of the whole christian world, and the greater portion of those who
believe in a crucified Saviour say that this change took place, and is
dated from his resurrection. Some say subsequently, while a minority
insist upon it that there is no proof for the change. Now to obtain the
truth and nothing but the truth on this important subject, I propose to
present, or quote from standard authors on both sides of the question,
and try the whole by the standard of divine truth. 1st. Buck's
Theological Dictionary, to which no doubt thousands of ministers and
laymen appeal to sustain their argument for the change, says: "Under the
christian dispensation the Sabbath is _altered_ from the _seventh_ to
the _first day_ of the week." The arguments for the change are these:
1st. "The _seventh_ day was observed by the Jewish church in memory of
the rest of God; so the _first_ day of the week has always been observed
by the christian church in memory of _Christ's resurrection_. 2d. Christ
made repeated visits to his disciples on that day. 3d. It is called the
Lord's day. Rev. i: 10.--4th. On this day the Apostles were assembled,
when the Holy Ghost came down upon them to qualify them for the
conversion of the world. 5th. On this day we find Paul at Troas when the
disciples came together to break bread. 6th. The directions the Apostles
gave to Christians plainly alludes to their assembling on that day. 7th.
Pliny bears witness of the first day of the week being kept as a
festival in honor of the resurrection of Christ."
"Numerous have been the days appointed by man for religious services,
but these are not binding because of _human_ institution. Not so the
Sabbath. It is of _divine_ institution, so it is to be kept holy onto
the Lord."
Doct. Dodridge, whose ability and piety have seldom or rarely been
disputed, comments on some of the above articles thus: (Commentary p.
606.) "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." I Cor. xvi: 2. "Show that it was to be put into a [32]common
stock. The argument drawn from hence for the religious observance of the
first day of the week in these primitive churches of Corinth and Galacia
is too _obvious_ to need any further illustration, and yet too important
to be passed by in entire silence." Again, p. 904, "I was in the spirit
on the Lord's day," &c. Rev. i: 10. "It is so very unnatural and
contrary to the use of the word in all other authors to interpret this
of the Jewish Sabbath, as Mr. Baxter justly argues at large, that I
cannot but conclude with him and the generality of Christian writers on
this subject, that this text _strongly_ infers the extraordinary regard
paid to the first day of the week in the Apostle's time as a day
solemnly consecrated to Christ in the memory of his resurrection from
the dead." There is much more, but these are his strong arguments. I
shall quote some more from the Commentaries by and by. I wish to place
by the side of these arguments one from the British Quarterly
Theological Review and Ecclesiastical Recorder, of Jan. 1830, which I
extract from 'the _Institution of the Sabbath day_,' by Wm. Logan
Fisher, of Philadelphia, a book in which there is much valuable
information on this subject, though I disagree with the writer, because
his whole labor is to abolish the Sabbath; yet he gives much light on
this subject, from which I take the liberty to make some quotations. But
to the Quarterly Review of 1830:
"It is said that the observance of the seventh day Sabbath is
transferred in the Christian Church to the first day of the
week. We ask by what authority, and are very much mistaken if
an examination of all the texts of the New Testament, in which
the first day of the week or Lord's day is mentioned, does not
prove that there is no divine or Apostolic precept enjoining
its observance, nor any certain evidence from scripture that
it was, in fact, so observed in the times of the Apostles.
Accordingly we search the scriptures in vain, either for an
Apostolic precept, appointing the first day of the week to be
observed in the place of the Jewish Sabbath, or for any
unequivocal proof that the first christians so observed
it--there are only three or, at most four passages of
scripture, in which the first day of the week is mentioned.
The next passage is Acts xx: 7. 'Upon the first day of the
week when the disciples some together to break bread, Paul
preached unto them.' All that St. Luke here tells us plainly
is, that on a particular occasion the christians of Troas met
together on the first day of the week to celebrate the
Eucharist and to hear Paul preach. This is the only place in
scripture in which the first day of the week is in any way
connected with any acts of public worship, and he who would
certainly infer from this SOLITARY INSTANCE that the first day
of every week was consecrated by the Apostles to religious
purposes, must be far gone in the art of drawing universal
conclusion from particular premises."
On page 178, Mr. Fisher says:
[33]"I have examined several different translations of the
scriptures, both from the Hebrew and Septuagint, with notes
and annotations more extensive than the texts; have traced as
far as my leisure would permit, various ecclesiastical
histories, some of them voluminous and of ancient date; have
paid considerable attention to the writings of the earliest
authors in the Christian era, and to rare works, old and of
difficult access, which treat upon this subject; I have read
with care many of the publications of sectarians to sustain
the institution; I have omitted nothing within my reach, and I
have found not one shred of argument, or authority of any
kind, that may not be deemed of partial and sectarian
character, to support the institution of the first day of the
week, as a day of peculiar holiness. But, in place of
argument, I have found opinions without number--volumes filled
with idle words that have no truth in them. In the want of
texts of Scripture, I have found perversions; in the want of
truth, false statements. I have seen it stated that Justin
Marter in his Apology speaks of Sunday as a holy day; that
Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea, who lived in the fourth century,
establishes the fact of the transfer of the SEVENTH to the
first day, by Christ himself. These things are NOT TRUE. These
authors say no such thing. I have seen other early authors
referred to as establishing the same point, but they are
equally false."
Here then is the testimony of four authors, two for the change and two
against it, from the old and new world. No truth seeking, unbiassed mind
can hesitate for a moment on which side to decide, after comparing them
with the inspired word.
Doctor JENKS of Boston, author of the Comprehensive Commentary,
(purporting to comprehend _all_ other commentators on the bible,) after
quoting author after author on this subject, ventures forth with _his_
unsupported opinion in these words: "Here is a Christian Sabbath
observed by the disciples and _owned by our Lord_. The visit Christ made
to his disciples was on the first day of the week, and the first day of
the week is the only day of the week or month or year ever mentioned by
numbers in all the New Testament, and that is several times spoken of as
a day _religiously_ observed." Where? Echo answers, where!
HEMAN HUMPHREY, President of Amherst College, from whose book I have
already made some quotations, after devoting some thirty-four pages to
the establishment and perpetuation of the seventh day Sabbath, comes to
his fourth question, viz: "Has the day been changed?" Singular as this
question may appear by the side of what he had already written to
establish and perpetuate the seventh day Sabbath from the seventh day of
creation down to the resurrection of the just, but as every man feels
that it is his privilege to justify and explain, when precept and
practice do not agree--so is it with President Humphrey, he can [34]now
shape the scriptures to suit every one that has followed in the wake of
Pope Gregory for 1225 years. He says, "The fourth commandment is so
expressed as to admit of a change in the day,"--thus striking vitally
every argument he had before presented. Hear him--he says the seventh
day is the Sabbath; "it was so at that time (in the beginning) and for
many ages after, but it is not said that it always _shall be_--it is the
_Sabbath_ day which we are to remember; and so at the close, it was the
_Sabbath_ which was hallowed and blessed and not the _seventh day_. The
Sabbath then, the holy rest itself, is one thing. The day on which we
are to rest is another." I ask, in the name of common sense, how we
should know how or when to keep the Sabbath, if it did not matter which
day. If the President could not see the sanctification of the seventh
day in the decalogue, what did he mean by quoting Gen. ii: 3, so often,
where it says "_God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it_."
Again, he says, "Redemption is a greater work than creation, hence the
change." Fifthly, God early consecrated the Christian Sabbath by a most
remarkable outpouring of his spirit at the day of Pentecost. And that
Jesus has left us his own example by not saying a syllable after his
resurrection about keeping the _Jewish Sabbath_. He also quotes the four
passages about Jesus and his disciples keeping the first day of the
week. Here, he says, the inference to our mind is _irresistible_--for
keeping the first day of the week instead of the _seventh_. And further
says, it might be proved by innumerable quotations from the writings of
the Apostolic Fathers, &c. All this may be very true in itself, but it
all falls to the ground for the want of one single precept from the
bible. If Redemption, because it was greater than Creation, and the
remarkable display of God's power at the Pentecost, and Christ never
saying any thing about the _Jewish Sabbath_ after his resurrection are
such _strong_ proofs that the perpetual seventh day Sabbath was changed
to the first day at that time, and must be believed because learned men
say so, what shall we do with the sixth day, on which our blessed
Saviour expired on the cross; darkness for three hours had covered the
earth, and the vail of the Temple was rent from top to bottom, and there
was such an earthquake throughout vast creation that we have only to
open our eyes and look at the rent rocks for a clear and perfect
demonstration that this whole globe was shaken from centre to
circumference, [35]and the graves of the dead were opened. Matt xxvii:
50, 53. You may answer me that Popery has honored that day by calling it
good Friday, and the next first day following Easter Sunday, &c., but
after all nothing short of bible argument will satisfy the earnest
inquirer after truth.--The President had already shown that the _Jewish_
Sabbath was abolished at Christ's death. What reason, then had he to
believe that the Saviour would speak of it afterwards.--So also the
Pentecost had been a type from the giving the law at Sinai to be kept
annually for about 1500 years, consequently it would be solemnized on
every day of the week at each revolving year, as is the case with the
4th of July: three years ago it was on the fourth day and now it comes
on the seventh day of the week. Further, see Peter standing amidst the
amazed multitude, giving the scripture reason for this miraculous
display of God's power. He does not give the most distant hint that this
was, or was to be, the day of the week for worship, or the true Sabbath,
neither do any of the Apostles, then, or afterwards, for when they kept
this day the next year, it must have been the second day of the week. We
must have better evidence than what has been adduced, to believe this
was the Sabbath, for according to the type, seven Sabbaths were to be
complete, (and there was no other way given them to come to the right
day,) from the day they kept the first or from the resurrection. Here
then is proof positive that the Sabbath in this year was the day before
the Pentecost. See Luke xxiii: 55, 56. If President H. is right, then
was there two Sabbaths to be kept in succession in one week. Where is
the precept? No where! Well, says the inquirer, I want to see the bible
proof for this "_Christian Sabbath observed by the disciples, and owned
by our Lord_." W. Jenks. Here it will be necessary for us to understand,
first how God has computed time. In Gen. i. we read, "And God said let
there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from
the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and
years." 14 v. 16 v. says "the greater light to rule the day,"--from
sunrise to sunset. Now there are many modes invented for computing time.
We say our day begins at 12 o'clock at night; seamen begin theirs twelve
hours sooner, at noon; the Jews commence their days at 6 o'clock in the
evening, between the two extremes. Are we _all_ right? No! Who shall
settle this question? God! Very well: He called the light day and the
darkness he called night, and the evening and the [36]morning were the
first day. Gen. i: 5. Then the twenty-four hour day commenced at 6
o'clock in the evening. How is that, says one? Because you cannot
regulate the day and night to have what the Saviour calls twelve hours
in a day, without establishing the time from the centre of the earth,
the equator, where, at the beginning of the sacred year, the sun rises
and sets at 6 o'clock. At _this_ time, while the sun is at the summer
solstice, the inhabitants at the north pole have no night, while at this
same time at the south it is about all night, therefore the inhabitants
of the earth have no other right time to commence their twenty-four hour
day, than beginning at 6 o'clock in the evening. God said to Moses
"_from even to even, shall you celebrate your Sabbath_." Then of course
the next day must begin where the Sabbath ended. History shows that the
Jews obeyed and commenced their days at 6 o'clock in the evening. Now
then we will try to investigate the main argument by which these
authors, and thousands of others say the Sabbath was changed. The first
is in John xx: 19, "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of
the week when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled
_for fear of the Jews_ (mark it) came Jesus and stood in their midst,
and said peace be unto you." Here we understand this to be the same day
of the resurrection. On that day he travelled with the two disciples to
Emans, sixty furlongs (7-1/2 miles,) and they constrained him to abide
with them, for it was towards evening and the _day was far spent_. Luke
xxiv: 29. After this the disciples travelled 7-1/2 miles back to
Jerusalem, and soon after they found the disciples, the Saviour, as
above stated, was in their midst. Now it cannot be disputed but what
this was the evening after the resurrection, for Jesus rose in the
morning, some ten or eleven hours after the first day had commenced.
Then the evening of the first day was passing away, and therefore the
evening brought to view in the text was the close of the first day or
the commencing of the second. McKnight's translation says, "in the
evening of that day." Purver's translation says, "the evening of that
day on the first after the Sabbath." Further, wherever the phrase first
day of the week, occurs in the New Testament, the word day is in
_italics_, showing that it is not the original, but supplied by
translators. Again, it is asserted that Jesus met with his disciples the
next first day. See 26 v: "And _after_ eight days again his disciples
were within, and Thomas with them, then came Jesus, the doors being
shut, and stood in the midst, and said peace be unto you." [37]Dr. Adam
Clark in referring to this 26v, says: "It seems likely that this was
precisely on that day se'night on which Christ had appeared to them
before; and from this we may learn that this was the weekly meeting of
the Apostles." Now it appears to me that a little child, with the simple
rules of addition and subtraction, could have refuted this man. I feel
astonished that men who profess to be ambassadors for God do not expose
such downright perversions of scripture, but it may look clear to those
who want to have it so. Not many months since, in conversation with the
Second Advent lecturer in New Bedford, I brought up this subject. He
told me I did not understand it. See here, says he, I can make it plain,
counting his fingers thus: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday,
Friday, Saturday, Sunday--does'nt that make eight days after? and
because I would not concede, he parted from me as one that was obstinate
and self-willed. Afterwards musing on the subject, I said, this must be
the way then to understand it: _Count Sunday Twice_. If any of them were
to be paid for eight days labor, they would detect the error in a moment
if their employer should attempt to put the first and last days
together, and offer them pay but for seven. Eight days _after_ the
evening of the _first_ day would stand thus: The second day of the week
would certainly be the first of the eight. Then to count eight days of
twenty-four hours _after_, we must begin at the close of the evening of
the first, and count to the close of the evening of the second day; to
where the Jews (by God's command) commenced their third day. But suppose
we calculate it by our mode of keeping time. Our Lord appears to his
disciples the first time at the close of Sunday evening. Now count eight
days _after_, (with your fingers or anything else,) and it will bring
you to Monday evening. Now I ask if this looks like Sunday, the first
day of the week?
Father Miller also gives his reasons for the change, in his lecture on
the great Sabbath: "One is Christ's resurrection and his often meeting
with his disciples _afterwards_ on that day. This, with the example of
the Apostles, is strong evidence that the proper creation Sabbath to
man, came on the first day of the week." His proof is this: "Adam must
have rested on the first day of his life, and thus you will see that to
Adam it was the first day of the week, for it would not be reasonable to
suppose that Adam began to reckon time before he was created." He
certainly could not be able to work six days before the first Sabbath.
And thus [38]with the second Adam; the first day of the week he arose
and lived. And we find by the _bible_ and by history, that the first day
of the week "_was ever afterwards observed as a day of worship_." Now I
say there is no more truth in these assertions, than there is in those I
have already quoted. There is not one passage in the bible to show that
Christ met with his disciples on the first day of the week after the day
of his resurrection, nor that the first day of the week was _ever
afterwards_ observed as a day of worship; save only in one instance, and
that shall be noticed in its place. And it seems to me if Adam could not
reckon time only from his creation then by the same rule no other man
could reckon time before his birth, and by this showing Christ could not
reckon his time until after his resurrection. It is painful to me to
expose the errors of one whom I have so long venerated, and still love
for the flood of light he has given the world in respect to the Second
Advent of our Saviour; but God's word must be vindicated if we have to
cut off a right arm, "there is nothing true but truth!" I pray God to
forgive him in joining the great multitude of Advent believers, to sound
the retreat back beyond the _tarrying_ time, just when the virgins had
gained a glorious victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil! Go
back from this to the slumbering quarters now; nothing but treachery to
our Master's cause ever dictated such a course! I never can be made to
believe that our glorious Commander designed that we should leave our
sacrifices smoking on the altar of God, in the midst of the enemies'
land, but rather that we should be pushing onward from victory to
victory, until we are established in the Capital of _His_ kingdom. Would
it have been expedient or a mark of courage in General Taylor, after he
had conquered the Mexican army on the 9th May last, to have retreated
back to the capital of the U. States, to place himself and army on the
_broad platform_ of liberty, and commence to travel the ground over
again for the purposes of pursuing and overcoming his vanquished foe?
No! Every person of common sense knows that such a course would have
overwhelmed him and all his followers with unutterable disgrace, no
matter how unrighteous the contest. Not so with this, for our cause is
one of the most glorious, tho it be the most trying that the sun ever
shown upon since God placed it in the heavens. Onward and victory, then,
are our watchwords, and no retreating back to, or beyond the cry at
_Midnight_! But to the subject. Did our Saviour ever meet with his
disciples on the first day of the week after the [39]evening of the day
of his resurrection? The xxi. ch. John says "they went a fishing, and
while there Jesus appeared unto them." In the 14th v. he says, "This is
now the third time that Jesus showed himself to the disciples after that
he was risen from the dead." Now turn to 1 Cor. xv: 4-7: Paul's
testimony is, "that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve, after
that of above five hundred brethren at once, and then of James, then of
all the Apostles." These are all that are specified, up to his going
into heaven. Now pray tell me if you can, where these men got their
information respecting the frequent meetings on the first day of the
week. The bible says no such thing. But let us pursue the subject and
look at the third text, "Upon the first day of the week let every one of
you lay by him in _store_, as God has prospered him, that there be no
gatherings when I come." Now please turn back to Dr. Dodridge's
authority, he says the argument is too obvious to need illustration,
that the money was put into common stock, and that this was the
religious observance of the first day of the week. Now whoever will read
the first six verses of this chapter, and compare them with Rom. xv:
26-33, will see that Paul's design was to collect some money for the
poor saints at Jerusalem, and their laying it by them in store until he
came that way; for it plainly implies that they were at home, for no one
could understand that you had money lying by you in store, if it was in
common stock or in other hands. Again, see Acts xviii: 4, 11. Paul
preaching every Sabbath day, at this very time, for eighteen months, to
these very same Corinthians, bids them farewell, to go up to the feast
at Jerusalem. 21 v. By reading to xxi. ch. 17 v. you have his history
until he arrives there. Now I ask, if Dr. Dodridge's clear illustration
can or will be relied on, when Luke clearly teaches that Paul's _manner_
was, and that he did always preach to them on the Sabbath, which, of
course, was the Seventh day, and not the first day of the week. Fourth
text, John says: I was in the spirit on the Lord's day. Here Dr. D.
concludes with the generality of christian writers on this subject that
this strongly infers the extraordinary regard paid to the first day of
the week, as solemnly consecrated in Christ, &c. If the scripture any
where called this the Lord's day, there might be some reason to believe
their statements, but the seventh day Sabbath is called the Lord's day.
See Exod. xx: 10.
Mr. Fisher, in speaking of the late Harrisburg convention of 1844-45,
says, "The most spirited debate that occurred [40]at the assembly was
to fix a proper name for the first day of the week, whether it should be
called _Sabbath_, the _Christian Sabbath_ or _Lord's_ day. The reason
for this dispute was, that there was no authority for calling the first
day of the week by either one of these names. To pretend that that
command was fixed and unchangeable, and yet to alter it to please the
fancy of man, is in itself ridiculous. It is hardly possible in the
nature of man, that a class of society should be receiving pay for their
services and not be influenced thereby;--in the nature of things they
will avoid such doctrines as are repugnant to them that give them
bread."