Perish, earthly fame and treasure;

Come disaster, scorn, and pain;

In thy service, pain is pleasure;

With thy favor, death is gain.

Oh! 'tis not in grief to harm me,

While thy bleeding love I see;

Oh! 'tis not in joy to charm me,

When that love is hid from me.

Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,

No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.

No. 11.

Religious Liberty Endangered by Legislative Enactments.

AN APPEAL TO THE

FRIENDS OF EQUAL RIGHTS AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM,

IN THE UNITED STATES,

FROM THE SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST GENERAL CONFERENCE.

MDCCCXLVI.

NEW-YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMER. SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY.

No. 9 Spruce-Street

E. G. CHAMPLIN, STEREOTYPER AND PRINTER.

☞ The Seventh-day Baptist General Conference held its Forty-second

Anniversary at Shiloh, N. J., on the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 13th days

of September, 1846. During the session a resolution was passed

expressing the settled conviction of the Conference, "that all

legislation designed to enforce the religious observance of any day

for a Sabbath, thereby determining by civil law that such day shall

not be used for labor or judicial purposes, is unconstitutional, and

hostile to religious freedom." A Committee was appointed to prepare

an Address to the people of the United States in accordance with the

opinion thus expressed. The following is the Address reported by the

Committee, approved by the Conference, and referred to the American

Sabbath Tract Society for publication.

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--

We fully agree with you in the popular sentiment of our nation, that

liberty is sweet--to men of noble minds, much more precious than

estates, or treasures of silver and gold--dearer than our reputation

and honor among the despots of the world. Was it not this sentiment,

firmly-rooted in the minds of the Fathers of our National

Independence, which led them to stake their "lives, their fortunes,

and their sacred honor," rather than be the serfs of a British King

and his aristocratic Lords? Applauding their spirit, we know that you

will agree with us in the sentiment, that the preservation of that

liberty which they achieved and perpetuated in our ever-glorious

Constitution, is the highest civil duty which we owe to ourselves, to

our posterity, and to our nation. All but coercionists will agree with

us, that the preservation of our religious liberty is a sacred duty,

which we owe alike to the cause of truth and our political happiness.

Give us your candid attention, then, while we present a brief

statement of the wrongs we are suffering in these United States,

despite the principles of the National Declaration of Independence,

and the guarantees of our National Constitution.

Believing in the integrity of the provisional Government which made

the Declaration of Independence, our fathers and predecessors in

faith, fought side by side with yours for the liberty which that

instrument declares to be the inalienable right of all men. They were

equally zealous parties to the adoption of the Constitution of the

United States--that Constitution which says there shall be "no law

respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof;" "and the judges in every State shall be bound

thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the

contrary notwithstanding." Although our brethren at Ephrata, in

Pennsylvania, regarded warfare and the shedding of blood as

inconsistent with the Christian profession, yet they were no less

ardent admirers of those national instruments by which American

liberties were asserted and established. Of this they gave ample

proof, in the unwavering support which they ever voluntarily rendered

to the National Government and its troops, by all the peaceable means

at their command. History records an act of patriotism and piety,

which reflects everlasting honor on their names. They voluntarily and

compassionately received, at their establishment, between four and

five hundred wounded Americans who had fallen in the battle of

Brandywine, fed them from their own stores, and nursed them with their

own hands, for which they never received nor asked a recompense of the

American Government or people. It was enough for them, that they were

their fellow men. But it stirred their hearts the deeper, that they

knew they were bleeding in the cause of sacred liberty.

We are the descendants and successors in faith of these parties. We

hold the same sentiments, and cherish the same principles, which they

did at that time. Is it not surprising, then, that within seventy

years after the signing of that Declaration, and in little more than

half a century after the adoption of the Constitution, the lineal

descendants of these parties, and their successors in faith and

principles, should have their liberties so abridged by state

authorities, as to give occasion for an appeal to the citizens of the

whole nation, from whom the sovereign power emanates, for a redress of

their wrongs? But so it is. Religious zealots, in our State

Legislatures and on the Judicial Bench, have violated the Constitution

of the nation, established an article of their religious creed, and

made it penal for others of different sentiments to follow out their

own honest convictions of duty to God. The consequence is, that eight

of our brethren are at this moment under judicial sentence for their

religious sentiments, and condemned to pay four dollars each, with

costs of prosecution, or suffer imprisonment in the common jail. It is

not pretended that they have injured the persons, or wronged the

estates or interests of any of their fellow-citizens. Neither is it

pretended that they are lewd or intemperate persons, or profaners of

churches. The only pretence is, that they have injured the religious

feelings of some others by peaceably working upon their own farms on

the first day of the week, in obedience to the dictates of their own

consciences and the law of God. And this is the second time, within

the space of one year, that the persecution of these otherwise

unoffending men, has been approved by the courts of Pennsylvania. In

four other States of the Union, in defiance of the National

Constitution, our fellow-citizens have suffered prosecutions, fines,

and imprisonment, within the past year, upon similar charges. Beside

this, in the States where toleration is provided for labor on our own

farms and in our own work shops on the first day of the week, all

contracts, legal and commercial transactions, if done even among

ourselves, are declared null and void by the State Statutes. So that,

even in these States, we are deprived of our constitutional and

inalienable right to use one-sixth part of our time for commercial,

legal, and judicial transactions; and then are tied up to our own

premises, as though we were as dangerous to the religious interests of

our fellow-citizens, as rabid animals are to their persons.

Applications were made to three State Legislatures during the winter

of 1845-6, for relief from these odious statutes. But those

applications were all repulsed with supercilious denials. Forbearance

is no longer a virtue. A succession of abuses and usurpations of our

rights, has compelled us to take measures to resist, with all the

legal means in our power, and with all that we can honorably acquire,

whatever laws abridge the rights or coerce the consciences of

ourselves or our fellow-citizens on religious or sectarian

considerations. Appealing to Jehovah and his holy law for the

rectitude of our principles and the righteousness of our cause, we

have implored, and shall continue to implore, the interposition of his

Providence to succeed our efforts.

Without wishing to disturb the peace of society, or wantonly to

overturn the existing order of things, but actuated solely by a sense

of duty to maintain the integrity of God's law, and preserve unimpaired

our religious privileges, we appeal to you, fellow-citizens, in

defence of the justice of our demands, by a fair representation of our

Constitutional Rights.

The sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, section

2d, says, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which

shall be made in pursuance thereof, ... shall be the supreme law of

the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any

thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary

notwithstanding."

Section 3d says, "The members of the several State Legislatures, and

all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of

the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support

this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a

qualification to office or public trust under the United States."

In the amendments to the Constitution, article 1st, it is written,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In view of these sections of the fundamental law of the nation, what

can be more palpably unconstitutional than those State statutes which

are so framed as to declare and establish the first day of the week as

"the Christian Sabbath," or holy day. The State statutes which subject

any citizen to fine or imprisonment for labor, or any legal

transaction, on the first day of the week, as far as their influence

extends, make void God's everlasting law, and subject the

conscientious servant thereof to punishment for a strict conformity to

it. The State statutes violate the Constitution of the United States

in two respects. 1st. They violate that part of the Constitution which

forbids the enactment of any "law respecting an establishment of

religion;" because by them the religious observance of the first day

is made a State establishment of religion as really and arbitrarily as

the law of Constantine made it a part of the religion of the Roman

Empire. 2d. They violate that part of the Constitution which forbids

the making of any law "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion;

because, by forbidding labor on the first day of the week, they

prohibit a strict conformity to the law of God which says, "Six days

shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the

Sabbath of the Lord thy God." With this view of the subject, we submit

it to the common-sense of candid men to say, if every judicial officer

who convicts or passes sentence upon his fellow-citizens for

disobeying these arbitrary statutes on a charge of Sabbath-breaking,

is not a perjured man. He swears or affirms to "support the

Constitution of the United States, any thing in the Constitution or

laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding;" yet he administers

a law which establishes a sectarian article of religion, and punishes

conscientious men for a free exercise of their own religious opinions,

and for doing what they esteem to be their duty to God.

Heretofore we have asked only for exemptions from these odious

statutes for all such as observe the seventh day of the week as the

Sabbath, and we have generally been permitted to pass peaceably along.

But of late our growing numbers, and our increasing influence in the

nation, together with the use of the public press in defence of our

sentiments, have seemingly made us too odious in the eyes of some of

our fellow-citizens to be suffered peaceably to enjoy our lights.

Powerful efforts are being made to inflame the public mind against us,

to influence the magistracy to enforce the Sunday laws now existing,

and if possible to procure the enactment of others more stringent and

restrictive. These things have thrown us unavoidably upon our

constitutional rights. Experience teaches us that our peace and

liberty are continually jepordized by the existence of statutes which

can be so construed as to coerce us, contrary to our consciences, to

do reverence to the first day of the week as a holy day. We therefore

demand the entire repeal of all laws for coercing the observance of

the first day, as being contrary to the spirit and the letter of the

Constitution of the United States.

The view which we take of this subject is not from a partial

construction of the Constitution. That instrument has been so

construed by impartial and competent authority. The following extract

from a letter written by GEORGE WASHINGTON, while President of the

United States, and who was President of the Convention for framing the

Constitution, to a committee of a Baptist Society in Virginia, in

answer to an application to him for his views of the meaning and

efficiency of that instrument to protect the rights of conscience,

decides the intent of the framers of the Constitution, and

consequently the intent of the Constitution itself. The letter is

dated August 4, 1789, and reads as follows:--

"If I had the least idea of any difficulty resulting from the

Constitution adopted by the Convention of which I had the honor to be

President when it was formed, so as to endanger the rights of any

religious denomination, then I never should have attached my name to

that instrument. If I had any idea that the General Government was so

administered that liberty of conscience was endangered, I pray you be

assured that no man would be more willing than myself to revise and

alter that part of it, so as to avoid all religious persecution. You

can, without doubt, remember that I have often expressed my opinion,

that every man who conducts himself as a good citizen is accountable

alone to God for his religious faith, and should be protected in

worshiping God according to the dictates of his conscience.

[Signed,] GEORGE WASHINGTON."[10]

The Congressional Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, to whom

were referred certain memorials for prohibiting the transportation of

mails and the opening of post offices on Sunday, in the 43d session of

Congress, A. D. 1830, reported unfavorably to the prayer of the

memorialists. Their report was adopted and printed by order of the

Senate of the United States, and the Committee was discharged from the

farther consideration of the subject. That Committee take the same

view of the intent of the Constitution as did General Washington. They

say:--

"We look in vain to that instrument for authority to say whether

first day, or seventh day, or whether any day, has been made holy by

the Almighty." ... "The Constitution regards the conscience of the

Jew as sacred as that of the Christian; and gives no more authority

to adopt a measure affecting the conscience of a solitary individual,

than that of a whole community. That representative who would violate

this principle, would lose his delegated character, and forfeit the

confidence of his constituents. If Congress should declare the first

day of the week holy, it would not convince the Jew nor the

Sabbatarian. It would dissatisfy both, and consequently convert

neither." ... "If a solemn act of legislation shall in one point

define the law of God, or point out to the citizen one religious

duty, it may with equal propriety define every part of revelation,

and enforce every religious obligation, even to the forms and

ceremonies of worship, the endowments of the church, and the support

of the clergy." ... "The framers of the Constitution recognized the

eternal principle, that man's relation to his God is above human

legislation, and his rights of conscience inalienable. Reasoning was

not necessary to establish this truth; we are conscious of it in our

own bosoms. It is this consciousness which, in defiance of human

laws, has sustained so many martyrs in tortures and flames. They felt

that their duty to God was superior to human enactments, and that man

could exercise no authority over their consciences. It is an inborn

principle, which nothing can eradicate." ... "It is also a fact, that

counter memorials, equally respectable, oppose the interference of

Congress, on the ground that it would be legislating upon a religious

subject, and therefore unconstitutional."

Impartial Judiciaries have taken the same view of these provisions of

the Constitution, and have declared the laws enforcing the observance

of the first day of the week unconstitutional, as may be seen in Judge

Herttell's book, "The Rights of the People Reclaimed;" also in "An

Essay on Constitutional Reform, by Hiram P. Hastings, Counselor at

Law."

On the 2d of October, 1799, at New Mills, Burlington County, New

Jersey, a Seventh-day Baptist being indicted before a Justice of the

Peace for working on Sunday, and fined, he appealed. At the trial in

Court, the foregoing letter from General Washington was produced by

the Judge, and read in his charge to the Jury. The result was

acquittal by the Jury.

In the year 1845, the Court of Hamilton County, Ohio, made a similar

decision in a like case, and on similar considerations.

A Committee of the Common Hall of the City of Richmond, Virginia, to

whom was referred the case of certain persecuted Jews, have made a

like decision on the municipal laws of that City, which have been

construed to enforce keeping the first day.

_The Post Office Laws_ are framed in accordance with these provisions

of the Constitution. The Act of March 3d, 1825, section 1st,

authorizes the Postmaster to "provide for the carriage of the mail on

all post roads that are or may be established by law, and as often as

he, having regard to the productiveness thereof, and other

circumstances, shall think proper." Section 17th provides, "that every

Postmaster shall keep an office, in which one or more persons shall

attend on every day on which a mail shall arrive by land or water, as

well as on other days, at such hours as the Postmaster General shall

direct, for the purpose of performing the duties thereof; and it shall

be the duty of the Postmaster, at all reasonable hours, on every day

of the week, to deliver on demand any letter, paper, or packet, to the

person entitled to, or authorized to receive the same." The laws

against labor on the first day, in each State where they exist, are

obliged to except the mail-carriers and the postmasters. But we ask

our fellow-citizens to consider by what show of justice, any local

tribunal can punish a private citizen for doing that on his own

account, which the servants and officers of the United States are

doing at the same time, for the use of the people, and by a law of the

same Government? Suppose a carriage conveying the United States Mail,

should enter the City of Philadelphia on Sunday; and another carriage,

containing goods or wares for the next day's market, should enter at

the same time and by the same route; with what show of justice shall

the driver of the market carriage be put under arrest and fined, and

the driver of the mail carriage go free? Or suppose there should be a

postmaster assorting his letters on the first day, and a

fellow-citizen selling pens, ink, paper, and wafers, to write the same

letters, in another part of the same building; with what show of

justice shall the tradesman be fined and the postmaster go free? The

officers of the United States Government have no national rights above

the humblest citizen. The transgression of law by them is as really a

crime as in the case of any other citizen. Our Government knows

nothing of those kingly rights which set emperors, monarchs, and their

servants, above law. If, therefore, there is no transgression of

constitutional law in carrying the United States Mail on the first

day, then there is none in a private citizen following his otherwise

lawful and peaceable occupation on the same day.

In some quarters, during the last year, our motives and designs were

grossly misrepresented by prejudiced persons, in our legislatures and

elsewhere. We were represented as "wishing the legislature to change

the Sabbath from the first to the seventh day of the week;" and were

accused of "covertly wishing to compel our fellow-citizens to keep our

Sabbath day." No insinuation could be more grossly deceptive--no

accusation more flagitiously unjust to us as a people. We declare

unequivocally, that we do not desire any such thing. We believe that

keeping the Sabbath day is purely a religious duty. All we ask is,

that our State Legislatures leave the matter where the Constitution of

the United States and the laws of the General Government have placed

it. They have no more right to determine this religious duty, than

they have to determine the rites of Christian worship. We believe our

fellow-citizens ought to be protected in the peaceable observation of

their day of religious rest, as in the observance of every other

religious institution, except where such observance is made a

sanctuary for crime. We ask the same protection for ourselves on the

seventh day of the week, and nothing more.

If the Constitution may be infringed upon to put down the observers of

the seventh day, no one can say how long it will be before other minor

denominations may be put down too. Already attempts are making to

exact a confession of faith, unknown to the Constitution, as a

qualification for a legal oath. If the religious sanctification of the

first day of the week may be enforced by statutory requirements, so

may the forms and hours of worship. He who says, that there is no

danger of the latter being enforced, while statutory regulations

violate two of the most sacred provisions of the National

Constitution, knows but little of the history of mankind, or pays but

little attention to the tendencies of human nature. A single standing

violation of the Constitution is an example and an authority for

others to follow. One religious observance established by law, is the

admission of the main principle of national hierarchy, and will come

in time to be referred to as authority for similar infractions of the

Constitution. The laws for the observance of the first day are in fact

a union of Church and State. It is not pretended that they are

designed to subserve directly a political or civil object. It is

altogether a religious object which they subserve. It becomes every

friend of equal rights, as he loves the Constitution of his country,

to oppose these infractions of its just principles, until equal

liberty is secured to all citizens by statutory provisions, as by the

fundamental laws of the nation.

Our opponents often remind us of their pretence, that we are under no

more restrictions than other citizens; we may do as we please about

keeping the seventh day. To this we reply, that the tyrants of the

Roman people deprived the Republic of its liberties by professing

themselves the guardians of their INTERESTS. "By declaring themselves

the protectors of the people, Marius and Cæsar had subverted the

Constitution of their country." Augustus established a despotism by

artfully affecting to be governed himself by the same laws which he

procured to be enacted to take away the rights of the people. These

are the same principles upon which religious coercionists conjure us

to be quiet under the loss of our constitutional rights. The progress

of these things towards despotism is as dangerous in the American

Republic as in that of Rome, and may be as rapid. Their success would

be as deadly to human happiness, and all the best interests of

mankind, in the nineteenth century, as they were in the decline and

fall of the Roman Empire. Human nature now affords no better guaranty

for the safety of _our_ national rights, than it did to the Romans at

the summit of their greatness. Liberty can be preserved only at the

expense of perpetual vigilance, and by the popular support of

individual rights. If ever the doctrine which has been urged before

one of our legislative bodies, "The greatest good of the greatest

number," should become a popular political axiom, to justify the

course of the many in taking away the rights of the few, the halls of

legislation will become scaffolds for the execution of liberty, and

that odious principle will be the shroud in which it will be buried.

Despots may establish a round of religious observances, and exact an

unwilling and insincere conformity to their arbitrary prescriptions;

but they can never convince the understanding nor win the heart of one

who knows the voice of truth. They can only make him a slave, while

the effects of their arbitrary prescriptions on the popular mind will

be to wither up all interest in the religious tendencies of an

observance sustained only by the enactments of heartless politicians.

All that makes religion vital and effective for its own holy objects,

expires when the sword is drawn to enforce it. Liberty, humanity,

religion, and our National Constitution, then, require that the laws

enforcing the observance of the first day of the week should be

repealed.

As American Citizens, as independent Freemen, and as responsible

Stewards of the glorious heritage bequeathed to us by the Fathers of

the Revolution, we shall, with the aid of the Majesty of Heaven,

maintain unimpaired the high privileges secured to us by the Charter

of our Liberties. We ask for no exclusive immunities. We disclaim all

right of human government to exercise over, or fetter in the least,

the religious rights of any being. Might is not right, neither does

the accident of being a _majority_ give any, claim to trample on the

rights of the minority. It is a usurpation of authority to oppress the

minority, or set at naught their indefeasible rights. In civil affairs

we respect the authorities that be, but in religious service, resent

being forced to keep the commandments of men. We recognize the laws of

the land in all secular matters, and the laws of God, and of God

alone, in religious faith and practice. These are the inalienable

rights of all the members of a Republic. These are rights reserved by

the people to themselves, in the formation of our Government, which no

power can legitimately wrest from us, and with the help of God none

shall.

[10] This letter was translated into the German at Ephrata, Penn., and

the present copy of the letter is probably a re-translation of it into

English from the German.

No. 12.

MISUSE OF THE TERM "SABBATH"

It is quite common, in these days, to hear the term _Sabbath_ used to

designate the first day of the week or Sunday. But such a use of the

term is not only unscriptural, but calculated to mislead the people.

Throughout the Bible, there is but one sacred day of weekly occurrence

called the Sabbath, and that is the seventh or last day of the week.

When, therefore, men talk about a _Christian_ Sabbath, and a _Jewish_

Sabbath--a _first-day_ Sabbath, and a _seventh-day_ Sabbath--that so

they may slily fix the term Sabbath upon the first day, and then

persuade people that all those texts of Scripture which speak of the

Sabbath day are meant of the first day, they pursue a course which is

unauthorized, and deserve to be sharply rebuked. There are

circumstances, however, which many persons seem to regard as

justifying the common practice of calling the first day by the name

_Sabbath_. Let us examine some of them.

1. It is said that the term _Sabbath_ signifies _rest_; therefore the

first day, being commonly observed as a day of rest, may properly be

called the Sabbath. In reply to this, it may be said, that when, by

custom and common consent, any term is used to express a particular

place or thing, it then becomes a proper name for that thing, and

signifies only that thing to which it is applied. For instance, a

_tabernacle_ means a place of worship. Yet, in New York, where this

name is used to express a particular and well-known place of worship,

it would be absurd and false to say you were at the _Tabernacle_, and

mean the Church of the Messiah. So with the term Sabbath; although the

word strictly means _rest_, yet after the Scriptures throughout the

Old and New Testaments have used this term to express a particular

rest, which occurred on the seventh day, it would be foolish and

deceptive to speak of the Sabbath and mean the first day of the week.

It may be farther said, that if this argument be good for calling the

first day the Sabbath, and if the fact of its being a _rest_-day makes

it the Sabbath, then may the Mohammedans properly call the _sixth_ day

the Sabbath, and the fact that they rest upon that day makes it the

Sabbath. Yes, and those Mexican Indians, whom Cortes found keeping the

_fourth_ day, may properly call that day the Sabbath, and directly it

is made such. Even those people in Guinea, whom Purchase describes as

having a _rest_-day, but which, says he, "they observe not upon our

Sunday, nor upon the Jews' Sabbath day, but hold it upon Tuesday, the

_second_ working day of the week," may properly call that day the

Sabbath, and straightway it becomes such. Are the observers of the

first day ready to rest upon such ground for calling that day the

Sabbath, or to continue to call it Sabbath when there is no better

ground? We hope not. And we feel bound, as those who respect the

Bible, and dare not charge the Author of that Book with folly in

calling the seventh day only the Sabbath, to protest against such

abuse of the language of Scripture.

2. The second reason frequently urged, is, that the first day _comes

in the room_ of the seventh day, and may therefore properly be called

the Sabbath. Aside from the fact that the Scriptures say _not a word_

about a substitution of the one day for the other, it may be said in

reply, that if the argument be good, then the Lord's Supper may be

called the _Passover_, and King Solomon may be called King _David_.

3. A third reason alledged for calling the first day the Sabbath, is,

because it has long been the practice of Christians to call it so. In

answering this assertion, it may be worth while to inquire what has

been the practice of Christians in this matter. Few will deny, that

wherever, in the New Testament, the word Sabbath refers to a weekly

religious day, it is the seventh day. When the _first_ day of the week

is spoken of, it is under its appropriate title. For nearly the whole

of the first century, then, we have the testimony of Scripture that

the name _Sabbath_ belonged exclusively to the seventh day. During the

succeeding four hundred years, there were large numbers, both in the

Eastern church, about Constantinople, and in the Western church, about

Rome, who kept the Sabbath. And when ecclesiastical councils, in the

fourth and fifth centuries, began to enact laws against them, they

condemned Sabbath-keeping altogether. From this it is apparent, that

the idea of calling the first day the Sabbath had not then entered

their minds. What day was meant when the term Sabbath was used for

five hundred years later still, the learned Dr. Peter Heylyn has told

us in the following words:--"Wherever, for a thousand years and

upwards, we meet with _Sabbatum_, in any writer, of what name soever,

it must be understood of no day but _Saturday_." Indeed, if we search

all the books which have been written on this and kindred subjects up

to the time of the Reformation, we shall not find that the first day

was to any considerable extent regarded as the Sabbath or called by

that name. Dr. Richard Whately, Archbishop of Dublin, in a late work

on the subject of the Sabbath, says, "in fact, the notion against

which I am contending, [viz. that the fourth commandment binds

Christians to hallow the first day of the week, and that it may

properly be called the Sabbath,] seems, as far as I can recollect, to

have originated with the Puritans, not much more than 200 years ago,

and to have been for a considerable time confined to them, though it

was subsequently adopted by some members of our church."

So far is it from being true, then, that the first day has been

universally called the Sabbath among Christians, that even now, by the

best authorities upon such subjects, it is not called Sabbath at all.

The Records of England up to the present time invariably call the

_seventh_ day the Sabbath. In the Journals of the House of Lords,

whatever is entered as having been done on the seventh day, or

Saturday, is under the date, _Die Sabbati_, upon the Sabbath day. The

same is true of the House of Commons. The Rules and Records of the

King's Bench, and the Latin Records in the Court of Exchequer and in

Chancery, do likewise call the seventh day the Sabbath. These things

may be known by any who will take the trouble to examine; and they

show how groundless and erroneous is the supposition to which we are

replying. Indeed, in many languages the seventh day is called by a

name which indicates its sabbatic character. In Low Dutch it is called

_rust-dagh_, the day of rest. In English, French, Italian, Spanish,

Portuguese, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, it has its right name, _the

Sabbath_, the day of rest.

Now let us look at some of the _consequences_ of calling the first day

by the name of the Sabbath. It has given occasion for Papists to

charge Protestants with neglecting the Scriptures to follow their

traditions. The Papists claim, that the change of the Sabbath is the

work of their own church, and that the Scriptures nowhere warrant the

keeping of the first day, much less the calling it by the name of the

Sabbath. Who will deny this latter position? Again, it has led some

earnest and pious men to charge the teachers of religion with

"befooling and misleading the people." Proof of this may be found to

any extent in books writted on the subject in the seventeenth century.

The charge is there distinctly and frequently made, of designedly

using deceptive arguments.

We will not undertake to say, that those who are accustomed to speak

in a manner so likely to deceive, design to do that. But we will say,

that such would be the natural effect of their language. It would

leave upon the minds of many an impression, that they were not only

bound to pay peculiar respect to the first day of the week, but that

the fourth commandment required of them such respect. For a religious

teacher knowingly to make this impression, is to be guilty of directly

fostering error. Nay, more; if he should call the first day the

Sabbath, and refer to the fourth commandment as inculcating the duty

of observing that day; or should, without direct reference to that

law, express himself in such a way as to leave his hearers to suppose

that it required the observance of the first day, he would be wanting

in faithfulness to the truth, and exposed to the denunciation of those

who add to or take from it.

No doubt many will think, that at a time when the prevailing tendency

is to disregard all sacred seasons, it were better not to say these

things, but to leave men under an impression that the law of God

requires the observance of the first day of the week, and sanctions

calling that day the Sabbath. But this prevailing disregard of the day

of rest, is an important reason for urging an examination of the

foundation upon which the Sabbath rests. Common prudence, to say

nothing of Christian sincerity, would require us, in such

circumstances, to place the duty upon its true ground. If it will not

stand there, it will stand nowhere. It is a dangerous experiment to

encourage or connive at misconceptions in a point like this. And even

if we felt assured that it would be right, we are fully convinced that

it would be inexpedient. It is exceedingly dangerous to acknowledge an

unsound principle, although it may promise to conduct us to desirable

results, or, at the worst, to produce no bad effects. It ought to be

remembered, that it was in apparently trivial and harmless points,

that those false principles were allowed, which have infused their

poison into the Romish and other apostate churches--a poison which,

commencing with the extremities, has worked its way rapidly towards

the vitals, and diffused its effects through the whole system. It is

not, then, a matter of small moment. The most important and disastrous

consequences may result from baptizing a day of human invention with a

name which the Scriptures apply exclusively to one appointed of God.

[No. 13.]

THE BIBLE SABBATH.

BY WILLIAM M. FAHNESTOCK, M. D.

"WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN."

NEW-YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY,

No. 9 Spruce-Street.

Most professors of religion, who found their faith on the Word of God,

attach much importance to a weekly day of sacred rest, however much

they may differ in regard to the day to be sanctified as the Sabbath,

or the manner in which its sacred hours are to be improved. It is not

the design of the writer of this small tract, to enter upon the

discussion of the multifarious points of disputation, which have been

raised by most writers, in treating this question, but simply to

exhibit the scriptural account of the day to be honored unto the Lord,

with some cursory remarks on the prominent topics of the controversy,

which can be, and which ought to be, determined by direct reference

"_to the law and the testimony_." Without, therefore, any pretensions

to an extended confutation of men's hypotheses and men's subterfuges

on this subject, he desires merely to present a concise epitome of

_what saith the Scriptures_ in reference to the day which legitimately

challenges our profound veneration and implicit obedience; and will

restrict his comments; on the bearings of the sacred text, to as few

words as is practicable in a matter of such grave importance; that, in

embracing and defending so sacred an institution, and in responding to

the scriptural interrogation, "_Who hath required this at your hand?_"

the reader may, confidently and without fear of contradiction, answer,

"_The Lord thy God--the Almighty Jehovah!_" and lay his finger on the

clear, unequivocal, ungarbled, "_Thus saith the Lord_," for his

practice.

The _Scriptures_ tell us, that God "rested on the _seventh day_ from

all his work which he had made; and God blessed the _seventh day_ and

_sanctified_ it." Gen. 2:2, 3. This is the first notice of the Sabbath

in the Bible; and it is the first religious institution established by

the Almighty for the benefit of all after generations. The rest of the

testimonies of the Lord to the sacredness of his holy day, are like

unto it, wherever they occur in the _Inspired Volume_.

During the sojourn of the children of Israel in the wilderness, the

Lord, to supply their necessities, sent manna daily, save on the

_seventh day_; thus recognizing strictly his holy Sabbath, by

affording them a _double portion_ on the _sixth_ day, and requiring

them to secure it at that time for the _seventh day_.

"And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the Lord hath

given you to eat. This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded.

Gather of it every man according to his eating; an omer for every man

according to the number of your persons, take ye every man for them

which are in your tents. And the children of Israel did so, and

gathered, some more, some less. And when they did mete it with an

omer, he that had gathered much had nothing over, and he that had

gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according to his

eating. And Moses said, Let no man leave of it till the morning.

Notwithstanding, they hearkened not unto Moses, but some of them left

it until the morning, and it bred worms and stank; and Moses was

wroth with them. And they gathered it every morning, every man

according to his eating; when the sun waxed hot it melted. And it

came to pass, that on the _sixth day_, they gathered _twice_ as much

bread, _two_ omers for _one_ man; and all the rulers of the

congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that

which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath

unto the Lord; bake that which ye will bake to-day, and seethe that

ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be

kept until the morning. And they laid it up till the morning, as

Moses bade; and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein.

And Moses said, Eat that to-day; for to-day is the Sabbath unto the

Lord; _to-day_ ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall

gather it; but on the _seventh day_, which is the Sabbath, in it

there shall be none. And it came to pass, that there went out some

people on the _seventh day_ for to gather, and they found none. And

the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments

and my laws? See, for the Lord hath given you the _Sabbath_,

therefore he giveth you on the _sixth_ day the bread of _two days_;

abide ye every man in his place on the _seventh day_." Exod. 16:15-30.

This was _before_ the giving of the law, and is irrefragible evidence

of respect unto the Sabbath _before the law was promulgated_.

When the Decalogue, written on stone by the finger of God, was

committed to the Israelites, the obligation to honor the Sabbath--the

_seventh day_--was emphatically _renewed_, and most explicitly defined

and enjoined.

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shall thou labor

and do all thy work; but the _seventh day_ is the _Sabbath_ of the

Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son,

nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy

cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days

the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and

rested the _seventh day_; wherefore the Lord blessed the _Sabbath

day_ and _hallowed_ it." Exod. 20:8-11.

The same is reiterated by the same writer in another place.

"Six days shall work be done; but the _seventh day_ is the Sabbath of

rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein; it is the

_Sabbath of the Lord_ in all your dwellings." Lev. 23:3.

The reader will observe, that this commandment does not ordain a _new_

and _peculiar_ institution, but _reminds_ the Israelites of one which

had been established long prior to their existence as a nation, to be

had in remembrance and to be rigidly observed. "Remember the Sabbath

day to keep it holy." The reader will also observe, that it does not

simply appoint _a_ Sabbath, or a seventh part of time to be

consecrated as holy time, but that the precise time, the particular

day, is specifically certified by Jehovah himself--that it is _the

day_, and not the _institution_, which the Lord blessed and hallowed;

that it was not the _sabbatic law_, but the _day of rest_, which was

enjoined. The law was predicated on the _sanctified day_, not the day

accommodated to the institution; and that there might be no mistake on

the subject, the law defines the day _as it found it_, and assigns

clearly and most unequivocally the reason for its observance. It aims

simply at hallowing the _day_, the precise, particular day; which is

still more emphatically expressed in the original, יום השבת, "the _day_

of _the rest_," because _in it_, the day, God rested from all his

work, and subsequently enjoined like rest, on the same day, and for

the same purpose, upon all his people. This Bible truth ought to be

sufficient to overset all the sophistry of equivocators, in their

attempts to blind the inquirer, by astutely insinuating the idea, that

the _sabbatic law_ only demands the consecration of _a seventh portion

of time_, which position, they, in turn, as stoutly repudiate, when

any one sees proper to choose any other seventh part of time than the

day which they propound for them. To proceed; Nehemiah says:--

"In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the

Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves and lading asses; as also wine,

grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into

Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; and I testified against them on the day

wherein they sold victuals. There dwelt men of Tyre also therein,

which brought fish and all manner of ware, and sold on the Sabbath

unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem. Then I contended with

the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing is this that

ye do and profane the Sabbath day? Did not your fathers thus, and did

not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city? Yet ye

bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the Sabbath. And it came to

pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the

Sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that

they should not be opened till after the Sabbath; and some of my

servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought

in on the Sabbath day. So the merchants and sellers of all kinds of

ware lodged without Jerusalem once or twice. Then I testified against

them, Why lodge ye about the wall? if ye do so again, I will lay

hands on you. From this time forth came they no more on the Sabbath.

And I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and

that they should come and keep the gates to sanctify the Sabbath

day." Neh. 13:15-22.

To turn to the New Testament, our blessed Redeemer proclaimed himself

Lord of the Sabbath, (Mark 2:28,) thereby incorporating it in the new

dispensation. He also declared most distinctly, that he did not come

to destroy the law, but to fulfill it; that not one jot or tittle

should pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matt. 5:17, 18. Luke

also affirms, in reference to the course of the disciples after the

crucifixion, that they "rested the Sabbath day _according to the

commandment_." Luke 23:56. This was _after_ Christ had declared that

all his work was _finished_--the new covenant perfected, and he had

been nailed to the tree. This doubtless refers to the commandment to

observe the _seventh day_. No one disputes it, as no command was given

to observe any other day. And from the Acts of the Apostles, we find

that they made _it_ the day of their special ministrations of the

Word, as their Lord and Master had done before them.

"But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia

and went into the synagogue on the _Sabbath day_, and sat down. And

after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the

synagogue sent unto them saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any

word of exhortation for the people, say on. Then Paul stood up, and

beckoning with his hand, said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God,

give audience." Acts 13:14, 15. "And when the Jews were gone out of

the synagogue, the _Gentiles_ besought that these words might be

preached to them the next _Sabbath_. * * * And the next _Sabbath day_

came almost the whole city to hear the word of God." Id. verses 42,

44. Paul "reasoned in the synagogue _every_ Sabbath, and persuaded

the Jews and the Greeks." Id. 18:4, 5.

All the _promises_, and all the _penalties_ connected with the

observance or the desecration of the Sabbath, refer to the _seventh

day Sabbath_, and to no other _in future_.

"Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth

hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth

his hand from doing any evil." Isa. 56:2.

"If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure

on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord,

honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding

thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then thou shall

delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the

high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob

thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." Id. 58:13, 14.

"Thus saith the Lord: Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on

the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; neither

carry forth a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day, neither

do ye any work, but hallow ye the Sabbath day, as I commanded your

fathers. * * * And it shall come to pass, if ye diligently hearken

unto me, saith the Lord, to bring in no burden through the gates of

the city on the Sabbath day, but hallow the Sabbath day to do no work

therein, then shall there enter into the gates of the city, kings and

princes, sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots and on

horses, they and their princes, the men of Judah and the inhabitants

of Jerusalem; and this shall remain forever. * * * But if ye will not

hearken unto me, to hallow the Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden,

even entering at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; then I

will kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the

palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched." Jer. 17:21, 22,

24, 25, 27.

No where in the Inspired Word have we any other weekly Sabbath

appointed. No where has that Sabbath ever been _abrogated_ or

_superseded_. No where in the Scriptures is any other day called the

Sabbath-day. No where is any other day _required_ to be observed _as

the Sabbath_. If, then, HE, the Almighty, gave the _seventh day_, and

sanctified and hallowed it _as his Sabbath_, and has not abrogated

it--has not absolved us from its duties, nor delegated authority to

others to do so--it remains in as full force as when first instituted

by Jehovah himself, and will stand in the Judgment against all the

crafty inventions and futile subterfuges of perverse, rebellious man.

The foregoing summary is a plain, unvarnished, unmutilated _scriptural

account_ of God's rest-day, which HE enjoined on all mankind, for all

ages, for all nations, tongues, and kindred. Some persons, nay, the

great mass of the Christian world, have been taught, that the Sabbath

alluded to is a "_Jewish Sabbath_," and "_has been done away_;" in

proof of which position, they adduce the passages in Paul's Epistle to

the Colossians--"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."[11] Col. 2:16, 17. "Who blotted 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." Col. 2:14. This, I must

remark, proves _too much_; for if it has abrogated the seventh-day

Sabbath, it has blotted out the sabbatic law also; unless it be shown,

that _it_ is reserved, or that another has been re-enacted, clearly

and expressly ordained. If so, let its advocates point to a single

requirement, an unequivocal injunction, to observe any other day as

the Sabbath, and it will terminate all controversy on the subject. The

"hand-writing of ordinances," which was "nailed to the cross," was

merely "the ceremonial law," the onerous burdens of the Levitical

ritual, not the "moral law of commandments"--the Decalogue! If the

opposite view be correct, then the Sabbath, or any "rest-day," is

"against us," contrary to our nature and wants, and is not for our

good, and ought to be annulled and obliterated forever. Then, also, we

are driven to the doctrine of the "Friends," that all days are alike

holy under the gospel dispensation. The advocates for the first day of

the week can not consistently escape this dilemma. They must accept

the Sabbath hallowed by the Lord, or hallow all days alike.

Much as man has attempted to obscure and pervert this holy

institution, the Word of Truth is clear, express and emphatic, in

regard to the perpetuity of the particular day to be hallowed, as well

as it is explicit in the precise time to be sanctified. The Scriptures

no where speak of a "_Jewish Sabbath_" or a "_Christian Sabbath_." The

Sabbath of the Bible is but one, and has but one name--"_the Sabbath

of the Lord thy God_;" which the Scriptures declare is the _seventh

day_, instituted more than two thousand years before there was a Jew

in the world, and, consequently, could not have been a "Jewish

Sabbath." The Sabbath, Christ, who is "Lord of the Sabbath," asserts,

"was made for man"--the whole race of man--not for a particular nation

or people, but for _mankind at large_.

It is proper here to remark, that this sneering at the "_Jewish

Sabbath_," which in times past was, and still is, by weak minds,

constantly resorted to, in the absence of legitimate argument, to

prejudice the populace against giving this subject a fair and

impartial examination, and thereby to lead them to prejudge the case,

has, within a few years past, been abandoned by all sensible and

consistent advocates for the _sabbatic institution_. They find that it

stultifies their own pretensions, and has done much damage to

themselves in sustaining the claims of sacredness for any other day;

for, while they maintain that the ancient Sabbath was a Jewish

institution, they unwittingly prove that there is no longer any

Sabbath to be observed, since they fail to show that another has been

ordained or established for the Christian Church. If a "Jewish

Sabbath," it was done away with by the Jewish dispensation; and if no

other Sabbath has been expressly appointed by Divine authority, the

Christian Church is certainly left without the Sabbath, or any

substitute possessing any of its sacredness--a sacredness which can

only be derived from an _express_ and _explicit_ mandate from the Lord

of the Sabbath. That puerile quibble, the _nick-name_ "Jewish

Sabbath," has, therefore, been abandoned by the most prominent writers

of the present day; who generally fall back and found the

_institution_ (the origin and grounds for its perpetuity) long

anterior to the "Jewish," the Mosaic dispensation--even back to the

Sabbath of Paradise. Thus Dr. Barnes, of Philadelphia, in a series of

sermons on this subject, delivered and published in the fall of 1845,

advocates this position, and contends strenuously for the _ante-Mosaic

Sabbath_. The same view was inculcated by the "National Lord's Day

Convention," held at Baltimore, November, 1844; and it has been

reiterated more distinctly and emphatically by "The Rhode Island

Sabbath Union," in an address to the people of that State, in 1846, to

which, among others, we find attached the name of Dr. Wayland, the

honored President of Brown University. The Committee of the Rhode

Island "_Sabbath_ Union," in calling attention to the _claims of the

Sabbath_, remark:

"The Lord of the Sabbath has here said, '_The Sabbath was made for

man_.' Man is here used, most certainly, as a _generic_ term, and,

therefore, presents a universal proposition. The Sabbath was not made

for _man_, for man as a genus, as a race, unless it was made for

every individual of the race; for the first, and for the last man;

for the first generation, and for every other. The Sabbath, then,

must have existed from the beginning, and is as old as the human

race. Our Lord says, moreover, '_The_ Sabbath was made for man.' He

says not, the Jewish Sabbath, or the Christian Sabbath, but _the_

Sabbath, the common, the universal one, which belongs to mankind. Is

this not the very language to denote a universal and perpetual

institution?

"Let us look at the connection of the Sabbath with the work of

creation. 'God blessed the _seventh_ day and sanctified it.' If the

Creator had merely _rested_ on the seventh day, it would have been an

impressive consecration. But when he proceeds to bless and sanctify

it, there is authority, a positive Sabbath, forming a part of the

primeval arrangement, when God fixed the order in which the world

should go--six days labor and one day rest, over and over forever.

The first week of the world, then, was not completed till there had

been a Sabbath, as well as a first day or a sixth. Is not this

indicative of the universality and perpetuity of the institution?"

Here we might rest the question, with perfect safety, if the mass of

mankind would be content with the plain teachings of the Bible; but,

having "itching ears," they, unfortunately, are too apt to leave "the

law and the testimony," and cleave to "the commandments of men;" which

teach them, that "_Christ_ OR _his Apostles_" have transferred the

sacredness of the seventh day to the first day of the week. The

writer, therefore, feels constrained to bring before his readers the

passages on which that notion is predicated, to exhibit the weakness

of their untenable position, and thereby establish the Sabbath of the

Bible.

What saith the Scriptures to support the claims of the first day of

the week to be _holy time_? The first notice we have of the disciples

being together on "the first day of the week," on which the assumed

"change" is predicated, is found in the Gospel by John:--

"Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when

the doors were shut _for fear of the Jews_ (mark that!) came Jesus

and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And

when he had so said, he showed unto them his hands and his side. Then

were the disciples _glad_ when they saw the Lord." John 20:19, 20.

This passage contains no command, no intimation whatever, to sanctify

that day. It does not even claim that they were there for any sacred

purpose, much less to celebrate the Sabbath, or institute a new day of

worship, but simply for common protection, "for fear of the Jews;" and

a design to comfort them in their trepidation is all the legitimate

inference we can draw from the circumstance of Christ's appearing unto

them. All the Apostles were not together; _Thomas was absent_! If they

had met together to _sabbatize_, he, certainly, would have been with

them. Not having been present, and not having seen the risen Saviour,

while doubting and disputing on the subject of his resurrection,

"_eight days afterward_," Christ appeared again, to confound the

incredulity of Thomas, and for no other ostensible purpose.

"Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when

Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen

the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the

print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not

believe. And after _eight_ days the disciples _were within_,[12] and

Thomas with them: then came Jesus, _the door being shut_, and stood

in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then said he to Thomas,

Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy

hand, and thrust it into my side, and be not faithless, but

believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my

God." John 20:24-28.

So much, _and that is all_, is the authority adduced by the advocates

for the sacredness of the first day for Christ having changed the day

of rest, the Sabbath, or having given his sanction to the change.

Ought such a vague _inference_ overturn the fiat of the

Almighty--change times and laws ordained by Jehovah to endure forever?

Is the "being together," save one, of the twelve, "for fear of the

Jews," and "being within eight days afterward," any evidence of their

being there to celebrate the "Sabbath" or Lord's day? Is there, in

these transactions, any re-enactment of the sabbatic law, which some

persons maintain was abrogated by the "blotting out of the

hand-writing of ordinances?" Is there any injunction issued by

them--the apostles--requiring the disciples to honor, hallow, and

sanctify the first day of the week, in any of the above proceedings?

The next Scripture assumed for the substitution of the first day of

the week in the place of the Sabbath of the Lord, is found in the Acts

of the Apostles:--

"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. And there were

many lights in the upper chamber where they were assembled together.

And there sat in the window a certain young man named Eutychus, being

fallen into a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk

down with sleep, and fell from the third loft, and was taken up dead.

And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him, said, Trouble

not yourselves, for his life is in him. When he, therefore, was come

up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while,

even till break of day, he departed." Acts 20:7-11.

It is necessary to a proper understanding here, to bear in mind--1st.

That it was the custom of the disciples, in the days of the apostles,

to meet together, and break bread, _every_ day. "They continued

steadfast in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of

bread, and in prayers." "And they, continuing _daily_ with one accord

in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their

meat with gladness and singleness of heart." 2d. That in those times a

day was counted "the evening and the morning were the first day."

"From even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbaths." Lev. 23:32.

Thus it appears, by this passage, that they had simply met, as was

their uniform, daily custom, to celebrate the breaking of bread on the

evening (the commencement of the day), it being the last evening Paul

was to be with them; and in all probability the circumstance would not

have been noticed so particularly, but to introduce the case of

Eutychus, in confirmation of Paul's miraculous powers. The passage

does not prove any thing for the sacredness of the first day of the

week, but proves much against it; for, if the first day of the week is

holy time, Paul, in preaching till midnight, and departing on the

morrow, would be a Sabbath-breaker for traveling on that day. He would

have kept the evening only. "From _even_ unto _even_ shall ye

celebrate your Sabbaths." The same disregard for the sacredness of the

first day of the week was manifested by the Redeemer himself, in

traveling on the "resurrection day" to Emmaus, a distance of seven and

a half miles, while a "Sabbath-day's journey" was restricted to _one

mile_: slender evidence, indeed, of the Saviour's having transferred

the holiness of the _Sabbath_ to "the first day of the week," or

having "sanctioned" it, as is often claimed by its advocates.

The next passage adduced is found in Paul's First Epistle to the

Corinthians--"Upon the first _day_ of the week, let every one of you

lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no

gatherings when I come." 1 Cor. 16:2. First _day_? Day is not in the

original, but is supplied, and is so designated by being italicized.

So the true reading is, "In the first of the week." However, if it

mean the first day, Sunday, it makes it a commercial day, a day of

business, a day of reckoning, not of _rest_, as it requires a man to

cast up his accounts, to find what amount he can "lay by."

The last text, and the one most relied upon, is from John's

Revelation--"I was in the spirit on the Lord's day." Rev. 1:10. There

is nothing in this passage, or in the context, to indicate that it was

the first day of the week. It is a mere _assumption_, without any

Scripture to fortify the position. The best biblical critics admit

that there is no scriptural evidence to identify the expression with

the first day of the week. If we follow the Protestant rule, to prove

Scripture by Scripture, and not evade the plain teachings of the

Bible, it will be an easy matter to see a much more apt application of

the expression. Many of the best commentators suppose that it alludes

to the Gospel-day. "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see _my day_; he

saw it, and was glad." John 8:56. Was not this a day which

approximates (if it will not be admitted to be identical) not only in

_idea_, but in a _kin-name_--the _day of Christ_--the Gospel-day? Paul

speaks of it as something yet to come. "That ye may approve things

that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offense, till

the _day of Christ_." "Holding forth the word of life, that I may

rejoice in the _day of Christ_, that I have not run in vain, neither

labored in vain." "Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye

may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." "Now, we

beseech you, brethren, by the _coming_ of our Lord Jesus Christ, and

by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in

mind, or troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as

from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand." "That the spirit may

be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Phil. 1:10; 2:16; 1 Cor. 1:8;

2 Thess. 2:1, 2, 3; 1 Cor. 5:5. Again, it is maintained by some

expounders, that allusion is had to the Judgment Day. "The day of the

Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens shall

pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent

heat; the earth also, and all the works therein, shall be burned up."

2 Peter 3:10. Therefore John, in saying, "I was in the spirit on the

Lord's day," simply asserts, that in prophetic vision his spirit

reached forward to the great day for which all other days were made,

and beheld the momentous transactions of that awful crisis, which he

was directed to reveal to the churches on earth.

From this brief examination, it appears, that the term "Lord's day,"

as here used, does not refer to any particular day of the week. But if

it refer to any special day of the week, as some suppose, it must

refer to the seventh; for that is the sanctified, hallowed _rest-day_

of the Bible, and is the only day which the Lord calls his holy day

(Is. 58:13), and therefore must be the Lord's day. If, however, the

term "Lord's day," used by John, does not refer to the gospel day, or

the day of judgment, nor to the Lord's "holy day," the seventh-day

Sabbath, but alludes to a festival day to commemorate the

resurrection, as is assumed, where is the command requiring it to be

kept holy? And where is the evidence in the Scriptures, that it was

kept _as the Sabbath_, or in _place of the Sabbath_?

Even were there any intimations given by the prophets or the apostles,

(which we deny,) that the resurrection day should be regarded as the

"ceremony-worship-day" under the gospel dispensation, where is the

evidence in the Scriptures that the first day of the week is or was

the resurrection day? It is assumed, not proved. The Bible and human

theories are at conflict on this subject. It is generally assumed,

that the Redeemer was crucified on Friday, and rose early on Sunday

morning. This makes Christ a liar; for he said, "As Jonas was _three

days_ and _three nights_ in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man

be _three days_ and _three nights_ in the heart of the earth." Matth.

12:40. Crucified on Friday, and rising on Sunday morning, would make

but part of three days, and only two nights. Christ said three days

_and_ three nights, and he certainly must be right. Therefore,

crucified on Friday, he could not have risen on Sunday. The New

Testament does not assert that he rose on the first day of the week;

it only says, that he was _seen_ on the first of the week, not first

_day_. In all the places in which allusion is had to this matter,

(Matth. 28:1; Mark 16:1, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19), the original

says, in the first of the week--_day_ is not once named, but is

supplied in our version, as is indicated by being italicised. But even

if the term first of the week implies first day, the Scriptures no

where assert that he _rose_ on that day. Being _seen_, and _rising_,

are two entirely different matters. So is a _part_ of three days and

two nights different from three days and three nights. If Jesus had

said, "_three days and nights_," it might not involve the present

difficulty; but no one questions that Jonas was three whole days and

three whole nights in the whale's belly. Then, as the Redeemer makes

that the simile of his own confinement in the heart of the earth, the

antitype, to be verified and accredited, must be like unto the type.

He must have been there the _three days_ and the _three nights_,

according to his word. It is vain presumption, arrant blasphemy, to

make it any less to gratify a human theory. Let God be true, though it

make all men liars.

In the absence of all direct _scriptural evidence_ to sustain the

assumption, that the first day of the week is the "_resurrection

day_;" and in the absence of all such evidence, that the Lord designed

to elevate the first day of the week to the special regard of the

Christian Church, and confer upon it the sacredness of the ancient

Sabbath; would we not, at least, have some intimation of it in the

writings of the prophets, in which all the important circumstances of

the Redeemer's life and mission are foreshadowed? Where, reader, will

you find any thing in them that predicts any _change_ of the _holy

Sabbath_ to the _resurrection day_? If found, let it be adduced. The

Sabbath is a standing monument against _Atheism_, for all ages,

declaring the workmanship of God; yet some _assume_, that as

_redemption_ is a greater work, and a more important work, than the

_creation_ of the universe and the living _souls_ which inhabit all

the spheres, therefore the _resurrection day_ ought to be honored as

the _rest-day_. Has not the _Lord_ the right to determine this matter?

If HE deemed it important that the _resurrection day_ be thus

distinguished, would HE not have _declared it_, expressly, unto us?

Would HE have left us to _infer_ it? Can we, will we, be justified in

casting aside the _explicit_ command of the Most High, in this matter,

to substitute our _fancied_ day of greater _importance_ than the one

the _Almighty_ has _ordained_? "Wherefore kick ye at _my_ sacrifice

and at _mine_ offering, which I have commanded?" 1 Sam. 2:29. "It is

hard for thee to kick against the pricks." Acts 9:5.

If, then, there is no evidence in the Scriptures, that the _first day

of the week_ is the "_resurrection day_," (which, even if

satisfactorily established, would not invalidate our position, nor

entitle it to supersede the holy Sabbath); and, more particularly, if

there is no evidence in the Inspired Volume, that the term "Lord's

day" is intended to designate the _first day of the week_; we are

reduced, by every principle of reasoning, to regard the _seventh

day_--the Heaven-heralded Sabbath--as the only "Lord's day," the only

"rest-day," sanctified and hallowed by the Almighty as holy time.

All days, in one sense, are Lord's days; but there has never been but

one _Heaven-appointed_ weekly _Sabbath_, and that, most unequivocally,

is the _seventh day_. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy"--"the

_seventh day_ is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Ex. 20:8. If that

sacred injunction has been abrogated, we should expect--(for it would

be unreasonable to recognize its repeal or transfer, without as

explicit and as authoritative a mandate from the Court of Heaven)--at

least a _re-enactment_ somewhat thus: "_From the resurrection of the

Lord Jesus, ye shall no longer_ SABBATIZE, _but shall give heed to the

assembling of yourselves_ ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK; _in it ye

shall do no work; and, to avoid the appearance of symbolizing with my

ancient people, the Jews_, call it no longer the _Sabbath_, but

designate it by the term _Lord's day_!" Is there any intimation of

such an _abrogation_, or such a _transfer_ of the _sacredness of the

Sabbath_ to _Sunday_, in the _inspired volume_? Not the semblance of

it. Even if the early disciples, without any intimation from the _Lord

of the Sabbath_, but _of their own accord_, chose to set apart a

special day as a _festival day_, as they were wont to do for _martyrs_

and _saints_, it can not, certainly, _supersede_ the _institution of

Jehovah_; neither can they confer upon it the sacredness belonging, by

the _decree of the Most High_, to _his rest-day_. Indeed, this is so

evident, that the erudite and frank NEANDER expressly says,

"_Opposition to Judaism introduced the particular festival of Sunday_,

very early, indeed, into the place of the _Sabbath_ ... Sunday was

distinguished as a _day of joy_, by the circumstance that men did not

fast upon it, and that they prayed standing up, and not kneeling, as

Christ had raised up fallen man to heaven again through his

resurrection. The _festival of Sunday_, like all other festivals, _was

always only a_ HUMAN ORDINANCE; and it was far from the intention of

the apostles to establish a _divine_ command in this respect--far from

them, and from the early apostolic church, to _transfer the laws of

the Sabbath to Sunday_. Perhaps at the end of the second century, _a

false application of this kind_ had _begun_ to take place; for men

appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a

sin."[13]

Such, then, is the scriptural account of the Sabbath, and such the

frank admission of one of the most distinguished ecclesiastical

historians, who could have no motive in perverting or misrepresenting

the facts in the case, but who has always shown himself above all mean

subterfuges for any purpose whatever. His testimony might be fortified

by many names of high authority among writers of eminence, who do not

contend for sabbatizing on the seventh day, yet whose candor and

honesty constrain them to make the like admission.

Thus it will be seen, that the observers of the seventh-day Sabbath

can look up with full confidence of having a "thus saith the Lord" for

their practice; while the observers of the first day of the week must

confess, with confusion of face, that they are but following "the

commandments of men," and can only plead "the nakedness of the

Fathers," as Whitby terms their inconsistencies. Will the Lord admit

such a "vain oblation?" Will he suffer such a perversion of his holy

institution to go unreproved? Where, reader, can you find in the Bible

any authority for appropriating the title of the holy rest-day, the

Sabbath, to the first day of the week? If you can not, is it not

"robbing God" thus to falsify his Word? Is it not base felony every

time any worm of the dust thus perversely uses the term which HE, the

Sovereign of the Universe, has attached to his holy day--thereby

wantonly "changing times and laws"--overturning the decrees of the

Lord God? Is it not wresting the Word to your own destruction? If the

Lord charge man with robbery in withholding perishable tithes and

offerings, and curse him for that delinquency, how much greater, think

ye, must be the condemnation of those who set at naught his

prerogative to institute and ordain the service of the sanctuary? He

alone has the right to impose religious ordinances; and it is but the

reasonable service of his creatures to obey, implicitly, his righteous

mandates--the sacred injunction, to hallow and sanctify his holy

Sabbath. "Will a man rob God?" asks the Almighty, through his prophet;

"yet ye have robbed me, saith the Holy One. Ye are cursed with a

curse; for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation." Mal. 2:8, 9.

Where, then, will you find your excuse for this perversion of the Word

of God, when that Word shall come to judge you? for it is the Word,

the written Word, (given to be a lamp unto your feet and a light to

your path,) which shall judge you at the last day. Of old it was said,

"From the days of your fathers ye are gone astray from mine

ordinances, and have not kept them." Mal. 3:7. The apostle of the

Gentiles speaks of those in his day who corrupted the Word. 2 Cor.

2:17. In another place it is asked, When wilt thou cease to pervert

the right ways of the Lord? Acts 13:10. To which interrogation all are

obnoxious who seek out inventions of their own, or follow "the

commandments of men," which subvert the testimony of the Lord.

Canst thou, reader, contend with the Almighty? It is a fearful thing

to fall into the hands of the living God, when he shall lay judgment

to the line, and righteousness to the plummet, and shall _sweep away

the refuge of lies_. Isaiah 28:17. The _true principle_, reader, and

the only _safe principle_, is, to "_let God be true_, though it _make

every man a liar_." Rom. 3:4. "Ye are my friends," says Christ, "if ye

do whatsover I command you." John 14:15. "He that saith, I know him,

and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in

him." 1 John 2:4. "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrine

the commandments of men." Matt. 15:9. "What thing soever I command

you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from

it." Deut. 13:32. "Turn not from it to the right hand or to the left."

Josh. 1:7. "Add not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be

found a liar." Prov. 30:6. "If any man shall add unto these things,

God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and

if any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall

take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city,

and from the things that are written in this book." Rev. 22:18, 19.

Ponder well this subject, reader, and render unto God the things that

are God's, that it may be well with thee, and thou be admitted into

the rest reserved for those who "delayed not to keep the

commandments"--for those who keep his covenant and walk in the way of

the Lord.

[11] The Sabbath was no type of Christ--a _shadow_, of which Christ

was to be the _body_. It was instituted before the _transgression_;

consequently, the term _Sabbath-days_, here, has no relevancy if

applied to the _weekly_ Sabbath; but it evidently alludes to the

_festival days_ among the Jews, usually called _Sabbaths_, as all the

Israelites had at those periods to _refrain from labor_--"such as the

festivals of the Passover, Pentecost, the Feast of Tabernacles, &c.,

&c., which are alluded to in Leviticus, 19:3-30. _Keep my

Sabbaths._"--CALMET.

[12] _Within_ does not imply that they were assembled at any public

place _for worship_, or to celebrate a _holy day_. _Within_ may simply

mean, that they were together in the place of their common

lodgment--where they abode together.

[13] The History of the Christian Religion and Church during the First

Three Centuries. By Dr. Augustus Neander. Translated by Henry John

Rose, B. D. New York, 1848, p. 186.

No. 14.

DELAYING OBEDIENCE.

To have the understanding enlightened in regard to duty, and the

conscience so thoroughly awake as to make one feel uneasy in the

neglect of it, and yet to be surrounded with advisers, wearing the

name and title of Christians, who are continually urging farther

delay, is about as uncomfortable a position as a person of fervent

piety needs to be placed in. To rebuke such advisers in the

faithfulness of the gospel, and yet, at the same time, to behave

towards them with becoming meekness, is not the easiest thing in the

world. Nevertheless, the idea that we may postpone our obedience to

God for a little season, notwithstanding our convictions, is not to be

tolerated.

Suppose, for example, that a person becomes convinced, that it is his

duty to observe the Sabbath of the Bible--the seventh day of the week.

Forthwith he is assailed by his associates with the suggestion, that

he ought not to be in a hurry--that he ought to take plenty of time

for consideration, at least a year. Plausible as such advice is, we

offset it with a simple passage of Scripture. "I thought on my ways,

and turned my feet unto thy testimonies; I made haste, and delayed not

to keep thy commandments." Ps. 119:59, 60. Here the Psalmist

testifies, that he turned his feet to obedience, so soon as, by

thinking on his ways, he found that he was walking astray. He made no

delay about it; he did not go about to consult the wise men of the

nation; he did not examine the writings of the rabbis and doctors, to

see if there was not some way of getting round the duty, he _made

haste_ to render obedience. But, now-a-days, as soon as a person's

conscience begins to lash him for neglected duty, he is advised to be

very careful about running too hastily. Well, we would not wish one to

be _too_ hasty; but, on the other hand, it may be well to consider

whether there is not such a thing as being _too tardy_. Conviction of

duty is not to be trifled with. When any one does violence to his

conviction, he feels that he disobeys God; and such disobedience is

sure to be followed by disastrous results. The voice of conscience

grows more feeble, and (if the disobedience be persisted in) becomes,

at length, hushed in silence. It may continue to reprove with regard

to other duties, but with regard to that particular one which has been

made the object of willful neglect, it reproves no more. As a

necessary consequence, the soul suffers the loss of all those

blessings which obedience in that one thing would bring.

Nor is this all. Conscience, having yielded to corruption in one

instance, becomes ready to yield in another. Its sternness has been

overcome, and it no longer guards the soul with that security which it

had been wont to do. It is to the soul what the sense of modesty is to

the female; and, as the female cannot allow her sense of delicacy to

be trifled with without incurring the risk of a total loss of virtue,

so the conscience cannot, in a single instance, be abused, without

incurring the danger of becoming "seared with a hot iron." We will not

undertake to say, that this is, in every case, the result; but we _do_

say, that there is great danger of it. We insist, therefore, that when

one understands what is duty, he ought to lose no time in putting it

in practice. Let him remember, too, that the wrath of God is revealed

against those "who hold the truth in unrighteousness." Rom. 1:18.

But the possibility that one may be mistaken as to his duty, is often

urged as a reason for delay. There may be something in this; at least,

it seems plausible. Generally, however, this objection is more

specious than solid. At all events, it is so with regard to those

things which are the subject of direct and unequivocal command. With

regard to the Sabbath, we have no hesitation in saying, that it savors

of "the wisdom that is earthly." The object of those who urge it is to

induce a deference to the views of those who have acquired great skill

in explaining away the divine law. But we hold, that however doubtful

may be the teachings of Scripture with regard to such questions as are

purely doctrinal, or however obscure the language in which its

prophecies foretell coming events, with regard to the common,

practical duties of life, the Word of God is so plain that there is no

need for a child to be mistaken. Were it otherwise, it would be

unsuited to the wants of mankind. For, inasmuch as every one must give

account for himself, and not another for him, it is necessary that

each one should be able to decide his duty for himself. People of

small intellectual capacity must be able to make this decision, as

well as those of more expanded powers; and children, as well as those

of mature age. Hence duty must be revealed in very simple language.

And how simple the language in which our duty to keep holy the Sabbath

day is revealed! "_Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy--the

seventh day is the Sabbath._" Who can fail to understand it? What

untutored peasant cannot comprehend it? What child does not perceive

its meaning? The command to refrain from the adoration of images is

not more plain. Yet, when a person of ordinary mental powers is

convinced by it, and begins to think about rendering obedience,

straightway he is admonished that he does not understand it, and that

he would do well to consult some learned men, some spiritual rabbis or

doctors of divinity, before taking any decided steps!

And what do the learned doctors say, upon being consulted? Why, that

it is the duty of men keep holy the first day of the week. But how do

they make it appear? Do they produce any precept from the Scripture,

plain and unequivocal, like the fourth commandment? Not by any means.

They can present nothing which is level to the comprehension of a

child. Whatever they say on the subject, is entirely above the

understanding of children, and entirely above the understanding of

ignorant people. They talk about the magnitude of redemption, as

compared with the work of creation; they have something to say about

redemption being finished on the first day of the week, by the

resurrection of Christ from the dead; they lay a few such theological

propositions together, and finally draw out the inference, that the

first day of the week is a holy day. But the plain, ordinary mind,

does not understand this. The child fails to comprehend it. It is

true, he hardly dares to indulge the thought that learned men may be

mistaken; nevertheless, he is puzzled, extremely puzzled, to

understand it. Is not this conclusive proof, that no such duty is

enjoined in the Book of God?

We cannot, therefore, subscribe to the idea, that a person must, in

reference to the Sabbath, or in reference to any other plain command

of Heaven, wait to consult friends, and learned teachers, and the

writings of fallible men, before rendering obedience. If God has

spoken, "see that ye refuse not him that speaketh." We do not believe

that any one can begin to obey God too soon.

Published by the AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY,

No. 9 Spruce-street N. Y.

[No. 15.]

AN APPEAL FOR THE

RESTORATION OF THE BIBLE SABBATH:

IN AN ADDRESS TO THE BAPTISTS,

FROM THE SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST GENERAL CONFERENCE.

NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY,

No. 9 Spruce-Street.

1852.

THE ADDRESS.

The Seventh-day Baptist General Conference, to the Members of the

Baptist Denomination throughout the United States, holding to the

Observance of the First Day of the Week as a Divine Institution:

BELOVED BRETHREN:--

When our Divine Redeemer dwelt on earth, he prayed that all his

disciples might be "made perfect in one." As this prayer was in

harmony with the sure word of prophecy, which instructs us to look for

a time when "the watchmen shall see eye to eye, and sing with united

voice," we are sure that it will ultimately be answered. We see

nothing, however, to warrant us in looking for such a happy

consummation, while we contemplate the multiplied divisions of the

Christian world, perpetuated as they are by the selfishness of human

nature. Here the prospect is dark indeed. But we have an unshaken

confidence in the power of God to bring about his own purposes,

notwithstanding all the devices of men. "The hearts of all are in his

hands, and he turneth them whithersoever he will." He that made "the

multitude of one heart and of one soul," in the first age of the

church, can again concentrate his scattered bands, break down every

wall of separation, and enlighten every mind by the effusion of his

Spirit. Then shall Zion move forth, "clear as the sun, and terrible as

an army with banners."

We rejoice, brethren, that you, as well as ourselves, are looking for

this day of glory. Moreover, we have knowledge of your firm

persuasion, that this glorious union of the now scattered forces of

Israel, can be effected only upon the basis of divine truth. With a

single glance you see the fallacy of that reasoning, which calls upon

you, for the sake of union, to sacrifice the least particle of God's

Word. Taught by the Spirit of God, you have learned that the smallest

atom of truth is more precious than fine gold. That meager piety which

finds "non-essentials" in the appointments of Jehovah, you cannot

abide. Your language is, "We esteem ALL thy precepts concerning ALL

things to be right, and we hate EVERY false way."

We know, moreover, that it is the desire of your hearts, that all

dissensions between Christians should be for ever ended. For this

object you are laboring and praying; and while you are doing so, you

have the enlightened conviction, that your labors and prayers will be

successful, in proportion to the amount of truth with which your own

minds are imbued, and which you can bring to bear upon the minds of

others. Laboring as you do to expound to others the way of the Lord

more perfectly, we cannot suppose that you are yourselves unwilling to

learn. We therefore approach you with confidence, affectionately and

earnestly requesting you to take into consideration the subject which

is the only ground of difference between you and us. In our

estimation, it is a subject of great importance; and though some of

you have made it a matter of thought, we are persuaded that the great

body of your denomination have dismissed it without any particular

investigation. Indeed, we speak not unadvisedly when we say, that on

this question the whole church of God have been hushed to sleep. In

urging it upon your attention, we think you will not charge us with

wishing to raise disturbance in Zion. We indulge the hope that you

will impute to us the same disinterestedness of motive by which you

yourselves are actuated when you boldly proclaim your denominational

sentiments upon every high place, and scatter your publications in

every direction. Your course springs not from any wish to foment

disturbance, but from the pain which your hearts feel to see the

institutions of Christ made void by the traditions of men. Our action

in this matter springs from the same principle. We feel in regard to

the Sabbath just as you do in regard to baptism. We declare before God

and the Lord Jesus Christ, that we are moved by a desire for your good

and God's glory.

When we look over your large and influential denomination, we find

that, in reference to the subject upon which we now address you, you

are divided into about three classes. I. Those who, acknowledging the

perpetuity of the Sabbath law, enforce the observance of the Sabbath

by the fourth commandment, but change the day of its celebration from

the seventh to the first day of the week. II. Those who see the

impossibility of proving a change of the day, and therefore regard the

commandment as abolished by the death of Christ. But, at the same

time, they consider the first day of the week as an institution

entirely new, to be regulated as to its observance wholly by the New

Testament. III. Those who consider neither the Old nor the New

Testament to impose any obligation upon them to observe a day of rest,

and advocate one merely on the ground of expediency.

* * * * *

I. To those of you who acknowledge the obligation of a Sabbath, but

change the day of its celebration from the _seventh_ to the _first_

day of the week, we would say, that while from the Law only you infer

any obligation to sabbatize at all, yet make the particular time of

sabbatizing to stand upon New Testament authority, we do not see how

you can relieve yourselves from the charge of departing from the great

principle contended for by Baptists, viz. That whatever is commanded

by an institution, is to be learned from the law of the institution,

and not from other sources. On this principle, you reject the logic of

Pedobaptists, who, while they find the ordinance of _baptism_ in the

New Testament, go back to the law of _circumcision_ to determine the

subjects. You tell them, and very justly too, that the _law_ of the

institution is the _only rule_ of obedience. But do you not fall into

the same error when the argument has respect to the Sabbath? We can

see no more fitness in applying the law of the Sabbath to the first

day of the week, than in applying the law of circumcision to the

subjects of baptism. For the law of circumcision was not more

expressly confined to the fleshly seed of Abraham, than was the law of

the Sabbath to the seventh day of the week. The true principle is,

that every institution is to be explained and regulated by its own

law. Therefore, if the first day of the week is an institution binding

upon us, the law to regulate its observance should be looked for where

we find the institution. Be pleased, brethren, to review this

argument, and see if you are not treading on Pedobaptist ground.

In justification of this change of the day, we often hear you plead

the example of Christ and his apostles. But where do we find any thing

to this effect in their example? Did the apostles _sabbatize_ on the

first day of the week? Did the churches which were organized by them

do so? Observe, the question between you and us is NOT, Did they _meet

together_ and _hold worship_ on that day? BUT, Did they _sabbatize_?

that is, Did they REST FROM THEIR LABOR on the first day of the week?

Did they observe it AS a Sabbath? This is the true issue. We have

often asked this question, but the only answer that we have received

has been, _that they assembled for worship_. But this is not a candid

way of meeting the point. It is in reality an answer to a very

different question from the one we ask. Brethren, act out your own

principles. Come up fairly to the question. When you ask a

Pedobaptist, Did Christ baptize or authorize the baptism of little

children? you expect him to make some other reply than, "_He put his

hands on them, and prayed_." When you ask, Did the apostles baptize

unconscious babes? you are not well pleased with the reply, _They

baptized households_. Your question was with regard to _infants_--the

_baptism_ of them. If, therefore, when we ask you, Did the apostles

and primitive Christians _sabbatize_ on the first day of the week? you

merely reply as above, we do not see but you are guilty of the very

same sophistry you are so ready to charge upon your Pedobaptist

brethren. Your adroit evasion of the real question seems to place you

much in the same predicament as were the Pharisees, when Christ asked

them whence was the baptism of John. It appears as if you reasoned

with yourselves, and said, "If we shall say they _did_ sabbatize on

the first day of the week, the evidence will be called for, and we

cannot find it; but if we shall say they did _not_, we fear the day

will lose its sacredness in the eyes of the people." We do not by any

means wish to charge you with a Pharisaic lack of principle, but we

put it to your sober judgment, whether your position is not an awkward

one. Brethren, reconsider this point, and see if you are not on

Pedobaptist ground.

If the apostles did not sabbatize on the first day of the week, then

it follows, as a matter of course, that, whatever notoriety or dignity

belonged to that day, they did not regard it as a substitute for the

Sabbath. Consequently, unless the Sabbath law was entirely abrogated

by the death of Christ, the old Sabbath, as instituted in Paradise,

and rehearsed from Sinai, continues yet binding, as "the Sabbath of

the Lord thy God."

But more than this. Even if it could be proved, that the apostles and

primitive Christians _did_ actually regard the first day of the week

_as a Sabbath_, it would not follow that the old Sabbath is no longer

in force, unless it could be proved that they considered the new as a

SUBSTITUTE for the old; or, that so far as the particular day was

concerned, it was of a CEREMONIAL character. But where do we find

proof for either of these points? In the whole record of the

transactions and teachings of the apostles, where do we find this idea

of _substitution_? No where. Where do we find evidence that, so far as

the _particular day_ was concerned, it was _ceremonial_, and therefore

to cease at the death of Christ? No where. The argument that proves

the _Sabbath law_ not to be ceremonial, proves the same of the _day_.

Did the _Sabbath law_ originate in Paradise, when man was innocent,

and had no need of a Redeemer? So did the _day_. It was then

sanctified and blessed. Does the _Sabbath law_ take cognizance of the

relation on which all the precepts of the moral law are founded, viz.

the relation we sustain to God as _creatures_ to _Creator_? So does

the _day_. It is a memorial of this relation, and of the rest entered

into by God after he, by his work, had established the relation. It

appears, then, that neither the _Sabbath law_, nor the _day_ it

enjoins, was of a ceremonial character. True, it is not _moral_, in

the strictest sense, but rather _positive_. Nevertheless, by divine

appointment it is in the same category with the moral law, and must be

considered a part of it. If this reasoning is correct--and if it is

not, we hope you will point it out--it would not follow that the old

Sabbath is done away, because Christ and his apostles sabbatized on

the first day of the week; but only that there are _two_ Sabbaths

instead of _one_.

But could Christ or his apostles consistently alter the law of the

Sabbath? In all his ministry, Christ acted under the _appointment_ of

the Father, and according to such _restrictions_ as were contained in

the law and the prophets. By those restrictions, no laws were to be

set aside at his coming, except such as were peculiar to the Jewish

economy; such as "meats, and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal

ordinances, imposed until the time of reformation." Heb. 9:10. To set

aside these, the law gave the Messiah an express grant. Heb. 10:9. But

the very moment he should attempt to go beyond the limits of that

grant, he would destroy all evidence of his being the Messiah promised

and appointed. For it was by his exact conformity to the law, that his

claims were established. Hence, early in his ministry, he declared

that he "came not to _destroy_ the law or the prophets." Matt. 5:17.

Most cheerfully do we recognize him as God over all, and blessed

forever; yet we are well satisfied that, even in virtue of his

divinity, he could not consistently set aside any laws except those

which were "a shadow of things to come." Otherwise we should have God

_denying_ himself--God _contradicting_ himself! The New Testament

records not a single instance of his claiming a right to do so. When

he avowed himself Lord of the Sabbath, he only claimed to determine

what was the proper method of keeping it--what were breaches of it,

and what were not. The Sabbath was made _for_ man, and consequently it

was his prerogative to decide what acts and duties answered to the

nature and design of the institution. _Therefore_, the Son of Man is

Lord of the Sabbath. Mark 2:28.

In regard to the obligation resulting from apostolic example, it

appears to us that you have fallen into some errors. We are not

convinced that the example of the apostles can be justly pleaded for

any thing else than the order and arrangement of the _church_. However

proper it may be to imitate them in other respects--in the duties of

the moral law, for instance--yet, if it were not known to be proper,

independent of their example, we cannot suppose their example would

make it so. We must first ascertain, by some settled and infallible

rule, whether their practice is worthy of imitation. In regard to the

ordering of _church affairs_, there can be no doubt, for they were

sent upon this very errand, with the promise of the Holy Spirit to

qualify them for the work. But the Sabbath is not a _church

ordinance_. It is not an institution for the church _as such_, but for

_all mankind_. All reasoning with reference to it, from apostolic

example, must therefore be very inconclusive. Even if we should admit

that the _church_ is bound by such example to regard the first day of

the week, yet this is the utmost extent to which our admissions can

go. We cannot see how the institution becomes binding upon the world

at large. Consequently, we are compelled to maintain, that an

institution which was originally given for all mankind, remains

unaltered. We are willing that the example and practice of the

apostles should regulate the _church_ as to its ordinances and

government, and herein we claim to follow them as strictly as you do;

but when they are pleaded for any thing more, we want first to know

whether they conform to the express law of God. Otherwise we must

consider them as no more binding than an apostle's quarrel with

Barnabas. Acts 15:39.

If this argument is well founded, we are led to a very satisfactory

disposal of a question often proposed, viz., Why do we never read in

the New Testament of Christian assemblies being convened _as such_ on

the Sabbath? For if the Sabbath be not a _church ordinance_, but an

institution for mankind at large, it can be of no importance for us to

know what Christian assemblies _as such_ did with regard to it. All

that is of real importance for us to know, is the precise bearing of

the institution upon man _as_ man--upon man _as_ a rational and

accountable creature. On this point the information is clear and

decisive.

The controversy between us and you appears to be brought down to a

very narrow compass. _Did the Apostles and primitive Christians

sabbatize on the first day of the week?_ And, _Is it the duty of all

men to imitate their example, or only the_ CHURCH? If, upon a solemn

and prayerful consideration of this subject, you are persuaded that

there is no proof that the early Christians regarded the first day as

a Sabbath, (substituted in place of the seventh,) and will honestly

avow your conviction, we have no fear that the controversy will be

prolonged. For, should you still be of opinion that some sort of

notoriety was attached to the day, and that Christians met for

worship, we shall not be very solicitous to dispute the point. The

apostolic rule, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind,"

will then govern us. See Rom. 14:5, 6. Our concern is not that you

keep the first day of the week, but that you keep it _in place of the

Sabbath_, thus making void the commandment of God. If once you

discover, that Sunday is not the Sabbath by divine appointment, and

therefore cannot be enforced upon the conscience, we are persuaded

that your deep sense of the necessity of such an institution, will

soon bring you to the observance of the one originally appointed.

* * * * *

II. But we proceed to address those of you who regard the sabbatic law

as having been nailed to the cross, and consider the first day of the

week as an institution entirely new, regulated as to its observance

wholly by the New Testament.

You, whom we now address, are exempt from some of the inconsistencies

which we have exposed; but your theory labors under very serious

difficulties, and is to be regarded, on the whole, as more obnoxious

to the interests of religion, than the one we have been considering.

According to your position, the New Testament recognizes no Sabbath at

all. Do not start at this charge. That it is repugnant to your

feelings, we allow. You have never thought of any thing else than

_entire abstinence from labor_ on the first day of the week. It is

your day of _rest_, as well as _worship_. But on what ground do you

make it a day of rest? What _example_ have you for doing so? What

_law_ of the New Testament requires you to lay aside all your secular

business? As sin is the transgression of the law, and where no law is

there is no transgression--1 John 3:4, Rom. 4:15--how do you make it

appear to be sin to work on the day in question? It is by the

commandment that sin becomes exceeding sinful. Rom. 7:13. By what

commandment do you make it appear sinful to work on Sunday? These are

questions of the highest importance.

Now suppose one of your brethren attends public worship on the first

day of the week, and--to make his conformity to what is supposed to be

apostolic example as perfect as possible--participates in the breaking

of bread. He then goes home, and labors diligently till the day is

closed. By what law will you convince him of sin? Not the law of the

Sabbath as contained in the Decalogue, for that, you hold to be

abolished. Not any law of the New Testament which says, "Keep the

first day of the week holy; in it thou shalt not do any work," for

there is no such law. Not the law of apostolic example, for there is

no proof that the apostles ever gave such example. The very utmost

that you can with any show of reason pretend of their example is, that

they met together for worship and breaking of bread. To this example

your brother has conformed to the very letter--who can say he has not

in spirit also? What now will you do with him? "The Bible, and the

Bible only, is the religion of Protestants." The Bible, therefore, is

the Rule by which he is to be tried. Convict him of sin by this Rule,

if you can.

But the case becomes still more difficult, when you come to apply it

to those who are without the pale of the church. We have already

seen, that apostolic example concerns merely the ordering and

arrangement of the _church_. Attempt now to convince the unbeliever of

sin in working on the first day of the week. In order to do this,

charge apostolic example upon him. What is his reply? "I know not,"

says he, "that I am bound to imitate them in this matter. How does it

appear that I am? I will admit, for argument's sake, that they

celebrated the resurrection on Sunday by religious worship; but they

also broke bread and partook of it by way of celebrating his death. If

their example binds me in one particular, why not in the other? Prove

to me," says he, "that any but the church assembled on the first day

for worship, and I will do so too. But in the absence of all such

proof, I must conclude that their example has nothing to do with me;

unless, indeed, you can make it appear, that their example and

practice were in conformity to some law, which commanded them as

rational creatures, independent of their relation to Christ and his

church. When you can produce that law, then I shall feel bound to obey

it, and imitate the apostles in their obedience to it; but not till

then." Such is the reasoning by which an unbeliever may set aside all

your attempts to charge sin upon him. Where, brethren, is your law

which, like a barbed arrow, pierces the very soul, and fastens guilt

upon the conscience? Where is that law which speaks out its thunders,

saying, "Thus saith the Almighty God, the Lord, the Maker of heaven

and earth, It is the Sabbath day; in it thou shalt not do any work?"

To throw aside the law, which cuts and flames every way, reaching soul

and spirit, joints and marrow, in order to deal with the ungodly by

mere apostolic example, is like muffling the sword, lest it should

give a deadly wound. Apostolic example is indeed powerful with those

whose hearts have been made tender by the Spirit of God, but with

others powerless.

We are persuaded, brethren, that your conscientious scruples about

laboring on the first day of the week, never resulted from the mere

contemplation of apostolic example. Such example, it is true, is all

the law you acknowledge; but this is the theory you have adopted since

you came to maturity, and began to think for yourselves. Your scruples

have an earlier and different origin. They commenced with your

childhood, when you were taught to consider the day as holy time. It

was then carefully instilled into your mind, that God had, by express

law, forbidden you to desecrate the day, and that you would incur his

displeasure in case you should do so. The idea was then imbibed, that

if you did not keep the day, you would violate the fourth commandment.

This idea has grown with your growth, and strengthened with your

strength. It has obtained such commanding influence over your

feelings, that you cannot comfortably forbear keeping a day of rest,

though your theory does not require it. Even to this day a strong

impression rests upon your minds, that the fourth commandment contains

much of moral excellence--too much to be thrown altogether away,

notwithstanding your system of theology teaches its abrogation. Such

is the true secret of your tenderness of conscience. Apostolic example

has in reality nothing to do with it. Following the secret monitions

of conscience, your prosperity is promoted in spite of your

theological system. But sound reason discovers, that your experience

and your theory are in opposition to each other. Some of the more

thinking ones among you are aware of this, and are continually aiming

at such a modification of their theory, that their experience will

harmonize with it. But be assured, that there will be an everlasting

conflict, till you are brought to acknowledge fully and heartily the

claims of the sabbatic law.

We are aware of that system of theology which regards the New

Testament as furnishing the only code of laws by which men are bound

since the death of Christ. We have looked at this doctrine with

attention; and so far as the order, government, and ordinances of the

_church_ are concerned, we admit its truth. As the laws and ordinances

of the _Jewish_ church were determined by the _Old_ Testament, so the

laws and ordinances of the _Christian_ church are determined solely by

the _New_ Testament. Therefore, we should say at once, the argument is

yours, if the Sabbath were a church ordinance. In such case, however,

none but the church has a Sabbath. But the question is not concerning

church ordinances. In these we follow the New Testament as closely as

yourselves. The question is concerning an institution which has

respect to mankind at large--to man _as_ man; for the Saviour teaches

us that the Sabbath was made _for_ man. Now, it will be a very hard

matter to prove, that when men as rational creatures are concerned,

the only code of laws by which they are bound is the New Testament.

Let us put the matter to the test. How will you prove that it is

unlawful for a man to marry his sister, his daughter, or any other of

near kin? The New Testament utters not a word on the subject. It is

not enough to say, It is implied in the law which forbids adultery;

for it must first be proved to be a species of adultery to do so. Nor

will it do to say, The common sense of mankind is a sufficient law on

the subject; for the moment we suppose that its unlawfulness is to be

determined in this way, we abandon the argument that the New Testament

is the only code of laws, and resort to the common sense of mankind as

furnishing a part of the code. But if the common sense of mankind

shall furnish a part of the code by which we are bound, who shall

undertake to say how large a part? Besides, on this principle, the

book of divine revelation is not complete and perfect. It is a lamp to

our feet only in part, and the common sense of mankind makes out the

deficiency! You are, therefore, driven to take your stand again upon

the New Testament. Finding you there again, we repeat the question,

_How do you prove by your code that a man may not marry his sister?_

It is impossible. You must, of necessity, look to that division of the

Scriptures usually called the Old Testament; for the New says not one

word about it.

Let us turn now to the 18th chapter of the book of Leviticus, and we

shall find a collection of laws exactly to the point. "None of you

shall approach to any that is near of kin to him," &c. v. 6. The

degrees of kindred are then expressly marked. Will it be objected,

that these laws were given particularly to the Jews, and to no other

people? We admit they were given to the Jews, as indeed was the whole

system of revelation in that age; but we cannot admit that they

concerned no other class of people. For it is expressly shown in that

chapter, that the matters of which they took cognizance, were regarded

as abominations in the Gentiles. Because of such things, the fierce

wrath of Jehovah came down upon the Canaanites, and they were cast out

from the land as loathsomeness. v. 24, 30. If these things were viewed

as abominable in the Canaanites, they surely were not _ceremonial_

pollutions. They were not mere _Jewish_ laws. The fallacy of the

doctrine is therefore sufficiently exposed.

We think you have fallen into error concerning the nature and design

of that division of the Scriptures commonly called the New Testament.

We regard it not as the _Law Book_ of mankind, in the strict and

proper sense; but rather as a _Treatise on Justification_, or an

_Expose of the Way of Salvation_, in which are contained such

references to the law, and such quotations from it, as are necessary

to the complete elucidation of the subject. The preparation of this

treatise was of necessity delayed until the great Sacrifice for sin

had been offered, and our High Priest had entered into the holy place.

For, as the sacrifice and intercession of our High Priest constitute

the sole foundation of our justification, so "the way into the holiest

of all was not yet made manifest, while the first tabernacle was yet

standing." Heb. 9:8. So much of the plan of salvation was illustrated

to the people, as could be by means of the ritual service; and that,

together with the prophecies, laid a foundation for them to _believe_

that, _in some way or other_, they would be just before God. So that

by _faith_ the patriarchs were justified. Heb. 11. They knew it was to

be _somehow_ through the work of Him who was typified and promised as

the great Redeemer. But they could not understand the plan until the

Redeemer came and died for them.

_Because_ this expose of the way of salvation could not be made until

after the death of the High Priest, _therefore_ it was not proper to

organize gospel churches. The only church that was suitable for that

age was found in the Jewish nation, and from its very nature was unfit

for the world at large. It was, therefore, confined to that people.

Moreover, because it was not proper to organize gospel churches until

the way of salvation was fully laid open, it was also not proper to

lay down the laws and ordinances of the church until that time. This

accounts for the laws of the church being found only in the New

Testament.

Now, if the New Testament is to be regarded as an exhibition of the

way of salvation, with such references to the Old as are necessary for

the elucidation of the subject, rather than as the Law Book for

mankind at large, the idea that the Sabbath ought not to be looked for

in the Old Testament falls to the ground. Nevertheless, to some minds

it appears strange, that while the New Testament writers mention all

the other duties of the Decalogue, this of Sabbath keeping is

apparently omitted. In speaking of the sins of which Christians were

guilty before their conversion, not one word is said about Sabbath

breaking, though upon other sins they dwell with emphasis. But this

admits of a very easy solution. Those writers addressed two classes of

converts--those from among the Jews, and those from among the

Gentiles. As to the former, they were already rigid to an extreme in

keeping the Sabbath. All that was necessary to do in their case, was

to vindicate the institution from Pharisaic austerities, and determine

what was lawful to be done, and what was not lawful. This was done by

Christ. But as for the Gentile converts, to charge them with having

been guilty of the sin of Sabbath breaking in their state of

heathenism, would have been manifest impropriety. For the Sabbath

being for the most part a _positive_ rather than a _moral_ precept, it

could not be known without a revelation. But as the Gentiles had no

revelation, this is a good reason why the apostle dwelt not upon this

sin to charge it upon them, but only upon those which were more

obviously breaches of the Moral Law. Thus it appears, there was no

necessity for any more particular mention of the Sabbath to be made in

the New Testament than what is made.

But it is not our object in this Address to cover the whole field of

argument. We design simply, by presenting some of the strong points,

and exposing your inconsistencies, to stir up your attention to the

subject. We are sure that the great majority of you have never given

it a thorough investigation. For a complete discussion of the whole

ground, we refer you to our publications. Will you read them? Will you

anxiously inquire, What is truth? Will you pray over the matter,

saying, "Lord, what wilt thou have us to do?" Or, will you sleep over

it, as if it were of no great practical importance?

* * * * *