The seventh day of the week is the only weekly Sabbath of God's appointment
By J. W. Morton
My fourth reason for believing this proposition is, That God has never blessed and sanctified any day of the week but the seventh. In sustaining this reason, as I occupy negative ground, I shall simply defend it against your usual scripture arguments in defense of your favorite doctrine, that God blessed and sanctified the first day of the week, in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ. In arguing this doctrine, you do not pretend to offer positive, but only inferential proof. You quote certain texts, and say, Hence we infer that the first day of the week is the Sabbath. Now, as there are many possible, and even plausible, inferences, that are not necessarily true, I intend to be governed, in the examination of your scripture proofs, by the following rule of interpretation:— "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture." Brethren, I intend, with God's help, to show that, according to the above rule, which you admit to be correct, all your inferences in favor of a first-day Sabbath are unnecessary, and some of them wholly inadmissible. Psalm cxviii, 22, 24—"The stone which the builders refused is become the head-stone of the corner." "This is the day which the Lord hath made, we will rejoice and be glad in it." Acts iv, 10, 11—"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." You premise, that "the day which the Lord hath made" is the day of the resurrection of Christ.—Whence you infer, that the first day of the week is the Sabbath. 1. If what you premise were true, the inference does not follow. The prophet does not say, We will rejoice and be glad in the same day of every week; but, We will rejoice and be glad in it, that is, in that day, whatever it may be. Now Christ did not rise on the first day of every week, but on one single day; and we may very well rejoice and be glad in that one day, without keeping any Sabbath in connection with it. Abraham rejoiced and was glad in the day of Christ; but he kept no Sabbath in honor of it. So, doubtless, you rejoice and are glad in the day of his crucifixion, though you do not celebrate it on any particular day of the week. But— 2 You are evidently mistaken in referring this language of the Psalmist to the resurrection of Christ—for the following reasons:— First—Because "the day which the Lord hath made" is the same in which Christ went in by the gates of righteousness. Verses 19 and 20. "Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the Lord. This gate of the Lord, into which the righteous shall enter." Now, though Christ did come up from "the gates of death" on the day of his resurrection, he did not formally "enter" by the gates of his righteousness, till that day when he ascended from Mount Olivet, which was not the first day of the week.—His almighty power and eternal Sonship were declared most gloriously on the day of his resurrection; but it was on the day of his ascension that his mediatorial righteousness was formally approved by the Father; while it was visibly manifested, in the presence of the universe, that the door of heaven had been opened to all true believers. Then shouted the seraphim, and all the host of heaven, while the door-posts of the New Jerusalem trembled at the voice, "Arise, O Jehovah, into thy rest, thou, and the ark of thy strength. Let thy priests be clothed with righteousness; and let thy saints shout for joy!" Therefore, this is not the day of Christ's resurrection, but that of his ascension. Second—Because "the day which the Lord hath made" is the same in which "the stone which the builders refused" became the head-stone of the corner, (verse 22.) Christ did not become the head of the corner, till he sat down on the right hand of God. You assert that he did, and refer to Acts iv, 10, 11, quoted above, as proof. From what the apostle there sets forth, you draw the inference, that, as he was set at nought by the builders, when he was crucified, so he became the head of the corner, when God raised him from the dead. The apostle does not say, however, that this took place on the same day that he rose from the dead; and all that we must necessarily infer from what he does say, is, that he became the head of the corner since his resurrection, which is cheerfully admitted. But whether it was on the same day, or two, or ten, or forty days after, the apostle saith not. Still your inference would be entirely natural and proper, if it were not contrary to the analogy of faith, and to the teachings of the same spirit in other parts of the Scriptures. I suppose it will be admitted, that when Christ became the head of the corner, he became "the head over all things to the church," and that then all things were put under his feet. Now the apostle clearly teaches, that these things took place when he sat down on the right hand of God, as appears from the following texts:— Eph. i, 20-22—"Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, (or, having raised him from the dead,) and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church." Heb. ii, 8, 9—"But now we see not yet all things put under him (man;) but we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor."—Observe that the Apostle's great object in this epistle is, to show that Christ is in heaven, forever interceding for the church. Now, is it not manifest from these texts, that Christ became the head of the corner when he ascended to his Father and our Father, to his God and our God? Nor is there any thing in Acts iv, 10, 11, that contradicts this idea. Brethren, the glorious building of grace has its foundation, not on earth, where we are pilgrims and strangers, but in heaven, where Jesus, the corner stone, elect and precious, sitteth at the right hand of God, and is constantly occupied in gathering from afar the "lively stones" of the glorious edifice. Blessed forever be his holy name! John xx, 19, 26—"Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." "And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you." See also Luke xxiv, 26. You premise, that the disciples, on the two days referred to above, one of which certainly was, and the other may have been, the first day of the week, had met together for public or social worship, when Christ appeared to them. Whence you infer, that the first day of the week is the Sabbath. Now, what you premise seems to be a mere assumption, for which there is not a shadow of proof, either in the text or context. No one of the Evangelists says that they met for worship; nor did they worship, so far as we know, when met together. In regard to the first of those occasions, we are told, that they "were assembled for fear of the Jews;" and, as to the second, we are simply informed, that they "were within," which means, probably, that they were at home; for Luke tells us, that, on the day of the ascension, the eleven abode in an upper room. Acts i, 13. Again, your inference is not necessary; for the matter may be explained thus: On the day of the resurrection, the eleven, having procured a162common lodging-room, "assembled for fear of the Jews," and Christ appeared to them before the close of the same day, in order that they, who were to be witnesses of his resurrection, might have ocular demonstration of the fact, that he rose according to the scriptures. On the other occasion, "after eight days," he met them, probably, as they sat at meat, [Mark xvi, 14,] because Thomas, who had not seen him since his resurrection, was then with them. These reasons are surely sufficient to account for his appearing on those occasions. But why demand reasons at all? Had he not a right to meet his disciples on any day of the week that he chose, without telling us why? Can you tell us why he appeared to the brethren when they were fishing? Christ has done many things for which the only reason we can give is, that it seemed good to him. Acts ii, 1.—"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place." Your premises are—1. That the feast of Pentecost fell that year on the first day of the week. 2. That the disciples were, for that reason, with one accord in one place. Whence you infer, that the first day of the week is the sabbath. I reply:— Whether the feast of Pentecost fell that year on the first day of the week, or not, the disciples did not meet to keep the Sabbath, but to celebrate Pentecost. They would have been in like manner "with one accord in one place," if it had been the fourth day of the week, because it was the day of Pentecost. Therefore, your inference is not only unnecessary, but wholly inadmissible. Acts xx, 7.—"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; and continued his speech until midnight." Your premise, that the disciples came together, in this instance, to celebrate the Lord's Supper, and to hear the word. Whence you infer, that the first day of the week is the Sabbath. What you premise is very uncertain; for:— 1. There is no evidence that they met to hear the word. The object of the meeting was "to break bread," and the preaching of Paul seems to have been incidental, and not by appointment. 2. It is not certain that to break bread means to partake of the Lord's Supper. The Greek word, translated, to break, is used very often in the New Testament in reference to ordinary meals. An instance occurs in Luke xxiv, 35:—"And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread." But if what you assert were true, your inference is not necessary; for:— 1. It is entirely proper, for ought we know to the contrary, to celebrate the Lord's Supper and hear preaching on any day of the week. 2. Perhaps this meeting was held at that particular time, because the Apostle and his company were "ready to depart on the morrow." It was probably a farewell meeting, as many learned men think, and the text itself seems to hint. 3. There is not one word said in the text about Sabbath-keeping; nor is there the least intimation, either in the text or context, that the disciples were accustomed to meet on the first day of the week for any purpose whatever. But you say, Paul waited there seven days, and we have no account of his preaching till the last night of his stay, which was the first of the week. We reply: This is no evidence that he did not preach during the other six days. Luke tells us, in this same chapter, verses 3 and 5, that "he came into Greece, and there abode three months;" and he does not say that he preached once during that time. But a small part, indeed, of the doings of the Apostles is recorded. It is a remarkable fact, that this text, which is the only one in the New Testament that speaks of public religious exercises on the first day of the week, is, at the same time, the only one in the Bible that directly proves, that this day is not the Sabbath. I have already proposed to give up the argument in favor of the seventh day, if you produce one apostolic example of unnecessary labor performed therein. Will you give up your argument for the first day on the same condition? I believe this verse furnishes such an example. The text proves nothing for you, if Paul's sermon and the breaking of bread were not on the first day. The sermon was preached between evening and midnight, and the bread was broken between midnight and break of day, and then Paul set out on his journey. According to the Roman method of computing time, the breaking of bread, at least, was in the morning of the same day in which Paul traveled from Troas to Assos, and thence to Mitylene; and, according to the Jewish method, the sermon, the breaking of bread and the journey from Troas to Mitylene, were all within the compass of the same "first day of the week." That Luke should follow the unnatural Roman method, is so unlikely as hardly to be supposable. Now, if Paul traveled unnecessarily from Troas to Mitylene, as it seems he did, on the first day of the week, surely that day was not then the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. This text, therefore, proves positively that the first day is not the Sabbath, on which account it is of no little value in this controversy. 1 Cor. xvi, 2.—"Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." Your premises are: 1. That the Apostle here commands the Corinthians to make public collections on the first day of the week. 2. That, therefore, public assemblies were accustomed to be held on that day. Whence you infer, that the first day of the week is the Sabbath. I deny both your premises. The Apostle simply orders, that each one of the Corinthian brethren should lay up at home some portion of his weekly gains on the first day of the week. The whole question turns upon the meaning of the expression, "by him," and I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it means in the collection box of the congregation. Greenfield, in his Lexicon, translates the Greek term, "by one's self, i. e., at home." Two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that of Castellio, render it, "apud se," with one's self at home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacy "chez soi," at his own house, at home. The German of Luther, "bei sich selbst," by himself at home. The Dutch, "by hemselven," same as the German. The Italian of Diodati, "appresso di se," in his own presence, at home. The Spanish of Felipe Scio, "en su casa," in his own house. The Portuguese of Ferreira, "para isso," with himself. The Swedish, "nær sig sielf," near himself. I know not how much this list of authorities might be swelled, for I have not examined one translation that differs from those quoted above. Now, if your premises are false, your inference is not only unnecessary but wholly inadmissible. Rev. i, 10.—"I was in the spirit on the Lord's day." Your premise, that the "Lord's day" is the first day of the week. Whence you infer, that the first day of the week is the Sabbath. You here assume the principal point in dispute, namely, that God has appointed the first day of every week to be kept in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ. Is every Friday the Lord's day, because he was crucified on Friday? You answer, No. Is every Thursday the Lord's day, because he ascended on Thursday? You answer, No. So, when you ask, is every first day of the week the Lord's day, because he rose on the first day? I answer, No. And is it too much that I should ask you to prove your assumption? I have never yet met with an attempt to prove it. But, were this even proved, your inference would not be necessary. The first day might be the Lord's day, and yet not the Sabbath. Would the bare mention of this day by the Apostle John, even if it were certain that he referred to the first day of the week, repeal or alter the fourth commandment? Certainly not. But you ask, What day did he mean? I reply, Most probably he meant the seventh, since we know from several scriptures that this is in fact the Lord's day. See Neh. ix, 14; Isa. lviii, 13. But you ask again, Why did he not say the Sabbath, if he meant it? I reply by asking you, Why did he not say the first day, if he meant it? Brethren, who can say, that, from any or all of the texts commented upon above, the inference is necessary, that the first day of the week is, and that the seventh is not, holy? But this is precisely what you infer from them. On the sole authority of these passages, together with that one in which Christ says, that he is "Lord of the Sabbath," you have no hesitation in affirming that the first day of the week is the very Sabbath day spoken of in the fourth commandment, and that the seventh day of the week is not now more holy than any other; or, in other words, that the blessing which God put upon it in the beginning, [Gen. ii, 21,] has been taken from it, and given to another day. What! because "there remaineth a sabbatism to the people of God," therefore the seventh day must have ceased to be the Sabbath! Because "we will be glad and rejoice" in "the day which the Lord hath made," therefore the seventh day must have ceased to be holy! Because Christ showed himself to his disciples once or twice on the first day of the week, therefore the seventh day cannot be the Sabbath! Because the Pentecostal effusion of the Holy Ghost happened on the first day of the week, as is clearly demonstrated by arithmetical calculation, therefore the seventh day cannot claim to be the Sabbath! Because the disciples met once "to break bread" on the first day of the week, therefore God must have unsanctified the seventh day! Because the Corinthian and Galatian Christians were commanded to "lay by them in store" on the first day of the week, for the relief of the poor saints, therefore the seventh day can be nothing more than a working day! Because John was "in the spirit on the Lord's day," therefore the seventh day cannot be "the Lord's day," as it used to be! Because Jesus Christ is "Lord of the Sabbath," and has the right to change it, or even to annihilate it, (?) therefore the seventh day must have ceased to be a day of rest! O brethren, you dare not say, that any of these inferences flow from the Scriptures as necessary consequences. But if they are not necessary—if there is any way of avoiding them, without doing violence either to the text or context—how can you ask me to believe that the first day is, and that the seventh is not, holy? "The Sabbath was made for man." I am a man; therefore, the Sabbath was made for me. God has blessed and sanctified the seventh day of the week, and commanded me to keep it holy for that reason; therefore, as long as the seventh day continues to be divinely blessed and sanctified, I am bound to keep it holy. But it is nowhere said in the Bible that God has removed the blessing from this day, or that he has unsanctified it. You say so, indeed; but you are neither the authors nor the finishers of my faith; nor will your unsupported assertion, a thousand times repeated, amount to a divine revelation. If you assert that it is the will of God that I should cease to regard the seventh day as holy, I ask, Where is this revealed? What Prophet or Apostle has said so, directly or indirectly? It is not enough for you to answer, that the first day has been blessed and sanctified, as a memorial of the work of redemption. That assertion, if it were true, would not prove that the seventh day is not holy. No, brethren, your own conscience must tell you, that there is not one syllable in the Bible on which to ground the doctrine that God has unsanctified the seventh day of the week. But one of your ministers has told me, that God did not bless and sanctify any particular day of the week, but only the Sabbath Institution. To this I have only to say, "Let God be true, and every man a liar." The Holy Ghost says, [Gen. ii, 2,] "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it;" and again, [Ex. xx, 11,] "Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-DAY, and hallowed it." Now, if you assert, with these scriptures staring you in the face, that God never blessed and sanctified any particular day, but only the Sabbath Institution, do you not make God a liar, in order to excuse your own rebellion? O brethren, I perceive that these texts are an eye-sore to you, and that in your hearts you wish they were out of the Bible. If you loved them you would not flatly contradict them. I appeal to your own consciousness, is it not your great effort, when you take up the fourth commandment, to convince yourselves and others, that God's Spirit does not mean what he says, in as plain language as any Sabbatarian could employ; that is, that the 'seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.' And, when you take up these passages in the New Testament, which have been considered above, do you not labor to convince yourselves, that the same Spirit does mean what he does not say; that is, that the first day is the Sabbath? You do not believe that what God says a dozen times, or more, can be true; but you are sure, that what he does not say ever once is infallibly true, and that nothing but stupidity or scepticism would presume to doubt it. When you are told that the seventh day is the Sabbath, and the testimony of God's Spirit, plainly uttered in one dozen passages, together with the uniform practice of the church as long as we can trace the inspired history of the Sabbath, is offered in proof of the assertion, you shut your eyes, and declare that you can see nothing, and that all this proves nothing. But when you tell me, that the first day is, and that the seventh is not, the Sabbath, and quote, as proof, Acts xx, 7, and a few other passages, not one of which says one word about the Sabbath, or the seventh day, or a day of rest, or holy time, or exercises which are proper only on the Sabbath, you affirm, that you have proved your position beyond all doubt, and that the only reason why I cannot see the evidence is because the vail of Judaism is over my eyes. The moral law says, 'The seventh day is the Sabbath;' but you say, 'No, the seventh day is not the Sabbath; you do not understand the law; you mistake its meaning.' Neither this law, nor any other in the Bible, says, 'The first day is the Sabbath.' Notwithstanding, you dare to lift up your hands, and swear by the living God, that the first day is the Sabbath. But this is not all. O! that it were! The Holy Ghost has said, not only in the record that God made on Adam's heart, and in the covenant of works, but also in the written law given at Mount Sinai, and in several other passages of Scripture, 'The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.' But you have repeatedly sworn by the infinite, eternal, and unchangeable Jehovah, that this assertion is not true—that the seventh day is not the Sabbath of the Lord our God—that it is a common working day. Because I can no longer join you in this heaven-daring oath, you have declared me unworthy of the confidence of a Christian people, and forbidden me to perform any longer the functions of a missionary of the cross. You have told the church, that, having violated my ordination vows, I have forfeited my ministry, and that my seat at the Lord's table is vacant. You have thus flung upon the heedless winds the mad-dog cry of 'suspended minister,' 'covenant-breaker,' and 'disturber of the church's peace.' But think not, brethren, beloved in the Lord, that the treatment which I have received at your hands shall deter me from proclaiming what I believe to be God's truth, as God may give me utterance. That you wish to do what is right, I do not doubt. That you believe you do God's service in thrusting me from your Christian embraces, is evident enough. That many of you love me yet, and pray for me, I can not hope. But that you all sin in not searching the Scriptures daily to see whether these things are so, I do firmly believe. And now, brethren, I cannot close this treatise without uttering a word of warning to every one of you, which will, I fear, be very generally disregarded by you. Yet wo is me if I utter it not!—Do not, I beseech you, be angry at any thing I have written, or refuse to hear my parting words because I am a suspended minister. You have loaded me with reproach, not because I have committed any crime, but because I have plead for the integrity and immutability of the moral law,—I am neither a thief, nor a murderer, nor a robber of churches, but I do most firmly believe, that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord my God, and that you, and all others who do not keep it holy, are guilty before God of a gross violation of the moral law. And can I, under those circumstances, regard your reproaches as a legitimate expression of the Divine displeasure? No. That I am really unworthy of the gospel ministry, I confess. That I am not sufficient for these things, I know. But, after having been regularly called to this responsible work, I will not be driven from it, for such a cause. Know then, ye rulers in the house of God, that I am still a minister of Jesus Christ, sent forth to proclaim the terrors of God's law to the rebellious and impenitent, and to promise the grace of the gospel to the penitent and believing. Know also, ye professors of the Christian religion who neglect the sanctification of the seventh day, and especially ye ministers of Jesus who 'teach men so,' that you make dark what God has made plain; that you pluck out of the hand of God's schoolmaster one of these rods wherewith he would lash the carnal heart; that you hide one of God's candles under a bushel, and compass yourselves about with sparks, and a fire of your own kindling; that you provoke the Holy Spirit, in rejecting his testimony, and teaching for doctrine the commandments of men. Yes, brethren, though my words fall upon your ears as an idle tale that you believe not, I declare to you, in the name of Him whom your doctrine dishonors and your philosophy insults—in the name of that suspended Minister, to whom all the ends of the earth shall look for salvation—that, if you repent not, the Holy Ghost will bear witness against you, in the awful day of retribution, that you have refused his words, and that you have 'put darkness for light, and light for darkness!' Think not that I am your enemy, because I thus speak. Think not that I have no confidence in your piety, because I rebuke you sharply. Think not that I am proud, boastful, and self-confident, because I dare to approach you, who are vastly my superiors in knowledge, and remind you of your duty. I would gladly have avoided this public exhibition of my sentiments. Had it been possible to withhold my testimony, you would never have seen these pages. But 'necessity is laid upon me.' And think not, I beseech you, that I am against the church of our Redeemer, or would hinder her prosperity, because I oppose a human institution which Christians very generally observe: 'If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.'