"A Refutation of the Principal Claim of Sunday-keeping to Divine Authority," &c., &c.
By J. H. W.
The above is part of the title of an 8 page tract, published by Ransom Hicks, Providence, R. I. The object is to prove that the Lord Jesus rose on the Sabbath, or seventh day; and the effort made would lead us to understand that he considered it very important to establish this point, thereby virtually confessing that if the Lord did rise on the first day of the week our opponents would have an argument therefrom in favor of Sunday sabbatizing. The great folly of the effort is in attaching so much importance to the claim. If somebody should affirm that a flea were an elephant, would it appear seemly to endeavor to chase it down with dogs and guns, to show that it was not an elephant? Yet this is somewhat like the mighty effort of our valorous friend R. H. To show the importance of the question he quotes from the Catholic catechism, where it is asked, and answered, "Why was the Jewish Sabbath changed into the Sunday?" "Because Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday." This, however, is only part of the answer. But it would seem to be enough on this point to show that the resurrection is not related to the Sabbath question, and that the Catholics base the obligation to keep Sunday on the authority of the church, and not of the Bible. The "foundation" of his "discourse" is Matt. xii, 40: the sign of Jonah. Now whether the Lord was crucified on Friday or on Thursday, (as some argue,) and whether the sign of Jonah refers exclusively to our Lord's burial, i. e., whether our Saviour meant the sepulcher by "the heart of the earth," (as many doubt,) are really matters of minor importance. The grave is not literally "the heart of the earth," and if our Saviour uses the term figuratively, the figure may mean something beside the tomb wherein he lay. So far from this being a settled point, we consider his main position a sheer assumption. But the assumption might be more readily waived if his argument was fair and reasonable. I will notice one of his main arguments that it may be seen what reliance can be placed on his conclusion. On pp. 4, 5, he says: "But says our friend, Doct. Sunday, does not Matthew (xxviii, 1, 2, in speaking of the time that the two Marys came to see the sepulchre, when there was a great earthquake, and the angels of the Lord came and rolled back the stone from the door,) say, that it was in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week? He does, or his words are so rendered, and we are also aware that various are your renderings of this text, Doct. Sunday, all of which are designed to make it appear, somehow, that at the time the two Marys came to see the sepulchre was on the first of the week. But your labor in that work will ever be in vain. The word day is not in the original. And the word dawn is not in the original. The word there properly means approached. Hence the text reads; "Now it being late in the Sabbath, as the first of the week approached, came Mary Magdalene," &c. Thus it is proved that the time that149the two Marys came to see the sepulchre, was late in the Sabbath, and not on the first of the week." Now we turn back to page 2, and with the above compare the following: "Concerning the time when the women (which came with Jesus from Galilee) came to the sepulchre to anoint him, Mark says, (xvi, 1, 2,) that 'it was very early in the morning, the first day of the week, at the rising of the sun;' i. e. not that the sun was risen, but that it was about to rise, or at the early break of day. Luke says xxiv, 1, that it was very early; in the Greek, deep twilight, or when there was scarcely any light. John xx, 1, says it was very early, while it was yet dark. That is, it was not yet fully daylight or the sun had not yet risen. The time when they came, therefore, was at the break of day, when the sun was about to rise, but while it was yet so dark as to render objects obscure, or not distinctly visible.'—(Barnes.) Thus early in the morning of the first day of the week were the women at the sepulchre." Mr. Hicks has put forth both of these positions with all confidence; and as they directly contradict each other, we must suppose, if he has confidence in both, that he is "double minded." This will account for his being "unstable in all his ways." The last-quoted position is, of course the Scriptural one: for Mark, Luke, and John, all plainly declare that it was on the first-day of the week,—not on the Sabbath, as Mr. H.'s singular criticism on Matt. xxviii, would have it appear. Dr. Clarke's criticism on this text is certainly more reliable than Mr. Hicks', and it has the merit of making Matthew harmonize with Mark, Luke, and John, while Mr. H. makes Matthew contradict the other evangelists. Dr. Clarke shows clearly that Matthew should be translated to harmonize with the others; and so Bernard's Bible and Whiting's Translation read, Matt. xxviii, 1, "After the Sabbath, as the first-day of the week was dawning." On the declaration that "dawn is not the original," it will be sufficient to see the following (the word used by Matthew is epiphoskousē). "Epiphoskō (epi & phōskō, to shine), to begin to shine, grow light, dawn."—Greenfield. "Epiphoskō (from epi, on, and phōskō, to dawn), to shine upon, to begin to be day, dawn."—Groves. Mr. H. doubtless thinks he has done a great work; and highly recommends it to the "Sabbatarian brotherhood" as "harmonious," "convenient and effectual" in refuting the Sunday claim: but as one of that number I must say I fail to see that he has rendered the subject more clear than Seventh-day Baptists have done before him, or raised it to that importance which he attaches to it. The most prominent evidence afforded by the tract, afforded also by all his writings that we have yet seen, is of the almost unbounded egotism of the author. J. H. W.