The Seventh-day Sabbath Not Abolished.
The article by Joseph Marsh, editor of the "Harbinger and Advocate," entitled "Seventh-day Sabbath Abolished," The First Day of the Week.
If the Sabbath has been transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week by divine authority, the Scriptures should contain the account of it. And as the precept requiring the observance of the seventh day is plain and positive, nothing less than as positive testimony should satisfy any person in regard to the claims of the first day. "Then why keep the first day? Because Christ rose on that day, and the apostolic church have set the example, that we should assemble on that day to commemorate his resurrection, by breaking of bread, and other duties belonging to the worship of God. Acts xx, 7." Luke here records the fact [Acts xx, 7.] that St. Paul once preached all night of the first day of the week at Troas, and past midnight broke bread with the disciples. This is the only text in the New Testament in which the first day of the week is mentioned in connection with public worship, and from this one simple circumstance the readers of the "Harbinger" are taught that "the apostolic church have set the example, that we should assemble on that day to commemorate his [Christ's] resurrection, by breaking of bread!" Here we shall do well to observe the following facts: 1. There is no intimation given in Acts xx, 7, or elsewhere in the New Testament, that the disciples regarded the first day of the week as a day of rest. 2. There is no evidence that the "apostolic church" met regularly on that night of the week that Paul preached at Troas. For aught we know it was an occasional meeting, appointed merely because Paul was to "depart on the morrow." 3. If the church are to follow the "example" of the disciples, in holding a certain meeting all night at Troas, then they should hold their preaching meetings in the night, and after midnight break bread. There is no scripture proof that the disciples ever met for worship in the day time of the first day of the week. M. no doubt, would object to holding his preaching meetings in the night, and continuing his speech "even till break of day." Then why talk of the "example" of "the apostolic church" at Troas? 4. According to the first division of time [Gen. i.] the day closed at 6 o'clock P. M., and if that meeting at Troas was held the night following the day time of the first day of the week, then the entire meeting was on the second day instead of the first. And according to the Roman division of time, the day closed at midnight, therefore Paul broke bread and "talked a long while, even till break of day," on the second day of the week, if that meeting was in the night following the day time of the first day of the week. Accordingly, those who talk of apostolic example for observing the first day of the week, should, to be consistent with their position, keep the second day. But that meeting was evidently in the night following the Sabbath of the Lord. The Apostle, "as his manner was," [Acts xvii, 2.] preached to them on the Sabbath; then the disciples, the evening following, met together expressly "to break bread." Such a meeting must have been very desirable to the disciples at Troas, especially as Paul was "ready to depart on the morrow." "Morrow" here should be understood as we use it, referring to the daylight that followed, and not to the next twenty-four-hour day. For in that case Paul would have to tarry at Troas till the next evening, and then travel to Assos and Mitylene in the night. In the morning of the first day of the week, Paul left Troas, and walked to Assos, and from Assos he sailed with his brethren at Mitylene. See Acts xx, 7-14. A singular "apostolic example," truly, for sunday-keepers! With these facts before us it seems perfectly preposterous to talk of the "example" of the "apostolic church" for observing the first day of the week. 5. We have yet to learn that the communion of the body and blood of Christ commemorates the resurrection, as taught by M. Says the Apostle, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's DEATH till he come." Cor. xi, 26. The Lord's supper was instituted the night before the crucifixion, and the disciples at Troas broke bread the night following the Sabbath. And there is nothing in the New Testament that confines it to any day of the week; yet it seems most proper in the evening following the Sabbath. After enjoying the blessings of the Holy Sabbath, the true disciple is best prepared to receive the emblems of the body and blood of Christ. If the communion was designed to be strictly confined to one day of the week, the sixth day is the only proper one; for on that day, the crucifixion, the event which it commemorates occurred. And if attending to the communion on a day makes it a Sabbath, as is inferred from Acts xx, 7, then the sixth day of the week should be observed as the, so called, "Christian Sabbath." The great Apostle to the GENTILES preached on the Sabbath, and had no other regular preaching day. We have no record of his meeting with the disciples on the first day of the week but once, [Acts xx, 7.] and that was in the evening, or first part of the day, [Gen. i, 5.] to break bread. Mark this; Paul pursued his journey on foot to Assos, and sailed with his brethren to Mitylene, the same day that he broke bread at Troas. Let those who talk of apostolic example for sunday-keeping, look at these facts. We say apostolic example is all in favor of the seventh day. "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath-days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." Acts xvii, 2. The Apostle preached to the "Greeks" as well as the Jews at Corinth, "every Sabbath," for the space of one year and six months. See Acts xviii, 4-11. It is said that the only reason why Paul preached on the Sabbath, was because the Jews were assembled in their synagogues on that day. But this is not true; for we find the Apostle and his companions preaching elsewhere, besides in the synagogues, on the Sabbath. "And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a RIVER SIDE, WHERE PRAYER WAS WONT TO BE MADE; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." Acts xvi, 13. If that meeting by the "river side" had been on the first day of the week, then the advocates of the first day might, with some degree of propriety, talk of Apostolic example for observing that day. But, as we have shown, there is no record of a public meeting of the apostles, in the day-time, on the first day of the week, in the New Testament, therefore none should talk of apostolic example for sunday-keeping. At Antioch, Paul preached on the Sabbath, at the request of the GENTILES. "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the GENTILES besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. And the next Sabbath-day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Acts xiii, 42, 44. Here are some things worthy of special notice. It was the Gentiles, not the Jews, that invited Paul to preach to them the next Sabbath. If Paul taught the people that the Sabbath was a mere Jewish institution, as M. teaches, it seems really unaccountable how these Gentiles, who were entirely disconnected with the Jewish religion, should request him to preach to them on the Sabbath. It is evident that the reason why the Gentiles invited Paul to preach to them on the Sabbath, was because he regarded the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord, and the proper day for religious worship. If that request of the Gentiles had been made to a modern preacher, he would have replied, "You need not wait till another Jewish Sabbath; to-morrow is the Lord's day, we will preach to you to-morrow." That was certainly a good opportunity for the great Apostle to the Gentiles to show the Gentile portion of that community that the Sabbath was abolished, if it had been, as our opponents assert. And if, as some teach, it was the design of Heaven that the observance of the first day of the week should rest upon "apostolic example," how convenient it would have been for the Apostle to have set the example in the city of Antioch, when the people were anxious to hear, and were in a good state of mind to receive right impressions. But instead of setting an example favoring the first day of the week, the Apostle entirely overlooked it, and the poor Gentiles, so anxious to hear the word of God, had to wait until, what is falsely called, the Jewish Sabbath arrived! The Jews never accused Paul with violating the Sabbath law. And it is evident that his most bitter enemies, the Jews, would have charged him with Sabbath-breaking if he had disregarded the fourth commandment, and taught its abolition, and sought to introduce another day instead of the Sabbath. "Men and brethren," says he, "though I have committed nothing against the people, or CUSTOMS OF OUR FATHERS, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans." Acts xxviii, 17. This testimony would have been denied by those Jews who heard it, and the Apostle would have been silenced at once, if he taught the abolition of the seventh-day Sabbath, and observed the first day of the week in its stead. But Paul "dwelt two whole years in his own hired house," "preaching the kingdom of God," with all confidence, no man forbidding him." See Acts xxviii, 30, 31. John says he was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, (Rev. i, 10;) the first day of the week, the day of Christ's resurrection, which was observed as a day of worship by the early Christians. It is first assumed that "Lord's day" is the first day of the week, and then because St. John was in the Spirit on that day, it is supposed to be what is called the "Christian Sabbath." We object to this view, because it is entirely destitute of support from the Holy Scriptures. Others may refer to the "Fathers;" but we appeal to the word of God. The Bible nowhere calls the first day of the week the "Lord's day." Only one of the seven days of the week is called the Lord's day, and that is the seventh. God has never hallowed, sanctified and blessed but one day, and that he called after his own holy name. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Here we are not at a loss to determine which is the "Lord's day." But the testimony is full more to the point in Isa. lviii, 13, where God styles the Sabbath, "My Holy Day," and "The Holy of the Lord." Jesus declared himself "Lord also of the Sabbath." Mark ii, 28. Here are three testimonies, two from the Old Testament, and one from the New, that prove the seventh day of the week to be the "Lord's day." Two testimonies from the Eternal Father, and one from his Son Jesus Christ, are worth more to us than ten thousand from the so called "Christian Fathers," however near the apostolic age they might have lived. Then, according to the word of God, and that shall decide this question, St. John recognized the "Lord's day," the seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord, as existing, A. D. 96, sixty-five years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. The testimony of Ignatius, Theophilus, Irenius, Dionysius, Clement and Tertullian, quoted by M., will not satisfy those who honestly seek for truth from the word of God. It really seems very unfortunate for M. that he cannot give us the inspired testimony of Paul, Peter, John, James and Jude for the change of the weekly Rest, from the seventh to the first day. But as he cannot, he leaves the "sure word" and gives the UNINSPIRED testimony of those who wrote after the death of the apostles, in the time that Paul referred to when he said, "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." Acts xx, 29, 30. With a consistent Christian, the testimony and practice of what is called the "Christian Fathers," has not sufficient authority to direct him either in devotion or duty, especially when their testimony has to be relied on in the absence of divine authority. Christians should follow Christ. Jehovah said of Jesus, "This is my beloved Son; hear him." If Jesus has taught that a new Sabbath was designed for his followers, then Christians should observe it. But how unfortunate for the first day theory that Jesus, the Great Head and Example of the church, did not teach a change of the day of weekly rest. There is no record that he ever met with his disciples in the day-time of the first day of the week after the resurrection. But on the very day of the resurrection, "Jesus himself drew near," and went with the two disciples who were traveling to the village of Emmaus, seven and a half miles from Jerusalem. There is no evidence that they went to Emmaus to attend a religious meeting. Did Jesus rebuke them for traveling on that day, and tell them it was the "Christian Sabbath?" Far from it; he even went with them. And as "they drew nigh unto the village" they constrained him, saying, "Abide with us; for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent." Jesus went in and "sat at meat with them," and then the two disciples returned to Jerusalem that night, "and found the eleven gathered together." And while they were relating the interesting events of that day's journey, "Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and said unto them, peace be unto you." If the first day had then become the "Christian Sabbath," that was a favorable opportunity for Jesus, the Head and Example of the church, to enforce it. But instead of this, he never hinted a word to them about a new Sabbath, and could say to those sunday-breakers who had walked fifteen miles on that day, "PEACE BE UNTO YOU." There is no intimation that the disciples had been together for worship during that day. On the contrary, the absence of Thomas, and the fact that most of them were not satisfied that Jesus had risen, shows the impropriety of representing this meeting as proof of a regard for the first day on account of the resurrection. The only other meeting of Christ with his disciples which is said to be on the first day of the week, is mentioned in John xx, 26-"And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them." Now had this interview been on the following first day, it could afford no proof that they religiously regarded that day, since it is not noticed as a meeting designed for worship. But the expression "after eight days" by no means shows that it was just a week. Who can say that it was not on the ninth day after his first appearance? It was certainly full eight days after, which would bring it to Monday night.4 The following important history is to the point. It shows that the early church did observe the seventh-day Sabbath; and that they observed the first day only as a religious festival. "Athanasius, A. D. 340, says-'We assemble on Saturday, not that we are infected with Judaism, but only to worship Christ the Lord of the Sabbath.'" Socrates, an ecclesiastical historian, A. D. 412, says-'Touching the communion there are sundry observations and customs, for almost all the churches throughout the whole world do celebrate and receive the holy mysteries every Sabbath; yet the Egyptians adjoining Alexandria, together with the inhabitants of Thebes, of a tradition, do celebrate the communion on Sunday.' 'When the festival meeting throughout every week was come, I mean the Saturday and the Sunday, upon which the Christians are wont to meet solemnly in the church.' Eusebius, A. D. 325, as quoted by Dr. Chambers, states that in his time "the Sabbath was observed no less than Sunday." Gregory expostulates thus-'With what eyes can you behold the Lord's day, when you despise the Sabbath? Do you not perceive that they are sisters, and that in slighting one you affront the other?' Sozomen says-'Most of the churches carefully observed the Sabbath.' Grotius observes-'The Christians kept the holy Sabbath, and had their assemblies on that day, in which the law was read to them, which custom remained to the time of the council of Laodicea, about A. D. 355.' M. de la Roque, a French Protestant-'It evidently appears, that before any change was introduced, the church religiously observed the Sabbath for many ages; we of consequence are obliged to keep it.' Edward Brerewood, Professor of Gresham College, London, in a treatise on the Sabbath, 1630, says: "They know little that do not know the ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed by the eastern churches three hundred years and more after our Saviour's passion.-Brer. on the Sabbath, p. 77."