DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION
BETWEEN ELD. J. H. WAGGONER, S. D. ADVENTIST, AND ELD. PETER VOGEL, DISCIPLE. “Do the Scriptures teach that the first day of the week is to be sacredly observed by Christians?” ELD. VOGEL affirms; ELD. WAGGONER denies. ELD. VOGEL’S FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE.
3. Another most memorable occasion was the Pentecost following the resurrection of Jesus. Pentecost signifies fiftieth, and was so named because it always fell on the fiftieth day, counting from the morrow of the paschal Sabbath, and so came invariably on the first day of the week. I am well aware that some contend that the “morrow after the Sabbath” was the morrow after the first yearly Sabbath of the paschal week, but to me, there is nothing plainer than that the weekly Sabbath is meant. a. “The morrow after the Sabbath” (Lev. 23:11) is rendered, in the Greek, tee epaurion tees prootees, the morrow of the first day, i. e., Sunday. b. As if for the greater clearness, the yearly Sabbaths of the paschal week are, in this connection, called “holy convocations,” simply (verses 7, 8), while the word, Sabbath, is used to designate the day from whose morrow the Hebrews were to date Pentecost. c. Not only do we have the word Sabbath used, but, in the Hebrew, the definite article is prefixed to show it to be the Sabbath, by way of pre-eminence. (See verses 11, 15, 16.) This is all the more significant when the fact is regarded that none of the yearly Sabbaths have the article in this chapter; no, not even the weekly Sabbaths, aside from these verses. The significant weight of the article seems specially reserved to place this matter beyond cavil. d. And, as if to make sureness doubly sure, the day which ends the series is declared to be the first day of the week: “Even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath shall ye number fifty days.” Verse 16. Inasmuch as “the yearly sabbaths were movable as to the day of the week,” had the counting been from the morrow after the first yearly sabbath, it would have been impossible to always end the series of fifty days with a Sabbath before the fiftieth day; for the only possible Sabbath before the Pentecost was a weekly Sabbath. Hence the “morrow” which came after it, the Pentecost, was the first day of the week. With this matter indisputably settled, we are ready to note the memorable events of the day. (1.) On this day, the promised baptism of the Spirit took place. “And behold,” said Jesus to his disciples, “I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye at Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.” Luke 24:49. This promise of the Father was the baptism in the Holy Spirit, (Acts 1:4, 5), and was fulfilled on Pentecost: “Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear” (Acts 2:33). Never before was the Spirit so given. (John 7:38, 39.) This was “the first-fruits of the Spirit.” (Rom. 8:23.) Henceforth, he was both “alongside of” and “in” the disciples (John 14:16, 17), shedding abroad the love of God in their hearts to a degree past all understanding. (Rom. 5:5; Eph. 3:19.) Before this, “eye had not seen, nor ear heard, neither had entered into the heart of man, the things which God had prepared for them that love him. But now God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit.” (1 Cor. 2:9, 10.) Christian reader, as your heart burns with that love, and is cheered by these things, can you think of a day more memorable? How it wafts a blessed sacredness across the ages! Glorious day! (2.) This day marks the beginning, in fact, of the new dispensation. “Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,” said the prophet (Isa. 2:4), and “beginning at Jerusalem,” was the Saviour’s instruction (Luke 24:47). “Who hath heard such a thing? Who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children!” Isa. 66:8. At the giving of the old law, three thousand perished by the sword of justice; but at the ushering in of the new, “the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” What a gathering of “first-fruits” to the Lord! 4. And of what is the Pentecost itself typical, but of the sacred observance of the first day, upon which it so uniformly fell. Pentecost was one of the “holy days,” heortee, of which “the body is of Christ” (Col. 2:16, 17). The antitype always enters with the recession of the type. I do not say that there is no double fulfillment of prophecy in types, as there is in other prophecies, but I insist that the shadow gives place only to the substance. And as a shadow, Paul declares the Pentecost gone and its substance here. I maintain that the first day, the Lordic day, is that substance. Of all the sacred days appointed by Moses, only two were not movable as to the day of the week, the Sabbath and the Pentecost. The Sabbath was not movable for retrospective reasons, but the Pentecost—what retrospection has it, binding it to the first day?—the reason can be only prospective. And this is virtually admitted in Eld. W.’s first article in this discussion, when he says of all the yearly sabbaths, and so of Pentecost, “they were typical of future events.” In that first-day sacredness lay, in embryo, the Christic holy day of this dispensation. As the “sheaf of the first-fruits of the harvest” (Lev. 23:10, 11), presented to Jehovah on the memorable first-day in the paschal week—a resurrection of new grain from the old—was a type of the resurrection of Christ, “the first-fruits of them that slept” (1 Cor. 15:20); and as the two Pentecostal wave-loaves, the prepared “first-fruits unto the Lord” (Lev. 23:15–17), were a type of the “first-fruits” of Christians (James 1:18), offered to Christ on the Pentecostal first-day (Acts 2), and also of Christians generally as they are presented in Heaven (Rev. 14:4); so the Pentecost itself, and of course in its first-day character, has its antitype. “The body is of Christ;” and this type is of itself sufficient to end the controversy. 5. Analogy furnishes material for the conclusion that there should be a sacred day in this dispensation, and that the first day of every week should be the time. 1st. The occasion of deliverance from Egyptian bondage was deemed worthy of a weekly Sabbatic commemoration (Deut. 5:5). The deliverance from the task-service of the devil, which was virtually accomplished by the resurrection of Jesus, surpassed the former by the value of the spirit above that of the body, and by the preciousness of immortality above mortality; and hence, for a stronger reason, deserves commemoration. 2d. We have seen that not until the first day were the bars of the tomb broken; and, hence, not till on this day did the Lord Jesus rest from his work of redemption, and from his conflict with the Satanic power which had entombed him. If the Father honored the day on which he ended the old creation, much more is it fit that the Son should honor that on which he ended the new creation, inasmuch as the new surpasses the old. “Behold I create new heavens and a new earth,” finds its first fulfillment here; and so far do these excel the old that the prophet adds, “and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.” Isa. 65:17. REVIEW OF THE SECOND NEGATIVE.
I said not a word about “accredited writers” when I referred to the fact that “at least some of Eld. W.’s brethren” once held to a non-abolition of the old covenant. I had read but little of Advent literature at the time I met those “brethren.” Had they even been “writers,” it would be easy to say “not accredited.” If names are desired, they can be had for the asking. And as for insults or discourtesies, I believe every word from my pen on this proposition will bear the closest scrutiny. My brother may continue his insinuations, if he will, and may persist in characterizing those with me as “partisans,” his shall still be “brethren.” Suppose I were wrong in my application of Ps. 69, would that prove me in error on Isa. 50? But even on this psalm I have nothing to yield. “The zeal of the Lord’s house” may “eat up” many a Christian, and the “reproaches of them that reproach the Lord,” such a one may take upon himself as well as did David. There is a difference between appropriated quotations, when individual histories run parallel, and fulfillment of predictions; both may be said to be fulfillments of scriptures, but not in the same sense. I am sorry to learn that my brother only eats bread and drinks wine when he sits at the Lord’s table. With Paul, I claim to “commune” (1 Cor. 10:16). Dipsnon (supper) denotes a “full meal,” and is not exhausted by the deglutition of a morsel of bread and of a sup of wine; the spirit feasts to the full. This is least akin to the cannibalistic devouring27of literal flesh and blood by the “mother church.” Neither this spiritual repast, nor even a simple commemoration of a crucified Saviour, was possible to the apostles at the institution of the Lord’s supper, both on account of ignorance and of unbelief respecting the essential basis. Campbell says of Pedo-baptists, “Their method is not to produce either a precept or a precedent.” He admits, then, a precedent as sufficient; and precedents I have given. My brother admits that a man may be justly hung upon circumstantial evidence (i. e., inference), if “based on a series of undisputed facts.” This, precisely, I have given. Is that fact or fiction which Paul and Luke record in 1 Cor. 16 and Acts 20, and that in those other scriptures cited? Ah! but my deductions are disputed. Yes, so does the criminal’s lawyer dispute, but for all that the man is hung. Let me grant that express precept or formal proclamation is needed. We have it. Rev. 1:10, would be an impossible scripture without such a basis. I see a house yonder, it is massive in its proportions; but I am not in position to see its foundation, it is not in sight; has the house therefore none? Must we see the foundation before we have a right to assert that it has one? How preposterous! This is a matter of “necessary inference.” Well, I’ll grant it, says my brother; but then it is an old house, long since built. In reply, I prove (1), that the old house has been torn down, (2) that this one is built by a different architect, and (3) that it stands in a different place. I am requested to prove that the term Lord in Rev. 1:10, is used differently from Rev. 11:15. And here is the proof. 1. Though the words are the same in English, they are not in the original Greek. 2. That used in Rev. 11:15, refers there, undoubtedly, to the Father, whereas, the other is never used with reference to him, but only of the Christ. 3. Lord, in Rev. 1:10, is used in an official sense, and so refers to Christ, since he only is now Lord officially, as I have abundantly shown. True, the Father “gave him to be head,” but that which is given to me is mine. And when “all authority” is given, what is lacking to complete Lordship? In other words, The Father was sole Lord, officially, in the former dispensation, but he resigned or “gave” this position to Christ during this dispensation, so that Jesus is now “Lord of all.” The reason why Jesus did not do his own will during his earthly ministry is simply this: He was “born under the law” (Gal. 4:4) and was obedient to him who was then Lord; but, himself being Lord now, he is “the author and the finisher of the faith,” i. e., of the gospel with all its appurtenances (Heb. 12:2). And mediation, on the part of Christ, must not be so much conceived of as having the Father now above Christ and over the gospel, but, rather, as having him before the gospel. Not only is Christ the author of the gospel, but the whole race is his by the purchase of his blood, so that now all are amenable to him, and “the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.” (John 5:22.) It is only when the Son will resign his Lordship that the Father will judge again, and those, namely, who have not profited by having been under the Son (Heb. 10:31). The Father was speaking level to the Jewish mind when he said, “I will make a new covenant,” for, strictly speaking, Jesus is the “testator” or covenanter (Heb. 9:16), and, hence, the “my laws” are Christ’s laws, of which he is “the author and the finisher.” This leads us again to the conclusion that the Lordic day, of Rev. 1:10, is a Christic day. He is “the author” of it; and everything predicated by Barnes of kuriakee is as he meant it, predicable of the Sunday. The attempt to prove Jesus proprietor of creation, and so of the Sabbath, is weak indeed. All things were created “for him” (Col. 1:16) is to prove him owner and proprietor! Let us test it. The Sabbath was made “for man,” therefore, he is owner and proprietor of it. If I, then, see fit to set the Sabbath aside, what right has my brother to complain? “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?” I am represented as saying that the Lord’s day is a “moral law.” I said nothing of the kind, but was careful to tell to what extent I denied his proposition marked I., in his first negative, and have, both before and since, called the Lord’s day positive. While knocking down his man of straw, he makes a statement too good to be lost; namely, “All positive institutions of the gospel are a part of the faith of Jesus.” Now since all sacred days are positive institutions, that of Rev. 1:10, is also positive, and of the faith of Jesus. And since Jesus is “the author of the faith,” he is also of the day named in Rev. 1:10. It is, therefore, a new institution. Do I still “stand on inference only on all the ground of difference?” It strikes me that we have concession here. And what is there so despicable about inferences? Is not the conclusion of every argument an inference from its premises? To inveigh against inference is to ask me to argue without reasoning, to discuss without discussing, and to prove my proposition with my mouth shut! Much space is devoted to 1 Cor. 16:2 to prove the collection to have been made at home, as though that were fatal to my position. But my conclusion follows equally well from either construction. I will, however, say again, that heautoo, being in the dative case, may be either masculine or neuter; if masculine, then by himself (at home) is the proper version; if neuter, then we must render it, by itself. I would like to know how my brother has found out that it cannot be neuter. As for the term logia (collection), it is a noun from the verb legoo, and legoo means to gather in any quantity, as fuel, words for a discourse, &c., &c. See Liddell and Scott. On Acts 20, I was sufficiently full in my third affirmative. I will only add, that to argue from the sequential order of the words in Gen. 1:5, to the point of beginning the day, is lame. Who, for example, would argue from Acts 5:30, and 10:39, “whom ye slew and hanged on a tree,” that Christ was first slain and then nailed to the cross? Yet this sentence is connected by and in a way the other is not. See Conant’s literal version, already given. It is a well-known fact that great liberty is used in the sequential collocation of words, when the real order is indicated by the meaning of the words, as in Gen. 1:5, or by a knowledge of the facts in the case, as in the other passages cited. I have space here to consider only two items in the third negative. If the first day was given to the Lord, “who required the gift?” The Lord Jesus. For Rev. 1:10, shows that he requires a day, and no day can be shown to have been given, if not the first day. To the statement that “Acts 20 gives but a single act of a single church,” I have, in addition to what I previously said, this reply: From 1 Cor. 11, we learn that there were two kinds of gatherings among the first Christians. (1.) The more private or social meetings for prayer and prophecy, which seem to have been “free-will offerings,” presented by a few gathered here and a few there, according to convenience; and (2.) there was the “coming together in the church,” when all came together “into one place” (verses 18, 20). And this gathering had always in view, as a chief object, “to eat the Lord’s supper” (verse 20); the Corinthians failing of this only in so far as they perverted the institution. 1. Such being the custom of the primitive Christians, it is known that the meeting of Acts 20:7, being for the purpose of observing this supper, was not a casual affair; and, hence, the first day is the day for the “coming together in the church.” 2. Moreover, the type of the shew-bread demands a stated weekly meeting for the observance of the Lord’s supper. We have already seen that the holy place in the tabernacle represents the church. The table of shew-bread had all the appearance of the Lord’s table. There were twelve loaves, one for each tribe, as we have one loaf, being but one body; there were also vessels of wine, as on the Lord’s table, which were poured out as an offering to God, as Christ poured out his soul to be an offering; and incense, typifying the thanks we render before participation. That bread was only for the priests, as the Lord’s supper is exclusively for those who are now of the “royal priesthood.” “Every Sabbath he [the priest] shall set it in order before the Lord continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant” (Lev. 24:8). “Everlasting,” “continual,” and “perpetual,” are terms that have no such limit as to confine their force to the Mosaic dispensation. As the priesthood, the Sabbath, circumcision, and other institutions, whose duration is described by the same terms, exist to-day in antitype, so does this institution, also. The Lord’s supper must then be weekly observed, but by express example upon the first day. This, therefore, is the Lord’s day. ELD. WAGGONER’S FOURTH NEGATIVE.
The reader will remember that Eld. Vogel asked, “Has he forgotten the position that, at least, some of his brethren used to occupy?” In this he insinuated that that position was so strongly or prominently taken by some of my brethren that I knew it, for how else could I forget it? I have been intimately acquainted with both the writers and speakers of the Seventh-day Adventist faith for more than twenty years, and know that their faith on our relation to the covenants has been as well defined as has been that of the Disciples on baptism. I know that no one, ever recognized among us, ever taught as he said. Though Eld. V. has placed himself in a questionable light by many of his assumed positions, I did hope that he would not so far lose sight of honorable dealing as to forfeit that respect which it is pleasant to entertain for an opponent in theological controversy. A few points in his last article I will notice. 1. On Sunday, Christ “rested from the work of redemption”! What an absurdity. Paul says we are yet “groaning for redemption.” If Christ then rested (ceased) from that work, where is our hope? 2. He well says that to deny inference is to ask him to discuss with his “mouth shut.” If he had kept his mouth shut till he had something beside inference for Sunday, it would be closed yet. 3. He acknowledges that he is “not in a position to see the foundation.” But I am in a very good position to see the foundation of the Sabbath—the Lord’s day. It is laid broad and deep in the word of God; the corner-stone in Eden; and reaches to the earth made new. There is no obscurity there. But he says he sees the building, and therefore there must be a foundation. Did he never hear of a house built upon the sand? His own argument is conclusive proof that the sand-bank of inference is its foundation, and its superstructure the fog of tradition. And what are the “proportions” of the building of which he speaks? He has constantly evaded the subject of the extent or limitations of the obligation of Sunday-keeping. I heard Eld. Treat, a very prominent man among the Disciples in Indiana, publicly say, “I am ready to stump the country from Maine to California in favor of a general Sunday law.” Would he “stump the country” in favor of a general law to enforce baptism—a law to compel everybody to be baptized? And if not, why not? Are they not both positive institutions of the gospel? (!) Why not treat them alike? In a discussion on baptism I think Eld. Vogel would claim a clearly defined limitation. Why this inconsistency? Such a course is a virtual acknowledgment that there is no such institution. 4. It is immaterial as to what is the meaning of legoo. I gave an undisputed authority for the definition of logia. But the definition which he italicised as professedly from Liddell and Scott, is not given by them. 5. He thinks, at last, that he has got something more than inference, namely, my concession!—Suppose I had conceded his assumptions, would that give them authority in the absence of Scripture proof? But his “triumphing is short;”—I made no such concession. I said, “All the institutions of the gospel are positive.” Is marriage a gospel institution? Is it confined to the church of Christ? No. Why not? Because it comes down from Eden—it antedates sin and the gospel. And so of the Sabbath. Has Eld. V. forgotten the whole tenor of my argument, that the Sabbath is “an original institution”? The Sabbath is not peculiar to the gospel, more than is marriage. And so the only relief he finds from his mass of inference is a fancied concession, which can only be made out by a perversion of my words. I forbear to blame him for the perversion only because his position so strongly calls for pity. 6. Heb. 12:2, does not say that Christ is the author and finisher of the faith, i. e., of the gospel system. He distinctly affirmed that his doctrines were not his own, but he spake the words given him of his Father. These words of Paul are in the conclusion of a discourse on personal faith, and are correctly rendered—“author and finisher of our faith.” This correction sets aside much of his fourth article. Eld. V. shows a wondrous tendency to misstate words of Scripture, and then build upon the foundation he has made. The reader will see, by turning to 1 Cor. 2:9, 10, that he has garbled that text to make it harmonize with his position. I see no reason why he should take such a course except his anxiety to make a case, the necessities of which require it. 7. On the proprietorship of the Sabbath I refer to my remarks on Mark 2:27, 28, in the early part of this discussion. The Sabbath was made for man, for him to use in the worship of God; but it is the Lord’s day. These two declarations are in the Bible. But see another text, 1 Cor. 11:9, which says the woman was created for the man. His wife is his, is she not? May he therefore abuse her, in violation of the law of the institution which governs the relation? And his comparison would make man proprietor of the Sabbath in the same sense that Christ is; but, did man create all things in the beginning, and rest the seventh day and bless and hallow it, as Christ, the Maker, did? His position casts indignity upon Christ and his word, and is that of a caviler, not that of a reasoner. 8. The new heavens and new earth were not created on that Sunday! for they are not yet. Peter says (2 Pet. 3) they will succeed the passing away of the “heavens and earth which now are,” which will take place in “the day of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” And Rev. 21 says in the new earth there will be no sorrow, no tears, no sickness, no death. Is that now the case? Such an expositor of Scripture is Eld. Vogel! And Isaiah says that, in the new-earth state, “from one Sabbath to another,” all flesh will worship the Lord. If Eld. Vogel gets there, he will have to be converted from his present position. He said, under the third proposition, “Each man, whether Jew, Gentile, or Christian, is under obligation to attend to the things commanded to him.” Now if he will show that Sunday was commanded to Jew, Gentile, or Christian, the controversy will be ended. But he tries to make equally binding, things not commanded! What is it but will-worship? A. Campbell said, “Do we transgress any divine command in neglecting to have our children baptized? No; I never read of any one being accused of this sin in the Bible, nor of any commandment that was thereby transgressed.”—Baptism, p. 427. Let Eld. V. put, “neglecting to keep Sunday,” in this, and it is just as forcible and true. Dr. Sherlock, against the Romanist’s rule of faith, wrote:— “What is matter of institution depends wholly upon the divine will and pleasure; and though all men will grant that God and Christ have great reasons for their institutions, yet it is not the reason, but the authority, which makes the institution. Though we do not understand the reasons of the institution, if we see the command, we must obey; and though we could fancy a great many reasons why there should be such an institution, if no such institution appear, we are free, and ought not to believe there is such an institution because we think there are reasons assigned why it should be. . . . I would not be thought wholly to reject a plain and evident consequence from Scripture; yet I will never admit of a mere consequence to prove an institution which must be delivered in plain terms, as all laws ought to be; and when I have no other proof but Scripture consequences, I shall not think it equivalent to a Scripture proof.” This is sound doctrine; and had it been written for the present occasion, it could not more directly have condemned Eld. Vogel’s course. “All positive precepts, that depend on the mere will of the law-giver, admit no degrees, nor supple-tory and commutation, because in such laws we see nothing beyond the words of the law and the first meaning. He will not be disputed with, nor inquired of why or how, but just according to the measure there set down. So, and no more, and no less, and no otherwise. For when the will of the law-giver be all the reason, the first instance of the law is all the measures, and there can be no product but what is just set down.” And so far as institution or obligation for Sunday is concerned, there is nothing just set down! “Now it is very evident that all things of this nature ought to be appointed very plainly or expressly, or else they can carry no obligation with them; for, seeing the whole reason of their becoming law or duty lies in the will of the legislator, if that be not plainly discovered, they cannot be said to be instituted, and so there can be no obligation to observe them; because, where no law is, there is no transgression; and a law is no law in effect which is not sufficiently promulgated.” “All reasoning upon this head is an arguing against the institution. . . . He who instituted it knew best what was most fitting and most reasonable; and we must choose rather to acquiesce in his commands than in our own reasonings.” “Divine revelation is the only foundation, the only rule, and the only law, of all religious worship, that is pleasing to God or accepted by him; when once a person maintains it allowable to pass the limits of A DIVINE COMMAND, there is nothing to hinder him from running the most extravagant lengths.” We have seen this well illustrated by Eld. Vogel in this discussion. “We ought not to worship God with any other external worship than what himself has commanded, and appointed in his holy word. The Scripture has set us our bounds for worship; to which we must not add, and from which we ought not to diminish; for whosoever does either the one or the other must needs accuse the rule, either in defect of things necessary, or of superfluity of things unnecessary; which is a high affront to the wisdom of God, who, as he is the object, so is he the prescriber of all that worship which he will accept and reward.” And Richard Baxter said:— “Who knows what will please God but himself? and has he not told us what he expects from us? Can that be obedience which has no command for it? Is not this to supererogate, and to be righteous overmuch? Is not this also to accuse God’s ordinances of insufficiency, as well as his word; as if they were not sufficient to please him or help our own graces? Oh, the pride of man’s heart, that, instead of being a law-obeyer, will be a law-maker! For my part I will not fear that God will be angry with me for doing no more than he has commanded me, and for sticking close to the rule of his word in matter of worship; but I should tremble to add or diminish.” From these quotations it will be seen that there was nothing new nor novel in the stand taken by Alexander Campbell on positive institutions—he did not originate his views. But he did faithfully and nobly press them, on the subject of baptism. All Protestants claim these positions against the Romanists; and all Baptists claim them against Pedo-baptists. It needs but little reflection to see that Catholicism could not live if they prevailed. And it is equally evident that if these truths were universally acknowledged, there could not be a Pedo-baptist nor a Sunday-keeper in the Christian churches! Prof. Clark Braden, in a notice of a discussion which Eld. Vogel had on this subject, said that Eld. V. maintained “the Christian Sabbath” to the entire satisfaction of those “of all churches” who heard him. By the way, Eld. Vogel said he had not made the subject a specialty, and was not so well prepared to debate it as I was. But his friends and admirers contradict this. Mr. Braden said that he was able “to enlighten the best read scribe among them, and called upon the “brotherhood” to take steps to have a written discussion between Eld. V. and some seventh-day man, that they might thus be prepared “to meet this disorganizing system when it attempts to work inroads on our congregations.” And so, the steps were taken and the challenge given. And thus Eld. Vogel stands as the chosen representative of the “Disciple” body. His acknowledgment that inference is his only dependence, is their acknowledgment. His failure to find proof of Sunday, is their failure. But they will find—they cannot fail to see—that he has done them an irreparable injury in regard to the truth they hold. For, while his positions are too fallacious to meet the approval of candid men, their enemies will take his declarations in favor of inference and deduction for positive institutions, and successfully meet them on the question of infant baptism. They must yet see the necessity of yielding Mr. Campbell’s positions on infant baptism, or of repudiating Eld. Vogel’s argument on positive institutions. The truth is, and Messrs. Braden and Vogel know it, that many in “the churches,” as well as among themselves, are not only easily satisfied with anything that seems to favor Sunday, but they are determined to be satisfied with it! however contradictory it may be. Knowing that they have no evidence, they catch at every plausible substitute for evidence that is presented. As Eld. Vogel’s work is so gratifying to “the churches,” it is worth while to bring together some of the positions of the churches who sit so lovingly together on the Sunday theory. 1. The seventh-day Sabbath was made and sanctified at creation, and changed to the first day of the week at the resurrection of Christ. 2. The original Sabbath of creation was changed to the sixth day (improperly called the seventh in Exodus!) at the passage of the Red Sea, and again changed to the seventh day (improperly called the first in the New Testament!) at the resurrection. 3. Indorses the above, except that the change was made before they left Egypt. 4. The original Sabbath of Eden was the first day of the week (improperly called the seventh day in Genesis!) and was changed to the seventh at the falling of the manna, and back again to the first day at the resurrection. 5. The Sabbath of the Old Testament was Jewish; the Christian Sabbath is the first day, enforced, however, by the same commandment. 6. The Sabbath commandment enforces only the seventh part of time, which comes on Sunday. 7. The Sabbath was entirely Jewish, and was abolished; and a new institution erected of Sunday. 8. The Sabbath is entirely abolished, and in this dispensation there is no sacred time, but it is necessary to keep some day, and that day should be Sunday. 9. The Sabbath was an original institution, unchanged in the New Testament, but “the church,” by the power given to her and of the successorship of Peter, changed it into Sunday. Can any other dogma, professedly Christian, claim such an array of contradictions? Can a doubt exist that only error and darkness is the cause of this Babel of confusion? By this, Sunday stands self-condemned, for if there were any evidence they would seize upon it, and unite in presenting it to the world. But they all agree in the result! The result is what they are after, regardless of the process by which they reach it. Reader, what would you think of arithmeticians who should declare they had to a certainty found the product of certain numbers, because they had added them, subtracted them, multiplied them, and divided them, and brought the same result every time! The very claim would stamp the result as error and the fruit of error. Of the erection of the festival of this “memorable day,” Dr. Kitto says:— “The commencement of the Christian church on the day of Pentecost, preceded as it was by our Lord’s ascension, attached a peculiar interest to this season, and eventually led to its being set apart for the commemoration of these great events. It was not, however, established as one of the great festivals until the fourth century.”—Kitto’s Cyclopedia. “It must be confessed that there is no law in the New Testament concerning first-day.”—Buck’s Theol. Dict. A confession easy to make, because the fact is universally known. “The change from the seventh to the first day appears to have been gradually and silently introduced.”—Dr. Scott. And in that manner have all errors crept into the church, while the “law and the testimony” are the measure of duty. “Was the first day set apart by public authority in the apostolic age? No. By whom was it set apart, and when? By Constantine, who lived about the beginning of the fourth century.”—A. Campbell, Lecture in Bethany College in 1848. Dr. Heylyn, author of a large History of the Sabbath, says of early Sunday-keeping:— “For three hundred years there was neither law to bind them to it, nor any rest from worldly business required upon it. . . . Tertullian tells us they did devote the Sunday partly unto mirth and recreation, not to devotion altogether; when, in a hundred years after Tertullian’s time, there was no law or constitution to restrain men from labor on this day, in the Christian churches.” Bishop Jeremy Taylor said:— “It was not introduced by virtue of the fourth commandment, because they for almost three hundred years together kept that day which was in that commandment.” All these authorities (Sunday-keepers) point to “about the beginning of the fourth century,” for the first Sunday law. Campbell says directly that Constantine was the author of it. Constantine’s decree was in A. D. 321. Heylyn puts it “a hundred years after Tertullian’s time,” who died A. D. 216. Every testimony points to Constantine’s law as the first public authority for Sunday. His decree reads as follows:— “Let all the judges and townspeople, and the occupation of all trades, rest on THE VENERABLE DAY OF THE SUN; but let those who are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty, attend to the business of agriculture; because it often happens that no other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines; lest the critical moment being let slip, men should lose the commodities granted by Heaven.” Prof. Stuart on the Sabbath, and many other writers, makes mention of the fact that the council of Laodicea published an anathema against those Christians who kept the seventh day. This was in A. D. 364. This shows that “the day of the sun” was first made popular by a heathen edict, and then taken up and adopted by the Romish church, and the observance of the seventh day, the holy Sabbath of the Lord our God, was strangled by the anathemas of their councils.