Earlier text: THE TRUE THEORY OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATHRough, cold, and dark, and dreary, now,
And sunless is my way;
My cry is wild:—My Father, show
Some prophecy of day,
Above the shadowed tops of woe,
That tower so. My God, thy heart is tender, kind;
How oft my heart has known
The conscious calm, the lull of mind,
When storms have wildly blown;
Thou did’st not leave thy child alone;
Thou guard’st thine own. Dear Father, come I close to thee,
While tumults toss me so;
I look to thee—look thou on me;
Let thy sweet grace o’erflow;
In bright skies, reveal thy bow
That cancels woe. I hold, dear child, thy hand in mine,
Thy Father knows thy way;
He leads thee, thou art weak and blind;—
Thou art not far from day;
Remember, saved one, thou art mine,
And I am thine. Kind Father, well my faint heart knew
That thou did’st fold thy love
Around me, perfect, full, and true;
Thou would’st thy promise prove;
But faith forgot:—My God, anew,
With faith imbue. DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION
By Peter Vogel
BETWEEN ELD. J. H. WAGGONER, S. D. ADVENTIST, AND ELD. PETER VOGEL, DISCIPLE. “Do the Scriptures teach that the first day of the week is to be sacredly observed by Christians?” ELD. VOGEL affirms; ELD. WAGGONER denies. ELD. VOGEL’S SECOND AFFIRMATIVE.
I wish to confine myself strictly to this proposition, and hence will say as little as possible concerning matters belonging to the past. Whether Eld. W.’s brethren have discussed points “broached by us” the reader can decide for himself by sending for the Review of the dates given. And as to the position formerly occupied by at least some of Eld. W.’s brethren, I simply mean what I said, namely, that they have argued that the first covenant was not abolished. I am quite willing to believe on his mere word that he never so held. Nor have I charged him with this. I must emphatically deny Bro. W.’s positions marked, I., II., III., contending as to the first that the observance of the first day is “written on the heart in the new covenant” in the same sense that the Sabbath would have been had it been extended to this dispensation. My brother speaks lightly concerning “inference,” yet he must be aware that circumstantial evidence, which is nothing but inference, has hung many a man. Are we, in religious affairs, to lay aside all the laws of evidence save such as he may dictate? Did ever a pope ask more? Whenever as good proof can be given for sprinkling or infant baptism as I give for the Lordic day, I shall preach it with all my might. Bro. Campbell is misconstrued whenever he is represented as inveighing against legitimate inference, or, in his own words, things “logically inferred.” I grant that faith comes by the word of God; but is legitimate inference no part of his word? Should I so speak as to imply that my brother is a liar and a thief, would he not consider it slander? Or is it only in religious affairs that we are to be denied our common sense? No, no; even inferences reached with such difficulty that the babe in Christ is not able to draw them, are “faith” to him having made the deduction, and therefore “the word of God.” Only in such cases, Paul says, “Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God.” Rom. 14:22. For “strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age; even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” Heb. 5:14. But, with reference to the binding force of a sacred day in this dispensation, I have something clearer than inference. Of Rev. 1:10, even Bro. W. says, in his first affirmative on the third proposition: “(1.) I claim that this text proves that one day is ‘the Lord’s day’ in this dispensation; that his claim and right to that certain day is as clearly established as was his right to a day established by Ex. 20:10, or by Isa. 58:13. And I insist that this text is decisive on this point. (2.) But I do not claim that this text furnishes any proof as to what day of the week is ‘the Lord’s day.’ In this respect, it defines nothing. That must be settled by other scriptures.” Having left so “decisive” a text, it was not necessary that the apostles should record “the act of instituting,” and give the “record of appointment;” these are necessarily implied, and known to have a real existence, for without them such a text would have been an impossibility. Henceforth let there be no more call for a “formal proclamation.” And that this day is a new institution is as clearly asserted by Kuriakee, Lordic, as the action in baptism is by baptizoo. “And I insist that this text is decisive on this point.” Having read my Bible rather than human treatises, I was unaware that any one had ever, in modern times, written “a Lordly day.” This may be more euphonious, but “Lordic” is truer to the facts in the case. With respect to the time of observing the Lordic supper there is no conflict between Acts 20:7, and the time of its institution; for at that time the disciples did not “commune,” but merely ate bread and drank wine. The death of Jesus had not yet transpired, nor did they believe that it would, and hence there neither was nor could be a “commemoration” or a “communion.” Nor has the time of instituting anything to do with the time of observing an institution, else all the commemorative institutions of the O. T. (see Lev. 23) would have fallen on different days than they did, and nearly all on the same day! My argument from Isa. 56, I leave with the reader, as I consider it untouched. I gave my reasons for the use made of that passage, and would have cited many similar prophecies, did I not aim at brevity. Ps. 69 is not a prediction, but a simple record of David’s experience. It applies no more to Jesus than to any one else of the present day who happens to be “hated without a cause,” &c., &c., and so has a history tangent to David’s in certain points. I turn now to the CONTINUATION OF THE AFFIRMATIVE.
My first affirmative closed with the citation of lexical authority, proving that kuriakos, as an adjective, describes things having originated with, or “of,” the Lord referred to. And so indelible is this meaning that even the few instances where it is turned to secular uses, still reflect its native sense. Thus Cremer, in his N. T. Lexicon, gives, as its extra N. T. use, “that which belongs to the ruler—herrscher—as, e. g., to kuriakon, state or fiscal property—synonymous with to basilicon—but seldom so occurring.” Shall we inquire of the commentators? The answer is the same. In his comments on Rev. 1:10, Barnes says of kuriakos, “It properly means pertaining to the Lord; and, so far as the word is concerned, it might mean a day pertaining to the Lord in any sense, or for any reason—either because he claimed it as his own, and had set it apart for his service; or because it was designed to commemorate some important event pertaining to him; or because it was observed in honor of him.” If we turn to the English adjective formed after the analogy of kuriakos, namely, Lordic, the result is the same. Let us now inquire as to who is meant by Lord, in Rev. 1:10; whether the Christ or the Father. Barnes says, “This was a day particularly devoted to the Lord Jesus, for (a) that is the natural meaning of the word, Lord, as used in the New Testament, and (b), if the Jewish Sabbath were intended to be designated, the word Sabbath would have been used.” Hackett, in his Com. on Acts 1:24, says, “Kuriakos, when taken absolutely in the N. T., refers generally to Christ.” The point aimed at by both of these writers is about the same as my former statement that, “under this dispensation, the term, Lord, refers exclusively to Christ.” Mark well, however, that I do not say that this is the case in the entire N. T. Scriptures. Jesus was not yet “made Lord” (Acts 2:36) during the period covered by the four gospels; hence such passages as Matt. 11:25, come not within the bounds of my statement; nor do most of such passages as are quotations from the O. T. Acts 4:26, for example, is a quotation of Ps. 2:2, and refers to God, while Heb. 1:10, though a quotation, refers to the Christ. Lord (Jehovah, the self-existent One), refers in these quotations to the nature, or to one of the attributes, of God and of the Word. But in the official sense we have now but “one Lord” (Eph. 4:5), namely, Jesus, who was “made Lord” at the beginning of, and for, this dispensation (Acts 2:36), and is, hence, “Lord of all” (Rom. 10:12), being “the head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22); for “all authority is given into his hands” (Matt. 28:18). In 1 Cor. 8:6, this matter is most explicitly stated. “Lord” and “Jesus Christ” are here two distinct appellatives, and in apposition, as “God” and “the Father” are appositives. To this, not only the context disposes us, but also the answering of one member of the sentence to the other, requires it. The heathens, says Paul, have “gods many” and “lords many,” but to us, there is only “One God—the Father—of whom, &c.,
One Lord—Jesus Christ—by whom, &c.” It is not a decision between two or more rival “Lord Jesus Christs,” as any other construction would make it, but between several alleged “Lords,” in which “Jesus Christ,” as an appositive, is definitive of the “one only Lord,” as in whose favor the decision falls, as “the Father” is definitive of the “one only God.” It is only official “authority” and “Lordship” which, in the case before us, is, or can be, conceived to be, “given” or “made.” Hence, it is in an official sense, respecting this dispensation, that Jesus has “all authority,” and is “Lord of all” and “over all.” Under this official jurisdiction, come, of course, all the institutions now binding on us. Hence, “Lord’s day,” “Lord’s supper,” “Lord’s table,” and such like, can only refer to Jesus as the Lord. If anything were yet wanting to complete the proof, even the word kuriakos would cry out. So distinctly and decisively is its voice heard in 1 Cor. 11:20—the kuriakon (Lordic) supper—that no one, in even his wildest fancy, can fail to hear Jesus named. And if kuriakos came first and purposely into being to hail him as Lord, then, when it speaks again, and by inspiration finally—“the Kuriakee [Lordic] day”—what puny mortal shall dare to misunderstand it? Reader, did you note how the lexicons quoted have interpreted this voice? The facts before us declare them wise in this. IV. The day which is to be sacredly kept in this dispensation, “the Lord’s day,” recurs weekly, and upon the first day of the week.
Having seen that one day in this dispensation is the Lord’s, and that this day is a new institution, we can easily determine which day it is, by observing what day the first Christians gave to him, for, under apostolic oversight and instruction, they certainly acted right in this matter. And this practice, on their part, answers to us every purpose of a direct command, since it is the fruit of one. Let us, then, inquire into what day they were in the habit of devoting to religious purposes. However, one source of error is here to be carefully guarded against. If even instances could be found of their meeting on the seventh day of the week for their own religious purposes, this, of itself, would not determine it to be the day sought, unless there be no other day on which they met, since they might do this from the same motive, and for the same reason, that led them to observe other Jewish days and feasts. Should even precedents determine in favor of the seventh day, it would, nevertheless, not be on account of the same reasons for which God’s ancient people met on this day, for the day now binding is a new institution. But if the first Christians gave a day to the Lord which was not devoted to religious purposes, under the former dispensation, then this will determine it to be the sacred day, since there is but one such day, as the phrase, “the Lord’s day,” unmistakably declares. And here a single hint speaks volumes. For even the faintest shadow of a reason might induce a people to honor a day revered by their fathers for ages, in the worship of the true God; but to devote a new day, never before so honored, this has a potent meaning in it. Was there, then, such a day so given? This I answer in the affirmative, and proceed to the proof. 1. “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.” 1 Cor. 16:1, 2. So writes Paul to the Corinthians. Or, as McKnight renders the second verse, “On the first day of every week let each of you lay somewhat by itself, according as he may have been prospered, putting it into the treasury, that when I come there may be no collections.” So, in substance, also, that recent and most critical translator, J. B. Rotherham. a. Whether we should render “by him,” or “by itself,” cannot be dogmatically decided, since the Greek, par’ heautou, is indefinite and may express either equally well. Those who render “by him,” decide in favor of the use to which these words are more frequently put; while those who translate “by itself,” are governed by the context, “that there be no gatherings when I come.” If we adopt McKnight’s version, it is plain that there was a meeting on every first day, when the money was put into a common treasury; “that there be no gatherings” when Paul might come. If we render “by him,” i. e., “at home,” then it is clear that Paul expected that, as a rule, Christians would be “at home,” on that day, i. e., not absent on business. In either view, it marks the day as not their own. b. Giving, when properly done, is a religious work, an act of worship, in the broader sense of the term. Hence, this contribution is elsewhere called a “grace” (2 Cor. 8:1, 6, 7). And this religious act—an act in every way fitted for such a day, and all the more impressive when done on such a day—was directed to be performed on the first day of the week. c. Nor was the first day thus observed in Corinth only, but the command extended to all the churches of Galatia (1 Cor. 16:1), and perhaps also to “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord (1 Cor. 1:1), for to all such was this epistle addressed. Why name the first day of the week in all Galatia as well as in Achaia? d. Nor was it simply once thus done, but, as McKnight well expresses the force of the original, “On the first day of every week.” For, he adds, “as kata polin signifies every city; and kata meena, every month; and, Acts 14:23, kat’ ekklesian, in every church; so kata mian sabbaton signifies the first day of every week.” So, also, says Winer, N. T. Gram., p. 401, this passage should be construed. We find, then, Sunday after Sunday, in regular succession, and by a large number of churches, both in Europe and Asia, devoted to this “grace!”—“Continuous action.” 2. From Acts 20:7, it appears that another act of worship—partaking of the Lordic supper—was performed on the first day. “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.” Instead of “when the disciples came together to break bread,” the better texts and versions read, “we gathered together to break bread.” This “we,” who gathered, includes Paul’s companions, together with the disciples of Troas, the “them” to whom he preached. Let us not be too eager to finish our lesson here; we may be amply repaid for our leisure. There are three different ways of reckoning the day recognized in the Scriptures; viz., From evening to evening, from morning to morning, and from midnight to midnight. a. The first-named, from evening to evening, originated with the Jewish Sabbaths, and was peculiar to their sacred days. “From even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbaths” (Lev. 23:32), would not have been a necessary law, if the Jews had been in the habit of so beginning their days. And this law passed away with the Sabbaths. b. The other style, from morning to morning, is as old as creation, and belonged to the so-called “civil” reckoning of the Jews. I can here, perhaps, do no better than to quote from Conant’s Genesis. He translates the 5th verse of chap. 1 thus: “And God called the light day; and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morning, one day.” On this, he comments as follows: “And there was evening; namely, the close of a period of light by the coming on of darkness; and there was morning, the close of a period of darkness by the return of light; the two periods making a day. This is the true idea of morning. By evening is meant, in Hebrew4as well as in English, the coming on of darkness after a period of light; in other words, the close of day by the coming on of night. There could be no evening, without a previous period of light. Day began, therefore, with light and not with darkness, and one day continued till the returning light marked the commencement of another. The later custom of the Hebrews (Lev. 23:32), of reckoning the day from evening to evening, was made necessary by the use of the lunar calendar, in the observance of their feasts, and other commemorative seasons, which depended on the return of the new moon. Where the natural day is meant, as in Lev. 7:15, it closes with the morning of the following day.” And so that old nation, the Babylonians, also, reckoned their days. Here, I must add a word from J. P. Lange, the famous German commentator. He renders Matt. 28:1, “About the end of the Sabbath,” and says: “The peculiar expression is explained by the context. It was the time of the dawn, or of breaking day (hemera to be supplied in connection with epiphooskousee), on the first day of the week, Sunday. Similar are the statements of Luke and John; while Mark says, about sunrise. . . . It is not the accurate Jewish division of time, according to which the Sabbath ended at six on Saturday evening, but the ordinary reckoning of the day, which extends from sunrise to sunrise, and adds the night to the preceding day. . . . Matthew makes the day of the week begin here with sunrise.” Meyer, Alford, Conant, and many others, equally learned, treat this passage in a similar way. Others, as P. Schaff, Lange’s translator, while favoring a different rendering, not only admit this to be the more natural translation, but, what is just to my purpose, concede that “the natural division of the day” was “from sunrise to sunrise.” The discussion of the third style, and the application of the whole to Acts 20, I must reserve for my next affirmative. Testimony of the Fathers.
By John Nevins Andrews
TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH AT SMYRNA.
The epistle of Polycarp makes no reference to the Sabbath nor to the first day of the week. But “the encyclical epistle of the church at Smyrna concerning the martyrdom of the holy Polycarp,” informs us that “the blessed Polycarp suffered martyrdom” “on the great Sabbath at the eighth hour.” Chapter xxi. The margin says: “The great Sabbath is that before the passover.” This day, thus mentioned, is not Sunday, but is the ancient Sabbath of the Lord. TESTIMONY OF THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS.
This was written by an unknown author, and Diognetus himself is known only by name, no facts concerning him having come down to us. It dates from the first part of the second century. The writer speaks of “the superstition as respects the Sabbaths,” which the Jews manifested, and he adds these words: “To speak falsely of God, as if he forbade us to do what is good on the Sabbath days—how is not this impious?” But there is nothing in this to which a commandment-keeper would object, or which he might not freely utter. The “Recognitions of Clement” is a kind of philosophical and theological romance. It purports to have been written by Clement of Rome, in the time of the apostle Peter, but was actually written “somewhere in the first half of the third century.” TESTIMONY OF THE RECOGNITIONS OF CLEMENT.
In book i., chapter xxxv, he speaks of the giving of the law thus:— “Meantime they came to Mount Sinai and thence the law was given to them with voices and sights from heaven, written in ten precepts, of which the first and greatest was that they should worship God himself alone,” etc. In book iii., chapter iv., he speaks of these precepts as tests: “On account of those, therefore, who by neglect of their own salvation please the evil one, and those who by study of their own profit seek to please the good one, ten things have been prescribed as a test to this present age, according to the number of the ten plagues which were brought upon Egypt.” In book ix., chapter xxviii., he says of the Hebrews, “that no child born among them is ever exposed, and that on every seventh day they all rest,” etc. In book x., chap. lxxii, is given the conversion of one Faustinianus by St. Peter. And it is said: “He proclaimed a fast to all the people, and on the next Lord’s day he baptized him.” This is all that I find in this work relating to the Sabbath and the so-called Lord’s day. The writer held the ten commandments to be tests of character in the present dispensation. There is no reason to believe that he, or any other person in that age, held the Sunday festival as something to be observed in obedience to the fourth commandment. TESTIMONY OF THE SYRIAC DOCUMENTS CONCERNING EDESSA.
On pages 35-55 of this work is given what purports to be “The Teaching of the Apostles.” On page 36, the ascension of the Lord is said to have been upon the “first day of the week, and the end of the Pentecost.” Two manifest falsehoods are here uttered; for the ascension was upon Thursday, and the Pentecost came ten days after the ascension. It is also said that the disciples came from Nazareth of Galilee to the mount of Olives on that selfsame day before the ascension, and yet that the ascension was “at the time of the early dawn.” But Nazareth was distant from the mount of Olives at least sixty miles! On page 38, a commandment from the apostles is given: “On the first [day] of the week, let there be service, and the reading of the holy Scriptures, and the oblation,” because Christ arose on that day, was born on that day, ascended on that day, and will come again on that day. But here is one truth, one falsehood, and two mere assertions. The apostles are represented, on page 39, as commanding a fast of forty days, and they add: “Then celebrate the day of the passion [Friday], and the day of the resurrection,” Sunday. But this would be only an annual celebration of these days. And on pages 38 and 39, they are also repre- sented as commanding service to be held on the fourth and sixth days of the week. The Sabbath is not mentioned in these “Documents,” which were written about the commencement of the fourth century, when, in many parts of the world, that day had ceased to be hallowed. TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN MARTYR.
Justin’s “Apology” was written at Rome about the year 140 A. D. His “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” was written some years later. In searching his works, we shall see how much greater progress apostasy had made at Rome than in the countries where those lived whose writings we have been examining. And yet nearly all these writings were composed at least a century later than those of Justin, though we have quoted them before quoting his, because of their asserted apostolic origin, or of their asserted origin within a few years of the times of the apostles. It does not appear that Justin, and those at Rome who held with him in doctrine, paid the slightest regard to the ancient Sabbath. He speaks of it as abolished, and treats it with contempt. Unlike some whose writings have been examined, he denies that it originated at creation, and asserts that it was made in the days of Moses. He also differs with some already quoted in that he denies the perpetuity of the law of ten commandments. In his estimation, the Sabbath was a Jewish institution, absolutely unknown to good men before the time of Moses, and of no authority whatever since the death of Christ. The idea of the change of the Sabbath from the seventh day of the week to the first, is not only never found in his writings, but is absolutely irreconcilable with such statements as the foregoing, which abound therein. And yet Justin Martyr is prominently and constantly cited in behalf of the so-called Christian Sabbath. The Roman people observed a festival on the first day of the week in honor of the sun. And so Justin, in his Apology, addressed to the emperor of Rome, tells that monarch that the Christians met on “the day of the sun,” for worship. He gives the day no sacred title, and does not even intimate that it was a day of abstinence from labor, only as they spent a portion of it in worship. Here are the words of his Apology on the Sunday festival:— “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying, Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows, and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers sojourning among us, and, in a word, takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For he was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the sun, having appeared to his apostles and disciples, he taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.” Chap. lxvii. Not one word of this indicates that Justin considered the Sunday festival as a continuation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. On the contrary, he shows clearly that no such idea was cherished by him. For whereas the fourth commandment enjoins the observance of the seventh day because God rested on that day from the work of creation, Justin urges in behalf of the Sunday festival that it is the day on which he began his work. The honor paid to that festival was not therefore in Justin’s estimation in any sense an act of obedience to the fourth commandment. He mentions as his other reason for the celebration by Christians of “the day of the sun,” that the Saviour arose that day. But he claims no divine or apostolic precept for this celebration; the things which he says Christ taught his apostles, being the doctrines which he had embodied in this Apology for the information of the emperor. And it is worthy of notice that though first-day writers assert that “Lord’s day” was the familiar title of the first day of the week in the time of the Apocalypse, yet Justin, who is the first person after the sacred writers that mentions the first day, and this at a distance of only 44 years from the date of John’s vision upon Patmos, does not call it by that title, but by the name which it bore as a heathen festival! If it be said that the term was omitted because he was addressing a heathen emperor, there still remains the fact that he mentions the day quite a number of times in his “Dialogue with Trypho,” and yet never calls it “Lord’s day,” nor indeed does he call it by any name implying sacredness. Now we present the statements concerning the Sabbath and first-day found in his “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.” The impropriety, not to say dishonesty, of quoting Justin in behalf of the modern doctrine of the change of the Sabbath, will be obvious to all. He was a most decided no-law, no-Sabbath writer, who used the day commonly honored as a festival by the Romans as the most suitable, or most convenient, day for public worship, a position identical with that of modern no-Sabbath men. Justin may be called a law man in this sense, however, that while he abolishes the ten commandments, he calls the gospel, “the new law.” He is therefore really one who believes in the gospel and denies the law. But let us hear his own words. Trypho, having in chapter eight advised Justin to observe the Sabbath, and “do all things which have been written in the law,” in chapter ten says to him, “You observe no festivals or Sabbaths.” This was exactly adapted to bring out from Justin the answer that though he did not observe the seventh day as a Sabbath, he did thus rest on the first day, if it were true that that day was with him a day of abstinence from labor. And now observe Justin’s answer given in chapter twelve:— “The new law requires you to keep perpetual Sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you; and if you eat unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true Sabbaths of God.” This language plainly implies that Justin held all days to be alike, and did not observe any one day as a day of abstinence from labor. But in chapter eighteen, Justin asserts that the Sabbaths—and he doubtless includes the weekly with the annual—were enjoined upon the Jews for their wickedness:— “For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short, all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you,—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts. For if we patiently endure all things contrived against us by wicked men and demons, so that even amid cruelties unutterable, death and torments, we pray for mercy to those who inflict such things upon us, and do not wish to give the least retort to any one, even as the new Law-giver commanded us: how is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us—I speak of fleshly circumcision, and Sabbaths, and feasts?” Not only does he declare that the Jews were commanded to keep the Sabbath because of their wickedness, but in chapter nineteen he denies that any Sabbath existed before Moses. Thus, after naming Adam, Abel, Enoch, Lot, and Melchizedek, he says:— “Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned, though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God.” But though he thus denies the Sabbatic institution before the time of Moses, he presently makes this statement concerning the Jews:— “And you were commanded to keep Sabbaths, that you might retain the memorial of God. For his word makes this announcement, saying, ‘That ye may know that I am God who redeemed you.’” [Eze. 20:12.] The Sabbath is indeed the memorial of the God that made the heavens and the earth. And what an absurdity to deny that that memorial was set up when the creative work was done, and to affirm that twenty-five hundred years intervened between the work and the memorial!