The Seventh Day Not Observed by the Early Christian Church
Article Two
Having shown in our last issue that seventh-day Sabbatarians, to be consistent with themselves in appealing to the Bible as of supreme authority, should be among the earnest friends of the Religious Amendment, we come now to consider their argument against the first-day Sabbath.
On many points dwelt upon in the articles we have published, there is no difference of view. We believe that the Sabbath was instituted, not in the wilderness, for Israel; but in Eden, for mankind. We maintain also that the law of the Sabbath is an essential part of the great moral code of the ten commandments, spoken by God’s voice amid the awful manifestations of Sinai, and written by the finger of God on tables of stone as a law of perpetual obligation for the whole human family. These and other points, admitted on both sides, need not occupy time and space in this discussion. We are concerned here, and now, simply with the transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. Our readers have had before them an argument, of considerable length, to show that God never authorized a change of day. We proceed to prove that the transfer was made by divine authority and approval.
In doing this we shall first have to inquire into the facts of history. We shall have to ask, Was the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, acknowledged as binding up to the resurrection of Christ, continued by the apostles and the early church after that event? Was any other day substituted by them in its place? For an answer to these questions we must appeal to facts. We make our appeal to the records of the New Testament. A careful and thorough examination of these authoritative records shows conclusively that the seventh day was not observed as the Sabbath after the resurrection of Christ by the apostles and the early Church.
It is admitted on all hands that Christ himself, before his death, and his disciples, up to the time of his resurrection, kept the seventh day holy. It is also admitted on both sides that after the resurrection the apostles and other followers of Christ kept holy one day in seven. While they abounded daily in the work of the Lord, the seventh-day Sabbatarians will concede with us that there was still one day marked out from the rest of the week as sacred time. What day was thus distinguished? Was it the seventh, otherwise known as the Sabbath? Let us see.
The word Sabbath occurs in the New Testament, after the close of the gospel history, twelve times. In two of these instances, viz., Acts 20:7, and 1 Cor. 16:2, the word means “week,” and not the seventh day, as also in a number of instances in the gospels. In Acts 1:12, the word is used to indicate a certain distance. The term is employed in two other places, viz., Acts 13:27, and 15:21, in incidental reference to the service of the Jewish synagogues. In Colossians 2:16, Paul mentions the seventh-day Sabbath only to deny the obligation of its observance. This important passage will be considered farther on. There remain, then, six instances, two of them in regard to one and the same day and meeting, to which the word is found in accounts of gatherings for religious purposes on that day, the seventh of the week. These meetings were as follows: 1st, at Antioch, in Pisidia, Acts 13:14; 2d, at the same place the next seventh day, Acts 13:42, 44; 3d, at Philippi, Acts 16:13; 4th, at Thessalonica, Acts 17:2; and 5th, at Corinth, Acts 18:4. At Thessalonica, there were three Sabbaths, and at Corinth, every Sabbath, it may be inferred, for several weeks, thus marked by religious meetings. We are informed that Paul went into the synagogue at Thessalonica on the Sabbath, or seventh day, “as his manner was.” And accordingly, particularly during his first and second, or more properly termed missionary tours, as distinguished from his journeys in revisiting churches already organized, we may unhesitatingly infer that there were other similar meetings on the seventh day, as at Salamis, Acts 13:5; at Iconium, Acts 14:1; and at Ephesus, Acts 18:19, and 19:8.
And here we note the fact that in not a single one of these instances was the meeting a gathering of Christians. In no case was it the assembly of the members of a Christian church for worship. In every case these meetings on the seventh day were in Jewish places of worship, all in synagogues, regularly occupied by Jewish assemblies, except that at Philippi, which was at a proseucha, a Jewish place of prayer out of the city by the river’s side. In every instance it was a gathering of Jews and Jewish proselytes, with the addition of a greater or lesser number of Gentiles, the sight of a crowd of whom at Antioch, the second day of meeting in their synagogue, excited the jealousy and rage of the Jews. And in these gatherings, in every case, Paul labored, as a missionary, glad to avail himself of every opportunity to proclaim the saving truths of the gospel of Christ.
Can any intelligent and candid reader of the inspired records fail to understand the narrative of Paul’s missionary work? He was sent forth “to turn sinners from darkness to light.” As he himself states at Antioch, addressing the Jews: “It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you.” His “heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel was that they might be saved.” Accordingly, wherever he went, he was found going to them on the seventh day in their places of worship, not in Christian houses of prayer; meeting with them in their assemblies, not in assemblies of professed followers of Christ. Just as a Christian missionary in modern times, going to a heathen land, would avail himself, if possible, of the customary assemblies of the residents, whatever day they might keep holy, so Paul and his fellow-missionaries availed themselves of the seventh-day assemblies of the Jews, that from among them, as well as from among the Gentiles, they might gather out an ecclesia—a body of followers of the Lord Jesus, in whom Jew and Gentile should be one.
The question, therefore, still remains to be answered: Which day of the week did the church at Jerusalem, existing at the time of Christ’s ascension; which day did the apostles in their relations with this church; which day did the churches, organized and established by the apostles, and under their example and divine authority, observe as a holy day, a Sabbath to the Lord? In all the references to the seventh day, or Jewish Sabbath, there is not, as we have seen, a particle of evidence that that day was thus observed.
On the other hand, there is positive testimony that the very congregations or churches of Christians, organized at the places where Paul performed missionary labor on the seventh day, ignored that day, and in its stead observed another day of the week as holy time. For example, at Corinth, “as his manner was,” Paul went first to the Jews and preached to them in their synagogues, the word of God, reasoning with them, and persuading them and the Greeks to accept of Christ. Then when the Jews opposed themselves and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.” So he left the synagogue and the Jews, not the city, and entering into the house of Justus, received Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, with all his house, and many of the Corinthians, as converts into the Christian church. Here we have the church of Corinth. Which day of the week did it observe as the Sabbath of the Lord? The seventh? Though Paul “continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them,” there is not a word more about seventh-day services. This, it is true, would be merely negative, if it were all. But this is not all. In Paul’s direction to this same church, a few years later, he makes clear and certain, what before was probable, that their stated day for religious services was not the seventh, but the first, day of the week. 1 Cor. 16:2. The plain and most explicit teaching of this passage will be fully considered hereafter.
Again, when Paul entered into the synagogue at Ephesus, and reasoned with the Jews (Acts 18:19), and because he could not tarry long at this time, soon returned again, and met the objections of disputatious Jews for the space of three months (Acts 19:8), his labors as a missionary are said to have been in the synagogue, no doubt on the Sabbath of the Jews, or the seventh day. But once more separating the Christian converts from the unbelieving and blaspheming Jews, and forming the Christian church of Ephesus, he continued there in incessant labors for two years. And now we hear no more of seventh-day assemblies. This, again, may be said to be merely negative, as we hear of no special honor put upon any day. But we have not done with this. Passing the last years of his life in this city of Ephesus, the apostle John writes of “the Lord’s day,” known and observed by the Christians among whom he dwelt. That this holy day of the early church, called the Lord’s day, was not the seventh, but the first, is shown by the most satisfactory historical testimony, which will be adduced in full in its proper connection.
Once more. When Paul came to Troas to preach Christ’s gospel, and a door was opened to him of the Lord (2 Cor. 2:12), whether it was on his first very brief visit (Acts 16:8), or more probably in going over “those parts” on his way from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20:2), he no doubt, “as his manner was,” went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. A congregation of Christian disciples was formed, and the apostle departed for Greece. After an absence of some months, Paul returns to Troas, and with his companions remains there seven days, departing again on the second day of the week. Whether he departed on the first or second, however, the fact remains that during his abode of seven days at Troas, there was the seventh day. Do we hear of any religious meeting on that day? Did the disciples then assemble for divine service? Let us hear the record: “We abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow.” The seventh day is passed by. The day for the assembling of the Christian disciples is not the Sabbath of the Jews. Another day has taken its place. This most explicit instance at Troas of ignoring the seventh day, and honoring another in its place, as the stated day for the religious services of Christians, abundantly confirms, if confirmation were needed, the conclusions already reached in the instances at Corinth and Ephesus.
Thus the facts of the records of inspired history conclusively prove that the seventh day was not observed by the apostles and early Christians as their sacred day of divine worship, or the Sabbath of the Lord. We might add here that the testimony of all the earliest Christian writers, who received from the apostles and the companions of the apostles the institutions of the Christian church, is full and explicit to the same effect. But we shall hear their evidence for the first day, and thus also against the seventh, in good time.
It will now be in place to consider how apostolic precept corresponds with apostolic example, and that of the churches in regard to the seventh day. Colossians 2:16, a most important passage, making particular mention of the seventh-day Sabbath, yet singularly overlooked by seventh-day Sabbatarians, now claims our attention for a moment. Judaizing teachers, so busy everywhere throughout the early church, had been at work among the Christian disciples at Colosse. They had been insisting upon the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. One would think that some of these men had come down to our time and learned to use very good English. We refer these representatives of an ancient but not honorably mentioned class for instruction to the apostle’s words to the Colossians: “Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy day (literally, of a feast), or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days”; i.e., of yearly, monthly, or weekly Jewish celebrations. We do not wait to examine the parallel passages in Gal. 4:10, and Rom. 14:5, where the obligation of Jewish observances, including the seventh-day Sabbath, is denied, and where, in the latter case, to make the argument even stronger, the toleration of these observances as a weakness is considerably advised. Surely, it is no wonder that seventh-day Sabbatarians seem not to be aware of the existence of these portions of the divine word! It cannot be pleasant to be made to feel that, like the Judaizers of old, they bring themselves under the sharp rebuke of the inspired apostle by judging Christians in respect of the seventh-day Sabbath.
We will now sum up this part of the discussion: Admitting that the Sabbath was instituted in Eden for mankind; that it is of perpetual obligation; that it was observed by Christ himself before his death, and by his disciples until his resurrection, as by the Jews of old, on the seventh day of the week; we have gone on to see that the apostles and the early church, still having one stated day each week as a holy day,114did not continue the observance of the seventh day. We have seen that the seventh day, after the resurrection, is mentioned only in connection with assemblies, in Jewish places of worship, of Jews, Jewish proselytes, and, in some instances, a larger or smaller addition of Gentiles, among all of whom the apostle labored as a missionary for the conversion of souls, and the formation of Christian congregations or churches. We have found that no instance can be adduced of the apostles in their relations to Christian churches, nor of assemblies of Christian disciples, meeting to observe the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. On the other hand, we have found them ignoring the seventh day and honoring another, in perfect harmony with the apostle Paul’s rebuke of Judaizing teachers who insisted on having Christian disciples observe the seventh day, and his condescending toleration of their weakness.
The Seventh Day Not Observed by the Early Christian Church
A Rejoinder
It is, we confess, with some degree of embarrassment, that we attempt the answering of the second article from the pen of the editor of the Statesman, in reply to the argument which we presented in the columns of that paper. Our difficulty does not arise from any confusion into which we have been thrown by the superior logic of our opponent; it consists, rather, in knowing just where and how to commence the work.
So far as statements are concerned, they are numerous and repeated again and again, in substance. But we have no disposition, nor have we the space, to take them up singly in their numerical and repetitious order, for consideration. And besides, the fallacy of nearly every one of them has been demonstrated in what we have already written. This being the case, we have determined to take the general scope of the criticism, and thus, as briefly as may be, make suggestions which, if carried out, will answer its assumptions, as well as its attempted efforts at deduction.
We remark, then, in the outset, that we are happy to meet the writer upon the common ground of a Sabbath having originated in Eden, and inserted in a law of perpetual obligation on both Jews and Gentiles.
Let the reader keep these mutual concessions continually before his eyes. They are of great significance in this debate. 1. They prove that the Sabbath is not Jewish in its origin, but was given to Adam, as their representative head, for the benefit of the whole race, more than two thousand years before there was a Jew in existence. 2. They also prove that the Sabbath institution was rendered obligatory upon all men by a divine precept, with the phraseology of which we are all acquainted. 3. That that precept is explicit in its declaration that the last and not the first day of the week was the Sabbath. 4. That before any other day can be substituted in the place of the one designated, the Power which originated it must authorize the change.
So much for the important results which necessarily flow from the principles which we hold in common, if indeed we are right in supposing that the writer really means what he actually says; namely, that he holds to the perpetuity of the fourth commandment of the decalogue. We shall see hereafter whether or not his statements are to be taken for all which they express.
We advance, now, in our examination of the criticism before us.
What direction, then, does the effort take in the main? It will be granted that the plan of defense adopted is that of attempting to prove that the early church did violate the seventh, and did honor the first, day of the week. But with what success has the effort been attended? We know that it is stated several times that the apostles disregarded what the author is pleased to call the Jewish Sabbath—after he had conceded the principle that that of the commandment was Edenic in its origin—but did he make out his case? So far from it, in every instance where he has found them connected in the record with the Sabbath day, it has ever been in the performance of duties religious in their nature. For should we concede that he is right in supposing that Paul went into the synagogues to teach on the Sabbath day, simply because he would find hearers there, this assuredly would not prove that Paul was a Sabbath-breaker.
Let me take the gentleman’s favorite illustration of a missionary in a foreign land, at the present time. Now suppose that his lot were cast in a country where the first day of the week, or the day of the sun, was regarded as holy by the natives, and he should be found on that day regularly teaching them in their places of assembly, would that decide the question that he was necessarily a violator of the first-day Sabbath? You answer immediately in the negative. So, too, in the case of Paul. The fact that it can be shown that it was his custom to teach in the synagogues on the seventh day of the week, if it has no power to prove that he was a conscientious observer of that day, cannot at least be cited as furnishing evidence that he disregarded it. We ask, then, again, Has a scintilla of positive testimony been given that Paul ever broke a single Sabbath of the Lord, as contained in the divine precept? Once more it must be conceded that there has not. But is it not a little singular that in a history of thirty years, where the Sabbath is so often mentioned, not one single action has ever been discovered in the least incompatible with Paul’s veneration of the seventh day? We let the reader answer.
Furthermore, we have from the pen of our opponent himself the frank admission that in the historic territory over which he has been passing, it has been uniformly true that both Luke and Paul have ever, when speaking of the seventh day, called it “the Sabbath.” Now let the reader remember that this confession is full and sweeping in its character. Then let him ask himself whether it is natural to suppose that men, having repudiated an old Sabbath, and zealous for the establishment of a new one, would be likely to make up the record in question in such a form that the old Sabbath, whenever spoken of, shall always be styled “the Sabbath,” and the new one be mentioned merely as the “first day of the week.” In order to impress the fallacy of such an idea, we have but to call attention to the fact that men at the present time, possessing the same natures and dispositions as formerly, would avoid such a course with the most scrupulous care. Instance the fact that seventh-day observers never allude to the Sunday as the Sabbath, but avoid such a reference under all circumstances; while the devotees of the Sunday, when speaking of the last day of the week, almost uniformly speak of it as the Jewish Sabbath, if Sabbath they will allow themselves to call it at all.
But again. We are told, very candidly, that by the word Sabbath, in Acts 13:44, where it is said that the “next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together” to hear the word of God, is meant the next seventh day succeeding the first seventh day on which Paul addressed the Jews at Antioch. This being true, it is settled beyond dispute that, in the mind of Luke, there was no Sabbath day occurring between the one on which Paul spoke to the people, and the seventh day of the next week when he addressed them the second time; for, if there had been, then it would not have been proper to call the last Sabbath mentioned the “next” one, since another Sabbath would have intervened between the two in question. In other words, according to the view of our friend, the Sunday, which was the next day after the first discourse of Paul, was really the next Sabbath which followed it; whereas, the inspired penman ignores it altogether, and, passing over it with silence, calls the last day of that same week “the Sabbath.”
Again, it is stated in Acts 15:21, that the “Scriptures are read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.” Here again it is conceded that the reference is to the seventh day of the week. If this be true, however, then James, as well as Luke, had in his lexicon of terms the “Sabbath day” as the one which answered to the seventh day and not to the first. For no one will insist that the Scriptures were read in the synagogues of the Jews regularly on the first day of the week; but James says that they were read there every Sabbath day; therefore, in his mind—as we have already remarked—the first day was not the Sabbath.
Once more: It is stated of Paul that he reasoned in the synagogues every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. Here also it is urged—admitting that the reference is to the seventh day—that Paul went into the synagogue in order to get a hearing. But this he could not do on the first day, since he would have found the synagogue closed, and no audience. Nevertheless, the statement stands unqualified that Paul preached “every Sabbath.” Now if this be true, and the first as well as the seventh day might, according to the view of the historian, be called a Sabbath, then we have him stating that Paul preached in the place in question on both the first and seventh days. On the other hand, if he regarded the first day as alone the Sabbath, then he meant to teach that Paul preached in the synagogue on that day, and that day only. But my opponent will not insist upon either of these positions. The only conclusion that is left us, therefore, is that the Holy Ghost, who inspired Luke in the selection of terms, employed the appellation of Sabbath as applying only to the day which had been sanctified in Eden, and had always been known by that title.
Now let us give our attention for a moment to the objection so strongly urged, that in the book of the Acts, and in the epistles, there is no well-authenticated instance in which the apostles held meetings, with Christians exclusively, on the seventh day. The point of the proposition might be thus stated: If the early Christians did hold meetings on the seventh day, the record would have shown it; this it fails to do, therefore, the presumption is that they did not regard it as holy.
This is a sword that cuts both ways, if it cuts at all. We do not wonder that when our friend laid hold of its hilt, he said, tremblingly, this is a negative weapon; so that, when we should attempt to borrow it of him, we might find the edge, which was designed for his own neck, dulled by his own concession.
But let us proceed. Is it true, so far as the ancient Sabbath of the Lord is concerned, that, unless we can find historic accounts of its observance in the New Testament, we must therefore conclude that it was not regarded? We answer, No; simply because its observance is not alone taught by precedent. It rests upon a positive command of God, incorporated in a law which was brought over into this dispensation, as we have seen, and made obligatory upon Christians. It was not therefore necessary that a detailed account of its observance should be placed upon the record, in order to prove that it was regarded by the early church; since the very fact that they acknowledged the law of God is in itself proof that they sanctified the Sabbath which it ordained. Until, therefore, the gentleman can shake the pillars of that law—as we shall show he has not yet succeeded in doing—it is of itself a guarantee that every seventh day was regarded with solemnity by those who were endeavoring to keep its precepts.
In proof of this, we have but to mention the fact, that from Moses to David—a space covering five hundred years—the term Sabbath is not so much as used in the sacred history, and yet the gentleman will agree with me that the good men of those ages hallowed it, simply, because he agrees with me that they had a precept requiring them to do so.
But again, we must be allowed to insist that the very silence of which the gentleman complains does indirectly prove, independent of the commandment, that the first generation of Christians were Sabbatarians. What we mean to be understood as saying is, that they at least did not violate the regulations concerning the strict observance of the Sabbath, as enforced among the Jews. For had they done so, a record of thirty years could not have failed to bring to light numerous collisions, which would have been inevitable between Jews and Christians, the one class despising and trampling down the Sabbath of the law, and the other following them with that vulture-glance of inquisition, by which—as in the case of our Lord—they were in the habit of watching their antagonists, with a view to condemning them before the law. And, besides, with what show of consistency could Paul have stood up before them, announcing himself as one who had never violated the customs of the fathers (Acts 28:17), if he had been seen weekly transgressing the law of one of the dearest institutions handed down to them from the remotest antiquity?
Thus much for one side of the logic of our opponent. Now let us apply it to the Sunday. As we do so, it will be recollected that there has been no effort made, as yet, to place it upon a positive precept. Its existence, therefore, if such it has at all, must be attributable to precedent. Thus far, such precedent has not been cited, except by way of anticipation. When it comes up, we will consider it in order. In the meantime, let it be remembered that our friend has voluntarily taken a position which will compel him to admit that unless he can find at least one clear and unquestionable case in which the Sunday was from beginning to end devoutly celebrated, his cause is a hopeless one. Nay, more, to make out his point, every candid mind will demand that, in the absence of positive command, he shall be able to show numerous instances in which the day, whose claims he seeks to vindicate, was intelligently honored. For be it remembered, that, according to his own declaration, the apostle was traveling from point to point, writing and preaching, and Luke was keeping a diary of his labors, for the purpose of instructing that generation of Christians, as well as this, concerning duty and doctrine. If, therefore, Sunday sanctity came under the head of those doctrines, it was important, overwhelmingly so, that such a fact should be set forth clearly, since an habitual disregard on the part of any, of the new Sabbath, would bring upon them the condemnation of Heaven. Furthermore, the line of demarcation, which the new day would have drawn between the disciples and the Hebrews, would have been so broad, and the discussions upon those points would have been so numerous and so full, while the transition was taking place, that its existence could not have failed to become discernible in the writings of that period.
Here we must change our line of argument, and turn to the consideration of Col. 2:14–17, and of Rom. 14:5. Our opponent intimates that Sabbatarians are in the habit of evading these texts. In this remark, he does us great injustice. The statement is so far from being true, that I make no doubt that within the last twenty years, Seventh-day Adventist preachers alone have, by voice and pen, commented upon them at least a thousand times. But the best method of showing the charge to be untrue, will be found in an examination of the texts themselves. The first is as follows: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; * Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” Col. 2:14, 16, 17. Now be it remembered that he affirms that these scriptures teach the abolition of the creation Sabbath; also, that while we concede the point that there are here mentioned sabbaths which were abolished at the crucifixion of Christ, we deny that the seventh-day Sabbath was among them, and insist that they were simply the ceremonial sabbaths of the Jews to which reference is made.
In proof of our position, we offer the following considerations: 1. That which was repealed is represented as having been “blotted out.” Now the Scriptures are remarkable for the force and propriety of the illustrations which they employ. But who will say that the terms “blotting out” could properly be applied to writing engraved in stone, as was the Sabbath law in its original copy? 2. That which was blotted out was the “handwriting of ordinances”; but the commandments were the finger-writing of God. 3. That which was blotted out was found among ordinances that were “against us, and contrary to us.” But Jesus says, “The Sabbath was made for man.” Mark 2:27, 28. 4. That which was blotted out and taken out of the way “was nailed to his cross.” But it is inconceivable that such language could be spoken of the tables of stone, since they are not of a nature such that the work spoken of could be readily accomplished, and therefore the figure will not apply to them except when forced. 5. It must be admitted that these things concerning which we are not to allow men to judge us were either all of them shadows of Christ, or that if the others were not, the sabbath days were. If they were all shadows, then the sabbaths undeniably were such. For the expression, “which were a shadow of things to come,” stands immediately connected with the term “sabbath days.”
But this decides the point in controversy; for our friend has already voluntarily declared that the seventh-day Sabbath originated in Eden. This being true, it cannot be regarded as a “shadow” or type of Christ, since it was in being before man had ever fallen, and, consequently, before a Saviour was either needed or promised. It is commemorative in its character, and was calculated to carry the mind back to the creation, to the rest of Jehovah, rather than forward to the crucifixion of his Son. Do you inquire, then, what sabbaths the apostle had in view? We answer: He locates them among “commandments written in ordinances.” In other words, in the Mosaic ceremonies. Now take your Bible and turn to the twenty-third chapter of Leviticus, and you will find that the Jews had three annual feasts—the passover, the Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles—besides the new moons, and the seven annual sabbaths. The sabbaths were as follows, to wit: 1. The first day of unleavened bread. 2. The seventh day of that feast. 3. The day of Pentecost. 4. The first day of the seventh month. 5. The tenth day of that month. 6. The fifteenth day of that month. 7. The twenty-second day of the same. These are the ones beyond all question, to which reference is here made. 1. Because they were in the handwriting of Moses, and could be blotted out. 2. Because they were found in the handwriting of ordinances. 3. They were among ceremonies that were against us, and contrary to us (Acts 15:10). 4. The law in which they originated might have been nailed to the cross. 5. That law was also one which shadowed forth Christ (Heb. 10:1).
To the second text we shall give but little space. In the presentation of it, our friend attempts to be facetious. Nor are we disposed to find fault with him for this. It is sometimes admissible even in the discussion of the gravest questions, to indulge in harmless humor. That the effort in question partakes of this character, i. e., that it is harmless, we shall not dispute. At all events, when we read it, it amused rather than offended us. A second thought, however, suggests the possibility that if we were not damaged by the sally, it might have been pernicious, nevertheless, since it is possible for it to react upon its author. Certain it is, that it will damage either him or Paul, because he represents the great apostle as making a special effort, in his general labors, to teach men that they must under all circumstances keep one day holy, and that under some they might be allowed to regard a second also in the same light. But, unfortunately, if this exegesis is correct, and if the language of Rom. 14:5 applies to the weekly Sabbath at all, Paul blundered egregiously in communicating his intentions; since he virtually told those whom he was addressing, that, of the days of which he was speaking they need not keep them at all, or they might, at will. Here follows the text: “One man esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
Now we have heard men who believed in no Sabbath, employ this text again and again to prove that there is now no holy time; we have also heard conscientious first-day observers argue forcibly and conclusively that this text proved no such thing, simply because it referred to days that were connected with meats and drinks, and not to the weekly Sabbath at all. But we confess that the position of our friend is somewhat novel. Nevertheless we feel sure that the reputation of the great apostle for perspicuity will not suffer by this attempt, and we think that so far as he is concerned himself, reflection will prevent him from ever seriously urging it. In conclusion on this point, we append a brief comment from the pen of Adam Clarke, whose reputation, and the fact that he was an observer of Sunday, will give him no little authority with our opponents. He says: “Reference is here made to the Jewish institutions, and especially their festivals; such as the passover, Pentecost, feast of tabernacles, new moons, jubilee, &c. The converted Jew still thought these of moral obligation; the Gentile Christian, not having been bred up in this way, had no such prejudices.”—Com. in loco.
The only remaining text cited is that of Gal. 4:10. After what has been said, no further comment from us will be required. The reader, desirous of satisfying himself that this text also has no reference to the weekly Sabbath, and of necessity refers either to heathen festivals or Jewish ceremonial days, can read the context, and consult standard authorities, such as Clarke or Barnes.
Let us now survey the ground over which we have passed. So far as we have gone, what has been done toward proving a practice of first-day observance on the part of the early church? We answer, nothing, absolutely nothing. The only texts which have been cited for this purpose are 1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10, and Acts 20:7. So far as they are concerned, we have previously shown that the first of them does not in any way affect the question of Sunday observance; that the second relates to the seventh day of the week and not to the first; and that the third proves that Paul traveled nineteen and one-half miles on the Sunday. When our reviewer shall attempt to disturb a single stone in the structure of argument which we reared in our former articles on these points, we shall be by his side, to see that he does it fairly. Until then, the intelligent reader need not be told that it is vain for him to try to make capital by quoting them as above.
Thus much for the first day. We inquire next, What has been conceded or proved, which is favorable to the seventh-day Sabbath? 1. That it originated in Eden. 2. That it was enforced by the fourth commandment. 3. That that commandment is still binding. 4. That the effort to show a change in its phraseology from Col. 2:16, Rom. 14:5, and Gal. 4:10, was a complete failure; and therefore that it reads as it did formerly, that the seventh day is the “Sabbath of the Lord.” 5. That there is a Sabbath in this dispensation. 6. That being enforced by positive command, it stands in need of no precedent. 7. That, while the apostles did many times preach on that day, there is not one instance in which they violated it. 8. That had they desecrated it, the conflicts which would have been thus created must have found a place in the history of those times. 9. That in the book of Acts it is always called “the Sabbath.” 10. That it was the only Sabbath known to the apostles, since they speak of it not only as “the Sabbath,” but as “the next Sabbath,” and “every Sabbath.”
In concluding we suggest that we leave our reviewer in a situation which, to a man of his clearness of perception, must be a very unsatisfactory one. Having insisted upon the perpetuity of the fourth commandment, he is compelled to take one of two positions. Either, 1. That it reads the same as it did when it enforced the seventh day; or, 2. That its phraseology has been changed. We confess that we have been unable to decide which of these positions he prefers. Nor is it material here. If he adopts the first, the thoughtful reader will agree with us that it is simply absurd to argue that a statute, while reading the same, means differently from what it did formerly. On the other hand, should he adopt the latter, then we inquire why he has not given it to us as it reads since it has been changed, and thus ended the controversy by gratifying our most reasonable request.