AN EXAMINATION OF THOSE TEXTS USUALLY QUOTED TO PROVE THE ABOLITION OF THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH.
[Concluded.]
Objection 2. "Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new-moon, or of the sabbath-days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Col. ii, 14—17.
The crucifixion was the dividing line between the two dispensations. "In the midst of the week [A. D. 31] he [Messiah] shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation [sacrifices and offerings of the law of Moses] to cease." Dan. ix, 27. They virtually ceased when Christ the great sacrifice was nailed to the cross. The "hand-writing of ordinances" was that very day blotted out. The first covenant, with its "ordinances of divine service and a worldly Sanctuary," was a shadow of the second and better covenant, with its "greater and more perfect Tabernacle," and the priesthood of Jesus Christ connected with it.—A shadow must have a body by which it is cast or produced, and must reach to its body and can reach no further. The "hand-writing of ordinances" was the shadow in this case, and the "good things to come," connected with the priesthood of Christ, is the body which cast the shadow back into the Jewish age. Therefore when Christ, the only sacrifice for the gospel age, was nailed to the cross, the "sacrifice and oblation" of the Jewish law ceased forever. According to the testimony of St. Paul the hand-writing of ordinances was blotted out at the cross. This was not the work of years, but was accomplished the day of Christ's crucifixion. This is what the Apostle means by "nailing it to his cross."
By comparing Col. ii, 14—17, with Rom. xiv, 1—6, it will be seen that the Apostle is speaking of the same things in both places. He would not have his Colossian brethren JUDGED by Judaizing teachers, in respect to those things that had ceased according to the testimony of the Prophet:
"I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast-days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." Hosea ii, 11.
It is evident that both Paul and Hosea speak of those sabbaths or sabbath-days, which the Law-giver placed in the midst of the Jewish ordinances, and not of the Sabbath of the Lord, which he placed in the midst of the ten commandments. There are four sabbaths mentioned in Lev. xxiii, 24—39. One on the first day of the seventh month, one on the tenth, one on the fifteenth, and one on the twenty-second day.
"These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt-offering, and a meat-offering, a sacrifice, and drink-offerings, every thing upon his day. BESIDES THE SABBATHS OF THE LORD." Lev. xxiii, 37, 38.
The Sabbaths of the Lord our God, come every seventh day; but some of the Jewish convocation sabbaths were nine days apart, others had only four days between them. Here is a clear difference made between the two kind of sabbaths. The Sabbath of the Lord, so called by way of distinction, is not classed with the other sabbaths. The Jews were to observe their convocation sabbaths at their appointed time. "BESIDES THE SABBATHS OF THE LORD." The Sabbath of the Lord, so called by way of eminence, was instituted at Creation before the fall when the earth and man were holy. The convocation sabbaths were given at Mount Sinai twenty-five hundred years later, and we find them classed with the ordinances of Moses' law, such as "a meat-offering, a sacrifice, and drink-offerings." They were of the same nature of those offerings, and had their origin and end with them. But the Sabbath of the Lord, which was made for the entire human race to commemorate God's Rest after he had created the world in six days, was wisely placed in the midst of nine moral precepts which have been, and ever will be, binding on the whole race of mankind.
We do not hesitate to say that there is no good evidence that the Apostle refers to the weekly Sabbath in Col. ii, 14—17.—But there are many reasons which show that he has no reference to it, some of them we will give.
1. That which was blotted out and nailed to the cross was the hand-writing of ordinances given by the HAND of Moses; but the Sabbath commandment was written with the FINGER of God. Moses wrote his law in a BOOK; but God wrote his ten laws on TABLES OF STONE. It was the HAND-WRITING in the book of the covenant that was blotted out at the death of Christ, and not that which was written on the two tables of the covenant with the finger of God. One was a faulty covenant imposed on the Jews until the time of reformation, or first advent of Jesus; the other is God's perpetual, everlasting covenant. The "Royal Law" was engraven in stone to impress us with its perpetuity. The idea of "blotting out" what Moses wrote in the BOOK of the covenant is perfectly natural; but what idea can we have of blotting out what Jehovah had engraven with his finger in the TABLES of the covenant?
2. The Holy Sabbath never was "against us;" but it was "made for man." One reason for its institution is because man needs a day of rest. The law of Moses was imperfect, and could not make the "comers thereunto perfect," so Christ took it "out of the way, nailing it to his cross." The weekly Sabbath never was in man's way, only as God put it in his way for him to observe, and it is just what his natural and spiritual man's require. When we ask those who assert that there is no Sabbath for the gospel dispensation, why they cease from labor on the first day of the week, the usual reply is, because we need one day in seven to rest, and to attend to the worship of God. This is universally admitted, and being true, what folly it is to assert that the Sabbath, which God made for this same purpose, is against us! Said Jesus, "The Sabbath was made for man." Amen.
3. The Apostle does not speak of "the Sabbath," which is associated with the other nine moral precepts of the Decalogue; but of the Jewish sabbath-days or sabbaths, which were associated with "meat," "drink," and "the new moon," &c.—Some object to this view, because the word "days," connected with "sabbath," is supplied by the translator. They think it should be left off, and that the word sabbath refers to the seventh day. Here we will give a few lines from the pen of J. B. Cook. In his excellent "Testimony," published in 1846, he says—"Col. ii, 16, does not speak of the Sabbath, but sabbaths—called in our version incorrectly sabbath-days, (days being supplied by the translator.)" Says J. Marsh—"Days is supplied by the translators, we therefore omit it." Macknight and Whiting both omit "days" in their translations of this text, but they do not leave the word "sabbath" in the singular, as J. Marsh has left it for his readers. They both translate it "sabbaths," in the plural, which makes the text perfectly clear. Here we will give four translations of this text, beginning with our common version.
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new-moon, or of the sabbath-days."74"Let none therefore judge you in meat, or drink, or in respect of a feast-day, or of the new-moon, or of sabbath-days."—Wesley.
"Wherefore let no one judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a festival, or of a new-moon, or of sabbaths."—Macknight.
"Let no man therefore judge you in food, or in drink, or in respect to a holy-day, or the new-moon, or the sabbaths."—Whiting.
If the Apostle refers to the Sabbath of the Lord our God, then we might expect to find the words "the Sabbath" or "the Sabbath-day" in this text, as well as in the many other texts in the New Testament where the seventh-day Sabbath is spoken of. But it reads "sabbath-days" or "sabbaths" in all the translations of this text that we have ever seen. The only weekly Sabbath of the Bible is called, "THE SABBATH OF THE LORD THY GOD." It is also called, "MY HOLY DAY," [Isa. lviii. 13.] "THE HOLY OF THE LORD." "THY HOLY SABBATH." [Neh. ix, 14,] and "THE SABBATH." But the Jewish sabbaths are spoken of in the following manner. "In the first day of the month ye shall have a sabbath." From even unto even, (on the tenth day of the seventh month,) shall ye celebrate YOUR sabbath. See Lev. xxiii, 24, 32. In Hosea, [ii, 11.] they are called HER sabbaths."
4. Those things that were blotted out and nailed to the cross, such as the Apostle mentions were a shadow, as he testifies in the following words. "Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Col. ii, 17. But the seventh-day Sabbath is not a shadow; for it is to be observed as long as the New Heavens and the New Earth remain.
"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." Isa. lxvi, 22, 23.
"All flesh" has never worshipped God on the Sabbath since Isaiah wrote this Prophecy, and there is no reason to suppose that it will be fulfilled until the righteous are all gathered into the New Earth. Then the Sabbath, in its Eden glory, will be observed as long as the immortal saints, and the New Heavens and Earth remain. Mark this: The Sabbath was instituted before the fall, when man was holy, and could talk face to face with God and angels. It is not an ordinance, and originally given to restore fallen man to the favor of God; for it was given when all was holy, and Eden bloomed on earth, and it will be in its proper place in the New Earth, after the restitution, as much so as it was before the fall.
All shadows cease when the bodies which produce them are reached. Follow the shadow of a tree to its body, and there the shadow ends. Though the autumnal types shadowed forth events connected with the cleansing of the Sanctuary at the end of the 2300 days, yet the ordinances of the law of Moses, as a whole, were a shadow of the gospel, which is the body. When the gospel dispensation was introduced at the crucifixion of Christ, that very day all the ordinances of the Jewish law ceased to be of any virtue. As the weekly Sabbath will never end, it cannot be a shadow, but is a body of itself, as well as the other nine commandments of the Decalogue; for they are all of the same character in this respect at least.
The idea is imprinted deeply in most minds that the seventh-day Sabbath is a type or shadow of the seventh millenium; but where is the Scripture to prove it? It cannot be produced.—This tradition is without foundation in the word of God. But if any choose to hold on to this tradition, let them remember that a shadow reaches to its body, and admitting that the seventh thousand years is the body, and the seventh-day Sabbath the shadow, then the conclusion seems irresistible that the Sabbath was to continue in full force until the seventh millenium. The view that the Sabbath is a type of the seventh thousand years, and that it ceased at the crucifixion, makes a blank space of more than eighteen hundred years between the shadow and the body, which entirely destroys the figure.
Finally, the fact that the early church was troubled with those who thought that the law of Moses must be kept in order to be saved, shows that Col. ii, 16, directly applied to the church in the Apostle’s day. It is therefore wrong to apply this text to the case of those who now observe the seventh-day Sabbath; for none of us are judging others "in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new-moon" with which the Apostle has associated the Jewish sabbaths.
Objection 3. "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 the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelled. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." 2 Cor. iii, 7—11.
By a careful examination of this chapter, we think it will be seen that the Apostle’s subject is the contrast of the "ministration" of the old covenant under Moses, with the ministration of the new covenant under Christ. There is certainly an essential difference between a law, and the ministration of that law.—One is the constitution necessary to govern the people, the other is the ministry, or the ordained powers to carry its laws into execution. With this distinction between a law and its ministration before us, we can better understand the language of the Apostle. That he refers to the ten commandments, when speaking of that which was "written and engraven in stones," is evident; but we fail to see the propriety of calling them a "ministration." There are many reasons why we think the Apostle did not design to be so understood. His language seems somewhat obscure, and, as the Apostle Peter has said of some things in the epistles of his "beloved brother Paul," "hard to be understood." But God forbid that we should "wrest" this portion of his writings to our "own destruction." We will give a few of the many reasons why St. Paul has not taught the abolition of the commandment of God in 2 Cor. Chap. iii.
1. The Apostle speaks of two ministrations, one he calls the "ministration of condemnation" and "of death," the other he calls the "ministration of the Spirit." Neither of these ministrations can properly be said to be the law of God. The law of God is one thing, and the "ministration" of it is entirely another thing. The ministration of death, or of condemnation, can refer to nothing but to the outward observances of the law of Moses, the design of which was to carry out and enforce the principles embraced in the ten commandments. That ministration of the law of God is properly called a "ministration of condemnation" and "of death;" because while it condemned the transgressor, and by it the penalty "death" was enforced, it could not "take away sins," nor give life and immortality. The blood of Christ alone was to take away sins, and through him alone life and immortality was to be obtained. That "ministration" was "done away in Christ," and was emblematically illustrated by the glory of Moses’ countenance, which was temporary.
2. The Apostle does not say that that which was "written and engraven in stones" was done away. His language will not warrant such an inference. But that which was to be "done away" he declares to be, first, the glory of Moses’ countenance, [verse 7.] and second that which it illustrated, which was the "ministration of condemnation," or Moses’ law.
3. If the Apostle has taught the abrogation of the Decalogue, that the ten commandments are "DONE AWAY," then they do not exist, and God’s law is null and void, and sin does not exist; for "sin is the transgression of the law." [John iii, 4.] And "where no law is, there is no TRANSGRESSION." Rom. iv, 15. Is it said that nine of the commandments were re-enacted for the gospel dispensation? We say that this assertion should not be repeated without Scripture evidence to sustain it. This view charges the Omniscient Law-giver with abolishing and doing away all ten of the precepts of his holy law at the cross, and then at the same moment re-enacting and bringing back nine of them! All this had to be done to get rid of the Holy Sabbath!
Again, the Apostle, A. D. 60, says, "For if that which IS DONE AWAY," &c. This certainly shows that whatever was done away at the cross, A. D. 31, did not exist 29 years later. Now if he wished to teach his brethren at Corinth that the Decalogue was done away at the cross, and that nine truths of it was then re-enacted, we might expect him to use the word, was done away, instead of "IS DONE AWAY," and then show them how nine of the commandments could be re-enacted and brought back by the very means that abolished and destroyed the whole of them. If the Apostle is speaking of the Decalogue when he uses the words "is done away," as many assert, then certainly it did not exist at that time; hence the folly, with75the supposition that he refers to the Decalogue, in asserting that nine tenths of it was re-enacted at the cross, 29 years before.
We are told that the crucifixion abolished the Decalogue, and that the gospel with nine re-enacted commandments was introduced by the same means. This is certainly a strange doctrine! Will some one explain this matter, and show us how nine of the commandments of God could be re-enacted and brought back by the same means by which they were all abolished and 'done away?'
4. If the Apostle has taught the abolition of the law of God, then we think he has contradicted the plain testimony of Jesus. After stating that his advent was not to destroy the law, the Son of God declares that 'one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass' from it 'till heaven and earth pass' away.
Finally, to say that St. Paul has taught the abolition of the Decalogue is charging him with contradicting himself. In his letter to the Romans, written the same year that he wrote to the Corinthians, he says, 'The doers of the law shall be justified.' He did not refer to the law of ordinances, for that had been dead 29 years. Therefore he is speaking of the Decalogue.—Now if the ten commandments had been done away, and had been dead 29 years, and, as has been said, 'did not deserve a grave-stone,' how could he say that the doers of such a law should be justified? Again, when speaking of the same law, but especially the tenth commandment that slew him, he says, 'Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.'
He also says, 'For I delight in the law of God.' 'I myself serve the law of God.' 'For we know that the law is spiritual.'
The ten commandments are the 'Royal Law,' the great constitution of righteous principles for all to observe. This constitution was to remain as long as heaven and earth. In the time of the first covenant it was engraven in stone, but in the time of the second and new covenant it was to be put in the mind, and written in the heart by the Spirit of God. 'I will put my law into their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.' See Jer. xxxi, 33; Heb. viii, 10. While this law was only engraven in stone, and its righteous principles carried out by outward observances, and enforced by the penalties of Moses' law, its ministration was that of 'condemnation' and 'death.' But under the gospel, when the law of God is put into the inward parts, and written in the heart by the Holy Spirit, its ministration is that of the Spirit. 'For if that which is done away [the ministration of Moses] was glorious, much more that which REMAINETH [the ministration of the commandments of God in righteousness by the Spirit] is glorious.' 2 Cor. iii, 11.
The vail, [verses 13—16,] that is 'done away in Christ,' and which was on the heart of the unbelieving Jews, was the ministration of Moses; for as long as they read and continued in the services of Moses' law, they could not see that Christ was the end of those typical services. But when they look to the blood of Jesus for the atonement, then they can see that the 'vail [ministration of Moses] is done away in Christ.' 'Now the Lord is that Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty,' [verse 17,] that is, under the better ministration of the law of God by the Spirit there is 'liberty,' being freed from the 'yoke of bondage,' Gal. v, 1, which was the 'ministration of condemnation.' Now we can clearly see the difference of the two ministrations of the immutable law of God. One was the 'ministration of condemnation,' while this law was only engraven on stone, the other is the 'ministration of righteousness,' or justification, by the Spirit of Christ, while this law is put into the mind, and written in the heart.
We have now examined the main pillars of the no-Sabbath system, and have found them weak, and utterly incapable of supporting the view that the commandments of God are abolished. May the Lord add his blessing, that these remarks may be the means of leading the sincere from error to the truth, that they may be sanctified through the Word. Amen.
THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK.
If the Sabbath has been transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week by divine authority, the Scriptures should contain the account of it. And as the precept requiring the observance of the seventh day is plain and positive, nothing less than as positive testimony should satisfy any person in regard to the claims of the first day. The texts usually quoted as divine authority for keeping the first day of the week are Cor. xvi, 2; Acts xx, 7; Rev. i, 10. These we will briefly examine.
"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." Cor. xvi, 2.
The Apostle's subject is a "collection for the saints" at Jerusalem. He does not make mention of a Sabbath, or of resting from labor, neither does he intimate that the brethren at Corinth should meet together for worship on the first day of the week. The evident design of this text was to teach a systematic manner of collecting money for charitable purposes. And the words, "Let every one of you lay by him in store," show, not a public meeting, but that each should attend to this duty at their homes. There, each was to have his bounty, laid "by him in store," ready for the Apostle when he should come.
"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." Acts xx, 7.
Luke here records the fact that St. Paul once preached all night of the first day of the week at Troas, and past midnight broke bread with the disciples. This is the only text in the New Testament in which the first day of the week is mentioned in connection with public worship. But there is no intimation given that the disciples regarded the first day of the week as a Sabbath, or that they rested from labor on that day. As that meeting at Troas was held in the night, and as there is no evidence that the disciples met regularly on that night of the week before or after that time, it is evident that it was an occasional meeting appointed to have a communion season, and for the Apostle to take leave of his brethren, for he was to "depart on the morrow."
It is said that apostolic example proves the first day of the week to be the Sabbath. To this we reply, that there is no record in the New Testament that the disciples ever met for worship in the day-time of the first day in the week. Therefore those who profess to follow the example of the disciples at Troas should, to be consistent with their own profession, hold their preaching meetings in the night, continue them "till break of day," and past midnight break bread. Says J. Marsh, "Harbinger," Dec. 29, 1849.
"Then why keep the first day? Because Christ rose on that day, and the Apostolic church have set the example, that we should assemble on that day to commemorate his resurrection, by breaking of bread, and other duties belonging to the worship of God." Acts xx, 7.
To this we reply, that the communion does not commemorate the resurrection, but the crucifixion. Says the Apostle, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's DEATH till he come." Cor. xi, 26. The Lord's supper was instituted the night before the crucifixion, and the disciples at Troas broke bread the night following the Sabbath. And there is nothing in the New Testament that confines it to any day of the week; yet it seems most proper in the evening following the Sabbath. After enjoying the blessings of the Holy Sabbath, the true disciple is best prepared to receive the emblems of the body and blood of Christ. If the communion was designed to be strictly confined to one day of the week, the sixth day is the only proper one; for on that day, the crucifixion, the event which it commemorates occurred. And if attending to the communion on a day makes it a Sabbath, as is inferred from Acts xx, 7, then the sixth day of the week should be observed by all Christians.
Again, according to the first division of time [Gen. i.] the day closed at 6 o'clock, P. M., and if that meeting at Troas was held the night following the day time of the first day of the week, it was on the second day instead of the first. And according to the Roman division of time the day closed at midnight, therefore Paul broke bread and "talked a long while, even till break of day," on the second day of the week, if that meeting was in the night following the day time of the first day of the week. Accordingly, those who talk of apostolic example for observing the first day of the week, should keep the second day.
But that meeting was evidently in the night following the Sabbath of the Lord. The Apostle, "as his manner was," see Acts xvii, 2, preached to them on the Sabbath; then the disciples, the evening following, met together expressly "to break bread."76Such a meeting must have been very desirable to the disciples at Troas, especially as Paul was "ready to depart on the morrow." "Morrow" here should be understood as we use it, referring to the day light that followed, and not to the next twenty-four-hour day. For in that case Paul would have to tarry at Troas till the next evening, and then travel to Assos and Mitylene in the night. In the morning of the first day of the week, Paul left Troas, and walked to Assos, and from Assos he sailed with his brethren to Mitylene. See Acts xx, 7-14. A singular "apostolic example," truly, for Sunday-keepers!! With these facts before us it seems perfectly preposterous to talk of the "example" of the "apostolic church" for observing the first day of the week.
"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet." Rev. i, 10.
It is first assumed that "Lord's day" in this text refers to the first day of the week, and then because St. John was in the Spirit on that day, it is supposed to be what is called "the Christian Sabbath." We object to this view, because it is not sustained by the Word. In fact it is entirely destitute of support from the Holy Scriptures. Others may refer to the "Fathers," but we appeal to the word of God. The Bible nowhere calls the first day of the week the "Lord's day," therefore we should not call it so. But one of the seven days of the week is called the Lord's day, and that is the seventh. God has never hallowed, sanctified and blessed but one day of the week, and that was the day on which he rested. That day he called after his own holy name. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Here we are not at a loss to determine which is the "Lord's day." But the testimony is full more to the point in Isa. lviii, 13, where God styles the Sabbath, "My Holy Day," and "The Holy of the Lord." Jesus declared himself "Lord also of the Sabbath." Mark ii, 28. Here are three testimonies, two from the Old Testament, and one from the New, that prove the seventh day of the week to be the "Lord's day."—Two testimonies from the Eternal Father, and one from his Son Jesus Christ, are worth more to us than ten thousand from the so called "Christian Fathers," however near the apostolic age they might have lived.
Then, according to the word of God, and that shall decide this question, St. John recognized the "Lord's day," the Sabbath of the Lord our God, A. D. 96. This was 65 years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. But, if it should be admitted that the "Lord's day" refers to the first day of the week, and that St. John was in the Spirit on that day, then what would be gained in favor of the first-day sabbath? Verily nothing; for the circumstance of the Apostle being in the Spirit on that day would not make it a Christian duty to keep the first day of the week as a Sabbath. Those who reject a plain and positive precept for observing the seventh day, and keep another day, with no divine authority for it, with only the weak and groundless inferences drawn from Cor. xvi, 2; Acts xxi, 7, and Rev. i, 10, in favor of the first day of the week, are to be pitied. May the Lord have mercy on his sincere followers, and may they be speedily turned from the tradition of men, to observe the commandments of God.
It is said that Christ often met with his disciples on the first day of the week, and that his example proves the first day to be the Sabbath. But this assertion, so often repeated, is untrue, and deceptive. There is no record that the disciples ever assembled for worship in the day time of the first day, either before or after the ascension. On the very day of the resurrection "Jesus himself drew near," and went with the two disciples who were traveling to the village of Emmaus, seven and a half miles from Jerusalem. Did Jesus rebuke them for traveling on that day, and tell them it was the "Christian Sabbath?" Far from it; he even went with them. And as "they drew nigh unto the village" they constrained him, saying, "Abide with us; for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent." Jesus went in and "sat at meat with them," and then the two disciples returned to Jerusalem that night, and "found the eleven gathered together." And while they were relating the interesting events of that day's journey, "Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and said unto them, peace be unto you."
If the first day had then become the "Christian Sabbath," that was a favorable opportunity for Jesus, the Head and Example of the church, to enforce it. But instead of this, he never hinted a word to them about a new Sabbath, and could say to those Sunday-breakers who had walked fifteen miles on that day, "PEACE BE UNTO YOU."
There is no intimation that the disciples had been together for worship during that day. On the contrary, the absence of Thomas, and the fact that most of them were not satisfied that Jesus had risen, shows the impropriety of representing this meeting as proof of a regard for the first day on account of the resurrection. The only other meeting of Christ with his disciples which is said to be on the first day of the week, is mentioned in John xx, 26—“And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them.” Now had this interview been on the following first day, it could afford no proof that they religiously regarded that day, since it is not noticed as a meeting designed for worship. But the expression “after eight days” by no means shows that it was just a week. Who can say that it was not on the ninth day after his first appearance? It was certainly full eight days after, which would bring it to Monday night.
THE FATHERS.
With a consistent Christian, the testimony and practice of what are called the "Christian Fathers," have not sufficient authority to direct him either in devotion or duty, especially when their testimony has to be relied on in the absence of divine authority. Christians should follow Christ. Jehovah said of Jesus, "This is my beloved Son: hear him."—If Jesus has taught that a new Sabbath was designed for his followers, then Christians should observe it. But as he never intimated a change of the Sabbath, either before or after the resurrection, and as he has shown (by his own example in travelling to Emmaus on the first day, and, in pronouncing his blessing on those who walked fifteen miles on the first day of the week) that it was not a day of rest, those therefore who follow Christ in this respect will not observe it. Jesus declares himself Lord of the only Sabbath of the Bible, and says that it was made for man.
The apostles are also entirely silent upon the subject of a new Sabbath, and apostolic example is against the first day.—The Sabbath was Paul's regular preaching day, and he had no other. There is no record of his holding but one meeting on the first day of the week, and that was in the night, and the day time of that very day he spent in travelling. It really seems unfortunate for the advocates of the first day, that they cannot give us the first word of inspired testimony in favor of their Sabbath from the epistles of Paul, Peter, John, James and Jude. On the testimony of such "Fathers," (if we may be allowed to style them so,) Christians can rely with unshaken confidence. But as they cannot produce divine authority the uninspired, misinterpreted testimony of the so called "Christian Fathers" is made to answer. The testimony of those who lived in the time that Paul refers to in Acts xx, 29, 30, can be but sliding sand, while God's word is a solid rock. "For I know this," says Paul, "that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise SPEAKING PERVERSE THINGS to draw away disciples after them.
We notice in the "Advent Herald" for April 19, an article headed "THE LORD'S DAY—THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH" which is calculated to deceive some; we therefore give the following from "Sabbath Tract No. 4," which presents the subject in its true light.