Review and Herald, Vol. 39, No. 1. (12/19/1871)

Review and Herald

Dec 19, 1871

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 19, 1871

Examination of T. M. Preble's First-Day Sabbath.

By John Nevins Andrews

By Eld. J. N. Andrews.

Chapter Thirteen.

The Last Mention of the First Day of the Week.

We come now to the last instance in which the phrase “first day of the week” is found in the New Testament. Of the eight instances of its occurrence, six pertain to that one first day on which Christ arose. Matt. 28: 1; Mark 16: 1, 2, 9; Luke 23: 56; 24: 1; John 20: 1, 19. In three of these, the Sabbath is carefully distinguished from this day. Matt. 28: 1; Mark 16: 1, 2; Luke 23: 56; 24: 1. And in one of these the Sabbath is observed “according to the commandment” before “the first day” commences. Luke 23: 56; 24: 1. Though these texts record the very event which is to be commemorated by the change of the Sabbath—that is, if Eld. P. is correct—yet they give no indication that the four evangelists ever thought of such a thing. Their silence respecting it, though they mention (1.) the institution alleged to have been changed; (2.) the event in whose honor the change is said to have been made; and, (3.) the day to which it was changed, if we may believe Eld. P., is absolutely fatal to the doctrine of the change of the Sabbath.

It is true, Eld. P. endeavors to show that in the original the four evangelists call this day “the first-day Sabbath” at the very time of Christ's resurrection. pp. 44–46. But we have shown that this is a great mistake; and even Eld. P. himself virtually repudiates this argument in a later section of his book, by declaring that the first decisive indications of the change of the Sabbath are to be found in the history of the apostles, and not in that of Christ himself. p. 110.

There remains, then, in the entire New Testament, only two more instances in which this day is even mentioned. That one of these which is contained in the book of Acts, does not occur until the apostles, as a body, are dismissed from its record. And we have seen, in chapter twelve, that in this single mention of the day in Paul's visit at Troas (Acts 20: 7–13), we have decisive proof that Paul and the disciples had no idea that this day had become a Sabbath.

The remaining instance in which this day is mentioned must, therefore, furnish that decisive evidence for its sacredness which we have hitherto sought in vain. Thus far we have failed to find a single indication that this has become a sacred day, consecrated to rest and to worship. Now we must certainly find the very testimony that meets the case. The last mention of the first day of the week is 1 Cor. 16: 2. But we must let Eld. P. introduce this text in his own way. He writes thus:

“The First-Day Sabbath. This brings me once more to speak on the subject of the first day of the week as the Sabbath. I have already referred to the fact that neither of the apostles ever attended another seventh-day meeting after the one mentioned in Acts 18: 4. And I will now add that this is the last time the Sabbath is found in our version of the New Testament, except in Col. 2: 16; and no Sabbatarian will admit, for one moment, that this refers to the seventh-day Sabbath. Hence it is proved that when Paul said, ‘From henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles’ (Acts 18: 4–6), he did do it; and after this, there is an entire silence in the New Testament in regard to the seventh-day Sabbath as a day of worship. The disciples held their meetings on the ‘first day of the week,’ as the following will prove:

“‘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.’ Acts 20: 7. ‘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.’ 1 Cor. 16: 2. ‘I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day.’ Rev. 1: 10.” pp. 72, 73.

1. Eld. P. says “that neither of the apostles ever attended another seventh-day meeting after the one mentioned in Acts 18: 4.” But this is a very grave mistake. For (1.) the stated day for divine worship had been for four thousand years the seventh day. And we have thus far sought in vain for one particle of evidence that the apostles established a new day for this purpose in the Christian church. (2.) And it is upon record that Paul did attend meetings in the synagogues of the Jews after this; and it will not be denied that these were seventh-day meetings. See Acts 18: 19; 19: 8. (3.) The language of James, some years after this, respecting the church at Jerusalem, evinces that both he and they still retained, not merely the seventh day, but even the ceremonial law. Acts 21: 18–25. And (4.) finally Paul's language to the Jews at Rome (Acts 28: 17) makes it certain that he had never ceased to regard the ancient Sabbath, for he had not violated any of the customs of their fathers. These texts are cited as direct proof that the apostles did certainly continue to observe the Sabbath of the Lord. Our ground for observing it rests directly upon the perpetuity of the moral law as distinguished from the ceremonial, of which we shall speak in due time.

2. Eld. P. says of Acts 18: 4, “this is the last time the word Sabbath is found in our version of the New Testament;” and “after this there is an entire silence in the New Testament in regard to the seventh-day Sabbath as a day of worship.” But the fourth chapter of Hebrews which, in its fourth verse, speaks of the seventh day in this wise, “and God did rest the seventh day from all his works,” speaks thus of the Sabbath in verse 9 according to the literal translation in the margin: “There remaineth therefore a keeping of a Sabbath to the people of God.” And we know from Isa. 66: 22, 23, that all the redeemed shall worship before God on each successive Sabbath. But if we throw out the fourth of Hebrews because the word Sabbath is in the margin instead of the text, and so accept Eld. P.'s statement that “this is the last time the word Sabbath is found in our version of the New Testament, except in Col. 2: 16,” yet it should be observed that this instance is the eighth time in which the Sabbath is mentioned in the book of Acts (Acts 13: 14, 27, 42, 44; 15: 21; 16: 13; 17: 2; 18: 4); and that this is the third instance in this book in which the ancient Sabbath is so mentioned as to absolutely exclude the first day of the week from the honorable title of Sabbath (Acts 13: 27; 15: 21; 18: 4); and that the Sabbath holds its place in this book longer than do the apostles, as a body, they being dismissed as such in chapter fifteen, and the weekly Sabbath having an honorable mention in chapter eighteen; moreover, this last instance of the mention of the Sabbath is so worded as to prove positively that, as late as the year 54, the first-day Sabbath had no existence (Acts 18: 4); and finally, that the first day of the week is not even mentioned in the book till six years after the last mention of the Sabbath of the Lord. These are indisputable facts, and they are worthy to be pondered.

There must, indeed, be some point where the Sabbath is last mentioned in the Bible; but it does not follow that the Spirit of God forgets this institution when it ceases to mention it. The moral law commands us, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” (Ex. 20: 8); and it must therefore never go out of our minds, as it certainly never will from the mind of the Spirit of God, while the law of God remains the rule of right and the whole duty of man. Rom. 3: 20; Eccl. 12: 13, 14. But the first day of the week being never commanded by God, nor by Christ, nor by the apostles, is not even mentioned in the book of Acts until six years after this time, and then it is mentioned but once, and that on the occasion of an incidental, and not a stated, meeting.

3. That Col. 2: 14–17 relates to the ceremonial law, and not to the moral, and that the Sabbaths therein mentioned are the annual, and not the weekly, Sabbaths, will be shown hereafter.

4. Eld. P. regards Acts 18: 6 as marking the transition in Paul's labors from the Jews to the Gentiles, and he endeavors to connect therewith an argument for the change of the Sabbath. It is therefore proper to point out his mistake. (1.) At his conversion, Paul was commissioned to the Gentiles, and bidden to commence then. Acts 26: 15–17. (2.) He labored much for the Gentiles in many places before this declaration of his in Acts 18: 6. See Gal. 1: 15–17; 2: 7–9; Acts 11: 20–26; 13: 42–49; 14: 15: 3, 12; 16: 17: 4, 23–34. (3.) After this declaration, he labored still further for the Jewish people in other places. Acts 18: 19; 19: 1–8; 28: 16–25. (4.) He had used similar language respecting turning to the Gentiles once before this, Acts 13: 46, and he uses the like once afterward. Acts 28: 28. (5.) What, then, did Paul mean by saying, “From henceforth I will go to the Gentiles”? Simply this: That while at Corinth, he should henceforth labor exclusively for the Gentiles. But he did not intend to falsify the facts above stated; nor did he mean to hold the Jews elsewhere responsible for the sins of those at Corinth. The text has not, therefore, the slightest bearing upon the change of the Sabbath; nor does it indicate any change in the conduct of St. Paul toward the Jews in general, and toward the Sabbath in particular.

Having, after the manner we have noticed, endeavored to dispose of the Sabbath of the Lord, Eld. P. thus brings in the first day: “The disciples held their meetings on the first day of the week, as the following will prove: Acts 20: 7; 1 Cor. 16: 2; Rev. 1: 10.”

We have fully proved in the examination of the first of these texts (1.) That no stated custom of weekly first-day meetings could have existed during the period covered by the book of Acts. 2. That the one meeting on the first day of the week, held at Troas, was not held in the daytime, but in the evening following the Sabbath. 3. That Paul gave the most decisive evidence that he did not regard the first day as the Sabbath, in that he resumed his journey on first-day morning. 4. That as Paul reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, A. D. 54, and as the first day was not included in this statement, it certainly was not a Sabbath at that time, and if it be one now, it has become such since that time.

We shall examine Rev. 1: 10, after we have considered the reference of Eld. P. to 1 Cor. 16: 2. He quotes this text to prove that the first day of the week was the stated day for divine worship instead of the Sabbath day. His reference to Acts 20: 7 being a failure, this text needs to go a good ways in helping him prove his point. We find his comments on this text in another part of his book, as follows:

“We admit that it means they were to ‘lay by him in store,’ or, in other words, let each lay by himself at home as God had prospered him. Although the original Greek does not favor the idea of a public collection every Sabbath, yet it will greatly aid us in regard to the true import of the apostle's language as given in 1 Cor. 16: 1–4.

“And concerning the collection which is for the saints; as I directed the churches of Galatia, so also do you. Every first day of the week, let each of you lay something by itself, depositing as he may be prospered, so that when I come, collections may not then be made.” (Emphatic Diaglott.)

“The Greek word rendered collection in verse 1 is logias—in the singular number. But the word in verse 2 is logiai—plural, collections. This proves that there was to be one general collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem; but in making up this general collection, there would be a necessity of the brethren laying by themselves on each successive Sabbath, or ‘first-day,’ as God had prospered them during the last six working days; and thus it could all be put into the treasury, and then there would be no collections (plural), or ‘gatherings,’ needed when Paul should come, as it would be all ready for him in the treasury.

“And this laying by being on the first day of the week (Sabbaton), is conclusive evidence that this was the day on which they rested from labor, and not on the seventh day. The reason is this: If they were to lay by as God had prospered them during the six working days, then the whole six working days, including the seventh day of the week, must have been worked out, or they could not tell how God had prospered them, so as to lay it by on the ‘first day.’ Here, again, the true ‘light’ shines on this glorious subject, proving that the ‘first day of the week’ was with the apostles the REST DAY—THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. And let all the people of God say, Amen.” pp. 300–302.

1. We have several things in the above worthy of special consideration. This is the eighth and last instance in which the first day is mentioned in the New Testament. The first six instances relate to that single first day of the week on which Christ arose; and while three of them carefully distinguish between the Sabbath and the first day of the week, none of them contain a hint of its transfer to this new day. The seventh instance, as was shown in chapter twelve, contains direct evidence that Paul had no thought that this had become the Sabbath day. But we have now come to something which must be decisive in favor of the first-day Sabbath. This is the last time the first day is mentioned in the New Testament. It cannot be that we shall this time be disappointed in our search after the Christian Sabbath. It is true that the present reference to the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16: 2) was—according to the chronology in the margin—written one year before his visit at Troas. We are, indeed, compelled to say either, (1.) St. Paul could not have established first-day sacredness in his letter to Corinth, A. D. 59, or, (2.) he violated that sacredness the following year at Troas by setting forth that day with his company on his journey toward Jerusalem—he on foot to Assos, a distance of twenty (20) miles, and they in the ship, which, according to verse thirteen, acted under his control in its manner of sailing. But is it not better that we should censure St. Paul for thus violating the Christian Sabbath in A. D. 60, than to consent to the idea that in A. D. 59 he did not authoritatively establish the sacredness of the first day, especially as this is the last instance that it is found in the New Testament?

2. The first quotation from Eld. P. in the present article cites this text (1 Cor. 16: 2) to prove that “the disciples held their meetings on the first day of the week.” p. 72. But how does this text prove this

to be the case? It must be by commanding the disciples at Corinth to take up a public collection on each first day of the week. But does it thus command a public collection? It says, “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store,” etc. What do these words mean? In our second quotation in this article, Eld. P. thus expounds them:

“We admit that it means they were to ‘lay by him in store,’ or in other words, let each lay by himself at home as God had prospered him.” p. 300.

So on more mature reflection Eld. P. decides that this text does not teach that “the disciples held their meetings on the first day of the week,” but that it prescribes a duty for each to perform at his own home. We may be sure of this, however, that Eld. P. did not yield the idea of proving first-day meetings by this text—as he attempts to do on pages 72, 73—without a full conviction that he could not maintain such an assertion from this passage, and also till he had found another way to prove the first-day Sabbath out of this text. But Eld. P.'s attempt to prove from this scripture that “the disciples held their meeting on the first day of the week,” and then his admission that it simply bids the disciples “each lay by himself at home,” is not the first instance of this very act in first-day writers. Thus Dr. Justin Edwards in his well-known “Sabbath Manual” says on page 116:

“This laying by in store was not laying by at home, for that would not prevent gatherings when he should come. This could only be done by putting it into one common stock, that it might be ready on his arrival. Why was that to be done regularly on the first day of each week? Because that was the time when they regularly assembled together.”

Yet Dr. Edwards having used this text in this manner to prove that the disciples “regularly assembled together” on the first day of the week, elsewhere frankly confesses that this text does not pertain to religious assemblies. Thus in the “Family Testament” of the American Tract Society, the notes of which were written by him (for the earlier editions bore his name as author upon the title page), he says:

“Lay by him in store; at home. That there be no gatherings; that their gifts might be ready when the apostle should come.” p. 286.

The emphasis in these two quotations from Dr. E. is mine. Our friend, Eld. P., copies the self-contradiction of Dr. Edwards with singular fidelity. But we will rest nothing upon Eld. P.'s admission that this text relates to the action of the disciples at their several homes. We will adduce some of the authorities which settle the meaning of this phrase “lay by him in store.”

Dr. Bloomfield thus comments on the original: “Par heauto, ‘by him.’ French, chez lui, ‘at home.’” Greek Testament with English Notes, Vol. 2, p. 173. The Syriac reads thus: “Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at home.” The Douay Bible reads: “Let every one of you put apart with himself.” Mr. Sawyer thus translates: “Let each one of you lay aside by himself.” Beza's Latin version has it: “Apud se,” i. e., at home.

Mr. J. W. Morton, late Presbyterian missionary to Hayti, makes the following statement respecting the translation of this text:

“The whole question turns upon the meaning of the expression ‘by him;’ and I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it means ‘in the collection box of the congregation.’ Greenfield, in his lexicon, translates the Greek term, ‘with one's self, i. e., at home.’ Two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that of Castellio, render it ‘apud se,’ with one's self, at home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald and De Sacy, ‘chez soi,’ at his own house, at home. The German of Luther, ‘bei sich selbst,’ by himself, at home. The Dutch, ‘by hem zelven,’ same as the German. The Italian of Diodati, ‘appresso di se,’ in his own presence, at home. The Spanish of Felipe Scio, ‘en su casa,’ in his own house. The Portuguese of Ferreira, ‘para isso,’ with himself. The Swedish ‘nær sig sjelf,’ near himself.” Vindication of the True Sabbath, pp. 51, 52.”

What Eld. P. finds of argument in the use of the word “collection,” in the singular, in verse one, is only conjectured. He admits—what he could not deny—that the money was to be raised by the act of each disciple at his own house on each first day of the week. These were the “collections,” in the plural, which Paul commanded them to make before his coming. These were the result of individual action on the part of the entire church, each at his own house on each first day of the week. When Paul should come, each man would have his offering ready. Nothing, indeed, is said relative to the day of the week on which they should all hand this money to Paul at his coming. If we may be allowed to conjecture Eld. P.'s idea, it is that the collection (singular) was the act of the individual members of the church in presenting these separate sums to Paul, and who knows but that this might have been upon the first day of the week? In fact, we think the first day of the week much more appropriate for the business of receiving these many sums of money, and of recording the name of each donor and the amount given by each, than would be the Sabbath. Unquestionably it was done on some other day beside the Sabbath, even as we know Paul to have been careful that these individual, weekly collections should come upon one of the six working days. But as no day is fixed on which Paul should receive these offerings, no first-day argument can be framed from the supposed time of their presentation.

The use of the word “congregations” instead of churches, in verse one, by the “Diaglott,” which Eld. P. here cites and emphasizes—a very questionable translation indeed—argues nothing with respect to meetings on the first day, as the directions are addressed to each individual and require his separate action at home. Nor can it be said that while Paul commanded this individual action by the Corinthians on each first day, he commanded the Galatians to do this as congregations, showing that they were to take up collections on that day as public assemblies; for, whereas the action of the Corinthians is defined to be the separate act of each individual, at his own home, on the first day of the week, this very action is said to be just the same as that commanded to the churches in Galatia.

The translation here cited from the “Diaglott,” “let each of you lay something by itself,” is not so accurate as that which in substance is given by the many translations here presented, “let each one of you lay aside by himself,” inasmuch as “hekastos,” “each,” is the antecedent of the reflexive pronoun “heautou,” showing that it should not be translated “itself” as by the “Diaglott,” which inserts the word “something” as an antecedent, but that it is rightly rendered in all these versions “himself” or him. And this translation leaves no chance for misunderstanding.

But while Eld. P. is constrained to abandon the argument for public assemblies on first day from the supposed public collections on that day, inasmuch as these turn out to be individual acts performed by each at his own home, yet he by no means abandons this text as a support for the Sunday Sabbath. He still maintains that there is a mighty argument in this text for the first-day Sabbath as its friends have always maintained. But they made a mistake in deciding what that argument is. They thought that it was this: that this text ordained public assemblies on that day. They ought not to have made such a blunder. The text relates to what they were to do at home on that day. They put the argument for the first-day Sabbath upon the wrong foundation, and thus they have weakened its authority instead of vindicating it as they might. The place where the act here ordained is wrought does not help the case; and it is a misfortune to the Sunday cause that its friends have ever pleaded for its sacredness on such ground as this. But Eld. P. has discovered the real ground of argument from this text. It is not the place where the act was to be wrought, but the nature of the act itself that determines the first day in this text to be the Sabbath. Eld. P. thus states the case:

“And this laying by, being on the first day of the week (Sabbaton), is conclusive evidence that this was the day on which they rested from labor—and not on the seventh day. The reason is this: if they were to lay by as God had prospered them during the six working days, then the whole six working days, including the seventh day of the week, must have been worked out, or they could not tell how God had prospered them, so as to lay it by on the ‘first day.’ Here, again, the true ‘light’ shines on this glorious subject, proving that the ‘first day of the week’ was with the apostles the REST DAY—THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. And let all the people of God say, Amen.” pp. 301, 302.

1. Each member of the Corinthian church was to lay by himself, at his own home, on each first day of the week, what he was able to give for the purpose specified by Paul. 2. This could only be done after the six working days were past, so that the weekly earnings could be known. 3. Therefore, the seventh day must have been one of the six working days, and the first day must have been the Christian Sabbath.

Here is an argument which, if not purely original with Eld. P., is of exceedingly rare occurrence with first-day writers. Few of Eld. P.'s readers ever saw it in print until they read it in his book, and fewer still can say that the reading of 1 Cor. 16: 2 ever suggested such an argument to their minds as he has here presented from it. But just when the common method of proving the Christian Sabbath from this text is found to be absolutely worthless, up comes this hitherto unknown first-day argument, being a new method of proving the change of the Sabbath from this passage—a most opportune occurrence indeed.

But let us carefully examine this new acquisition. How does it follow that the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath from the fact that the disciples were on that day to examine the previous week's earnings, and out of these earnings, severally to lay by at their own homes what they could spare for the poor saints at Jerusalem? Is the act itself something so peculiarly appropriate to the Sabbath that it at once indicates as a Sabbath the day on which it is performed? By no means; for, strictly speaking, financial matters belong to the six working days and not to the Sabbath. But then the circumstances under which this was to be done prove that the day for its weekly performance must have been the Christian Sabbath. Will you please show how they prove this? In this way: the six working days must have passed, in order that the Corinthians should be able to estimate correctly their weekly earnings. Very well; what then? Simply this: the seventh-day Sabbath must have been one of these six working days!

But how do you know that the seventh day is one of the six working days? Because the first day is the weekly rest-day. And now how do you know the first day is the weekly day of rest? Because the seventh day is one of the six working days. So the seventh day is proved to be one of the six working days because the first day is the weekly rest-day; and we know the first day to be the weekly rest-day because the seventh day is one of the six working days!

But this text does not state that either of these things is true. No, not in so many words, but is it not a necessary conclusion that they labored on the day next preceding the one on which they laid aside their weekly donation? This question contains the whole argument of Eld. P. in one sentence. To be a necessary conclusion, it must appear that no other arrangement was practicable in fairly carrying out the words of the apostle. Also, that while this arrangement would involve no contradiction of Bible facts, any other would be impracticable and self-contradictory.

Let us test both the seventh-day and the first-day views. We will begin with the view that the Corinthians hallowed the seventh day, and, after testing the working of this view in the case of this text, we will apply the same test to the view that they observed as the Sabbath the first day of the week.

Suppose, then, that as we have searched the New Testament with the utmost diligence and painstaking, in order to find the change of the Sabbath, but hitherto without discovering one trace of the new Sabbath, we should conclude that the Corinthian church observed the fourth commandment. This is not an incredible supposition, when we consider how strongly Paul affirmed the perpetuity of the moral law (Rom. 3: 31); and how, in this very epistle, he emphasized the commandments of God while setting aside circumcision (1 Cor. 7: 19); and finally, that the gospel was introduced at Corinth by Paul in the manner thus set forth by Luke: “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” Acts 18: 4. Now, then, let us see if it was possible for this church to keep the fourth commandment, and also to obey the precept given by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 16: 2.

To obey the fourth commandment, they devote to secular employments the same days of the week which were employed by the Creator in his work. These six days, being thus employed, are succeeded by the rest of the holy Sabbath. When the sacred hours of the Sabbath are past, the evening with which the first day commences, or the morning before entering upon the labors of the new week, and while each one is yet at his own home, would furnish a most appropriate season for rendering obedience to this apostolic precept. To argue the change of the Sabbath on the ground that Paul's precept conflicts with the fourth commandment, is therefore absolutely inexcusable. Paul's words can be obeyed to the letter by those who keep the Sabbath day according to the commandment. There is, therefore, not the slightest reason to argue the change of the Sabbath on the ground that the Corinthians must have labored on the day before that on which they laid aside their weekly donation.

But to claim that they did do it, as Eld. P. actually asserts, involves several things of serious consequence.

1. That the Corinthian church every week violated the fourth commandment, by using the rest day of the Lord in secular labor.

2. That they observed as their rest day, a day of the week which no precept of the Bible commands men thus to hallow, and which neither God, nor Christ, nor angels, nor inspired men, have ever honored with Sabbatic honors.

3. And so the week at Corinth began with the so-called Christian Sabbath, and ended with the six days of labor! And the six days of labor began with the second day of the week, and closed with the end of the ancient Sabbath!

4. God ordained the labor first, and the rest afterward. But the Sabbath being changed from the last day of the week to the first, the rest now comes first, and the labor afterward.

But hitherto we have failed to find one particle of evidence to justify these important changes. And now in the text under consideration, what have we to help the first-day cause? At most, only the following three things:

1. The act of examining finances, and deciding what amount to lay aside for charity. And this is an act suited to a secular day, but not well suited to the Sabbath.

2. The place where this examination and laying aside takes place, viz., at home. A sufficient indication that this duty did not pertain to the public assemblies of the saints.

3. In addition to these two points in behalf of Sunday—if they can be so taken—we have a third, which Eld. P. offers, because he sees that these two do not help the case. This third one is his unsupported assertion that the Corinthians must have labored on the seventh day of the week—which is simply contrary to all the facts in the case.

Eld. P. thinks that obedience to this rule (in 1 Cor. 16: 2) is possible only to those who observe the first-day Sabbath. Now I have one further answer to give. I know a denomination of seventh-day Christians, who, as an entire body, carry out the essential features of Paul's rule. If Eld. P., or any one else, can name a denomination of first-day people who observe this rule, the favor will be duly acknowledged. The fact is, the rule was found by a man who hallowed the seventh day, and addressed to a church who had never heard of the change of the Sabbath. It is a convenient and admirable rule for those who hallow the Sabbath, but, so far as my knowledge extends, it is carried out by no denomination of first-day people. Until, therefore, first-day people make a business of observing it, let them nevermore hold up this rule to the observer of the seventh day as proof that the Bible Sabbath has been changed.

In conclusion, we call attention to a remarkable fact. Eld. P. and the historian Luke both treat of matters at Corinth. Luke writes of the introduction of the gospel at that place in A. D. 54, and Eld. P. comments on the words of Paul written in A. D. 59; and both use the term “every Sabbath.” But Luke uses it in A. D. 54 concerning the seventh day, and by that expression does, at that point, recognize the ancient Sabbath, and does as plainly exclude from that honor the first day of the week. But Eld. P., commenting on the words of Paul written in A. D. 59, and relating to that very point, uses this same term “every Sabbath,” and does certainly designate thereby the first day of the week to the exclusion of the seventh, which he here terms one of the six working days. Now one of two things is true: 1. Either Luke or Eld. P. makes a false statement; or, 2. If both speak the truth, the Sabbath must have been changed between A. D. 54 (the point at which Luke applies this term to the seventh day) and A. D. 59, the point at which Eld. P. applies it to the first. But Luke's statement must stand; and therefore Eld. P. must choose one of two

things; 1. Either he must acknowledge that he falsely uses the term Sabbath; or, 2. He must maintain that the Sabbath was changed between A. D. 54 and A. D. 59.

The eight instances in which the first day of the week is mentioned in the New Testament have all now been carefully examined for the alleged change of the Sabbath. And with the strictest truth we may say that hitherto no trace of that change has been discovered. And nowhere is the supposed argument in its favor a more signal failure than in the text we have just examined. But, as this is the last instance of the use of “first day” in the Scriptures, it becomes Eld. P. to manifest great confidence; and he cries out:

“Here again, the true ‘light’ shines on this glorious subject, proving that the first day of the week was with the apostles the REST DAY—THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. And let all the people say, Amen.” pp. 301, 302.

Yet no record of this institution is found in the Scriptures; no such name as Eld. P. here uses is found therein; no precept is given commanding the observance of this day under any name whatsoever; and no instances of its observance are upon record. The seventh day which Eld. P. attempts to put down has the entire ground given it as the Sabbath, even to the absolute exclusion of this day, and that so late as A. D. 59, as we have just seen. The multitude may indeed respond, Amen, to Eld. P.'s doctrine, but no one of the sacred writers will consent to do it. And such being the case, we shall still hold God to be true when he said, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” though all men who assert the contrary be found false witnesses before him.

GOLD

By Emily L. Canright

Gold, gold, gold— How people strive for gold! Shifting, changing, selling, buying, Cheating, stealing, betting, lying, Never enough, but ever crying, Gold, gold, gold.

Gold, gold, gold— Vain are the hopes on gold; Banks are breaking, factories burning, Fortune's wheels are ever turning, This sad lesson all are learning; Gold, gold, gold.

Gold, gold, gold— The great God offers gold, Purest gold tried in the fire, Buy it, all who may desire, Aye, buy it now ere time expire; Gold, gold, gold.

Gold, gold, gold— The future offers gold; For golden crowns the victors wear, And golden streets they'll tread when there, In Heaven's gold who would not share? Gold, gold, gold.

EMILY L. CANRIGHT.

Continue reading: YE DID IT NOT TO ME