The Sabbath by J. M. Aldrich

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 21, 1865

The Sabbath.

By J. M. Aldrich

A Discourse by J. M. Aldrich, delivered in the Baptist Church, Somerset, N. Y., in review of a discourse delivered at the same place by a Rev. Mr. West, of Fulton Co., N. Y.

(Concluded.)

The gentleman endeavors to gain a point by taking the position that the law of the Sabbath is positive and not moral. I don't see what he gains here; for a positive law is binding till it be done away or abrogated; but I choose the position that the Sabbath law is strictly moral. We may reason thus: Man owes everything to God. Every faculty of his mind, every power of his being, all his strength and all his time belong of right to his Creator. It was therefore the benevolence of God that gave to man six days for his own wants. And in setting apart the seventh day to a holy use in memory of his own rest, the Most High was reserving unto himself only one of the seven days, when he could rightly claim all as his. The six days therefore are the gift of God to man, to be rightly employed in secular affairs, not the seventh day, the gift of man to God. The fourth commandment, therefore, does not require man to give something of his own to God, but it does require that man should not appropriate to himself that which God has reserved for his own worship. To observe the Sabbath then, is nothing short of rendering to God, of the things that are his; and to appropriate his rest-day to ourselves, is simply robbing God. Judge ye, whether the fourth commandment is of moral obligation.

But under this head, Mr. West offers a very weak argument in the form of a supposition, which I will note. He says, "Suppose we admit that the Sabbath is moral. Then all the saints in Heaven would be compelled to work six days and rest the seventh day. So would all the devils in hell; therefore days and nights must exist in Heaven and hell;" and all this he exclaims "is preposterous." Now I should think, myself, that some part of this argument at least would be preposterous, surely. The gentleman in speaking of our observing the seventh day, and then neglecting to stone our brethren to death for kindling fires on that day, was pleased to term it, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel; and this figure not being strong enough to suit him, he said it was serving God like the Devil. Now, I submit, that in his effort to produce an argument on this point he strained at something quite as small as a gnat, and swallowed even more than a camel. And surely, when he gets the devils to keeping Sabbath in hell, as the result of the Sabbath being a moral law, he may say in truth, that that would be serving God like the Devil. But I have no idea that the

Devil will ever pay any such regard to the moral law, nor do I see any reason for his so doing in consequence of the moral obligation of the Sabbath. But I see no objection to the idea that the Sabbath will be observed by the saints of God in the future state.

In this place I have one text to offer. It may be found in the prophecy of Isaiah, lxvi, 22, 23. "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make shall remain before me saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain; and it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me saith the Lord." Now my hearers, where are you pleased to locate this prophecy? If in the future, or new-heavens and new-earth state, (where, I will say, I choose to apply it,) then I ask, what becomes of the gentleman's idea that he regarded as being so preposterous; viz., Sabbath-keeping in the future state? But if you see fit to locate this prophecy in the present, or gospel dispensation, as I presume most of you do, then according to your own application, the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is binding in this dispensation. Either application of this text is an unanswerable argument against our friend's theory of the Sabbath.

But it is objected to the idea of a Sabbath in the future state, that it would involve the succession of day and night. I fail to see anything preposterous in this. I do not object to the idea of day and night in the future state. And I apprehend, that when the earth is made new it will revolve on its axis the same as now, and hence measure off day and night the same as now. I know it is said with reference to the New Jerusalem, that there will be no night there. But why? I answer, because there will be no absence of light; for the glory of God and the Lamb is to be the light thereof. Hence, if Mr. West insists on one eternal day without a night to shade his peaceful slumbers, he had better seek a permanent place inside of the city. Enough on this point.

Let us now give a passing notice to this stoning question, over which our friend waxed so jubilant. He wonders if we are law-breakers on this point! He thinks if we profess to observe this old done away law, mark the expression, and then refuse to stone our brethren to death for kindling fires on the Sabbath, we strain at a gnat and swallow a camel; and more yet, we serve God like the Devil. Does this look like an old done away law? "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." That done away? "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Done away? "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." "Honor thy father and thy mother." "Thou shalt not kill." "Shalt not commit adultery." "Shalt not steal." "Shalt not bear false witness." "Shalt not covet." Old done away law is it? Such is the doctrine of Eld. West. We demur. This law, we do indeed profess to observe. Judge ye, my hearers, who does the greater straining; and who performs the biggest swallowing!

Allow me to say, that Eld. West is not the first on record, of being unduly exercised on this stoning question. On a noted occasion, which you will call to mind, certain conceited Scribes and Pharisees, sought to make capital against our Saviour on this very matter.

But how effectually they were silenced by the Saviour's reply: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone." Had the gentleman studied this text as he ought, he would have known more than his folly indicated. Here we may learn the important, yet simple fact, that the penalty attached to a law may be modified or postponed, without doing away with the law itself. We see that our Saviour still recognized the perpetuity of the law that had been violated, by saying, "Go and sin no more;" although the stoning penalty which was but a figure of the real penalty for sin, be forever abolished. And what is true in this respect of the seventh commandment, is alike true of all, the fourth not excepted.

This is enough, perhaps on the stoning matter; but as he attempts to make considerable of a point, in regard to the prohibition of fires on the Sabbath, and as this is often urged as a reason why the Sabbath should not be kept, I wish to examine at some length the only text in the Bible where such prohibition occurs. Ex. xxxv, 2. "Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on the Sabbath-day." It should be observed:

1. That this language does not form part of the fourth commandment, the grand law of the Sabbath.

2. That as there were laws pertaining to the Sabbath, that were no part of the Sabbath's institution, but that grew out of its being entrusted to the Hebrews, such as the law respecting the presentation of the shewbread on the Sabbath, and that respecting the burnt offering for the Sabbath; so it is at least possible that this is a precept pertaining only to that nation, and not a part of the original institution.

3. That as there were laws peculiar only to the Hebrews, so there were many that pertained to them only while they were in the wilderness. Such were all those precepts relating to the manna, the building of the tabernacle and the manner of setting it up; the manner of encamping about it, &c.

4. That of this class were all the statutes given from the time that Moses brought down the second tables of stone, until the close of the book of Exodus, unless the words under consideration form the only exception.

5. That the prohibition of fires was a law of this class, i. e., a law designed only for the wilderness, is evident from several decisive facts: 1st. That the land of Palestine during a part of the year is so intensely cold that fires are necessary to prevent suffering. The Bible and history abound with facts to establish this proposition. The Psalmist in an address to Jerusalem, says, "He giveth snow like wool; he scattereth the hoar frost like ashes. He casteth forth his ice like morsels; who can stand before his cold?" See also, Jer. xxxvi, 22; John xviii, 18; Matt. xxiv, 20. And history informs us that the cold has been at times so severe in Judea, that men and animals have perished in consequence of it. 2nd. That the Sabbath was not designed to be a cause of distress and suffering, but of refreshment, of delight and of blessing. The testimony of the Bible on this point is very explicit. To be required to be without fire on the Sabbath, in the severity of winter would cause the Sabbath to be a curse and not a refreshment. Our Saviour says, "The Sabbath was made for man," but who will affirm that it was made for him, to be a curse, or source of distress and suffering? The prophet Isaiah says, "If

thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable," &c. Thus we see that the Sabbath was designed to be a delight, instead of a cause of suffering. 3rd. That in the wilderness of Sinai, where this precept respecting fires on the Sabbath was given, it was not a cause of suffering, as they were two hundred miles south of Jerusalem, in the warm climate of Arabia. 4th. That this precept was of a temporary character, is further implied in that while other laws are said to be perpetual statutes and precepts to be kept after they should enter the land of Canaan, no hint of this kind here appears. On the contrary, this seems to be similar in character to the precept respecting the manna, and to be co-existent with, and adapted to it. 5th. If the prohibition of fires, did indeed pertain to the promised land, and not merely to the wilderness, it would every few years conflict directly with the law of the passover. For the passover was to be roasted by each family of the children of Israel, on the evening following the fourteenth day of the first month, which would occasionally fall on the Sabbath. This prohibition of fires on the Sabbath would not conflict with the passover while the Hebrews were in the wilderness; for the passover was not to be observed until they reached that land. But if that proposition did extend forward to the promised land, where the passover was to be regularly observed these two statutes would often come in direct conflict. This is certainly a strong confirmation of the view that the prohibition of fires upon the Sabbath was a temporary statute relating only to the wilderness.

From these facts it follows, that the favorite argument drawn from the prohibition of fires, that the Sabbath was a local institution, adapted only to the land of Canaan, must be abandoned; for it is evident that that prohibition was a temporary statute, not even adapted to the land of promise and not designed for that land.

The gentleman insisted further, that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was Jewish, and hence done away, from the fact that it is declared to be a sign between God and that people. But in what sense, I inquire, are we to understand the Sabbath, as a sign between God and the children of Israel? Certainly, not in the sense that God made the Sabbath exclusively for that people, for nothing of the kind is to be implied from the language of inspiration; but on the contrary, as we have seen, the Sabbath was made at creation, and some 2500 years before the Jewish nation came into existence.

But in considering the Sabbath as a sign between God and the children of Israel, it should be borne in mind that they were the only people that were worshipers of the true God. All other nations had turned from him to the gods of their own making. For this reason, the memorial of the great Creator was selected, and became a most expressive sign, between God and Israel. As a sign, its object is stated to be to make known the true God; and the reason is also given why it was such a sign. Ex. xxxi, 13, 17. "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed." Also, "that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you." How full of meaning, then, was the Sabbath as a sign between God and his own peculiar people, when all other nations were given over to idolatry. The institution itself signified the God that created the heavens and the earth. Its observance by the people signified, that the Creator of all things was their God. In this sense, the Sabbath became a sign between God and Israel; and not in the sense that it was created exclusively for that people. Indeed, it were well for God's professed people in this age of sin and apostasy, to lay hold of the Creator's great memorial, and, by a proper observance of it, show that they accept it as a sign between them and the God they profess to worship.

I therefore object to bestowing the Sabbath and all its attendant blessings upon the Jews.

Again, he sought to dispose of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, by attempting to prove that the ten commandments constituted the old covenant, spoken of in Hebrews, that was done away, to give place to the new or second covenant; thus making a clean sweep, as I have before remarked, of the whole decalogue. But in this effort he seemed to forget, that according to his own showing from the sixteenth of Exodus, he had the Sabbath instituted some six weeks before the covenant of ten commandments was given. Hence when he performs the unenviable task, of striking from existence God's covenant of ten commandments, this bothersome Sabbath still remains, existing on prior account. Surely, it requires a gigantic effort to dispose of the Sabbath! He must try again.

Much might be said of interest respecting the several covenants of the Bible, but I shall say but very little. The gentleman's effort to identify the old, or done-away covenant, referred to in the book of Hebrews, as the covenant commanded, or ten commandments, is a failure. The ten commandments! They, the covenant that Paul labored so earnestly to convince the Hebrews was faulty?—that decayeth, and waxeth old and is ready to vanish away! You don't believe it. Notwithstanding your prejudice against the Sabbath embraced in the decalogue, you don't believe that it of itself, is so bad an institution, as to cause the same to become so very faulty, that it must needs decay, wax old and vanish away! Paul reasoned quite differently. When referring directly to the law of ten commandments, he pronounced it holy, just and good. He says he had not known sin but by the law, and that he had not known lust except the law had said: Thou shalt not covet. Be assured, then, Paul does not labor to convince the Hebrews that that law that convinced him of sin, and which he declared to be holy, just and good, was faulty, and ready to vanish away!

But the Sabbath is to be disposed of, hence the decalogue must be abolished. The gentleman's idea of the decalogue is about as lucid as that of a certain candidate for Congress, that some of you, perhaps, have heard of. In a certain congressional district where a little learning was not considered a dangerous thing, a certain Hon. gentleman who had been so fortunate as to receive a nomination for Congress, on a certain occasion when stamping his district to convince the people that he ought to be elected, was so unfortunate, as to be inquired of, respecting his religious views. Some one of his audience, no doubt a person of strong Jewish affinity, asked him what he thought of the decalogue? D-e-c-a-l-o-g-u-e? [Turning to a learned friend that sat by.] Decalogue? decalogue? What's the meaning of decalogue? I d-o-n-'t k-n-o-w, says his friend, but I g-u-e-s-s it means flogging in the navy! Oh yes (re-assuring himself), I,—I, am utterly opposed to it. I am in favor of having it abolished immediately.

So with Mr. West: although he may not think the decalogue means flogging in the navy, yet he thinks it is something that may be, and no doubt ought to be abolished.

The primary and common meaning of covenant is a mutual agreement between two or more persons, based upon mutual considerations; but the ten commandments are no such covenant; for they contain no mutual considerations, and are based upon no conditions whatever. It is true God calls the ten commandments his covenant, and for the reason doubtless, that they constitute the basis or moral conditions of all other covenants to which he is a party.

To be brief, I will say that the old covenant that was ready to vanish away, I regard as the remedial scheme of the former dispensation, through which man was permitted to approach God on account of sin; or in other words, the ceremonial law. This law is identified as the first or old covenant that is said to be done away, in the first part of Heb. ix. "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary." Then follows a descriptive list of the vessels of the sanctuary, the ministration of the priests, &c., and then the whole is summed up in the 10th verse, thus: "Which stood only in meats, and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." These meats, and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, all will admit, were done away,—nailed to the cross. It should be borne in mind that the book of Hebrews does not treat upon the moral law, but is mainly a commentary on the ceremonial law, or a contrast between the Levitical and Melchisedec priesthoods; the offerings and ceremonies of the former dispensation, and those of the present; in other words, the old and new covenants, showing that the former were to vanish away to give place for the latter.

Jeremiah xxxi, 31 was referred to by the gentleman to strengthen his view of the covenant question. "Behold the days come saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel. . . . But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." This text is against him. It will be observed that the "new covenant" and the "my law" spoken of in the text are not identical; and though a new covenant is promised, there is no promise of a new law. And further still, it must be conceded that whatever constituted God's law in the days of Jeremiah, was that which in due time was to be written in the heart; and no one will deny that the ten commandments were God's law in the days of Jeremiah; hence, as we are now living under the fulfillment of this prophecy, as he admitted, the ten commandments, Sabbath and all, must be in force at the present time.

We were also referred to 2 Cor. iii, as further proof on the point under consideration: "But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away, how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? . . . For if that which was done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." This passage our friend says, is proof that "the old Jewish Sabbath of the decalogue, is that which was done away;" and then in still stronger terms he says, that "here we have the most conclusive evidence that the old covenant, Sabbath and all, is done away and not binding." Hence the ten commandments are not binding on us; for, according to his showing, as we have seen, the old covenant was the ten commandments. But how does he arrive at such a rash conclusion? There is nothing said in the passage under consideration, about the Sabbath being done away, nor the ten commandments, nor that which was written and engraven in stones. But on the contrary, it was the Mosaic ministration of the ten commandments, or ministration of death that was so glorious; and which glorious ministration was to be done away to give place to the ministration of the Spirit, that is still more glorious. Death here represents that which was written and engraven in stones, or the ten commandments, for the reason doubtless, that under the Mosaic ministration they were enforced by the penalty of death. It is enough then for me to say that the ministration of a law, and the law itself, are two different things. And it is certainly strange that any person need mistake the one for the other.

Again: Mr. West quotes from Galatians: "Wherefore the law was our school-master to bring us unto Christ," to prove the ten commandments done away. In reply to this, I have to say that the law here spoken of as the school-master, is not the law of ten commandments, but the ceremonial law which Paul is treating upon in this epistle. The ten commandments are in no sense a school-master to lead us to Christ. It is true they convict of sin; for sin is the transgression of the moral law; but they point to no remedy. But the ceremonial law was instituted for this very purpose, to serve as a school-master to bring us to Christ. Every offering made, and every ceremony performed, was a lesson that told of Christ the great offering to come. Hence this text like so many others, proves that it is the ceremonial law, and not the ten commandments that is done away.

In this connection allow me to state what I have before suggested, and what perhaps you already know, that during the former dispensation,—as in fact during the present, there were two laws, separate and distinct from each other;—the moral and the ceremonial; and it is the great mistake of many, as it seems to be with

Eld. West, to blend or incorporate these two laws into one; when in fact the Bible makes a clear distinction between them.

The moral law grows out of the relations that we sustain to God and to our fellow men, and is binding upon all men through all ages; and which being spoken with the voice of God, it was said, "He added no more." Deut. v, 22. Thus showing that it was a law complete in itself. The ceremonial law was temporary in its nature, not founded on fundamental principles, but grew out of the fact that man had sinned and stood in need of redemption. And the fact that we find one system or law, shadowing forth a work of redemption, proves the existence of sin; hence the transgression of another and prior law, for "sin is the transgression of the law." Hence, we may clearly see, as we have seen, that the ceremonial law which was temporary in its nature, may have served its time, have answered the purpose for which it was instituted, and have vanished away, and yet leave the moral law as complete and perfect as before.

The gentleman asks us how we can arrange to keep the Sabbath near the poles where the days are so long! I answer, just as he can arrange to keep the first-day! But I would ask him how and where he learned that the days at the poles were any longer than on other portions of the earth? I was taught that the revolution of the earth on its axis constituted days on all parts of the earth, and that it performed its revolution at the poles in the same time that it did at the equator or elsewhere! If such is the fact, his objection is more imaginary than real. And I would further state, that as far as man has explored the arctic regions, there has been no difficulty whatever in keeping dates; and hence there would be no difficulty in arranging to keep the Sabbath. For proof on this point, I would refer you to the history of Dr. Kane's arctic expedition.

Now, after our friend has thus cut and slashed, hewed and hacked, after the most barbarous sort, first the Sabbath, and then the whole decalogue, he very graciously brings forward a speedy cure for all except the Sabbath. The poor old Jewish Sabbath he so wounded and maimed, so fatally stabbed, that no balm sufficeth for it! Here is his cure! "What was important to be brought into the new dispensation, Christ has transferred himself." And here is the article of transfer: Matt. xxii, 37-39. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment; and the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Now if these words of our Saviour be the act of transferring from the decalogue what was important therein, I would ask how the gentleman knows but what the Sabbath was transferred at that time? Whilst it is true that nothing is said in this "act of transfer" (if such it be) about the Sabbath, it is also true that nothing is said about either of the other commandments. Then how does he know but what the Sabbath is also embraced in this, his new law of love? It certainly ought to be embraced therein; for there is nothing more indicative of love to God than a holy regard for his Sabbath.

But we need not rest our case on what we think ought to be, but I will prove that the Sabbath is embraced in one of these two commandments; and I will say, in the first, the great commandment which requires supreme love to God. Christ says, "On these two commandments (i. e., love to God, and to our neighbor) hang all the law and the prophets." Now I have only to say that if all the law hang on these commandments, then most assuredly the Sabbath hangs there with the rest.

But I deny, that Christ in giving these two great commandments, undertook to legislate upon the moral law. In answer to the question, "Which is the great commandment in the law?" he simply gave a summary of the whole ten. First, of the first four, that relate to our duties to God; second, of the remaining six, that relate to our duties to our fellow men.

Again, if it be a fact, that Christ here enacted a new law for this dispensation, with the Sabbath left out, which was to go into effect at the crucifixion, where it is claimed that the old covenant of ten commandments ceased by being nailed to the cross; how is it to be accounted for, that those holy women, who had so long been his intimate and immediate followers, were so heedless in regard to a matter of such account, and of such public notoriety, as to have such a pious regard for the very first seventh-day of the new law dispensation, not even willing to engage in so noble a work as the embalming of their Lord; but instead, as the record states, "rested on the seventh-day according to the commandment." Let those answer who are able.

I will now follow our friend a few moments only, in his consideration of the reasons for observing the first-day. He made one admission under this head that is worthy of note, and which I regard as fatal to his first-day, or Christian Sabbath, viz.: that we have no divine command or authority for the observance of the first-day. This statement should cause all first-day observers, who flatter themselves that they are rendering obedience to divine authority in their observance of that day, to consider well their position, possibly some will find they have been mistaken in this matter, that the gentleman's admission is indeed the truth.

Notwithstanding his admission, he claims that there are sufficient reasons for our observance of the first-day as the Christian Sabbath. Here let me remark, that although Christian Sabbath, and Jewish Sabbath, are very common terms on his vocabulary, they are entirely gratuitous, not being found or used in the Bible. I make this remark that none need labor under any false impression that may have arisen from the very frequent use that he made of these terms.

It is claimed that the first day is to commemorate the finished work of redemption. There are at least two serious objections to this claim: First, there is no authority in the Bible or elsewhere that the first-day bears any such relation to the work of redemption. Secondly, the work of redemption is not yet finished, and therefore as such, cannot be commemorated by the first day. Redemption will not be finished till Christ shall have completed his work, as our great High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary. The resurrection of the just, and the restoration of our earth from the curse, are included in that work.

But if you would commemorate redemption by the observance of any day, why not observe the sixth day? for the day on which our Saviour was crucified, was more noted, and bore a much closer relation to redemption, than the day on which his resurrection took place. On the sixth day our Saviour's blood was shed; and the Bible informs us that it is through his blood that we have redemption. Hence as the Christian Sabbath is based on reason, and not divine authority, as the gentleman admitted; and as the reason assigned is redemption, I insist that the sixth day should be observed instead of the first.

Again he says, as much greater as the work of redemption is, than that of creation, so much more does the Christian Sabbath transcend the Jewish. This is a very cheap kind of argument. How does he know that redemption is greater than creation? He never redeemed a world, nor created one; nor did he ever know a person that did; then what means has he of knowing which work is the greater? The great God who created the world, and who has undertaken to redeem it, has not seen fit to reveal anything on the point in question. The fact is, redemption and creation are both infinite works, and it is not within the skill or knowledge of finite man to tell which is the greater.

Here the gentleman presents another very cheap argument; it is this: "When the Jews met on the seventh day they had a dead Saviour before them. So have those who now keep the seventh day." I don't see the force of such logic. It is proof of one thing, viz., that he was hard pressed for good arguments. I fail to see why it follows that we,—seventh-day keepers—now have a dead Saviour before us, from the fact that our Lord lay dead in Joseph's new tomb during one seventh day, over eighteen hundred years ago.

Again he says "the first day is emphatically the Lord's day." This, I have to say, is "emphatically" an assertion. He gave however what he called proof, Rev. i, 10. "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." How does he know that this text teaches that the first day is the Lord's day? The text says not a word about the first day. But there are other texts in the Bible that do tell us "emphatically" what day is the Lord's day. I have only to cite you to the fourth

commandment, which says in direct terms, that "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord." Our Saviour also says, that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath day. Hence the seventh day or Sabbath day is the Lord's day; and there is no intimation in the whole Bible that any other day is the Lord's day. And this text proves further, that we have a Lord's day in this dispensation, and in connection with the proof texts that I quoted, proves that we have a Sabbath in this dispensation of divine appointment which our friend Mr. West denies.

As another reason for observing the first day, he says it was particularly noted for Christ's presence with his disciples. We learn from the Bible, that Christ met with his disciples on one first-day, viz.: the day of his resurrection. If his presence with his disciples on the first day, makes it particularly noted in this respect, then indeed it is thus noted; but not otherwise. It is true that he met with them again "after eight days," but there is neither proof nor logic, that eight days after a given first-day, would be the next first-day. But even if Christ did meet with his disciples on the first day, as many times as the gentleman would wish, I fail to see a sufficient reason therein for observing the first day as a Sabbath. With equally good authority, we might observe as a Sabbath, the day on which Christ met with his disciples on a fishing occasion. But such authority for a Sabbath, is decidedly weak, by the side of the fourth commandment.

As another pillar for the first-day Sabbath we were referred to 1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2. "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." From this text it is argued that this was a public collection, and hence the churches of Corinth and Galatia met on the first day of the week for public worship. I greatly wonder that any one should base an argument on such a foundation. What do these words enjoin: "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store?" I answer they enjoin precisely the reverse of a public collection. Each one should lay by himself on the first day of the week according as God had prospered him, that when Paul should arrive they might have their bounty ready. Greenfield in his Lexicon, translates the Greek term, "with one's self, at home." Hence in obedience to the precept enjoined in this text, each individual would at the opening of each new week be found at home, laying aside something for the cause of God, as his worldly affairs would warrant; therefore this pillar for the Christian Sabbath, is like all the rest that have been reared in its support a thing of the imagination.

Again we are referred to Acts xx, 7, as affording another strong pillar for the first-day temple. "And upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his speech until midnight." This is the only instance recorded in the New Testament of a religious meeting upon the first day of the week; hence if there was any sacredness attached to the first day, we might expect on this occasion at least to see it sacredly observed by Paul and his companions. But let us see. This meeting, although on the first day, was a night meeting as we learn from the fact that Paul continued his speech till midnight; also from the fact that there were many lights in the chamber where they were gathered together, as shown in the text. A night meeting then on the first day, would occur on our Saturday night, after the close of the seventh day; for according to Bible reckoning, days begin and end at sunset. And we learn that Paul preached unto them ready to depart on the morrow; and the context informs us that after he had talked a long while, even till break of day, he departed.

Here then we are furnished with conclusive evidence that on Sunday morning at break of day, Paul and his companions resumed their long journey toward Jerusalem, his company taking ship to Assos, and he being pleased to go on foot, a journey that even our most moderate Sunday-keepers at the present day would hardly think of undertaking.

This record then, of the only first-day religious meeting mentioned in the New Testament, affords us strong incidental proof of Paul's regard for the seventh-day Sabbath; in that he waited till it was past before resuming his journey; and it affords positive proof that he knew nothing of what in modern times is called the Christian Sabbath; nor of any sacredness to the first day.

The early Christians were next brought upon the stand, and made to testify in favor of the first day. A fabulous narrative which has often been used for a like purpose, and which the historians of the church have not deemed worthy of record, was brought forward to show that the observance of the first day of the week was the grand test by which Christians were known to their heathen persecutors. The narrative to which I refer, and from which the gentleman sought to make considerable capital in his favor, recites that when Christians were brought before their persecutors, this question was always asked them: Dominicum servasti? Hast thou kept the Lord's day? If they had they were Christians and must be put to death unless they recanted. It might be interesting to some to hear the proof which I have at hand, showing this narrative to be a famous falsehood of the seventeenth century, gotten up for the very purpose for which it was here introduced; but the time which I have already occupied forbids anything on this point. I will simply say that the story was first introduced in the early part of the seventeenth century by one Bishop Andrews of Winchester, in his speech in the Star chamber court, against one Thraske, who was brought to answer before the tribunal, for maintaining the opinion that Christians should observe the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. He claimed to have taken it from the Acta Martyrum,—an ancient collection of the acts of the martyrs. But it may be shown from competent testimony, that among the many questions recorded in the acts of the martyrs as having been put to them by their persecutors; the question, "Hast thou kept the Lord's day?" or its equivalent, does not even once occur. So much then for a famous falsehood, that certain doctors of divinity have forced into their service for the want of better arguments.

Thus my hearers, I have endeavored to follow the gentleman through his discourse, and notice, very briefly, every argument and proof text advanced by him; both as against the seventh day and in favor of the first day. How well I have succeeded in my effort, I leave for the candid to decide.

The gentleman, in conclusion was pleased to remark, that those who adhered to the seventh-day Sabbath, absolved themselves from Christ and his cause, and from all allegiance to Christ. This I consider a grave charge. In behalf of myself and my brethren in the seventh-day faith, I repel the charge. We cannot accept it as true. We acknowledge strictest allegiance to Christ. We love his cause, and we look for redemption through the purchase of his blood. We therefore reverence every precept of God's law; that very law that Christ magnified and made honorable through the offering of his own blood.

I submit to you then my hearers, with all deference to your views of this question, that we are not the ones who absolve ourselves from Christ.

We rest our authority for the Sabbath, in the commandment of God. We accept the great Creator's memorial, and also the reasons that he has assigned for its sacred observance.

You rest your authority for a Sabbath on, what? Shall I read the commandment? Here it is. "Remember the Christian Sabbath to keep it holy. The first day is the Sabbath of the Lord Jesus Christ. For on that day he arose from the dead; wherefore he blessed the first day of the week and hallowed it." The exact place where this commandment is to be found, I am not prepared to tell. I am persuaded, however, that it is not to be found in the Bible. Although such an edition of the fourth commandment does exist in the theory and practice of a great share of the Christian church, yet on the part of the God of truth it is impossible; for it not merely affirms that which is false, and denies that which is true, but it turns the truth of God itself into a lie. Yet such I have to say is the foundation of your first-day Sabbath.

In conclusion my friends, I ask you to review this question, to ascertain in the clear light of truth and revelation, your exact position in regard to it. And when you shall see, as you inevitably must, the foundation of your Christian Sabbath, tottering and crumbling away, I entreat you to step out upon the sure foundation,—the eternal rock,—the law of God, upon which rests the ancient and true Sabbath of the Lord.

And may the glad day speedily come, when it may be said of us in the language of inspiration, "Here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." Amen.