BOTH SIDES OF THE SABBATH QUESTION.
Preble.—"It is true, that in the Acts of the apostles we find mention made of the apostle Paul speaking to the Jews in their synagogues on the Sabbath; but never do we find any of the other apostles holding meetings on the seventh-day Sabbath. And there is but one single instance where we have an account of any of the apostles holding a meeting on that day, which appears to have been for a season of mutual worship among themselves; and that is the one mentioned in Acts xvi, 13, where it is said:—'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.'" REPLY.—And on the first day of the week we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made. Hold! It does not read so. We were imagining how it would sound, could any such testimony be found in reference to Sunday, and what infinite consolation its observers would derive from that fact. But though they may weep for it, even as Rachel wept for her children still it "is not." We do have this testimony, however, relative to the Sabbath; and the expression, "where prayer was wont to be made," denotes that this observance was customary. And Eld. P. moreover, has admitted that this "appears to have been for a season of mutual worship among themselves," that is, among Christians. And where was this customary Sabbath assemblage? not in Jerusalem; not in Judea, but nearly fifteen degrees to the westward, in Philippi, then chief city of Macedonia. Do you ask for apostolic practice? Here then you have it. Eld. P. does not attempt to dispose of this "historical" fact relative to the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath, but he does attempt to detract from its importance by styling it "but one single instance." Very well: can even "one single instance" be found of the observance of Sunday as a day devoted to religious rest and worship? We answer, No; and shall presently prove it. Then this instance is certainly entitled to some weight, as by it, we have at least one statement of the customary observance of the Sabbath by the early Christians, against nothing for Sunday; and one against nothing, though not a numerous, is yet an overwhelming, majority. Preble.—"The passage in 17th chapter of Acts 2d verse, where it is said: 'And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures'; only shows that Paul was in Thessalonica, in a Jewish synagogue, and his 'manner was,' when he could get an opportunity, he would reason with them out of the Scriptures; opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead'; and although they were ever so much offended with him, he would 'preach unto' them 'that this Jesus' is Christ.' And the apostle's 'manner,' in thus going into Jewish synagogues on the Sabbath, was very much like my 'manner when I believed in the seventh-day Sabbath; for I attended a great many more meetings on the 'first day of the week,' than on any other, for the very good reason, that it was much easier to get the people out to meeting on this day than the day that I then believed was the Sabbath." REPLY.—This is the uniform and stereotyped method of accounting for Paul's practice of preaching on the Sabbath. Now if we can find instances of Paul's thus observing the Sabbath where this reason could not apply, will our opponents admit that the ground of their objection here is not valid, but that Paul's course touching the Sabbath was not because he could meet a congregation of Jews upon that day, but out of the regard he had for it as the still living and holy rest-day of the Lord Jehovah? The candid certainly will. We have already had before us the testimony concerning the customary meeting by the river side at Philippi, which Eld. P. has admitted appears to have been for a season of mutual worship among themselves. But we will not further press this testimony as we have something still better. It is found in Acts xiii. In verse 14, we read that Paul and his company departed from Perga, and came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and sat down. Then follows the discourse that Paul delivered to the people, till verse 42, where we read, "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath." Verse 44. "And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." To these facts we call the careful attention of the reader. We learn here that by the word Sabbath in Acts is meant the day upon which the Jews assembled in the synagogue for worship. And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles, not the Jews, besought Paul to speak the same words to them the next Sabbath. And lest any should be confused by the marginal reading, which is, in the week between or in the Sabbath between, we introduce the following note from Dr. Bloomfield on this verse: "The words eis to metaxu sabb. are by many commentators supposed to mean 'on some intermediate week day.' But that is refuted by verse 44, and the sense expressed in our common version is, no doubt, the true one. It is adopted by the best recent commentators, and confirmed by the ancient versions." This second meeting then was called at the request of the Gentiles, was for the benefit of Gentiles, and was almost exclusively composed of Gentiles, yet it was delayed till the next Sabbath. Why was this? Answer. It was because the Gentiles well understood that Paul, though a Christian apostle, regarded the seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord, as the only regular weekly period for divine worship. But suppose now for a moment, that Paul believed the Sabbath had been changed to the first day of the week; that Sunday was the Christian Sabbath, which he, as a teacher of Christianity, was bound to promulgate and support; when the Gentiles, who would not, of course, be influenced by any purely Jewish customs, besought him to preach to them the next Sabbath, would he not have immediately told them that they need not wait till another Jewish Sabbath came round, but that the next day, the first day of the week, Sunday, was the Christian Sabbath, and on that day they might come out and hear the words of life? He most assuredly would, as no man can deny. And the fact that he did not make any such mention of a first-day Sabbath on this occasion, which was some fourteen years after the resurrection of Christ, shews positively that up to that time he had no knowledge of any such Sabbath; nor had Luke learned of any such change of the Sabbath, when he wrote the Acts, thirty years this side of the resurrection. Three points are established by this "historical" record, concerning the Sabbath: 1. That Paul so late as the year A. D. 45, knew nothing of a first-day Sabbath; but 2. That he did regard the seventh-day Sabbath as the day still to be employed in divine worship; and 3. That he did not do this because he could gain a Jewish audience on that day; for his discourse was for the Gentiles; but to show his regard for the day as still the divinely appointed Sabbath of the Lord; and to impress upon his Gentile hearers the same truth. Let those who believe in a change of the Sabbath, study well this incident in the life of Paul, in all its bearings. Preble.—'In Acts xviii, 4, it is said, "And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Where was Paul at the time? At "Corinth." Who was he with? He was with "a Jew named Aquila," and "his wife Priscilla." And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them and wrought (for by their occupation they were tent-makers). And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.' Acts xviii, 1–6. "The apostle did not find this very pleasant 'seventh-day' worship, did he? These were not his brethren that Paul was with on this occasion, were they? And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, Paul left them, saying, 'From henceforth I will go to the Gentiles.' Do we have any account that the apostle after this had any more meetings on the seventh-day Sabbath? Never! This was the last. But we do find him holding meetings with his brethren after this; but their meetings for worship were on the 'first day of the week.' (Sabbaton.) Acts xx, 7." REPLY.—"He reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath." This is spoken of the seventh day of the week; and it is here called, as in many other places in the Acts, the Sabbath, without any limitation or qualification. The book of Acts was written thirty years, at least, this side of the resurrection. It was written by a Christian, and for the benefit of Christians in this dispensation. The seventh day either was or was not the Sabbath, at the time Luke wrote. If it was not, how shall we account for his frequent and familiar mention of it in this manner? Would he, writing for Christians in this dispensation, continually call a day the Sabbath which he knew had been abolished, and was not to be kept by Christians under the gospel? Could he say of anything that was done on the seventh day, that it was done on the Sabbath, as he repeatedly does, if the Sabbath had been done away, or if any other day had taken the place of the seventh? Impossible. It would not be in accordance either with his character as a Christian writer, or with strict principles of morality. Such mention of the Sabbath in Acts can in no way be accounted for, except upon the ground that it is still binding in this dispensation. When Paul was at Corinth he declared to the blaspheming Jews, that he would go to the Gentiles. Then asks Eld. P., "Do we have any account that the apostle after this had any more meetings on the seventh-day Sabbath? Never." Wait a moment. Was this the first time that he had declared that he turned to the Gentiles? By no means. Nine years before this, when Paul was at Antioch in Pisidia, as already noticed, Acts xiii, 14, 42, 44, 46, he declared that he turned to the Gentiles. When the Gentiles had besought him to preach to them the next Sabbath, and then, accordingly, almost the whole city had come together, the Jews, seeing the multitudes were filled with envy, and "spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you, but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." When was this? At the commencement of that meeting for which the Gentiles had waited a whole week in order that it might be held on the Sabbath, and for which Paul had suffered them to wait, under the impression that that was the proper day for divine worship; and so, having turned to the Gentiles, Paul continued his discourse to them on the Sabbath, never intimating to them any such thing as the abolition of the institution or the change of the day. Here was just as definite a turning to the Gentiles as the case mentioned by Eld. P. from Acts xviii, and now we will inquire, Do we find the apostle after this holding "meetings upon the seventh-day Sabbath?" Surely we do. It was after this that the apostles went out by the river side at Philippi for a season of social worship among Christians, as already referred to, Acts xvi; after this that meeting was held at Thessalonica three Sabbath days, Acts xvii, 2; after this that Paul reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath at Corinth, Acts xviii, and when he was driven from thence, entered into a man's house, named Justus, whose house joined hard to the synagogue, and continued there a year and six months teaching the word of God among them. From all this, it is apparent that Paul's turning to the Gentiles did not in the least affect his practice relative to the Sabbath; but as Eld. P. has asserted with great assurance that his observance of the Sabbath at Corinth just before turning to the Gentiles "was the last," we cannot forbear noticing one more incident in the life of Paul. Two years after this, Paul visited Ephesus, as recorded in Acts xix, 8, and went into the synagogue and spake boldly for the space of three months. On what day may we suppose that he held meetings in the synagogue at Ephesus? Heretofore such meetings have uniformly been held on the Sabbath; but now we must conclude, must we not, of13course, that these meetings were held on the first day; that Paul procured the Jewish synagogue for his Sunday services! Verily Eld. P. has here sailed clear up on to dry ground. Referring to the opposition of the Jews, he asks, "Paul did not find this very pleasant seventh-day worship, did he?" To which we reply that Paul did not keep the Sabbath, or perform any other Christian duty because it was pleasant so far as his relation with the world or unbelieving professors was concerned; and if the principle involved in his question is the one upon which he acted, during the short time in which he walked in obedience to the truth, we marvel not that he so soon turned his back upon the cross-bearing way. It would be well if he had adhered to the sentiment he expressed in his tract written in 1845 in honor and vindication of the Sabbath, p. 12: "But for one, I had rather obey God, and have his approbation here, and finally enjoy the blessings of the new earth—though all men hate me—than to have the good opinion of men here, and perish at last. Or in other words, and in the language of another, 'I had rather go Heaven alone, than to hell with the multitude.'" Continuing with Paul, after his meeting at Corinth, he says, "But we do find him holding meetings with his brethren after this; but their meetings for worship were on the first day of the week (sabbaton). Acts xx, 7." As this is the most specious and insidious portion of the last quotation from Eld. P., and as Acts xx, 7, is the only mention in the New Testament of any religious meeting of whatever kind, on the first day of the week, night or day, it is perhaps entitled to more than a passing notice. Eld. P.'s assertion that Paul held no more meetings on the seventh day, after turning to the Gentiles, we have already followed into the ground; and we shall find his assertion or insinuation, that the first day was thereafter devoted by the disciples to religious worship, equally false. Acts xx, 7, records a solitary instance of a meeting on the first day of the week. Let us look at this meeting, and see in what part of the day it was held, what portion it occupied, what it determines respecting the day on which it occurred, and how the disciples spent the remainder of the day. In verse 8 we read, "And there were many lights in the upper chamber where they were gathered together." Now it does not particularly concern us to know just how many lamps were burning on that occasion, and we are not told; but it does seem that the Holy Spirit has caused this particular to be recorded to show us that this was an evening meeting. And if Eld. P. had looked at this meeting in the light of these lamps, we think he would have arrived at more correct conclusions concerning it. This one point is then settled: the meeting was an evening meeting, held not in the day-time, but in the evening of the first day of the week. Now in what part of the first day did the evening come? In the first part, or the last part? Answer. In the first part; as according to Bible reckoning, a reckoning by which Paul and the disciples were governed, the evening was the first portion of the day. "The evening and the morning were the first day." Gen. i. And so of the second, and third days, and so on. Again, "From even to even shall ye celebrate your sabbaths." Lev. xxiii, 32. So that the first day of the week in Paul's time commenced with what would be, according to the present reckoning of time, Saturday evening; and consequently that meeting at Troas was held on what would now be Saturday night! Mark this. And that you may not think this is any fancy of our own, we will give a few quotations from standard authorities sustaining this point: Prof. Hackett comments upon this text thus: "The Jews reckoned the day from evening to morning, and on that principle the evening of the first day of the week would be our Saturday evening." Kitto, whose Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature has hitherto been a standard work with scholars, in noting the fact that this meeting at Troas was an evening meeting, speaks thus: "It has from this last circumstance been inferred that the assembly commenced after sunset on the Sabbath, at which hour the first day of the week had commenced according to the Jewish reckoning [John Bibl. Antip. § 398], which would hardly agree with the idea of a commemoration of the resurrection." Cyclopædia, article, Lord's Day. And Prynne, in his Dissertation on the Lord's Day Sabbath, thus states this point: "Because the text saith there were many lights in the upper room where they were gathered together, and that Paul preached till midnight, . . . this meeting of the disciples at Troas began at evening. The sole doubt will be what evening this was. For my own part I conceive clearly that it was upon Saturday night, as we falsely call it, and not the coming Sunday night. . . . Because St. Luke records that it was upon the first day of the week, when this meeting was, therefore it must needs be on the Saturday, not on our Sunday evening, since Sunday evening in St. Luke's and the Scripture account was no part of the first, but of the second, day; the day ever beginning and ending at evening." In view of such testimony as above quoted, no one certainly will endeavor to controvert the fact that this meeting was upon the evening preceding the day-time of the first day of the week. Paul preached till midnight, healed the young man who fell from the window, continued his speech till break of day, verse 11, and when Sunday had fairly and broadly dawned upon the world, what did he do? Spend the rest of the day in religious abstinence from labor, and hold a forenoon and afternoon meeting with the disciples there? Nothing of the kind. But, continues the record, "so he departed." Off he went, Sunday morning, with the rest of his company, on his long journey up to Jerusalem, he going afoot, verse 13, a singular way to keep Sunday, if it was the Sabbath, and the rest sailing around to Assos, there intending to take him in. Now if Paul's meeting with the disciples in the evening, at the commencement of that first day, imparted any sort of sanctity whatever to the day, his traveling on the latter part, and all the light part of the day, more than took off that sanctity. And as this was his last act on that day, such is the apostolic example he bequeathed to posterity touching the first day of the week. It was in this same year, A. D. 59, that Paul gave instruction to the church at Corinth, as he had before to the churches of Galatia, to lay by them in store upon the first day of the week, for purposes of religious charity, directions which involve the necessity of reviewing their secular business, counting up their worldly gains, to see to what extent the Lord had prospered them, and determining what part they could devote to the wants of their brethren; work which would well commence the secular business of the week, but would be wholly inadmissible for the Sabbath, which is to be devoted to religious rest and worship, and a scrupulous dismissal of all worldly cares and considerations. If any should say that the language, "lay by him in store," means a collection in the public congregation, and that therefore meetings must have been regularly held on the first day of the week, we reply that the original will not admit of any such idea. The Greek of the expression is para heautou; and Greenfield in his lexicon translates these words thus: "with one's self; that is, at home." From this it is apparent that what Paul here commanded was a private transaction, to be accomplished by each one at home, and not involving the idea of a public meeting at all. For a more extended examination of this text, and the meaning of the phrase, "lay by him in store," in twelve translations, and nine different languages, we refer the reader to the History of the Sabbath, pp. 175–178. Space forbids us longer to dwell upon it here. We submit our proposition, then, as proved, that there is no instance of a meeting held in the day-time of the first day of the week, nor held upon it at all as the regular day for divine worship, nor a single mention of it in the New Testament, as any other than a secular day. In distinction from this we have the Sabbath, everywhere in the history of the early church, as contained in the Acts of the Apostles, spoken of as the regular day for religious meetings, not for the Jews only, but for the Gentiles also.