Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 38, No. 25.

EXAMINATION OF T. M. PREBLE'S FIRST-DAY SABBATH

Review and Herald

Dec 5, 1871

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 5, 1871

EXAMINATION OF T. M. PREBLE'S FIRST-DAY SABBATH.

By John Nevins Andrews

BY ELD. J. N. ANDREWS.

CHAPTER ELEVEN.

THE GENTILE SABBATH.

We have carefully examined Eld. P.'s argument from Sabbaton to prove that the four evangelists call the first day of the week “the first-day Sabbath” at the very time that Christ was resurrected; and also to prove that Luke and Paul speak thus of it when writing of what pertained to a period nearly thirty years subsequent to that event. If this statement were correct, it would show that at the very beginning of the present dispensation, the highest title of sacredness was conferred upon this day by each of the evangelists, and that it was distinctly recognized in the book of Acts (chap. 20:7), and in that of 1 Corinthians (chap. 16:2). Eight instances in the New Testament, in which the first day of the week is honored with the sacred title of “the Sabbath,” and that, too, at a time when the Greek tongue, the original language of the New Testament, was the prevalent language of the religious world, ought to be sufficient to give that title authority and currency in the entire Christian church, as the actual, rightful name of the first day of the week. Yet that Eld. P. has no faith in this kind of argument from Sabbaton, is very evident from his introductory remarks “TO THE READER.” Thus he says:
“The time was when to call the first day of the week the Sabbath would lead to confusion; as it was not an easy thing, or the work of a few years, to establish the change from the old Jewish seventh day, to that of the Christian first day, for the Sabbath. A distinction must be made in the names by which these two days were called, so that all classes, in different parts of the world, could readily understand which day was intended. To drop the name of Sabbath, for the seventh day, all at once, could not be done: neither could both days be called Sabbath without confusion.” p. 6.
Yet Eld. P. asserts that four of the sacred writers call the first day of the week “Sabbath” at the time of Christ's resurrection, three of them doing it in connection with the mention of the ancient Sabbath, and none of them assigning a single word of explanation. But if each of the four evangelists, together with Luke in the Acts, and Paul in 1 Corinthians, do actually confer such title upon the first day, the Greek language, in which the New Testament was written, being the familiar mother tongue of the larger part of the early church, they must all have understood this fact, and all who respected their authority must have called this day by the sacred title of Sabbath. Yet not a single instance can be cited from the records of the early Christian church, in which this title is conferred on the first day of the week. Coleman, as quoted by Eld. P. on page 182, declares that “during the early ages of the church it [Sunday] was never entitled the Sabbath.” And Eld. P. cites and endorses Dr. Heylyn on page 6 in making the following statement: “So that whenever, for a thousand years and upwards, we meet with Sabbatum [Sabbath], it must be understood of no day but Saturday.”
The proof is therefore overwhelming that the Christians who spoke ancient Greek never understood the sacred writers to confer the title of Sabbath upon the first day of the week, as Eld. P., in his argument from Sabbaton, attempts to prove that they did. His argument, indeed, makes the four evangelists and St. Paul the authors of that very confusion which he asserts must be the inevitable consequence of giving the title of Sabbath to the first day of the week during the early ages of the church. And, on the other hand, it is evident that when he wrote the words of the present quotation, he had no faith in the argument which he afterwards adduces from Sabbaton to show that the first day had the title of Sabbath conferred upon it by five of the writers of the New Testament. Here we have the curious spectacle of (1) a careful explanation why the sacred title of Sabbath was not conferred upon Sunday in the primitive church; and (2), an elaborate argument to prove that five of the New-Testament writers, in no less than eight places, actually give this title to this day, four of them giving it that name at the time of Christ's resurrection!
We have seen in the examination of Eld. P.'s argument from Sabbaton that by divine authority, according to him, two Sabbaths came in as many days! “Where one series of days ended, there another series of days began.” That is to say, “At the END of the seventh-day Sabbaths”—if his argument were only valid—“THERE would be the BEGINNING of the LORD JESUS CHRIST'S DAY or SABBATH.” p. 46. Two weekly Sabbaths by divine authority here come together! For the seventh-day Sabbath was not abolished till the resurrection of Christ (see pages 44, 124); and the day on which he was raised, the four evangelists (as he asserts) show to have been the Sabbath at that very time! Had he abolished the Sabbath at the crucifixion, he might introduce the day of Christ's resurrection as a new and much-needed Sabbath, eight days having elapsed since the last of the seventh-day Sabbaths. But to account for the fact that the seventh-day Sabbath was observed according to the commandment after the crucifixion of Christ (see Luke 23:56), he appoints a new place for its abolition; viz., the resurrection of Christ; and thus when he attempts to prove that the Saviour was raised upon a day which, as he asserts, the evangelists call “the first-day Sabbath,” he shows—so far as he is able—not only that the new Sabbath began the very moment that the old one ended, but even that it was in force before the other had been abolished! For the Saviour was not resurrected till some time after the first of the first-day Sabbaths had begun, and the ancient Sabbath was not abolished till he arose from the dead.
The seventh-day Sabbath, even on Eld. P.'s own showing, maintains its hallowed dignity till the last, and goes out with sacred honor, after six days of toil and sorrow, being observed according to the commandment. Luke 23:56. But now, the moment this is past, comes the first of the first-day Sabbaths, at a time when it is absolutely uncalled for and superfluous! The disciples had just kept the Sabbath according to the commandment, and had not the slightest use for this new Sabbath. Indeed, it was not a Sabbath, even according to Eld. P.'s lax standard; for it was not “the seventh day following six days of labor.” p. 121. The six days of labor pertaining to this, the first of the first-day Sabbaths, did not precede it, but actually came after it; and this has, therefore, of necessity, been the case with every first-day Sabbath ever since. Even the very term “first-day Sabbath” necessarily implies this. God's order is reversed, and man's folly bears rule, in that the day of rest comes before the six days of labor instead of coming after them! And it is therefore apparent that even to this day, Eld. P.'s first-day Sabbath does not fill his own definition of the Sabbath made for man; inasmuch as it is the first day before six days of labor, and never “the seventh day following” them.
The first-day Sabbath was simply a superfluity in the first instance of its alleged existence, as even its own friends must admit. And the first instance of its alleged existence is a fit illustration of the entire institution; for it claims to be given to commemorate the resurrection of Christ, but it is even here entirely superfluous, in that a fitting and expressive memorial, altogether different from abstinence from labor on Sunday, has the ground for this purpose. Rom. 6:3–5. The divine Lawgiver never made institutions on this wise. The first-day Sabbath owes its existence, not to the wisdom of God, but the folly and perversity of man.
We now introduce three witnesses, Paul, James, and Luke, that each may bear positive testimony excluding Sunday from the title of Sabbath in the New Testament.
1. Paul. “For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read EVERY SABBATH DAY, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.” Acts 13:27. These words of Paul do acknowledge as the Sabbath the day hallowed weekly by the Jews, and do absolutely exclude this so-called first-day Sabbath.
2. James. “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues EVERY SABBATH DAY.” Acts 15:21. If there were any other weekly Sabbath besides that which from ancient days had been observed by the people of Israel, these words of James would be untrue.
3. Luke. “And he reasoned in the synagogue EVERY SABBATH, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” Acts 18:4. This statement of Luke shows that he did not recognize the existence of Eld. P.'s first-day Sabbath, unless the Jews were at this time its observers. And yet Eld. P. three times cites Luke in proof that the first day is by him honored with the title of Sabbath; viz., Luke 24:1; Acts 13:42, margin; and 20:7.
Eld. P. devotes nearly three pages (97–100) to an argument from the marginal reading of Acts 13:42, to prove that Luke there recognizes the first day of the week as the Sabbath. Here is the verse: “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath” (margin, “Gr., in the week between, or, in the Sabbath between”). On this text Eld. P. remarks:
“The ‘Jews’ were inclined to go ‘out of the synagogue,’ without inviting the apostles to attend another meeting with them; but the Gentiles invited Paul to preach to them the same words ‘the next Sabbath’—or as the margin reads (a critical Greek rendering)—‘in the week between, or in the Sabbath between.’ What does this mean? ‘The Sabbath between.’ Between what? Why, between two Jewish Sabbaths. Hence, we have the proof of the first-day Christian Sabbath, as no other Sabbath strictly so called could come ‘between’ two Jewish seventh-day Sabbaths. In proof of this position, we will here introduce a criticism on this text by the celebrated Thos. Morer, found in his work, On the Sabbath, published in London, 1701. On page 191 he says:
“‘However, that it was done with great caution and some concern, we find by the matter of the request, which was that the apostles would preach to them some day between this and the next Sabbath, for that is the strict translation of the Greek, some time BETWEEN THE Sabbaths, suppose the next day, or the day after; all which days among the Jews were called Sabbath, as well as the day on which they worshiped, which not only expounds the verse, but may be the sense of the forty-fourth, that almost the whole city the next Sabbath, i. e., the day following, came together to hear the word of God. And this might well cause so much envy with the Jews (v. 45), not only because vast companies came to hear the apostles preach, but because it was on such days as brought some disrespect to their famous Sabbath, on which, and no other day of the week, they would have such meetings to be held.’”
“This criticism of Morer is of great importance. To prove he is right, we will give the following: The Greek word in Acts 13:42, rendered next, is metaxu. This word occurs nine times in the New Testament. We will give them all, and then the reader can see for himself how this word is used.
“Matt. 18:15—‘between;’ 23:35—‘between;’ Luke 11:57—‘between;’ 16:26—‘between;’ John 4:31—‘meanwhile;’ Acts 12:6—‘between;’ 13:42—‘next;’ 15:9—‘between;’ Rom. 2:15—‘meanwhile.’
“Parkhurst defines metaxu: ‘1. Between. Matt. 18:15; 23:35; Rom. 2:15.’”
“Robinson: ‘Adv. and prep. in the midst, between.’”
“Tyndale: ‘When they were come out of the synagogue of the Jews, the Gentiles besought that they would preach the word to them between the Sabbath days.’
“Wesley: ‘on the Sabbath between.’”
“Coverdale: ‘between the Sabbath days.’”
“Thompson: ‘in the interim—till the next Sabbath.’”
“Sharpe: ‘in the week between.’”
“Whitby: ‘In the week between—or in the Sabbath between.’”
“In verse 43 it reads: ‘Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas; who speaking to them persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.’ And so, on ‘the next Sabbath day’—the next first, if the above criticisms are correct—came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.” pp. 97–100.
Here we have an extraordinary first-day agreement put forth with a great show of confidence, and yet involving great absurdity, and contradicting plain Scripture facts, not to say contradicting the statements of Eld. P. also. And we shall discover in the end that it rests upon doubtful deductions and conclusions which are wholly unwarranted.
Observe the remarkable absurdity here involved. The apostle Paul preached a sermon in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia, which sermon, in outline, Luke has placed on record in Acts 13:16–41. In it there is not the slightest allusion to the alleged change of the Sabbath, or to the establishment of a new Sabbath. On the contrary, in this very sermon, he expressly recognizes the Sabbath observed by the Hebrew people, and as distinctly excludes every other day from that title. (See the argument already given on this point, on verse 27.) The Gentiles, who now for the first time heard the gospel, and who did not hear one syllable concerning a new Sabbath, but who did hear Paul on this occasion give the entire ground to the ancient Sabbath, are supposed by Eld. P. to have intuitively decided upon the existence of a new Sabbath and to have asked him to address them upon this new day! Were Eld. P.'s conclusions in this correct, we should be constrained to give the honor of making the new Sabbath to these Gentiles of Pisidia; for, in the history of Christ, there are no decisive indications of the change of the Sabbath, as Eld. P. frankly testifies (p. 110), and we have carefully searched the book of Acts for even the first trace of evidence that the apostles ever attempted to change the Sabbath of the Lord. But on this occasion it appears that we have actually discovered the authors of the change. Saint Paul preaches a sermon introducing the gospel to the people of Pisidia, and in that sermon recognizes the ancient Sabbath as the only institution of that kind; but these Pisidians being free from the Jewish prejudices which trammelled Paul, saw at a glance that a new Sabbath ought to exist, and without a moment's hesitation they spontaneously established it. In the present quotation, Eld. P. terms the Sabbath of the Lord “the Jewish Sabbath.” But “from henceforth” we have an undoubted Gentile Sabbath, for which we are indebted to these noble Gentiles of Antioch in Pisidia. Those who discard the seventh day because it is Jewish may keep this new Sabbath as sufficiently Gentile in its character; though their duty would be easier to perform if these good Gentiles had specified the day which they made into a Sabbath at this time.
The statement of St. Paul in verse 27 that the Jews at Jerusalem read the prophecies (in their public services) “every Sabbath day,” makes it a necessity that Eld. P. should take one of three positions:
1. The Jews at Jerusalem kept as one of their Sabbaths the first day of the week; or, 2. The first day of the week can not be intended by the Sabbath of verse 42; or, 3. The Sabbath in verse 42 was one not included in Paul's statement of “every Sabbath day” in verse 27, as the Gentiles who gave it existence did not do it till after Paul had finished his sermon.
As the first of these statements is certainly false, Eld. P. must choose between the second and the third. He will not willingly accept the second that “the first day Sabbath cannot be intended by the Sabbath of verse 42,” and there remains only the third, viz., that “the Sabbath in verse 42 was one not included in Paul's statement of ‘every Sabbath day’ in verse 27, as the Gentiles who gave it existence did not do it till after Paul had finished his sermon.”
Eld. P. has managed at last to secure a Gentile Sabbath, most assuredly, provided that this third position is tenable. One thing, however, remains to mar the felicity of this coveted acquisition. These “Gentile Christians,” to use an anti-Sabbatarian term, omitted to specify the day on which this new Sabbath should recur. Rather, Luke the historian seems to be the one in fault, as his record gives us no clue to the particular day on which this new Sabbath was to make its weekly return. But never mind that. It either was, or ought to have been, the first day of the week, and on Eld. P.'s assurance that it was “the first day Christian Sabbath”—an institution, by the way, for which we have hitherto searched in vain—we will assume that Sunday was the day here set up. Our troubles, however, are not yet at an end. We were able, indeed, to dispose of Paul's reference to what the Jews did at Jerusalem “every Sabbath day,” though it is absolutely certain that the so-called first-day Sabbath was not of this number. When Paul said this, there was no such Sabbath in existence. The Gentiles in Pisidia did not set up the new Sabbath till his sermon was finished. But when some four years had elapsed, we find the apostles, as a body, convened in council at Jerusalem. When James pronounces the judgment of the council he states what was done by the Jewish people “EVERY SABBATH day”—the very term used by Paul at Antioch—thus expressly recognizing as the Sabbath that day which had been observed from ancient times, and absolutely excluding this new Gentile Sabbath, unless it can be shown that this day as well as the seventh was observed by the Hebrew people. Verse 21. It is certain that James knew nothing of this so-called Sabbath. Four years' time, one would think, must have been sufficient to extend the knowledge of this new institution from Antioch to Jerusalem. And if that were not enough, and so James had never heard of the Gentile Sabbath when he made this speech, here were Paul and Barnabas who could have arisen in this assembly and said, “James has not a perfect understanding of the Sabbath question, or he would not have spoken as he has, inasmuch as a new and better Sabbath has been in existence since our famous meeting
at Antioch in Pisidia.” But they held their peace, a plain proof that there was no occasion for them to speak. And their silence was as fatal to their new Sabbath as were James' words. But once more we meet this remarkable and emphatic term “EVERY Sabbath.” This time it is Luke using it as his own words and not simply as recording the words of Paul or of James. He uses it in stating Paul's attendance upon the synagogue. He therefore beyond all dispute uses it with reference to the day hallowed by the Jewish people. Now if there were a new Sabbath intended in Acts 13:42, Luke, as the writer of that verse, must have known that fact. When therefore in chapter 18:4, he uses the term “EVERY SABBATH” on his own account, and confines its application to the Sabbath days sanctified by the Hebrews, it is the most conclusive proof that he had no knowledge of this alleged new Sabbath day.
That Eld. P. involves himself in great absurdity and in the contradiction of plain Scripture facts in maintaining the first-day Sabbath from Acts 13:42 has been made sufficiently manifest. That he contradicts himself, also, when he says that the first day of the week is called the Sabbath in Acts 13:42, is evident from the first quotation in this article; for he there declares that “the time was when to call the first day of the week the Sabbath would lead to confusion; for it was not an easy thing, or the work of a few years, to establish the change from the old Jewish seventh day, to that of the Christian first day, for the Sabbath. . . . To drop the name of Sabbath, for the seventh day, all at once, could not be done; neither could both days be called Sabbath without confusion.” p. 6. Yet he asserts that the sacred historian without one word of explanation does actually give the title of Sabbath to both days in Acts 13:42, 44. So that what Eld. P. declares could not be done without confusion and trouble to the people of God, he afterward asserts was certainly done by Luke. Happily we have the most explicit proof that Luke is wholly innocent of this great wrong.
We now call attention to the authorities quoted by Eld. P. in support of his interpretation of Acts 13:42. He has correctly cited from the Greek concordance the several instances in which metaxu, the Greek word rendered next in Acts 13:42, is found in the New Testament, and shown how it is rendered each time. That its general signification is that of “between” is freely admitted. That it does not always have that meaning, and, in particular, that it cannot have it in the case under consideration, is testified to by the very highest authorities, some of whom we shall quote in this connection.
But even were we to concede that metaxu must always have the sense of “between”—which is not true—Eld. P. would then fall very far short of proving his point that Luke here speaks of “the first-day Christian Sabbath” “between two Jewish seventh-day Sabbaths.” All that would then appear from this text would be “the Sabbath between,” but not one word to indicate that it was a new Sabbath, or to testify what were the limits between which it came. But Eld. P. does not hesitate to assume,
1. That “the Sabbath between” is the first-day Sabbath, though he has hitherto signally failed to prove that prior to this point such an institution had any existence. 2. That it is called “the Sabbath between” because lying between two Jewish Sabbaths.
In the act of making these two assumptions—for they are nothing else—he triumphantly exclaims “Hence, we have the proof of the first-day Christian Sabbath!”
But he may ask, “Have I not cited two translations which read ‘between the Sabbath days,’ and two others which read ‘the Sabbath between?’ And, putting both together, have I not made it out clearly that this text speaks of the Sabbath between two Sabbaths?” So it may seem to him. But the text does not contain both these statements; for it does not read both these ways, and to put the two together as though it did, would be only a fraud.
Moreover, this combining of two translations of one phrase, as though Luke used the words of both, when he certainly used but one of these phrases, if, indeed, either be a correct translation, amounts to nothing for his purpose unless he can show just cause for calling Sunday by the name of Sabbath at this time. But it is certain that he cannot do this, unless he can prove it to have been made a Sabbath on this occasion; for up to this point, as we have seen, no such work had been done for the first day of the week. But he will say, perhaps, “We must have a Sabbath between two seventh-day Sabbaths, and certainly, the occasion absolutely demands that we recognize the first day of the week as this very Sabbath.” But we answer, 1. No such necessity for another kind of Sabbath exists, only as it is created by the fraudulent combination of two diverse translations. 2. And were it true that another kind of Sabbath, besides that of the seventh-day, is here recognized, there is not, in this, the slightest ground to plead the necessity of a first-day Sabbath; for there were seven annual Sabbaths of the Jews—some of which were of peculiar prominence—“besides the Sabbaths of the Lord.” Lev. 23:6–8, 15–21, 24–39. Some one of these, on this occasion, might have actually come between the Sabbath of this meeting at Antioch, and the next seventh-day Sabbath.
Eld. P. quotes the lexicons as follows:
“Parkhurst defines metaxu: ‘1. Between. Matt. 18:15; 23:35; Rom. 2:15.’”
“Robinson: ‘Adv. and prep. in the midst, between.’”
Now these quotations from Parkhurst and Robinson do not give the reader a just idea of what they say upon the point in question. No one would gather, from what Eld. P. here gives, that these lexicographers also give to metaxu the sense of after, following, succeeding, next, etc., yet such is the case. Still less would they gather the idea that these two scholars, in the case of the text in question (Acts 13:42), decide that metaxu must here have the sense of “next.” Yet this is also the fact. So that each of these authorities actually testifies against Eld. P. Thus Parkhurst says (beginning just where Eld. P. left off), “2. With the article prefixed, it denotes time. John 4:31. En de to metaxu (chrono namely), In the mean, or intermediate, time. 3. After, following, succeeding. Acts 13:42. Eis to metaxu Sabbaton. On the following Sabbath. This expression is plainly equivalent to erchomenon Sabbaton, the next Sabbath, verse 44.” So much for Parkhurst. And Dr. Robinson gives us the second definition of metaxu thus: “2. Intervening, intermediate, put for next following, next, as Acts 13:42.” We cannot commend the candor and fairness of Eld. P. in thus causing these men to cast their influence against that which they plainly assert to be the truth.
We also cite other lexicons. Thus Pickering says: “Metaxu, adv. in the midst of, between, in the interval; while, in the meantime; sometimes rendered afterward, or next after, as in Acts 13:42. With ho, he, to, intermediate, intervening. It is used as an adverb, (1) with the article; as, en to metaxu (chrono understood), in the meantime, Xen., Sympos., 1, 14; to metaxu Sabbaton, the next, or following Sabbath, Acts 13:42; ton metaxu bion, the subsequent part of his life, or his after life. Lys. c. Eratosth., etc. The lexicon of Dunbar gives the same words as these in defining metaxu, and so does the lexicon of Schrevelius. The lexicon of Liddell and Scott, after giving the classical definitions of metaxu as, ‘in the midst,’ ‘betwixt, between,’ ‘meanwhile,’ adds this: ‘Also afterwards, New Testament.’”
Eld. P. quotes six translations of Acts 13:42, to prove that the first-day Sabbath is therein brought to view. But four of these give the idea that the Gentiles requested preaching during the period from that Sabbath to the next. Thus Tyndale and Coverdale say, “between the Sabbath days,” which is palpably false as a translation. But Thompson says, “in the interim—till the next Sabbath,” which is a paraphrase rather than a translation. And Sharpe says, “in the week between,” which can at least be called a translation. These four give the same general idea, but no one of them gives any greater prominence to the first day of the week than to any one of the other five working days. But the translation of Wesley, and that of Whitby (as Eld. P. here gives it), makes the Gentiles request that the preaching should be upon “the Sabbath between.” If this last translation is correct, then that of the other four is essentially false. And the same may be said of the last translation, if that of the four is correct. The four, taken by themselves, do not help Eld. P. at all. And the two which speak of “the Sabbath between” furnish no Sabbatic honors for the first day of the week. It is only by combining the two diverse translations, that Eld. P. makes even a show of argument for his new Sabbath. And, even then, its existence is only an inference, both unnecessary and unreasonable, as we have before shown. Moreover, one of these translations is certainly false (for the two conflict), and there are weighty reasons for rejecting both, and adhering to the common translation of the text. We cite some of the authorities sustaining the common version:
Crammer's translation reads: “the next Sabbath;” the Geneva translation: “the next Sabbath;” Rheims Testament: “the Sabbath following;” Taverner's version: “the Sabbath following;” the Bishop's Bible: “the next Sabbath;” the Syriac Testament says: “the next Sabbath day.” The Comprehensive Commentary says: “It appears (v. 44) that it was the next Sabbath day that they came together.” And after stating the names of some who dissent, it adds “Erasmus, Glass, Kypke, Krebs, Morus, Heinsius, Kuin., also Syriac, Vulgate, Arabic, Æthiopic, coincide with our English version; confirmed by verse 44.” Dr. Tischendorf's translation founded on the Sinaitic Codex, the Vatican and the Alexandrian, is the same as our common version. Prof. Hackett in his commentary on the Acts says: “The next Sabbath.” Ripley in his notes on the Acts says: “The next Sabbath. The Jewish Sabbath is of course here meant corresponding to our Saturday.” Dr. Owen on the Acts reads thus: “The next Sabbath.” Kenrick reads, “The next Sabbath.” Jacobus in his notes on the Acts says: “The usage of the Greek authorizes the sense of our common version. See verse 44.” Whedon's Commentary says: “Desired their preaching again next Sabbath.” A. Campbell's revision of Doddridge, “On the following Sabbath.” The Testament of Prof. Whiting the same as our common version, and so of the Bible Union, Dr. Bloomfield says: “The sense expressed by our common version is, no doubt, the true one. It is adopted by the best recent commentators, and confirmed by the ancient version.” Dean Alford says that this rendering in verse 42 “the next Sabbath” is correct. Olshausen also confirms the common version and so of many others.
By using two conflicting translations Eld. P. has proved to his own satisfaction, 1. That the request for preaching was that it should be between two Jewish seventh-day Sabbaths. 2. That it should be on the Sabbath between. 3. That this Sabbath was the first-day Sabbath.
But we have shown, 1. That there was then no first-day Sabbath unless made at this time by these worthy Gentiles. 2. That the two conflicting translations on which his argument is built, viz. rendering the text “the Sabbath between,” and “between the Sabbath days”; (cannot both be true) and the using both as correct is being guilty of manifest wrong. 3. That while one translation is certainly false, which fact alone is fatal to his argument, it is in the highest degree probable that neither of them is correct. 4. That even could we be certain that “Sabbath between” is the true rendering, and that it means a Sabbath distinct from the seventh day, there is even then, no necessity for fabricating a first-day Sabbath, inasmuch as there were seven annual Sabbaths distinct from the Sabbath of the Lord, one of which might actually have come between that seventh-day Sabbath on which they were assembled and the one which came the following week.
But Eld. P. cites two distinguished names in support of the translation, “the Sabbath between.” These are John Wesley, and Dr. Whitby, father of the doctrine of the temporal millennium. Mr. Wesley explains his idea of this text, and though he gives an explanation wholly unlike that of Eld. P. he should have been allowed, under the circumstances, to state it. Mr. Wesley in his notes on the New Testament says:
“The Sabbath between.—So the Jews to this day call the Sabbath between the first day of the month Tisri (on which the civil year begins) and the tenth of the same month, which is the solemn day of Expiation.”
To quote his note with his translation would have wholly spoiled Eld. P.'s use of that translation; and he thought it not good to let it appear. Dr. Gill very strongly urges this very interpretation; and there is this importance to the statement of this fact concerning Mr. Wesley and Dr. Gill, that it evinces Eld. P.'s first-day inference that he may have a “Sabbath between,” to be wholly unnecessary, as it certainly is every way unfounded in sound argument.
But Eld. P.'s use of Dr. Whitby will certainly surprise the reader. He quotes him thus:
“Whitby: ‘In the week between—or in the Sabbath between.’”
Yet Dr. Whitby affirms just the opposite of the statement which Eld. P. has put into his mouth. Here is his note on Acts 13:42:
“Verse 42. [Eis to metaxu Sabbaton.] This phrase doth not signify the intermediate week, as some conceive, or on the second and fifth day of the week, but on the following Sabbath; for we learn from the 44th verse, that they came not together till the following Sabbath.” A Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament. By Daniel Whitby, D. D., Vol. 1., p. 657, London, 1703.
I know not what words will fitly characterize such an act as this of Eld. P.'s, whereby Dr. Whitby is made to state the very reverse of that which he actually published to the world. There is nothing more certain than that the first-day Sabbath is a gigantic fraud, and when men, once noted for piety and moral worth, rally to its support, after having been enlightened concerning its true character, it need not be thought incredible that acts of this kind should be found in them.
CORRECTION. The second quotation in chapter ninth should be credited to page 110, and not to page 101. The correction is demanded by the comment which precedes the quotation. J. N. A.

THE VICTOR'S REST.

“His rest shall be glorious.”
HEART that so low dost beat, Striving and tiring Oft in the battle's heat, Night's cool desiring, Look beyond life and death, Hear what the Master saith: “To him that conquereth The rest is glorious.”
“Stay,” saith the world, “delight Lives in my bowers; Sleep on your arms to-night Through the watch-hours.” Here is no lawful rest, Cease the ignoble quest; God giveth but the best; His rest shall be glorious!
“Come,” saith the quiet grave, “I have done with living; Rest such as mortals crave Is of my giving.” Not here, O Earth of woes! Not such the saint's repose; Joy like a river flows; His rest shall be glorious!
Not to the vanquished, Heaven Opens its portals; Rest is the glory given To crowned immortals. Where never foes surprise, Where never storms arise, Past all uncertainties; The rest shall be glorious.
Look not for mere release, Welcomed victorious! God giveth more than peace; His rest is glorious! Endless when once begun, Fadeless the laurels won: Oh! after God's “well done!” The rest will be glorious.
Continue reading: The Sin of Sabbath-Breaking