, he set forth. If the record indicated that he thus voluntarily set forth on his voyage on the seventh day, I should count it a decisive evidence that he did not consider that day any longer set apart from the ordinary business of this life. That he thus set forth on the first day of the week, and that too from the only religious meeting upon record on that day, seems to me absolutely fatal to its Sabbatic claims. Notice particularly that he was not going to meeting on that day, but from one. Paul did wait till the Sabbath was past, but on “the first day after the Sabbath,” as the Geneva Bible, A. D. 1557, renders the term first day of the week, here and elsewhere, he hastened to set forth. And here we submit the case.