p. 126 | SUNDAY ARGUMENTS by E. B. Saunders

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 18, 1862

SUNDAY ARGUMENTS.

By E. B. Saunders

To reason justly on any question is to reason syllogistically; and every conclusion will result from combining two or more premises in one proposition. Although each premise may not be stated, yet it exists in the mind, and often we may tell what the suppressed premise is by knowing the other one and the conclusion. I have tried to look at the arguments for Sunday-observance in this light, and will now give some of them stated in full, so that we may see how vain and empty they appear.

1. Jesus commanded his followers to rest from labor on his resurrection-day.

2. He arose from the dead on the first day of the week.

Conclusion : Christians are required to rest on the first day of the week.

If this argument is not fallacious, the conclusion is just; but if it is a fallacy, we may detect it by a careful examination of the premises. The second premise is admitted by all; so if we object to the conclusion it must be grounded upon an error in the first, viz., "Jesus commanded his followers to rest from labor on his resurrection-day." The Bible student will readily see that this is an assumption without a word of scripture support, and is also assuming the very point to be proved, which is nothing less than begging the question. To avoid the stigma of this, first-day advocates try to make the first premise good by arguing as follows:

1. The early Christians rested on the first day instead of the seventh, contrary to their early training.

2. They were guided by divine authority in their religious observances.

Conclusion : Hence they must have had divine authority for first-day observance.

Here the reasoning is good; and if the premises are true, all must come to the same conclusion; but a false premise will lead to a false conclusion. A little searching of the inspired history of their acts will convince any reasonable person that there is no text stating positively that they rested from labor on the first day of the week; hence Protestants are driven to make the following argument to prove the point in question :

1. It has been the universal practice of the people of God to have a holy convocation on the Sabbath, or rest-day. Lev. xxiii, 3.

2. It was customary for the early Christians to meet for worship on the first day of the week.

Conclusion : Hence the first day of the week was the rest-day, or Sabbath, of the early Christians.

Against this reasoning and conclusion the following objections might be urged : 1. It was a custom among the people of God for ages to have holy convocations on other days besides the seventh day. See Lev. xxiii. It is possible for such to have been the case among the early Christians. 2. The early Christians did have a custom of meeting for worship on another day; in proof of which we refer to Acts xiii, 42-44, also xvii, 2, which shows what Paul's manner was. This was not because he could get a hearing from the Jews on that day, for they deemed themselves unworthy of eternal life, and the apostles had turned to the Gentiles as early as the year 45, and it was Paul's "manner" in A. D. 53, or twelve years afterward. Also at this time we find him preaching in Philippi, in Macedonia, not in the synagogue to Jewish ears, but out by the river-side where prayer was wont to be made. Hence we conclude that it was a custom to meet for worship on the seventh day, or Sabbath; and if the custom in one case shows a sacred regard for the day, it will do the same in the other case also. Therefore we conclude, if the second premise is true, that they regarded two days in each week as rest-days.

But was it the custom of the disciples to meet for worship on the first day ? It is needless to bring forward that instance where our Lord met with the disciples while at supper, for they had not met for worship, but to eat a common meal; and there is but one other instance of Christians' assembling on that day, and that is recorded in Acts xx. Now how many times would it be necessary for them to meet for worship to make it a custom ? Is once enough ? So we are led to the conclusion that the first day of the week was not the day kept by the early Christians, because the premises upon which such a supposition is founded are false.

Thus we see how the principal evidence for Sunday-observance is founded upon an assumption so naked that it is necessary to hide its deformity by another equally glaring, and this one by another, and so on to the end of the chapter of first-day evidence, furnished us by the Mystery of Iniquity.

If such arguments were applied to common subjects, they would be utterly unworthy of notice; it is the importance of the subject that saves them from the contempt they deserve.

Again, why men seek to honor the resurrection of our Lord by a weekly observance, is more easily asked than answered. Certainly there is nothing in the nature of the event that would divide time into periods of seven days; but it is inferred because it happened on a certain day of the week. Men infer these things, and are esteemed wise, when if they used similar arguments on anything else, they would be esteemed lunatics. To expose this, let us take an argument similar to the first one adduced for Sunday observance ; thus,

1. The angel of the Lord passed over the first-born of Israel on the fifteenth day of the month.

2. The children of Israel were required to keep this day by a feast to the Lord, forever. Ex. xii, 14.

Conclusion : Hence the children of Israel were required to keep the feast of the passover, on the fifteenth of every month.

It does not require a logician to discern the fallacy of the above conclusion. As well think of observing the anniversary of Washington's birth-day on the twenty-second day of every month in the year. This would be as sensible as to believe in commemorating our Lord's resurrection once in every seven days, because he arose on one day of the week.

There are many other fallacious points in the arguments of first-day advocates, which perhaps may receive a future notice.

E. B. SAUNDERS.

Eagle Harbor, N. Y.