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 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE.
Having both the third and fourth negatives to review, and wishing to present a brief summary, I shall use the utmost brevity, intending to close with this number, unless Bro. W. violates the rules of debate in his rejoinder. I did not say that “they who rely upon the plain word of God are only babes,” but that babes, because “unskilled,” can do little else. And while Paul speaks of higher truths, in Heb. 5:13, 14, they are truths gathered by inference, “mere deductions,” from various Old and New Testament facts, as Paul had just been gathering, and upbraided the people not only for insufficient attainments to gather and teach them themselves, but also for inability to hear them. What “pious frauds” Paul was guilty of! We are abundantly told what Campbell, McGarvey, and others, teach, but in my simplicity I supposed the question was, “Do the Scriptures teach?” Had I only understood this matter sooner, what quotations might I not have made from Eld. W.’s brethren! Nay, as Beecher said of Calvin, so say I of others, “My first desire is to know what is true; and then I am very glad if Calvin agrees with me; but if he don’t, so much the worse for him.” “Sunday” is a term of heathen origin (and no doubt the heathens created the day itself!), therefore, it cannot be put to a sacred, scriptural use! Bread and wine were offered by heathens to their gods; therefore the Lord’s supper is a heathen institution! Well, logic is logic! The Babylonians and the Romans reckoned their days from midnight (they were heathens, you know), therefore the Lord can’t! Naughty heathens, these, to estop the Lord! John 19:14, “It was about the sixth hour.” True, “about” is indefinite, but not sufficiently so as to convert the sixth into the third hour. Nor is it at all admissible to change sixth into third. Anderson’s translation was from a text that read third, but at the time of his death he was at work upon a better text. The quotations from Bloomfield and Clarke amount to nothing; for (1.) But few manuscripts use characters instead of words to express numbers. (2.) Even when characters are employed, the chances for mistakes are overrated. The Greek letter for 3 has three different forms, and that for 6, has four; only one of the first three, and one of the last four, can be at all mistaken for each other, and even these are less alike than our numerals 8 and 3. A more likely presumption is, that some copyist supposed, from his knowledge of the other gospels, and on the assumption that all used the same reckoning, that his predecessor had made a mistake which he felt it duty to correct. (3.) But the most decisive fact, and that which places this matter beyond dispute, is this: The three oldest and best manuscripts, the Alexandrian, the Vatican, and the Sinaitic (the united testimony of which neither Bloomfield nor Clarke had), agree in reading “the sixth hour.” “These three manuscripts,” says Tichendorf, “stand at the head of all ancient copies of the N. T., and it is by their standard that both the early editions of the Greek text and the modern versions are to be compared and corrected.” Again, in John 1:39, we read, “They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day. It was about the tenth hour.” The conjunction “for,” in the common version, is rejected by the three manuscripts above named. Had John used the Jewish mode of reckoning, the tenth hour would have been four o’clock, and the expression, “abode with him that day,” would have been out of place. There is no mistaking the reckoning John followed. And this fixes the reckoning of Acts 20:7, in spite of all the learned authorities my brother may accumulate. Others may apologize for Paul’s traveling on the first-day of Acts 20:7; I know he did not travel. He traveled, however, both the preceding Lord’s day and the Sabbath before that; hence I do not hesitate to do likewise when necessity requires. By “the logic of facts,” I set aside McGarvey’s comment. He is no “oracle.” As a people, we acknowledge none but “the living oracles.” Because “Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus,” my brother thinks that the ship was under his control. This by no means follows. The vessel had its course marked out, and Paul could only have reached Ephesus by boarding another vessel, as he did on other occasions. The delay would have been small could he have controlled the vessel and gone to Ephesus; but to change once, perhaps twice, this would have caused much delay. The rules regulating Sunday observance are called for. This demand would be just, were we under the law. Under the gospel, we are “sons,” and are not governed after the manner of “servants.” It is sufficient for a son to know that the day is “the Lord’s.” The call for proof that the Jews ended their weeks with sunrising on Sunday, will be unheeded. The proof has already been given, and he has seen fit to ignore it; so it must go to the reader without a reply. The assertion that the “eating the passover,” of John 18:28, and the statement that Jesus ate it before the appointed time, thus sinning! and also the assertion that the yearly and weekly Sabbaths came in conjunction that year, need no reply, having been forestalled in my third affirmative. The quotation from Campbell on will-worship is perfectly gratuitous. I can show, and have shown, “an explicit revelation of the will of Heaven,” as my summary will show. Eld. W. closes his third negative with an attempted exhibit of the difference between the argument for the Sabbath and the Sunday. Every item, save one, has been considered before. For example, No. 11, “The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath,” was shown to be untrue in the sense he takes it; on the contrary, I proved that every Jew is lord of the Sabbath, in the same sense and to the same extent claimed by Jesus, in Mark 2:27. See 1st Neg., 3d Prop., par. marked 3, near the end. The facts in No. 7 were shown to prove the Sabbath a positive institution. Indeed, I gave eleven different proofs of its being positive, without reply. No. 6 contains a new statement, to this effect: The Sabbath commandment was put into the midst of moral commandments, therefore it is also moral! That is, if a negro were among nine white men, and engaged in every respect as they are, it would prove him white! No; the Sabbath commandment, which is wholly positive—commemorative and typical—was, no doubt, put into the very midst of other constitutional precepts, in their nature moral, though then given as if positive, to rebuke those who would divide into two laws what God has joined into one. REVIEW OF FOURTH NEGATIVE.
For some reason my brother has found it more convenient to accuse me of dishonest dealing, and to declare how he has lost respect for me, than to test my statement by calling for the proffered names. No doubt, this is honorable and worthy of all respect. 1. Paul indeed says that we are yet “groaning for redemption,” but it is “for the redemption of our body;” i. e., for the consummation in ourselves what Christ has long since consummated for us. When Jesus “was delivered for our offenses, and was raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:25), he had completed the remedy for our sins. God could “be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” Jesus rested from the preparation of the remedy; it is ours now to take it and experience its salutary effects—“the redemption of our body,” &c., &c. “This man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down at the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till [as a result] his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he HATH perfected forever them that are sanctified.” Heb. 10:12–14. 2. Were it even true that I have nothing but inference, how would that disprove my argument in favor of the legitimacy of inference? “Is this reasoning?” 3. If the house of Rev. 1:10, is built on sand, “this is the Lord’s doing.” He, not I, must bear the blame. 4. The meaning of lego is material. Logia is the fruit of the tree legoo. “Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs?” My brief definition, on the basis of Liddell and Scott, is the substance of their longer one, and was given as such. 5. We are now informed that, in the sentence, “All the institutions of the gospel are positive,” of denotes origin. Glad to hear it. Perhaps Eld. W. can now see that when the lexicons say that kuriakos (Lordic), in Rev. 1:10, denotes of the Lord Jesus, as well as respecting him, they mean that the day originated with him. It is, hence, “of the gospel,” and so “positive.” After all, then, the “concession” is a concession. What “perversion!” yea, what “call for pity!” 6. “Jesus, the author and finisher of the faith,” is a literal version of Heb. 12:2. The article here is not the result of renewed mention, renewed from chap. 11, for that would make Jesus “the author and finisher” of the Mosaic dispensation! The article can here denote only that which is “the faith” by pre-eminence, namely, the gospel. As for 1 Cor. 2:9, 10, I did it no violence; Paul himself makes a present application of that quotation. To refer it to the future, this is “garbling,” ay, “wresting.” 7. I did not reason, says my brother, in my reply to his deduction of proprietorship from the statement that all things were made “for” Christ. Very true; absurdities are not to be reasoned with any more than air-castles are to be bombarded. They need but to be unmasked to die of their own ridiculousness. 8. The prophecy respecting new heavens and earth (Isa. 65), finds indeed a (second) fulfillment when applied as in 2 Pet. 2 and Rev. 21. This new heaven and earth know neither sin (Rev. 22:15) nor death (Rev. 21:4), whereas Isaiah speaks of both (verse 20). In the one they do not marry (Matt. 22:30); in the other, they bear children (Isa. 65:23). In the primary application of Isaiah’s new heavens and earth, the Jews reject the Saviour and the Gentiles accept the gospel (66:5, &c.); also the Jews, finally converted, will be successful missionaries among the Gentiles (verses 18–21). This marks it as primarily applying to the gospel dispensation. Nor can verse 23 be construed into a recognition of the existence of the Sabbath, any more than into that of the Jewish new-moon festival. “If Eld. Vogel gets there he will have to be converted from his present position!” Here we get a glimpse of Eld. W.’s uncharitable creed. A mistake of the head, however true the heart and devoted the life, will consign one to perdition! This may smack of “law,” but not of “grace.” See, too, how frequently he impugns the motives of all those not with him on the Sabbath question: “They are determined to be satisfied with it [the testimony for the first day], however contradictory it may be!” When a man forsakes the faith of his kind at the risk of his life, and for no other gain than the truth can yield, is he “determined” to be wrong? Shame on the pen that can write it. Having neither Jew nor Gentile, as such, in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28), it is only necessary that I prove the Lord’s day “commanded” upon Christians. My brother quotes from Campbell, Sherlock, Taylor, Goodman, Burnet, Owen, Hopkins, and Baxter, to the effect that only that which is commanded or required by the Lord is acceptable as a positive institution; and that all other institutions, of human origin, are will-worship and damnable. To this, I have all along given assent. His quotations are a waste of space. It must strike every reader that his space could have been better employed in pointing to numerous points against him, which he has now no more opportunity to notice. Regarding me as the representative of the “Christian” brotherhood, Eld. W. says: “His [my] acknowledgment that inference is his [my] only dependence, is their acknowledgment.” I have made no such acknowledgment, but have insisted that approved precedent or legitimate inference are satisfactory sources of proof. As Bro. Waggoner represents his brethren by special choice, his prevarication is their falsity. The quotations from Kitto, Campbell, &c., are not to the point. If he means anything to the purpose, he means that these men testify that there was no observance of the Lord’s day for several hundred years after Christ, they mean that there was no human legislation under Christian auspices till then. These quotations, then, are wholly foreign to the present proposition, which has only to do with what “the Scriptures teach.” I notice them only because introduced, and so lengthen this article beyond my first intention. Take an example or two. Buck not only says, in the same article quoted from, that “the first day of the week has always been observed by the Christian church,” but gives the N. T. reasons for its observance. And Mr. A. Campbell wrote in 1830: “The Jews were under a government of precepts—we are under a government of principles. Hence all was laid down to them in broad and plain commandments, duties, accurately defined to the utmost conceivable minutia; inasmuch that nothing was left to discretion—nothing to principle. There is nothing like this in the New Institution. We have no ritual,51liturgy, nor manual. The New Constitution and Law of Love do no more than institute the converting act, the Lord’s supper and the Lord’s day. . . . The Lord’s supper . . . and the Lord’s day . . . though positive institutions, are not presented to Christians accompanied with directions for the mode of celebration, as were the former institutions under the Jewish age. There were more directions about the celebration of the passover and the observance of the Sabbath, than are to be found in the whole new institution. Nay, indeed, there is nothing of the sort in the Christian economy. No mode of eating the supper, no mode of observing the Lord’s day is suggested in the apostolic writings. In this, Christians are left to the discretion of full grown men to the government of principle.” Chris. Baptist, p. 657. These views, Mr. Campbell maintained throughout his studious life. In the very year referred to by Eld. W., though I do not know where he got his quotation, Mr. Campbell wrote against Christmas because it is an “unauthorized tradition;” for, said he, tradition, in the department of religious life, “ought, above every other, to be most scrupulously avoided.” Mill. Harb. for 1848, p. 17. On page 280, he declares how he adopted the principle, in 1809, a principle held all his life, that “nothing ought to be received into the faith and worship of the church, or to be made a term of communion amongst Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament. Nor ought anything to be admitted as of divine obligation, in the church constitution and management, but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles upon the New-Testament church; either in express terms or by approved precedent.” Continuing this subject, he informs us, pp. 344–5, how this led him to canvass every subject anew, resulting in the rejection of infant baptism and affusion (he was a Presbyterian then), and in the retention of the Lord’s day. On but a single point, I will give a fragment of his reasoning, written more expressly in favor of weekly communion, but equally applicable to the Lord’s day, and so regarded by himself. “If he [Luke, Acts xx:7] had said that on a first day the disciples assembled to break the loaf, then I would admit that both the Sabbatarians, and the semi-annual or septennial communicants, might find some way of explaining this evidence away. The definite article is, in the Greek and in the English tongue, prefixed to stated times, and its appearance here is not merely definitive of one day, but expressive of a stated or fixed day.” Chris. System, p. 313. I take space to notice only a few points; the reader will remember the rest. I. Rev. 1:10, asserts in express terms that there is now a sacred day. Eld. W. has not only admitted this, but has further owned that this passage does not fix upon any day as that day, much less does it name the Sabbath. II. This sacred day is a new institution. The term Kuriakos (Lordic or “Lord’s”) asserts this in the most explicit manner, being just as decisive on this point as baptizo is on the action of baptism. 1. It is a new term, coined by the apostles, and so expresses a new idea. To this there has been no reply. I called in vain for a new feature in the Sabbatic institution, unexpressed in the Old Testament. 2. While the term Lord has been applied to both the Father and the Son, Kuriakos is never applied to the Father, or to any institution belonging or having belonged to Him; hence, the Lordic day is not the Sabbath day, but a Christian institution. III. Having the most explicit divine assurance of the existence of a new sacred day—not inference, but express statement—whatever may be necessary to the existence of such an institution, as express command or formal proclamation, is just as certainly known to have a real existence as a house is known to have a foundation. It is so necessary an inference that no express command could be stronger. “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” IV. When the existence of a new institution is not left to inference, there can be no reasonable objection to proving the time of its observance by good precedence and good inference. And this we have in all sufficiency. 1. Since no one has ever claimed or can claim any other day for this institution than either the seventh or the first day of the week, every argument offered in favor of a present binding force of the old Sabbatic institution, which monopolizes the seventh day, is an argument just as strong in favor of the first day as the time for this new institution. And this argument, so far as the first day is concerned, is intensified by every precedent and inference favoring the first day, so that it must always be stronger than that for the Sabbath can possibly be. 2. On the other hand, every argument for the abolition of the Sabbath is not only just so much proof for the Lordic day as a new institution, but the continued observance by Jewish converts for a time (if there be any such observance) of the Sabbath under the name of Sabbath, decides in favor of the first day for the new institution; and this decision is intensified by the precedents and inferences respecting the first day. 3. The first day is pointed out as a sacred day by the typical meaning of the Pentecost. 4. The first day is fraught with many stirring memories and most noted events pertaining to this dispensation, and so is pre-eminently suited for a commemorative institution. While fitness alone cannot prove the existence of a positive institution, yet, when that existence is known, fitness apprehended is a most beautiful drapery. 5. Analogy points to the fact that the rest which Christ’s death and resurrection bring us, is memorialized by the Lordic day. If, under the law, the Pentecost could silently point back to the giving of that law, who may deny a similar right to this institution, in its nature a thousand times more vocal? And now, indulgent reader, farewell. The Lord direct you into all truth, and bring you at last to his glorious presence. Amen. ELD. WAGGONER’S FIFTH NEGATIVE.
1. I much regret that the publishers in Quincy, Ill. omitted the Greek characters from my quotations from Clarke and Bloomfield on John 19:14. This not only obscures them, but entirely destroys the sense of my paragraph referring to them. On this point, Eld. Vogel’s conjecture as to how a change might have been made amounts to nothing. And it is but a poor relief that he can quote some authorities in his favor; for the reader will agree with me that a position denied by such scholars as Bloomfield, Clarke, Anderson, and “the best commentators,” as Bloomfield says, is hardly safe to rest upon as ground of inference for positive duty! 2. He seems to fear I will pursue an unwarranted course in closing, and plainly shows what he considers would be such, in saying he has made arguments which I have no more opportunity to notice! In this we have another measure of the man. As if he could present arguments at any time which I cannot answer, even to the close. It may gratify the curiosity of the reader to turn back and examine Eld. Vogel’s closing negative on the first proposition; but he will hardly realize the disagreeableness of the task of meeting a man who is so egotistical and arbitrary that he cannot endure to have another enjoy equal rights with himself. 3. His explanation of his position on Heb. 5:13, 14, leaves him worse than before. He compares his inferences to Paul’s “gathering” of “deductions,” when Paul was writing by direct inspiration! This shows the weakness and folly of his transferring to Paul the charge of “pious frauds.” It rests only on himself. 4. He objects to my quoting from Campbell and McGarvey, because the proposition relates to what “the Scriptures teach,” and hints of what he could have done had he understood the matter. But the reader will remember that in his very first affirmative he quoted twelve authorities and referred to four others, and especially recommended the writings of Campbell, and advertised them! I might properly have objected to his quoting mere human authorities to prove what “the Scriptures teach,” but when he fails to give an iota of Scripture proof for Sunday, I have a right to show its origin by any testimony I please. His “simplicity” is indeed great if he cannot see that his course is anything but creditable to himself, and betrays a consciousness of the weakness of his position. (Not to be excelled, I will do the favor to the reader, of saying of a book which Eld. V. mentioned, that the History of the Sabbath, by J. N. Andrews, is a thorough vindication of Bible truth, and an exposure of the fallacies of the Sunday theory, published at the REVIEW AND HERALD Office, Battle Creek, Mich. Send for a Catalogue.) 5. Without any just reason, for it was irrelevant, he referred to what somebody, unknown to us as either a speaker or writer, believed. But when I disprove his position by Campbell and McGarvey, lo! they acknowledge no human authority! But “McGarvey on Acts” is a recognized denominational work amongst them. And again I say, Omit his quotations from human authority, and his inferences would be too bald to be presentable. 6. Being “sons,” no “rules” for keeping Sunday are required! All that he has said on this subject may be adopted by the Catholic for every dogma of that church. As well might we say, that the “principle” of baptism being established, no rules are required to govern its observance, but we are left to our “deductions” for that. Let us see. 1. Sprinkling is spoken of by the prophet when referring to this dispensation—even sprinkling with water. 2. Peter based the reception of a promise upon baptism, and said, the promise is to you and to your children. 3. Following this, we find that whole households were baptized. From these, and others, I can frame a better inferential argument than Eld. V. has for Sunday, and sustain it by as many “great men.” Let him show some established facts before he apostrophizes the “memorable day.” Let him show that God blessed or sanctified it before he talks about “a blessed sacredness.” This is begging what he needs to prove; all “pretty talk,” but in an argument it is no higher than pious cant, and is fittingly rebuked by the words of the Saviour: “In vain do ye worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Campbell’s remarks, which he quotes about the Lord’s supper and the Lord’s day, are exceedingly faulty, and show that Campbell was inconsistent with himself. Because no prescribed form is given for eating the supper, therefore, no rule is required for keeping Sunday! But of the supper we have the express act and law of the institution; for the Sunday we have neither. A “babe” can see this difference. Again, there is no question as to whether the Lord could adopt the heathen traditions as Christian ordinances; but, is there proof that he has done it? That the heathen consecrated Sunday might not “estop the Lord,” but where is the proof that the Lord consecrated it? It does not exist, “and he knows it.” As to the use of bread and wine in the supper, the Lord expressly enjoined it; but not so of Sunday. In name, dedication, and observance, it is only of heathen origin. 7. He says the work of Jesus in redemption is finished “for us,” and “it is now ours to take it.” But can we “take” the redemption of the body, without a further direct work of Christ? See 1 Thess. 4. His quotations on the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice do not touch the point, and if he does not know it, it is but another evidence of his boasted “simplicity.” Can we resurrect ourselves by virtue of what Christ has done for us? And can we be saved without his present mediation? Reader, this is a fair sample of the evasions which I have had constantly to meet throughout this discussion. 8. He referred to my disproof of the grounds of his inference, and said the opposing lawyer might deny, but still the man was hanged on circumstantial evidence. But if the colleagues of the leading prosecutor should rise up and deny that the “circumstances” existed, as claimed, the opposing lawyer would not have much to meet! And this is exactly the case here. His inferences, which are his only dependence, I disprove by Sunday-keeping authors—men of, at least as much candor as Eld. Vogel, and far greater study and critical knowledge. The reader can readily see the weight of this point. 9. To affect indignation is more convenient than to explain the fact, or to disprove, that some “are determined to be pleased” with anything that favors Sunday. And if he is satisfied with his own argument, he presents a remarkable instance in himself. If I am wrong, why do such contradictions combine? Why are they “of the churches” so well pleased with his effort, when they deny the very foundation of his argument? Who will answer? And I would say to him, that a man may do many things at great hazard, which are good in themselves, and yet have an impure motive for other actions. I do not measure the truth by men, however good they may claim to be. God knows the heart, and he will judge all by “his commandments.” Eccl. 12:13, 14. Perhaps he has forgotten that Israel, at the hazard of their lives, braving the wrath of the king, confessed the Lord and left Egypt at his command, yet fell in the desert. And this is for “our admonition.” “Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.” 10. My “call for proof that the Jews ended their weeks at sunrising on Sunday will be unheeded.” I expected it, for what could he do where no proof exists? To say that he has given proof of it is simply an untruth. Having never seen any intimation of such a thing before, I referred it to some who, like Paul, have “profited in the Jew’s religion,” and are thoroughly acquainted with Hebrew literature, who unhesitatingly assert that the Jews had no such reckoning. He is deserving of something besides “pity” in this. The candid and God-fearing will look with suspicion upon a theory which is supported by such means. I cannot do this justice by any comment, and I leave it with all other “pious frauds” (minus the pious!) for which an account must be rendered to him who requires faithfulness in speaking his word, and who will crown only those who “strive lawfully.” Jer. 23:28; 2 Tim. 2:5. 11. There are no first and second fulfillments of the prophecy of the new creation, for there are not two new earths. Nor does Isa. speak of births in that prophecy, as Eld. V. asserts. My proofs on this point stand untouched, and are a complete refutation of his professed argument for Sunday as memorial. 12. He says Buck gives “five N. T. reasons” for Sunday keeping. But Buck acknowledges they do not amount to a “law,” and they are only of human devising. “The Scriptures” never give any reason for it, “and he knows it.” Learned men find more “reasons” than that for infant baptism, for the invocation of saints, for papal supremacy, &c., but they are not proof. “Do the Scriptures” give proof of the institution? That is what is demanded. I will now examine his several points of argument, as follows:— I. On the Lord’s day. He infers that the term refers to Christ only. It is but an inference, for it no more mentions Christ than it mentions the day of the week. But he laid the foundation for this inference in the wild statement that “the term Lord belongs exclusively to Christ in this dispensation.” To this I replied that it referred to the Father in more than three-score places in the N. T. Next, he said it referred to Christ in an “official sense;” that the Father “resigned, or gave this position to Christ during this dispensation, so that he is now ‘Lord of all.’” This is the climax of all his absurdities. The Father never “resigned” any position. He never held, “officially,” any position now occupied by Christ—he never was “mediator” as Christ now is. Christ is not now “Lord of all” to the exclusion of the Father, but is “by the right hand of God exalted,” that “men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father.” He said: “If Kurios refers to the personal appellation of Jesus (Acts 2:36), then Kuriakos signifies pertaining to Jesus as Lord.” If his assertion were true, that it refers exclusively to Christ, then this statement would be at least plausible; but it is not. Taking the Revelation alone, Kurios refers to the Father thirteen times; to the Son, five times; it is three times used where it may refer to either; once where it refers to neither. So far as facts are concerned, the testimony is entirely against him. Now I say—If Kurios refers to the appellation of the Father, as we know it does, then Kuriakos signifies pertaining to the Father. Having taken the text out of his hands, I will say, that I could admit all his claim without detriment to my position, for if it did refer only to Christ, I have already proved that Christ is Lord of the Sabbath, by his own words, and by the work of creation. But the disproof of his assertion here is fatal to his Sunday theory, for he does not pretend that sufficient evidence exists elsewhere for the “foundation” of his institution. With him, everything depends upon the correctness of his assertion that “the term Lord refers exclusively to Christ.” That being lost, his cause is lost beyond the possibility of recovery; for his assumed proof is only a “deduction,” and the line of his deduction rests upon an assertion which has not even a shadow of truth in it. I might safely rest the case here; but I will follow him further. II. Having assumed that the first day is the Lord’s day, without offering any Scripture proof, he next draws from 1 Cor. 16:2, that it was the day of Christian assemblies. But I have most conclusively proved, by Sunday-keeping authorities (in this sense I used “partisans”), that nothing of the kind is found in this text; that the inference is forbidden by the construction of the scripture. And, again, while his proposition depends upon the correctness of his inference, which I have disproved, I might admit his statement without detriment to my position; for the text does not speak of the Lord’s day, nor of the sacredness of any day, nor of anything peculiar to a sacred day, even if they had to assemble to perform the duty indicated. III. He infers that Acts 20:7, shows the first day to be a day of observance, whereas it does not speak of the Lord’s day; it does not speak of a sacred day; nor of the observance of any day. Not a fact is stated in this chapter inconsistent with my position on the Sabbath, or true Lord’s day. Not a fact is stated to sustain his inferences. On the contrary, it is clear that it was not observed by Paul and his companions as a day of rest, or “sacredly observed;” having kept the Sabbath with the church at Troas, and being about to continue on his journey on the morning of first-day, he has a parting meeting with them on the evening of that day. To evade these facts, Eld. V. claims a change in the reckoning of the day, based on two points: (1) On John 19:14, which is proved untenable by the best authorities; and (2) That the Jews ended the week at sunrise on Sunday morning; a statement which ought to cause his face to mantle with shame. That Paul traveled on that Sunday is admitted by McGarvey, a Disciple Commentator. On this I might multiply authorities, but it is not necessary. I will mention only that Conybeare, so often referred to approvingly by Eld. V., also admits it. And, in regard to Eld. Vogel’s last assertion that Paul traveled on both Sabbath and first-day previous to his arrival at Troas, I answer: it was a voyage which he had once sailed over in two days. See Acts 16:11; Conybeare and Howson, chap. 20, p. 591. As it was but a two days’ sail, there is no evidence that they were sailing on the Sabbath; or, otherwise, they were delayed by unpropitious weather: for, had they made the journey direct, in the ordinary time, without hindrance, they would have arrived at Troas at least a full day before the Sabbath. But how different his journey from Troas, which was commenced by deliberate determination on the first day of the week. IV. He claims a recognition—mark, not even a mention—of the first day by the Holy Spirit descending on that day. Were this true it would not prove a recognition of the sacredness of the day, nor of the duty to observe the day, for no mention is made of either. And, the Spirit descended on other days besides that. But, the truth is, that Pentecost was not on first-day. This appears by the concession of the best authorities, and also by the fallacy of Eld. Vogel’s argument on Leviticus. Briefly I will notice his exposition of Lev. 23:— a. He says it was not “the morrow of the paschal sabbath,” but, as he gathers from the Greek, “the morrow of the first day.” But, then, of course, it would be second day; for “the morrow of the first day” could no more be first day, than “the morrow of the Sabbath” could be the Sabbath. b. But the first day is not there, either in Hebrew or Greek. That is another fiction of his romantic brain. c. The article is used only in that verse, because Sabbath is in predicate in every other instance in that chapter, and therefore the article is understood “by construction.” d. Every day is a “holy convocation” on which a solemn assembly is convened. See verses 1–3. e. Analogy is all against the Sunday in Acts 2, even granting the day, for the Holy Spirit did not mention it, but the Pentecost, which means the fiftieth. Therefore if a day was to be honored and perpetuated it was that fiftieth day, which surely does not come weekly! It needs a reason for continuing a fulfilled yearly type by a weekly observance! f. Were it admitted that it was Sunday, it would disprove his reckoning, for he says it was the day succeeding the Sabbath, which ended at sunset. But he says the Sunday begins at sunrise: if that were true, there was an entire night of about twelve hours between the close of the seventh day and the beginning of first day! which is only equalled in absurdity by his cutting one night in two at midnight, and calling it two different nights! See his argument on the Passover. g. If it was the weekly Sabbath, as he avers, then we have inspiration recognizing the Sabbatic character of the seventh day, seven weeks after the resurrection, which is a direct proof such as he would be glad to find for the first day. For, h. If the seventh-day Sabbath were abolished at the cross, as he averred, there could be no morrow after the Sabbath, seven weeks thereafter. The morrow after a day that did not exist would be only a myth. But again, the best authors admit that Pentecost was not Sunday, but the Sabbath; this admission is made even by eminent Sunday advocates, which they would not make did not the facts compel them to do so. Dr. Clarke says not a word upon the subject, which is an argument of itself; for he never failed to note when an inference could be drawn for Sunday. Prof. Hackett says: “It is generally supposed that this Pentecost, signalized by the outpouring of the Spirit, fell on the Jewish Sabbath, our Saturday.”—Com. on Original Text. Barnes says: “If the views of the Pharisees were followed, and the Lord Jesus had with them kept the Passover on Thursday, as many have supposed, then the day of Pentecost would have occurred on the Jewish Sabbath, our Saturday. Kuinoel, Lightfoot. It is impossible to determine the truth on this subject, nor is it of much importance.” Jennings, in Jewish Antiquities, says: “Since Christ eat his last passover on the same day with the rest of the Jews, as we have already proved, namely, on the fourteenth of Nisan, which was Thursday; the next day, on which he was crucified, must be the feast of unleavened bread; therefore the sixteenth day, the Saturday, was the first day of the seven weeks betwixt that and the Pentecost; consequently the fiftieth day, or the morrow after the seventh sabbath or week, which was the day of Pentecost, must fall on the Saturday, or the Jewish Sabbath.” Olshausen says: “Now, since, according to the accounts given regarding the time of the feast, the passover, in the year of our Lord’s death, fell so that the first day of the feast fell from Thursday evening at six o’clock till Friday evening at the same hour, it follows of course that it was from Friday evening at six o’clock that the fifty days began to be counted. The fiftieth day fell, therefore, it appears, upon Saturday.” Ripley, in his Notes says it “cannot be satisfactorily decided.” Smith, Bib. Dict., says it is a point disputed, but favors the view that it was the Sabbath. All these, as well as many others from whom I might quote, are strenuous Sunday men, and, knowing the use that is made of it, would have placed it upon Sunday would the facts allow. And to assert confidently, and make it the basis of duty, as does Eld. Vogel, that it was Sunday, is an unwarranted and bold proceeding, calculated to lead away from the revealed will of God. It may be asked, if we believe that it was the Sabbath, why we do not use it as an argument for that day. I answer, We do not need it. We have the commandment of God, and his own express reason, for keeping it, and there is no requirement to keep it because the Spirit descended upon it. Such conjectures we leave for those who delight to deal in them, or find them necessary to their cause. In “the law and the testimony” we are “thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” And now, dear readers, I appeal at once to your reason and to your consciences: Are you willing to risk your acceptance with God on such a doubtful foundation as has been laid for the Sunday? I leave to your judgment the evidences of the Edenic origin of the Sabbath, of the perpetuity of the moral law, and of the recognition of the Sabbath by inspiration in the New Testament; while not a single fact has been given, not a precedent established, nor a necessary inference produced to prove that Sunday is to be “sacredly observed.” In the entire absence of testimony in its favor, every scripture is reasonably and justly interpreted without the forced construction of making them allude to something which cannot be proved to have an existence. Consenting to engage in this discussion in the midst of other pressing labor, traveling most of the time, so that but few of the articles reached me at any one post-office, away from my library and books of reference, I have regretted my unfavorable circumstances for such a work. The opposition has been presented as forcibly as it can be. But this investigation, under these conditions, has strongly confirmed my faith in the ten commandments as the moral law, and the perpetual obligation of the Sabbath of the Lord our God, and of the utter futility of the attempt to establish, by “the Scriptures,” the Sunday as a day of observance. Eld. Vogel assured me that he had “something new and better” than the old Sunday arguments; but in that respect I have been disappointed. The same old round of inferences has been traversed, showing conclusively that the opposition to the holy Sabbath has exhausted its resources without finding any proof that the Sunday is a gospel institution. As you make your decision on the question, remember that another decision is yet to be made. “When God shall bring every work into judgment,” your decision will be passed upon. If you decide in harmony with the revealed will of God, that day will confirm and establish your choice. But if you decide contrary to “the statutes of Heaven,” that day will reverse your decision, without leaving it possible for you to correct your errors. May God, by the aid of his Holy Spirit, enable you so to judge, so to act and to live, that of you the angel may proclaim: “Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12.