Conclusions which they Lead to.
By Uriah Smith
1. It is a declaration of the Prophet, [Amos iii, 7.] that the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. Where has it ever been revealed that two days would ever be enjoined upon men by divine command, or apostolic example? There was one definite day set apart by the great Creator, to be observed and kept holy by men; and for a definite purpose: but we know of no passage that teaches that the first or any other day would ever be raised to equal honor with it; much less be established in its stead. The objection under consideration, assumes that we have "divine command and apostolic example" for the religious observance of the first day; and hence if the original seventh day is still binding, we must keep them both. But we find no such command or such first-day-observance. On this point our opponents seem not well to understand the position they occupy and what devolves upon them to be proved. When a point is indisputably established and fixed forever, it should be considered as settled and not be again called in question. Since, therefore it has been repeatedly and abundantly proved that there is no divine command, and no apostolic example for Sunday-keeping, it is not for our opponents to assume these points and then build their inferences thereon. Let them first produce the command or the example, and then will their deductions be entitled to our consideration. 2. One would infer from reading the book of Acts that the Sabbath or seventh day was still in force, after the day of Pentecost, and not that "the first day only," was observed for congregational duties. We find that they had Moses and the prophets read every Sabbath-day. Acts xiii, 27; xv, 21. We find Paul entering into the synagogue and preaching on the Sabbath-day, and the Gentiles beseeching him that the same words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. Acts xiii, 14, 42, 44. We find him abiding in one place a year and six months, reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and persuading the Jews and Greeks; [Acts xviii, 4, 11.] while we cannot gather either from the writings or practices of the apostles, that the first day was devoted to religious exercises. 3. Paul did reason with the Jews in the synagogue on the seventh day; and it is a significant fact that this day and this only is called the Sabbath throughout the Scriptures. Now why did Luke, the writer of the Acts, a preacher of the gospel, so long after the seventh-day Sabbath ceased, if it ceased at all, call this day the Sabbath, and thus throw us who live under the gospel in suspense and doubt in regard to what day we should observe in honor of Him who made heaven and earth, and thus render obedience to one of his express commandments? Why, I say, did he thus speak of it, if the seventh day was not the Sabbath for Christians then? Provided the "Lord's supper and other congregational duties" were not attended to on the seventh day, what difference would that make? It matters not if Paul was engaged in such duties day and night from one week to another, that would not make a Sabbath. That institution must come from higher authority. There never has been but one Sabbath: that was made in the beginning by the King eternal, and man cannot annul it. 4. In the "transition period," as it is termed, we are satisfied of one thing, that the seventh day remained in all its original force, and was observed by Christ and his disciples; hence this cannot be true of the first day. We will nevertheless admit that at a later period that became the day generally observed for "congregational religious exercises;" but it was not until that man of sin had been revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; not until he, in his presumptuous exaltation, had seized the law of God, robbed the fourth commandment of its glory and sanctity, and palmed off upon the world his counterfeit substitute.