p. 44 | SUNDAY ABANDONED

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 31, 1879

SUNDAY ABANDONED.

Strange as it may appear, Messiah’s Herald, a staunch advocate of the sacredness of Sunday, in its issue of July 2, 1879, prints the following from P. R. Russell, who is, also strange to say, a Baptist minister:—

“The common ground taken by theologians that the seventh-day Sabbath was transferred to Christianity, but changed to the first day of the week, is without authority, and based on mere assumption. The law designates the identical day of the week, as well as its design, and expressly says: ‘The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;’ not that one seventh part of time is Sabbath, but the seventh day of the week. . . . The seventh-day Sabbath, as given to the Jews, was designed for universal and perpetual observance, or it was not. If it was of this character, then it is still in full force and binding, both in its letter and spirit, and Christian Sabbatarians are right. If their premises are correct, their logic is an iron chain, and all who observe Sunday as a decalogue Sabbath, are bound hand and foot in error, and if consistent, must and should come round and obey the law, which they admit has never been annulled or repealed.”

This is a frank admission that those who reject the seventh-day Sabbath, must likewise reject the whole decalogue. Fearful step! Why will men cling to a theory which leads to such terrible conclusions, for the sake of avoiding the Sabbath of the Lord!

Speaking of Sunday as the Lord’s day, Mr. Russell makes another confession which is fatal to the idea that any obligation attaches to the observance of Sunday. He says: “It was not the seventh-day Sabbath, changed and transferred. It was never so expressed or regarded by the apostles or the early church fathers. On the contrary it was a new institution, born of Christianity, and took the place, in some respects, of the Jewish Sabbaths.”

If then Sunday is a purely Christian institution, like baptism and the Lord’s supper, it is binding upon no one, and no one has a right to it, but professing Christians. But these same Christians are the first to try to enjoin Sunday-keeping upon all men alike, under the plea that it is one of the universal laws of God. “Consistency,” etc.

Baptism and the Lord’s supper were enjoined upon his people in the most express terms and acts, by Christ himself, as Christian institutions. If Sunday is likewise a Christian institution, is it not a little singular that Christ never said one word about it, never rested on the day, never gave his disciples any instruction in regard to it, never caused them to rest upon it, or legislate in its behalf, or leave one hint of its sanctification or sacredness? Shame on these attempts to establish this interloper as a Christian Sabbath in the Christian church, in behalf of which neither precept nor example can be found in all the Bible. Sunday-keepers in this age are finding the most tremendous task upon their hands that has ever fallen upon any people: it is nothing less than to find evidence where none exists, and show some support for an institution which is absolutely without the shadow of a foundation.