day is evidently attributed wholly to ignorance, since they were in
possession of only a _part_ of the Bible, and their remedy was to be
found in furnishing them with copies of the complete work; but our
opponents, on the contrary, are in possession, and have been from
childhood, of the Scriptures in full. Nor can the ministry, who are
leading the movement in question, plead ignorance of the line of
argument by which the seventh-day Sabbath is supported, since, for at
least two hundred years, it has been iterated and reiterated, until
their familiarity with it and their complete rejection of it is proved,
not only by what they say, but also by what they do. Instance the fining
and imprisonment, at sundry times, even in this country, of men who,
having conscientiously observed the seventh day, have attempted to enjoy
the privilege which God has given them, both by precept and example, of
working on the first day of the week.
3. In the case cited, the infidel minority is supposed to be on the
point of mounting the throne of power, and of sweeping away every
vestige of the Sabbath institution; whereas, in our case, as seen above,
the danger which threatens the people of God in these last days, is not
to be apprehended alone from those who scoff at God and the Bible, but
from those who, according to Paul, having “a form of godliness,” shall
“deny the power thereof.” In other words, who, while accepting the
Scriptures, if you please, shall disregard their explicit statements, as
in the case of the commandments, substituting in the place of the
seventh day, which God has styled his Sabbath, the first, which he has
never claimed as his own, nor enjoined on any man.
With this statement of our views, further remark is uncalled for. We
think that even our reviewer will now perceive that, before he could
bring us to accept as logical the proposition numbered three, above, it
would be necessary for him to overturn the very foundations of the
system of truth which we now hold. This, however, we fancy is a task
which our opponent judging from the line of argument which he has thus
far pursued, would not undertake with much prospect of success, until he
has become more thoroughly conversant with the scope and nature of the
work in which we are engaged.
Fourthly. It is suggested that we are in danger of being classed with
infidels and atheists.
So far as this peril is concerned, we simply remark that it is generally
found to be best in the long run to do right for the sake of right,
regardless of what men may say concerning you, leaving the result with
God. The individual who would desert sound principles because some
wicked man or set of men might, for the time being, be confounded with
him, is destitute of true morality. Besides, in the matter in question,
who is it from whom Seventh-day Adventists need apprehend that such an
erroneous impression will receive publicity? We trust not from our
friend, because, in the article in question, he frankly acknowledges
their devotion to the Bible in its strict construction.
Is it, then, from the infidels themselves? Well, if it should be, we
think we can undeceive them. I will tell you what we will do. Whenever
they attempt to “fawn upon us overmuch,” we will preach to them the _law
of God, Sabbath and all_, and my word for it, they will themselves
shortly draw a line of demarkation between them and us, so broad and
distinct that all who are not willfully blind will have no difficulty in
discerning it; for it is a remarkable fact that it is as true now as it
formerly was, that the “carnal mind is not subject to the law of God,
neither indeed can be.” The infidel of the present day hates that law
with a hatred, the intensity of which is only equalled by that of the
large body of first-day observers—we are happy to say not of the
_Statesman_ school—who have abolished the ten commandments in order to
dispose of one of them, and whose special delight seems to consist in
berating the law which David pronounced “perfect,” and Paul declared to
be “holy, just, and good.”
Finally, we submit that when it can be shown, 1. That God would be
better pleased with a nation having a Constitution which contained his
printed name, while wielding the whole power of that Constitution
against the only Sabbath which he has ever commanded, than he would be
with one which—while his name would fail to appear in its fundamental
law—was nevertheless administered in the interests of civil and
religious liberty; and 2. That the best method of converting atheists is
one by which they would be exasperated by fines and imprisonments
inflicted in the name of the God of the Bible for the desecration of a
day which they know that it nowhere commands; and 3. That it would be
reasonable to expect that men should, by their votes, elevate to place
and authority those who are destined to put manacles upon their wrists,
and padlocks upon their tongues; then, and not till then, can
Seventh-day Adventists be expected to support an amendment which, though
in many respects desirable, will inevitably be employed against God, his
people, and his law.
STATESMAN’S REPLY.
ARTICLE TWO.
THE SEVENTH DAY NOT OBSERVED BY THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
Having shown in our last article that seventh-day Sabbatarians, to be
consistent with themselves in appealing to the Bible as of supreme
authority, should be among the earnest friends of the Religious
Amendment, we come now to consider their argument against the first-day
Sabbath.
On many points dwelt upon in the articles we have published, there is no
difference of view. We believe that the Sabbath was instituted, not in
the wilderness, for Israel; but in Eden, for mankind. We maintain, also,
that the law of the Sabbath is an essential part of the great moral code
of the ten commandments, spoken by God’s voice amid the awful
manifestations of Sinai, and written by the finger of God on tables of
stone as a law of perpetual obligation for the whole human family.
These, and other points admitted on both sides, need not occupy time and
space in this discussion. We are concerned here, and now, simply with
the transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the
week. Our readers have had before them an argument, of considerable
length, to show that God never authorized a change of day. We proceed to
prove that the transfer was made by divine authority and approval.
In doing this, we shall first have to inquire into the facts of history.
We shall have to ask, Was the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath,
acknowledged as binding up to the resurrection of Christ, continued by
the apostles and the early church after that event? Was any other day
substituted by them in its place? For an answer to these questions, we
must appeal to _facts_. We make our appeal to the records of the New
Testament. A careful and thorough examination of these authoritative
records shows conclusively that _the seventh day was not observed as the
Sabbath after the resurrection of Christ by the apostles and the early
church_.
It is admitted on all hands that Christ himself, before his death, and
his disciples, up to the time of his resurrection, kept the seventh day
holy. It is also admitted on both sides that after the resurrection the
apostles and other followers of Christ kept holy one day in seven. While
they abounded daily in the work of the Lord, the seventh-day
Sabbatarians will concede with us that there was still one day marked
out from the rest of the week as sacred time. What day was thus
distinguished? Was it the seventh, otherwise known as the Sabbath? Let
us see.
The word Sabbath occurs in the New Testament, after the close of the
gospel history, twelve times. In two of these instances, viz., Acts
20:7, and 1 Cor. 16:2, the word means “week,” and not the seventh day,
as also in a number of instances in the gospels. In Acts 1:12, the word
is used to indicate a certain distance. The term is employed in two
other places, viz., Acts 13:27, and 15:21, in incidental reference to
the service of the Jewish synagogues. In Colossians 2:16, Paul mentions
the seventh-day Sabbath only to deny the obligation of its observance.
This important passage will be considered farther on. There remain,
then, six instances, two of them in regard to one and the same day and
meeting, in which the word is found in accounts of gatherings for
religious purposes on that day, the seventh of the week. These meetings
were as follows: 1. At Antioch, in Pisidia, Acts 13:14; 2. At the same
place, the next seventh day, Acts 13:42, 44; 3. At Philippi, Acts 16:13;
4. At Thessalonica, Acts 17:2; and 5. At Corinth, Acts 18:4. At
Thessalonica, there were three Sabbaths, and at Corinth, every Sabbath,
it may be inferred, for several weeks, thus marked by religious
meetings. We are informed that Paul went into the synagogue at
Thessalonica on the Sabbath, or seventh day, “as his manner was.” And,
accordingly, particularly during his first and second, or his more
properly termed, missionary tours, as distinguished from his journeys in
revisiting churches already organized, we may unhesitatingly infer that
there were other similar meetings on the seventh day, as at Salamis,
Acts 13:15; at Iconium, Acts 14:1; and at Ephesus, Acts 18:19, and 19:8.
And here we note the fact that _in not a single one of these instances
was the meeting a gathering of Christians_. In no case was it the
assembly of the members of a Christian church for worship. In every
case, these meetings on the seventh day were in Jewish places of
worship, all in synagogues regularly occupied by Jewish assemblies,
except that at Philippi, which was at a _proseucha_, a Jewish place of
prayer out of the city by the river’s side. In every instance, it was a
gathering of Jews and Jewish proselytes, with the addition of a greater
or lesser number of Gentiles, the sight of a crowd of whom at Antioch,
the second day of meeting in their synagogue, excited the jealousy and
rage of the Jews. And in these gatherings, in every case, Paul labored
_as a missionary_, glad to avail himself of every opportunity to
proclaim the saving truths of the gospel of Christ.
Can any intelligent and candid reader of the inspired records fail to
understand the narrative of Paul’s missionary work? He was sent forth
“to turn sinners from darkness to light.” As he himself states at
Antioch, addressing the Jews: “It was necessary that the word of God
should first have been spoken to you.” His “heart’s desire and prayer to
God for Israel was that they might be saved.” Accordingly, wherever he
went, he was found going to them on the seventh day in _their_ places of
worship, not in Christian houses of prayer; meeting with them in _their_
assemblies, not in assemblies of professed followers of Christ. Just as
a Christian missionary, in modern times, going to a heathen land, would
avail himself, if possible, of the customary assemblies of the
residents, whatever day they might keep holy, so Paul and his
fellow-missionaries availed themselves of the seventh-day assemblies of
the Jews, that from among them, as well as from among the Gentiles, they
might gather out an _ecclesia_—a body of followers of the Lord Jesus, in
whom Jew and Gentile should be one.
The question, therefore, still remains to be answered: Which day of the
week did the church at Jerusalem, existing at the time of Christ’s
ascension, which day did the apostles in their relations with this
church, which day did the churches, organized and established by the
apostles, and under their example and divine authority, observe as a
holy day, a Sabbath to the Lord? In all the references to the seventh
day, or Jewish Sabbath, there is not, as we have seen, a particle of
evidence that that day was thus observed.
On the other hand, there is positive testimony that the very
congregations or churches of Christians, organized at the places where
Paul performed missionary labor on the seventh day, ignored that day,
and in its stead observed another day of the week as holy time. For
example, at Corinth, “as his manner was,” Paul went first to the Jews
and preached to them in their synagogue, the word of God, _reasoning
with them_, and persuading them and the Greeks to accept of Christ.
Then, when the Jews opposed themselves and blasphemed, he shook his
raiment, and said unto them, “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am
clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.” So he left the
synagogue and the Jews, not the city, and entering into the house of
Justus, received Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, with all his
house, and many of the Corinthians, as converts into the Christian
church. Here we have the church of Corinth. Which day of the week did it
observe as the Sabbath of the Lord? the seventh? Though Paul “continued
there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them,” there
is not a word more about seventh-day services. This, it is true, would
be merely negative, if it were all. But this is not all. In Paul’s
direction to this same church, a few years later, he makes clear and
certain, what before was probable, that their stated day for religious
services was not the seventh, but the first, day of the week. 1 Cor.
16:2. The plain and most explicit teaching of this passage will be fully
considered hereafter.
Again, when Paul entered into the synagogue at Ephesus, and reasoned
with the Jews (Acts 18:19), and, because he could not tarry long at this
time, soon returned again, and met the objections of disputatious Jews
for the space of three months (Acts 19:8), his labors as a missionary
are said to have been in the synagogue, no doubt on the Sabbath of the
Jews, or the seventh day. But once more separating the Christian
converts from the unbelieving and blaspheming Jews, and forming the
Christian church of Ephesus, he continued there in incessant labors for
two years. And now we hear no more of seventh-day assemblies. This,
again, may be said to be merely negative, as we hear of no special honor
put upon any day. But we have not done with this. Passing the last years
of his life in this city of Ephesus, the apostle John writes of “the
Lord’s day,” known and observed by the Christians among whom he dwelt.
That this holy day of the early church, called the Lord’s day, was not
the seventh, but the first, is shown by the most satisfactory historical
testimony, which will be adduced in full in its proper connection.
Once more. When Paul came to Troas to preach Christ’s gospel, and a door
was opened to him of the Lord (2 Cor. 2:12), whether it was on his first
very brief visit (Acts 16:8), or more probably in going over “those
parts,” on his way from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20:2), he no doubt,
“as his manner was,” went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.
A congregation of Christian disciples was formed, and the apostle
departed for Greece. After an absence of some months, Paul returns to
Troas, and with his companions remains there seven days, departing again
on the second day of the week. Whether he departed on the first or
second, however, the fact remains that, during his abode of seven days
at Troas, there was one seventh day. Do we hear of any religious meeting
on that day? Did the disciples then assemble for divine service? Let us
hear the record: “We abode seven days. 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.” The seventh day is passed by.
The day for the assembling of the Christian disciples is not the Sabbath
of the Jews. Another day has taken its place. This most explicit
instance at Troas of ignoring the seventh day, and honoring another in
its place, as the stated day for the religious services of Christians,
abundantly confirms, if confirmation were needed, the conclusions
already reached in the instances at Corinth and Ephesus.
Thus the _facts_ of the records of inspired history conclusively prove
that the seventh day was not observed by the apostles and early
Christians as their sacred day of divine worship, or the Sabbath of the
Lord. We might add here that the testimony of all the earliest Christian
writers, who received from the apostles and the companions of the
apostles the institutions of the Christian church, is full and explicit
to the same effect. But we shall hear their evidence for the first day,
and thus also against the seventh, in good time.
It will now be in place to consider how apostolic precept corresponds
with apostolic example, and that of the churches, in regard to the
seventh day. Colossians 2:16, a most important passage, making
particular mention of the seventh-day Sabbath, yet singularly overlooked
by seventh-day Sabbatarians, now claims our attention for a moment.
Judaizing teachers, so busy everywhere throughout the early church, had
been at work among the Christian disciples at Colosse. They had been
insisting upon the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the
Lord. One would think that some of these men had come down to our time
and learned to use very good English. We refer these representatives of
an ancient, but not honorably mentioned, class for instruction to the
apostle’s words to the Colossians: “Let no man judge you in meat or in
drink, or in respect of a holy day [literally, _of a feast_], or of the
new moon, or of the Sabbath days;” _i. e._, of yearly, monthly, or
weekly Jewish celebrations. We do not wait to examine the parallel
passages in Gal. 4:10, and Rom. 14:5, where the obligation of Jewish
observances, including the seventh-day Sabbath, is denied, and where, in
the latter case, to make the argument even stronger, the toleration of
these observances as a weakness is considerately advised. Surely, it is
no wonder that seventh-day Sabbatarians seem not to be aware of the
existence of these portions of the divine word! It cannot be pleasant to
be made to feel that, like the Judaizers of old, they bring themselves
under the sharp rebuke of the inspired apostle by judging Christians in
respect of the seventh-day Sabbath.
We will now sum up this part of the discussion: Admitting that the
Sabbath was instituted in Eden for mankind; that it is of perpetual
obligation; that it was observed by Christ himself before his death, and
by his disciples until his resurrection, as by the Jews of old, on the
seventh day of the week; we have gone on to see that the apostles and
the early church, still having one stated day each week as a holy day,
did _not_ continue the observance of the seventh day. We have seen that
the seventh day, after the resurrection, is mentioned only in connection
with assemblies, in Jewish places of worship, of Jews, Jewish
proselytes, and, in some instances, a larger or smaller addition of
Gentiles, among all of whom the apostle labored as a missionary for the
conversion of souls, and the formation of Christian congregations, or
churches. We have found that no instance can be adduced of the apostles
in their relations to Christian churches, nor of assemblies of Christian
disciples, meeting to observe the seventh day as the Sabbath of the
Lord. On the other hand, we have found them ignoring the seventh day and
honoring another, in perfect harmony with the apostle Paul’s rebuke of
Judaizing teachers who insisted on having Christian disciples observe
the seventh day, and his condescending toleration of their weakness.
A REJOINDER.
“THE SEVENTH DAY NOT OBSERVED BY THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH.”
It is, we confess, with some degree of embarrassment, that we attempt
the answering of the second article from the pen of the editor of the
_Statesman_, in reply to the argument which we presented in the columns
of that paper. Our difficulty does not arise from any confusion into
which we have been thrown by the superior logic of our opponent; it
consists, rather, in knowing just where and how to commence the work.
So far as statements are concerned, they are numerous and repeated again
and again, in substance. But we have no disposition, nor have we the
space, to take them up singly, in their numerical and repetitious order,
for consideration. And, besides, the fallacy of nearly every one of them
has been demonstrated in what we have already written. This being the
case, we have determined to take the general scope of the criticism, and
thus, as briefly as may be, make suggestions which, if carried out, will
answer its assumptions, as well as its attempted efforts at deduction.
We remark, then, in the outset, that we are happy to meet the writer
upon the common ground of a Sabbath having originated in Eden, and
inserted in a law of perpetual obligation on both Jews and Gentiles.
Let the reader keep these mutual concessions continually before his
eyes. They are of great significance in this debate. 1. They prove that
the Sabbath is not Jewish in its origin, but was given to Adam, as their
representative head, for the benefit of the whole race, more than two
thousand years before there was a Jew in existence. 2. They also prove
that the Sabbath institution was rendered obligatory upon all men by a
divine precept, with the phraseology of which we are all acquainted. 3.
That that precept is explicit in its declaration that the last and not
the first day of the week was the Sabbath. 4. That before any other day
can be substituted in the place of the one designated, the Power which
originated it must authorize the change.
So much for the important results which necessarily flow from the
principles which we hold in common, if indeed we are right in supposing
that the writer _really_ means what he _actually_ says; namely, that he
holds to the perpetuity of the fourth commandment of the decalogue. We
shall see, hereafter, whether or not his statements are to be taken for
all which they express.
We advance, now, in our examination of the criticism before us.
What direction, then, does the effort take in the main? It will be
granted that the plan of defense adopted is that of attempting to prove
that the early church did violate the seventh, and did honor the first,
day of the week. But with what success has the effort been attended? We
know that it is stated several times that the apostles disregarded what
the author is pleased to call the _Jewish_ Sabbath—after he had conceded
the principle that that of the commandment was _Edenic_ in its
origin—but did he make out his case? So far from it, in every instance
where he has found them connected in the record with the Sabbath day, it
has ever been in the performance of duties _religious in their nature_.
For should we concede that he is right in supposing that Paul went into
the synagogues to teach on the Sabbath day, simply because he would find
hearers there, this, assuredly, would not prove that Paul was a
Sabbath-breaker.
Let me take the gentleman’s favorite illustration of a missionary in a
foreign land, at the present time. Now suppose that his lot were cast in
a country where the first day of the week, or the day of the sun, was
regarded as holy by the natives, and he should be found on that day
regularly teaching them in their places of assembly, would _that_ decide
the question that he was necessarily a violator of the first-day
Sabbath? You answer immediately in the negative. So, too, in the case of
Paul. The fact that it can be shown that it was his custom to teach in
the synagogues on the seventh day of the week, if it has no power to
prove that he was a conscientious _observer_ of that day, cannot at
least be cited as furnishing evidence that he _disregarded_ it. We ask,
then, again, Has a scintilla of positive testimony been given that Paul
ever broke a single Sabbath of the Lord, as contained in the divine
precept? Once more it must be conceded that there has not. But is it not
a little singular that in a history of thirty years, where the Sabbath
is so often mentioned, not one single action has ever been discovered in
the least incompatible with Paul’s veneration of the seventh day? We let
the reader answer.