The Boston Herald—The Sabbath.
By Uriah Smith
SINCE the correspondence given under this head, in the REVIEW of Oct. 3, I have learned that my last communication to the Boston Herald, has been published and replied to by Mr. O’Leary in the Herald supplement, Sept. 16, as follows:— “SUNDAY THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.
“Editor of the Herald: Your correspondent U. Smith entitles himself to a place in your “People’s Column,” for he violates one of its essential conditions, which is courtesy. When I answered his first letter I thought I was arguing with a gentleman, but in his second letter he has dispelled that idea by indulging in vulgar nicknames and slang phrases unbecoming a gentleman and a scholar. I am glad however, that he has taken my advice to make himself better acquainted with ecclesiastical history; for though in his first letter he confidently asserts that Constantine, before he became a Christian, was the first to appoint Sunday a religious festival, and Pope Sylvester the next, yet in his second letter he admits that Tertullian, in the second century, bears testimony that in his time Sunday was called the Lord’s day, and that the Christians rested thereon from their labors. Now, Tertullian, who flourished about 150 years after the apostles, must have been a better judge of what was their practice than U. Smith can possibly be at the present day. “I ask if the apostles did not make the change in the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, who made it, and when was it made? It is evident that the apostles made the change, as there is no account of its being made at a later period. We have positive scripture proof that the apostles and their immediate successors held their religious assemblies on the first day of the week, instead133of the seventh. We read in the Acts, 20: 7, “And on the first day of the week, when we assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow; and he continued his speech until midnight.” Here we have the disciples, with St. Paul, assembled for solemn religious service; for celebrating the Holy Eucharist; for preaching, and for communicating, and we have St. Paul deferring his journey till the following day, in respect to the Sabbath. In Cor. 16: 2, St. Paul orders that the collections be made on the first day of the week for the distressed saints in Jerusalem, so that the collections would not have to be made when he came, which would be on a secular day. All this conclusively shows that Sunday was the day set apart by the apostles as the Christian Sabbath, in order to be a standing memorial of Christ’s birth and resurrection and the descent of the Holy Ghost, which three stupendous miracles happened on this day. And in this all Christian nations have followed their example. “I have now sufficiently shown, from reason, from scripture, and from tradition, that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath.” In answer to the foregoing I forwarded to the Herald, Oct. 4, the following:— SUNDAY NOT THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.
Editor of the Herald: Your correspondent, D. V. O’Leary seems to think me guilty of discourtesy. It is probably in my use, in a single instance, of the term “Papists” that he beholds “vulgar nicknames” and “slang phrases,” sufficient to destroy my claim to the title of gentleman. But I can assure him that I used that term in no invidious sense, but only with the design of employing language which was very explicit in its meaning. I have made no change in my views of ecclesiastical history as he seems to intimate. I said that the first law made in behalf of Sunday observance was the edict of Constantine A. D. 321 which was made while yet Constantine was a heathen, and in behalf of the day as a heathen festival. See Milman’s Hist. of Christianity, b. 3. c. 1. See also the Latin text of Constantine’s decree in the library of Harvard College. If your correspondent knows of any law for Sunday-keeping earlier than this, either in the Bible or out, will he point it out to us. My reference to Tertullian was to show, on the authority of Kitto, that the first day of the week was never called the Lord’s day, previous to the beginning of the third century, and that not the slightest traces of resting from labor on that day can be found in the church up to that time. Mr. O’Leary says the apostles must have made the change in the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, as there is no account of its being made at a later period. I say that the apostles could not have made it; for we find that as late as the year 200, no such change had been introduced. If the apostles had made the change, it should have been from the beginning universal in the Christian church; but instead of this it is not till 200 years after the Christian era commenced that we find the slightest traces of it; and from that point the introduction of Sunday as a sacred day was accomplished only by strong efforts and by slow degrees. Says Neander (Rose’s Neander, p. 186), “The festival of Sunday like all other festivals was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far from them and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday a sin.” In support of this last statement, he cites, in a marginal note, the language of Tertullian, to which I have already referred. And this he considers a “false” application. Mr. O’L. seems not to apprehend the points I have already made on Acts 20: 7, and 1 Cor. 16: 2. He still refers to these as “positive scripture proof that the apostles and their immediate successors held their religious assemblies on the first day of the week instead of the seventh.” But I have shown that the meeting mentioned in Acts 20, was held on what would now be called Saturday night, and that Paul resumed his journey on Sunday morning. This appears from the following facts: (1.) The meeting was an evening meeting as is proved by the “many lights in the upper chamber.” Verse 8. (2.) As time was then reckoned, the evening was the first part of the day, the day beginning at sunset. See Gen 1: 5; Lev. 23: 32; Mark 1: 32; Conybeare and Howson, Cruden, Robinson, Greenfield, and any authority competent to speak on this point. The first day of the week, therefore, in Paul’s method of computing time, commenced at sunset on Saturday night, and ended at sunset on Sunday; and hence, the only part of that day in which an evening meeting could be held, was the first part, corresponding to our Saturday night. (3.) How long did Paul continue his meeting? Only till “break of day,” verse 11, which would be Sunday morning. And then Paul resumed his journey toward Jerusalem, his brethren taking the ship around the promontory from Troas to Assos, and Paul going across to the same place on foot. And having met at Assos, Paul went aboard the ship, and the whole company proceeded to Mitylene. Thus the apostle traveled from day-break on Sunday, on foot and by ship, all the remainder of the day. These facts cannot be covered up; and so long as they remain facts, it is utterly useless for any man to talk about Paul’s regarding Sunday as a sacred day, to be devoted to rest and religious duties. In regard to 1 Cor. 16: 2, I have shown from the original Greek, and from numerous translations, that the very terms in which Paul couched his injunction, show that the “laying by” was to be done by each one separately at home, not collectively in the public congregation. There is no intimation here of a religious gathering, and the work enjoined is such as would be proper only on a secular day. Certain miracles are mentioned as having occurred on Sunday. In reference to which I have only to ask in all candor, What of it? Suppose 500 miracles occurred on the first day of the week, what would that prove respecting our duty which can rest on nothing less than a divine command explicitly stated? Absolutely nothing. And what would all these miracles show respecting the abrogation of the original Sabbath-law? Just as little. The original law still remains unless it has been repealed by the same power that enacted it, in as public a manner, and in as explicit terms. Where there is no law there is no sin. Rom. 4: 15. And not the first syllable of a law for Sunday observance can be found in all the Bible. Your correspondent considers it sufficiently shown “from reason, from scripture, and from tradition, that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath.” To which I would reply, (1.) This is not a question to be determined by reason, but by testimony from the word of God. (2.) His scripture proof I have shown to be simply unnecessary inferences, and a misapprehension of facts. And (3), as to tradition, I am very much of the opinion of Archibald Bower who in his History of the Popes, Vol. i, p. 1, speaks as follows: “To avoid being imposed upon we ought to treat tradition as we do a notorious and known liar, to whom we give no credit, unless what he says is confirmed to us by some person of undoubted veracity. . . . False and lying traditions are of an early date; and the greatest men, have, with a pious credulity, suffered themselves to be imposed upon by them.” U. S.