p. 1 | THE SABBATH by J. N. Andrews

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Jun 24, 1852

THE SABBATH.

By J. N. Andrews

LETTERS TO O. R. L. CROZIER.—NO. IV.

DEAR SIR:—Having carefully weighed the testimony bearing on the present subject in this investigation thus far, we find several great truths plainly stated, and clearly established.

1. God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath at Creation. Gen. ii, 2, 3; Ex. xx, 11.

2. He made it known to the Hebrews in the most solemn manner. Neh. ix, 13, 14.

3. The fourth commandment of the royal law embodies this sacred institution, and renders it as immutable as that law. Rom. iii, 31; Luke xvi, 17; Ex. xx; James ii, 8—12.

4. "The Sabbath was made for man"—the entire human family; or, if you like it better with the article translated, "for THE man", Adam, the head of the human family, and consequently for all his posterity. Mark ii, 27.

5. The entire family of the redeemed under the reign of "the Lord of the Sabbath," the second Adam, shall assemble to worship before Jehovah, from Sabbath to Sabbath. Isa. lxvi, 22, 23.

6. The Lord Jesus Christ kept the ten commandments. John xv, 10; 1 John iii, 4, 5; John viii, 29, 46.

7. Christ lays down the keeping of the commandments as the condition of entering eternal life. Matt. v, 17—19; xix, 16, 17; Rev. xxii, 14.

To this I may be permitted to add, that not the first particle of evidence (that can stand the test of investigation) ever has been, or ever can be presented to prove that Christ violated the fourth commandment.

Whether the book of Acts is in harmony with these great truths, (if I may be pardoned for allowing such a point to be questioned,) or whether the apostles violated the commandments and taught men so, is the question next in order, in continuing this investigation in the New Testament.

Your effort to prove that the fourth article of God's constitution was nothing more than a Jewish ordinance, which Christ relaxed, and which his disciples violated, being an entire failure, as the reverse is true in every respect, we wish now to ascertain how many of the excuses which you presented from the book of Acts, in your Bible class report, to screen yourself in violating the fourth commandment, you have been able to gather up and present again.

In that report you attempted to explain away the various acts of the apostles which evinced their regard for the fourth commandment; you also attempted to prove that they broke the fourth commandment; and finally that they preferred the first day of the week, (which from remote antiquity the heathen have devoted to the worship of the sun, and which at a later period the Popes have made into a sabbath,) in the place of the Sabbath of Jehovah, which at Creation he hallowed for the human family.

These inferences were so faithfully exposed in the review of your report, that in this reply, you do not attempt to maintain the second point, viz: that the apostles broke the Sabbath; nor yet the third point, viz: that the apostles preferred Sunday to the hallowed Rest-day of the Creator. Being obliged to admit that their acts were in harmony with the fourth commandment, you gravely assure your readers that the Review cannot prove that the apostles kept it for its own sake, but you insinuate that they did it on account of the Jews. You attempt to blind your readers to the fact that you have not been able to present a single fraction of evidence that the fourth commandment is relaxed or abolished, and that you are not able so to do in this book, by calling on me to show where the apostles commanded that the Sabbath should be kept. But your remarks shall be noticed in their order. You commence as follows:

"The Review next attempts to answer our argument on the Acts of the Apostles. On this part of the subject, it says much at random, but presents no valid evidence that the Apostles kept the Sabbath for its sake, nor that they ever enjoined its observance upon others. Why does it not produce such evidence? Because it does not exist. Then, why does it, so unlike the apostles, urge the Sabbath upon others?—What right has it to thus go beyond Christ and his apostles in this matter? It makes Sabbath breaking the climax of sins; but they never speak of it as a wrong. It makes the Sabbath the very chief of divine precepts for all time; they never once mention it as of any authority whatever. Certainly it is not christian to be thus in direct array against Christ and his apostles. The piety of those who occupy such a position is not christian piety: Christ is not divided against himself! The Review virtually assumes to correct Christ and his apostles, and to amend and enlarge the laws he established to govern the christian church. Let those countenance this high-handed assumption, who dare, under the awful woe of Rev. xxii. 18!"

On the above I remark:

1. The "attempt to answer your argument on the Acts of the apostles" was, at least, so far successful that it silenced two of the three points that you attempted to maintain, viz: apostolic violation of the fourth commandment, and apostolic preference for Sunday.

2. Attention is called to the facts recorded respecting the Sabbath in the book of Acts. (1.) Paul and Barnabas spent the Sabbath in preaching to the Jews. By request of the Gentiles, they spend the next Sabbath in preaching to them. Acts xiii, 14, 42, 44.—(2.) Paul spends the Sabbath by a river-side preaching to Gentiles. Acts xvi, 13.—(3.) Paul, as HIS MANNER WAS, three Sabbath-days reasoned out of the Scriptures. Acts xvii, 2.—(4.) In the account of Paul's sojourn at Corinth, (the very place where you have attempted to show that the disciples were accustomed to meet on Sunday,) we read that he wrought at his trade, and preached in the synagogue EVERY SABBATH: and this continued for the space of one year and six months, making in all 78 Sabbaths.—Acts xviii, 1—11.—To determine whether the apostles kept the fourth commandment out of respect to Jewish prejudices, as they did the feasts and ordinances of the Jews, two or three points come before us for consideration. (1.) While the apostles have distinctly recognized the perpetuity of the law of God, [1 John iii; Rom. iii,] and particularly of the ten commandments, [Rom. vii, 7—25; Eph. vi, 2. James ii, 8—12,] they have as distinctly taught the abolition of the feasts, new moons, and sabbaths of the hand-writing of ordinances. Col. ii, 14—17; Lev. xxiii, 24, 32, 36.—(2.) The Sabbath of Jehovah is one of the ten commandments which form the constitution of his righteous government.—(3.) Christ kept the commandments and taught men to do thus, if they would have life eternal. Perhaps, however, you can explain away all this, as readily as you did the testimony of Luke, that the women who followed the Lord Jesus to his burial, and "rested the Sabbath-day according to the commandment," merely did this from fear of the Jews. It is true that the fourth commandment is not repeated in the book of Acts; but it is also true that no one of the ten is there repeated.

3. We urge the observance of the holy Sabbath upon others because it is the unrepealed fourth commandment of Jehovah; and because that Christ has promised that those who do and teach the commandments shall be highly esteemed in the reign of heaven.

The commandment-keepers are the only ones who have any promise of admittance to the tree of life; if Christ and his apostles have made any such promise to those who break them, and teach men so, please point it out.

4. In saying that we make Sabbath-breaking the climax of sins, you state that which is false. The apostles tell us that "sin is the transgression of the law," and that "the wages of sin is death;" and again that those who fail in one point (referring to the ten commandments) have become guilty of all. If you go to the judgment and meet the law of God as its open violator, you will not be able to hide behind the apostles. James ii, 11, 12.

5. You have no excuse for stating that I believe that the fourth commandment is the greatest precept, inasmuch as I have repeatedly used the words of Christ, in Matt. xxii, 35—40, to define this point. I leave you to settle these false statements with Him who shall soon judge the quick and the dead. Whether that law which once caused him to lay down his life for guilty man, was considered by him and his apostles as of no authority whatever, will then be seen. Rom. iii. He is now by the ARK of the testament (the ten commandments) pleading his blood before the mercy-seat—the top of the ark—but then there will be no one to stand between guilty man and the broken law.

6. After having misstated our position, you proceed to judge and condemn us, for no other crime than doing and teaching the ten commandments of Jehovah's constitution; and yet you occasionally complain of us for believing that those who violate them and teach men so, will be of no esteem in the reign of heaven.—Whether your words, or the words of Jesus Christ will stand, judge you. Matt. v, 19.

7. In attempting to fasten the woe of Rev. xxii, 18, upon the commandment-keepers, you have made a sad mistake. For in verse 14 we learn that they will enter in through the gates into the City, while those who love and make a lie will be left without. But will you please to compare verse 14 and 19, and then consider whether, in your attempt to "take away" the fourth commandment of the Father, you are not exposed to the woe named in the latter verse? But you continue:

"The Review quotes Paul's language to the Ephesians where he says he had 'kept back nothing that was profitable, unto them, and asks if he 'ever intimated to them that Sunday had taken the place of the Sabbath.' We answer, no: for it had not: neither did he intimate to them that they ought to keep the Sabbath; therefore the Sabbath was not profitable for them."

The above needs but a few words in reply!

1. The ten commandments were great truths plainly stated.

2. If they were abolished, or if the fourth one had been changed, and those who should keep them, as given by the voice of Jehovah, were in danger of falling from grace, this also must be an important fact.

3. But Paul nowhere taught the Ephesians such a doctrine. Therefore it was not profitable to them.

But your argument, virtually requiring you to set aside every great, revealed truth that is not upon record as a part of Paul's teaching to the Ephesians, must be false, or the greater part of the book of God must be set aside as unprofitable!

But Paul does acknowledge the validity of the ten commandments, by taking the fifth one with the promise annexed, in giving instructions to the Ephesian children. Eph. vi, 2.

You next remark that the request of the Gentiles that Paul should repeat his discourse to them on the next Sabbath [Acts xiii, 42] only shows a conformity to the custom of that place. (But it is to be noticed, that this shows that the Gentile city of Antioch, at least outwardly, observed Jehovah's Sabbath; and that Paul did not exhibit his supposed preference for Sunday.) But you think the marginal reading preferable to the text. Of this those must judge who have the ability. But it is a very plain fact that a week never yet intervened between two consecutive Sabbaths. Verse 44, however, indicates that their next meeting was not until the ensuing Sabbath.—You continue:

"Again: the Review says, the Sabbath 'is not relaxed, amended or abolished, by any change of dispensations.' Then, of course, it should now be observed and enforced with all the rigor that has ever pertained to it. This is consistent. If the Sabbath is binding at all, it is binding as it was in the wildernesses of Sin and Sinai, and afterward under the Levite economy; for if it is not thus binding, nobody can tell how it is binding. We are glad to see this one feature of consistency in the Review on this subject."

The above, like almost every quotation which you have made from the Review, is but a part of a sentence. The words of the Review are as follows:

"The Sabbath is not a church ordinance, but like the rest of the moral law, pertains to men as men, not as members of any church, but as moral beings accountable to God's government. Hence it is not relaxed, amended, or abolished, by any change of dispensations. The feasts of the Jews, the Passover and unleavened bread, the Pentecost &c. were embodied in the hand-writing of ORDINANCES. The Sabbath is embodied in the fourth commandment of the royal law. The hand-writing of ordinances is abolished.—Col. ii. The royal law is in full force. James ii."

I am willing to abide by the above statements. The ordinances of the Jewish church are abolished. Wherever these were joined to the precepts of the royal law, the union is severed. But this has not weakened the commandments of God. The commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" is not relaxed, amended, or abolished, by the fact that the stoning system in the hand-writing of ordinances is done away. The same may be said of the precepts respecting idolatry, blasphemy, adultery, theft, false witness &c. The great penalty abides, and will be realized in the lake of fire—the second death. We keep the Sabbath as did the women after the crucifixion, according to that commandment which says, "Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy." You speak of the inconsistencies of the position of the Review. Will you please to bear in mind that you have not yet been able to show wherein they existed. Your next remarks are as follows:

"Well, then, according to its notion, the Sabbath is not only unabolished, but also unamended and unrelaxed. Then how is it binding? It must be kept, as the Review has admitted, from the setting sun of the sixth to the setting sun of the seventh day, which would give the most northern and the most southern latitudes only one Sabbath in seven years."

Your attention is invited to the following:

1. It is a false statement that the Review reckons the Sabbath from one setting sun to another. See Vol. 1. Nos. 9, 12.

2. The Sabbath law contains no such directions.

3. As the sun is continually varying, we find Nehemiah (at a season of the year when the sun would set at Jerusalem about 6 o'clock P. M.) giving directions that the gates of Jerusalem should be shut as it began to grow dark BEFORE the Sabbath. Neh. xiii, 19. Then the Sabbath did not always commence at sunset, even in the land of Palestine.

For a more full notice of the point, the reader is referred to my second letter to you. Your irresistible conclusion that the hallowed Rest-day of the Creator can only come once in seven years to those who live in the polar regions, is, therefore, an assertion unsupported by Scripture or reason, and deserves no higher name (I borrow the word from yourself) than to be called a notion.—Your next argument reads thus:

"The Review says it has been 'looking for something against the fourth commandment.' Well, it has looked in vain. We have nothing to say 'against the fourth commandment.' It is not for us to fight against any of God's commands, precepts, truths or plans: he does not need our aid nor that of the Review in legislation: and for our part, we feel content to learn and keep and teach his law as we find it adapted by himself to the dispensation in which we live, and we are sorry the Review does not also enjoy the happiness of this reasonable and faithful resignation."

It is indeed true, that there is nothing in the book of Acts to show that the fourth commandment was ever relaxed or violated by the apostles, (for they had no right to do either,) but the following from the review of your report, will show what kind of proof you once offered on this point:

"As proof that Paul did not regard the fourth commandment C. presents Acts xiii, 13, 14, to show that Paul arrived at Antioch in Pisidia on the Sabbath, and thus broke the rest of the Lord's Sabbath. Is this reference sufficient to prove that Paul violated the law of God? Rom. vii, 25; viii, 1-7. Is it stronger than that by which infant baptism is proved? Acts xvi, 15, 33. Or the one by which purgatory is proved? Matt. xii, 32. Or the doctrine of probation for the dead? 1 Pet. iii, 19, 20. Or the doctrine of transmigration of souls? John ix, 1-3.—Would the rulers of the synagogue have been very likely to extend to Paul a courteous invitation to speak if he had just broken the Sabbath?"

The account of Paul's voyage from Philippi to Troas next claims attention. We inquire then, did Paul by this act break the fourth commandment and teach men so? That he journeyed on the Sabbath from choice, is all assertion! Before it can be proved that there was any act of breaking the fourth commandment on the part of Paul, it ought to be shown that the distance was such that he could not expect to reach the port of Troas before the Sabbath; [Acts xvi, 11, 12;] as it now stands they might have been driven of adverse winds, as he was on his voyage to Rome, so that a sail of two or three days might have been more than doubled. And even then, there is no evidence that they might not have kept the fourth commandment on the water, by resting on the Lord's day, and by solemnly dedicating themselves to him.

To the above I add, that when you cease to war against the fourth commandment, your acts will not, as now, contradict your profession. And when you shall have manifested your love to God by keeping all his commandments, your remarks respecting faithful resignation to his will, may be more appropriate. You continue your remarks respecting the Review as follows:

"But it is a whole age behind the light, exerting all its puny strength to drag back the mighty car of Providence and bind the church in everlasting 'bondage' at Mount Sinai which is in Arabia? Come, Bro. Review, take a 'look' with us 'into the perfect law of liberty,' and be not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the words of Christ and his apostles, and you will then be blessed and bless in your doing. In your present position, you are certainly obnoxious to the apostle's charge of having 'fallen from grace,' and if Paul was 'afraid' of such, how ought less instructed Christians to regard you?"

The following is what you call 'everlasting bondage' in which I am trying to bind the church:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not bow down to graven images,
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.
Honor thy father and thy mother.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false-witness.
Thou shalt not covet.

God's car of Providence has never crushed these precepts in its onward progress; nor can it ever; for though men may be proved liars, God cannot deny himself.

The church of Christ has never considered the holy, just and spiritual law of God, a yoke of bondage.—Never. It is the carnal mind that has done this.—Rom. vii, 7—25; viii, 1—7.

I thank God that I prize his commandments above thousands of gold and silver, yea above my chief joy; and in keeping of them there is great reward. Nor do I except the Sabbath of Jehovah, which Infinite Wisdom made for man. I can from the heart, as directed by the Prophet of God, call this a DELIGHT, the holy of the Lord, honorable, and I do hope through God's mercy, to be numbered with those who shall keep it on the New Earth.

The remarks concerning 'everlasting bondage' remind me of the words of Peter:

"For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them LIBERTY, they themselves are the servants of corruption; for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in BONDAGE. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them."—2 Pet. ii, 18—22.

The perfect law of liberty, to which you invite my attention, is clearly pointed out in James ii, 8—12.—Mark! It has the commandments of God in it.—James requires us to do more than take a look into that law. He says, [chapter i, 22—25,] "But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." I fear that you merely took a look into that mirror, and have gone away and forgotten what you saw therein. I see the commandments of God in it, and I am trying to do them. Shall I not be blessed in my deed?

But I am in danger of falling from grace, am I?—Well what have I done? The only sin that you have laid to my charge, is, that I have kept the fourth commandment. True I have done so. I know that Jehovah had then spoken with an audible voice. I know very well that no man can show where he has ever taken it back, or abolished the words that then went out of his lips. I believed myself amenable to the Most High God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and I obeyed. Greatly have I been blessed of God in thus doing.

But if that self-styled apostolic personage, who has exalted himself above all that is called God, is the being to whom I am amenable, I ought no doubt to give up the Sabbath of Jehovah, and submit to the mandate of him who thinks himself able to change the times and the laws of God, embrace his sabbath, and receive his mark. But as you intimate further that Paul was afraid of such as myself, I call on you to prove that the keeping of the fourth commandment ever alarmed that holy Apostle, who delighted in the law of God, [Rom. vii, 22, 25,] or led him to think that those who did thus, would fall from grace.

Your effort to impeach the moral character of Paul consisted in the attempt to show that he broke the fourth commandment. You have relinquished this attempt as will be presently noticed; hence I shall not dwell on this point. We have no occasion to wrest the words of Paul, in Col. ii. But this you are obliged to do to make the hand-writing of ordinances which Christ blotted out, refer to the ten commandments of Jehovah's constitution; and to maintain that the abolished ordinances were written in part at least on the tables of stone. But your effort to wrest Paul's testimony will be noticed hereafter. You continue:

"But we like Paul's testimony concerning himself, which the Review quotes, viz: 'I have committed NOTHING against the people, or customs of our fathers.' The Review quotes this to prove that Paul kept the Sabbath and taught others to keep it. Very well, then all that Paul did in conformity with the customs of the fathers he did because he thought those customs still binding, and we must follow his example, not only in Sabbatizing, but also in keeping the feast days, [Acts xvii, 21,] in observing the rites of purification, [Acts xxi, 23, 24,] and in circumcision, [Acts xvi, 3]."

Before introducing the words of the Review to which you refer, a few words may be in place:

1. Paul's testimony, which you like so, is a direct refutation of the inferences presented in your report to prove that he broke the Sabbath. I am sorry to see you leave a false position in such a manner as this.

2. But you attempt to cover your retreat by uttering a falsehood respecting the Review. The words were not quoted as proof that Paul taught men to keep the commandments of God. On this point the Review speaks for itself. But Paul's words were quoted as direct proof that he had never violated one of them. Hence your remarks respecting circumcision, the feasts &c., being founded only on a perversion of the words of the Review, are unworthy of a reply.—The words of the Review are as follows:

"But as Paul, a long time after this, speaks directly on the point, he shall have liberty to defend himself. Hear him: 'I have committed NOTHING against the people, or customs of our fathers.' Acts xxv, 17. And if even the Jews neither spake nor showed any harm of him, [verse 21,] we think the fact ought to 'shut the mouths of gainsayers,' and convince them that they have laid a 'grievous complaint against Paul, which they cannot prove!' Acts xxv, 7. Perhaps however false witnesses might be set up, as in the case of Stephen, [Acts vi,] to testify that he had not ceased to speak blasphemous words against the law. Rom. vii, 12. Shall this kind of proof that Paul violated the Sabbath be called 'plain Bible testimony?' We assure all that if it cannot stand NOW, assuredly it will not, when the 'hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the water shall overflow the hiding place.' Isa. xxviii, 15—17; Rev. xvi, 17—21. Would it not be better to make the truth your refuge against that fearful scene? Ps. xci; cxix, 142, 151; cxi, 7, 8; Isa. xxiv, 5, 6."

Your remarks that Paul regarded the prejudices of the Jews in the respect that he showed to their feasts, ordinances &c., do not bear at all against the position of the Review.

Your inference that the Gentiles were to 'observe no such thing' as the fourth commandment because that it was not named in the apostolic decree respecting circumcision, and the use of meats &c., bear with equal force against the third, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth and tenth commandments. Such an inference gives the Gentiles very extended liberty.

Your remark that liberty is given in Rom. xiv to those who are weak, to keep the fourth commandment, is little short of blasphemy.

I am 'weak' enough to believe that the blood of Christ did not blot out the commandments which were written by the finger of Jehovah in the tables of stone. I am so 'weak in the faith' that I can say with Paul, 'Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.' Rom. iii. You can use your liberty, and manifest the strength of your faith. I have no greater liberty than to keep the commandments contained in the Ark of God's Testament. Rev. xi, 19. I rely on nothing else for justification, but the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, sprinkled upon the mercy-seat—the top of that Ark. The result of all this will be made manifest when we shall be judged by that law of liberty, in which are the ten commandments of 'everlasting bondage' James ii.

The statement that Paul had walked contrary to the law while among the Gentiles, was according to the Apostle James, untrue. Acts xxi, 24.

The remark in your report on Acts xx, that Paul preferred Sunday to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment led me to style that day the apostolic rival of Jehovah's Sabbath. I am glad to notice that you now let Rom. xiv level this first-day preference,—this is somewhat nearer consistency. As you have presented nothing concerning apostolic respect for Sunday, there is nothing on that point to answer. You think that Sunday is made particularly interesting, by the resurrection of Christ on that day. Others think that holy Thursday, on which he was betrayed, is equally interesting; and good Friday, also, on which he was crucified. But God has never said anything of the kind respecting these days.

But 'we have some examples of early Christians meeting on that day.' As you have not presented these examples, I must look them up for you. I conclude that you refer to the record of inspiration, and not to the period when 'grievous wolves' had entered the church.

1. The disciples were assembled upon the day of the Lord's resurrection—the first day of the week. This has been offered as proof that they then began to commemorate the day of his resurrection. But such seem to overlook the fact that the disciples did not believe that he had been raised from the dead! Mark xvi, 9—11.

2. Christ appearing to them again after EIGHT DAYS, is another strong proof with many for this first-day memorial of the resurrection.—But we are not informed how a meeting AFTER eight days from Sunday evening, could fall on Sunday again! John xx, 19—20.—But, says one, how do you account for their being together? Answer. I learn from Acts i, 13, that they had one common abode.

3. But there is another inference, much stronger than those, upon which some rely. It is this: 'Redemption is greater than Creation; therefore we ought to keep the first-day of the week instead of the seventh.'—Where has God said anything of this kind?—Nowhere! Never! Who has said it? Answer. Those who keep the Sabbath of the 'man of sin,' who has 'exalted himself above' the Creator. If human wisdom could select a day to commemorate Redemption, most certainly, Friday would present the strongest claims. We have redemption, says Paul, (not through the resurrection of Christ but,) through his blood. Eph. i, 17; Col. i, 14; 1 Pet. i, 18, 19. When did he shed his blood for us, and say, 'It is finished?' Answer. The day before the Sabbath. Mark xv, 42; John xix, 30, 31.

But Infinite Wisdom has arranged this matter. If you would commemorate the sufferings and the death of the Redeemer, you can read what he has ordained for that purpose in 1 Cor. xi, 23—26. If you would commemorate his burial and resurrection, remember that there is a scriptural ordinance for that, also. Rom. vi, 3—5. As the Sabbath of the Creator commemorates his rest from the work of Creation, so these ordinances commemorate the events of Redemption. The one belongs to the whole family of man; the others to those only who are partakers of redemption through Christ. It is the long established corruption of these ordinances, that has given men a plea for corrupting this fourth commandment.

4. But the fourth inference, the account of Paul's breaking bread on the first day, [Acts xx,] ought, perhaps, to be noticed for the benefit of those who have never reflected on this subject. I extract the notice from the review of your report, simply remarking that you have not attempted to reply to it. I present but a part. It reads thus:

"As there is no precept for Sunday keeping, those who wish to observe it, have but one way to obtain directions. How did Paul in this the only instance that can be hunted up, keep the Sunday? For it is not to be presumed that Paul's example can be improved upon, otherwise it is an imperfect example, and should not be followed."

We inquire then respecting their coming together to break bread. As we are to follow this pattern, we ask, When did Paul break bread? If our method of reckoning time (from midnight) was followed, which is not very probable, then this act of breaking bread was upon the second day of the week, as it took place AFTER midnight. The question would then be fairly before the mind, Shall we be governed by apostolic preference for Monday, or by our preference for Sunday?

But if the Bible method of reckoning time (from six o'clock P. M.) was followed, which is much more probable, it would then appear that they came together at the close of the holy Sabbath, for an evening meeting. (Does it not read like one?) Paul preached to them, broke bread early Sunday morning, and then started off on his long journey to Jerusalem!! Then it would be clear that he waited till 'the Sabbath was past,' had a farewell meeting all night with the disciples and started 'early in the morning, the first day of the week,' for the city of his fathers."

But you cling to 1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2, as evidence that the early churches assembled on the first-day of the week, as the following, your concluding argument, will show:

"If the Review is correct on 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2, Paul gave no directions to the churches of Galatia and Corinth for 'the collection for the saints,' but rather prohibited any collection for them. The Review says this 'laying by in store' was by 'each one at his own home,' and in no evidence of a meeting and public collection on the first day of the week. Well, Paul tells them to lay by them in store on the first day of the week as God had prospered them. That there be no gatherings when I come! Now as Paul gave this direction so as to prevent gatherings when he came if this 'laying by in store' was not a gathering, a collection of money by the church for the poor saints, no such collection was taken, and Paul forbade it and commanded each individual to lay up for himself on the first day all that he had made the previous week? No; the meaning is obvious: the churches in those places were accustomed to meet on the first day of the week, and Paul directed them to make their collections for the poor saints at Jerusalem at their meetings on that day, so that the money would be ready for him to take when he should come and apply it to the object for which it had been contributed."

Before presenting the words of the Review to which you refer, a brief statement may be to the point:

1. Instead of referring to the language of the Review that 'this laying by in store' was by 'each one at his own home,' Why did you not dare to introduce and explain the language of Paul that settles this point? He says expressly, '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.' This language is explicit, and is exactly the reverse of placing what they had to give in one common stock. Those who should thus, from week to week, lay by themselves, would have their bounty ready at the coming of Paul.

2. Even the Doway (Romish) Bible is explicit on this: 'On the first day of the week let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him; that when I come, the gatherings be not then to be made.'

3. Sometime since I attended an Advent meeting, where a public collection was taken. As the hat was passed round and each threw in what he saw fit, the following question proposed itself: Are 'each one' of these persons 'LAYING BY HIM' in store, or are they doing exactly the reverse of this? I submit the question to yourself for an answer.

4. Your remark that if the Review is correct, Paul forbade the collecting of money for the poor saints, and commanded each to lay up for himself, is utterly destitute of foundation in truth, as the words of the Review will show. They are as follows:

"The text quoted above [1 Cor. xvi, 2] does not, to be sure, prove that the people might not have gone to meeting AFTER every one had laid up him in store, though it does not even intimate any thing of the kind, but it does prove that at the time when this injunction, every one of you lay up him in store, as God hath prospered him, should be obeyed, each must be at his own home!! Having done this they could, when Paul should come, each take to him what they had gathered, as easily as we can take our Bible with us to meeting. There would be nothing ostentatious about this manner of acting. Public contributions were forbidden by our Lord. Matt. vi. 3, 4. 'But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth; that thine alms may be in secret, and thy Father which seeth in secret, himself shall reward thee openly.' Paul did not contradict this injunction of our Lord, nor does he even seem so to do. (We would commend the direction of Paul to conscientious observers of the fourth commandment.) 'Thus easily,' as J. B. Cook remarks, 'is ALL the wind taken from the sails of those who sail, perhaps unwittingly, under the Pope's Sabbatic flag.'"

Thus uses up all the inferences presented by C. with which to construct a first-day institution out of apostolic 'preference.' If C. be still bent on doing this, we now suggest that 'the successors to the chief Apostle' can furnish any amount of evidence desired. ('The Catholic church commands all her children to keep the Sunday, and the festivals of the saints.')—The Sabbath of the Elders rests(?) upon a rolling pebble; the Sabbath of Jehovah rests upon a solid rock. They are now submitted for choice. 1 Kings xviii, 21."

And now in conclusion, May I not be allowed to invite you to throw away, entirely and for ever, this 'rag of the Mother of harlots,' and to embrace and delight in the Sabbath of Jehovah, which he hallowed for man at Creation?

J. N. ANDREWS. Port Byron, Cayuga Co., N. Y., June, '52.