THE LATE SUNDAY CONVENTION IN MASSACHUSETTS by Wm. Penniman

Seventh-Day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Thursday, January 29, 1880

FromThe Review and Herald, Vol. 55, No. 5

THE LATE SUNDAY CONVENTION IN MASSACHUSETTS.

By Wm. Penniman

BY WM. PENNIMAN.

W. De Los Love, D. D., gave in the Evangelist of Nov. 13, 1879, a synopsis of the discourses delivered at the conventions held in Springfield and Boston, from which we extract the following:—

“Dr. Warren, of Philadelphia, had for his theme ‘Christ’s relation to the Sabbath,’ and showed that he sustained it, notwithstanding the many abuses by the Pharisees; and that he and his apostles authorized the change of day. The present writer had ‘St. Paul and the Sabbath,’ and showed that the apostle did not travel from Troas to Assos on Sunday, but on Monday; that the Christians held their meetings in the primitive era on the first, and not on the seventh, day; that Paul in Col. 2:16, by the word ‘Sabbath day,’ means the seventh day, and not Jewish feast days, but that does not show that the fourth command is abolished. Prof. Lummis, of Watertown, argued that men ought to keep either the first day or the seventh; that the Sabbath existed before Moses’ time; that the law to keep the seventh day is not now in force. Rev. Dr. Tucker, of Boston, showed the connection between the pre-Mosaic and the Sinaitic Sabbath, and that the former, at least, was intended for the whole human race. Rev. Dr. King, of Boston, having ‘The Sabbath and the Family,’ showed that the former antedated the latter, and also the church and the Bible, and that manifold are the blessings of the Sabbath to the household. Rev. Dr. Johnson, of Cambridge, had ‘Constantine and the Sabbath,’ and showed that Constantine’s edict in behalf of the Sabbath was really the demand of Christianity, such was the Christian observance of the Lord’s day.

Prof. Hovey read an essay on ‘The Sabbath in Jewish History,’ dwelling on the Jews’ great regard for the day, and the uselessness of human laws to deter them from it. Prof. Smyth spoke on the change to the Lord’s day, claiming that Christ and the apostles authorized the observance of the Lord’s day, and that though the Fathers did not connect the Lord’s day with the fourth commandment, principles in the latter may be appealed to to sustain the former. Joseph Cook’s essay on ‘The Physical, Intellectual, and Economical Advantages of the Sabbath,’ was read by Prof. Churchill. Dr. Rice, of Springfield, gave a paper on ‘The European Sabbath before and since the Reformation.’ He claimed that the Reformers were wrong in saying that the Lord’s day was of ecclesiastical, rather than of divine, authority; that Luther was wrong in saying that ‘no day is more excellent than another.’ Dr. Peck, of Brooklyn, showed that the Sabbath is a requisite to all forms of social regeneration. Rev. Dr. Bacon, of Norwich, spoke on the law of rest for all, necessary for the liberty of rest for each, and urged the necessity of enforcing the civil law. President Robinson, of Brown University, spoke of the importance of the Sabbath to our free institutions, showing that a Sabbath well kept gives right ideas concerning human rights and freedom, and leads to their due observance. Russel Sturgis, of Boston, spoke of the relation of merchants to the Sabbath, showing the value of their strict observance of it, even to not taking letters from the post-office on the Sabbath. Hon. William E. Dodge, of New York, spoke on ‘Railroads and the Sabbath.’ He said that freight trains are run more on that day than any other, and that stockholders are responsible for it. Rev. Renen Thomas, of Brookline, took the theme ‘Our Foreign Population and the Sabbath,’ showing the evils of Sabbath desecration in countries whence our foreign population comes, and arguing the danger of our having such a Sabbath here.

“Nine of the papers read at Boston were given the previous week at Springfield, preceded by an address by the president, Rev. Dr. Seelye, President of Amherst College.”

The preceding needs but little comment. It shows how the public mind is drifting on the Sabbath question. It is a strange assumption on the part of Dr. Warren that Christ and his apostles authorized a change of the day of the Sabbath, when not one word is said about it in the Bible.

According to the present method of reckoning time, the first day of the week terminated at midnight; then Acts 20:7 does not prove Sunday but Monday observance; for they broke bread Monday morning. Therefore, our opponents must either make Monday the Sabbath (if Paul’s breaking bread on that day constitutes it a Sabbath), or concede that Paul started on his long journey Sunday morning. Then away goes this pretended Sunday-pillar.

Any candid person, on reading the context of Col. 2:16, must admit that this text refers to feast days. Barnes, Edwards, and other able commentators, admit this. Mr. Love, finding himself in a muddle in trying to prove that the Sabbath is abolished, and fearing that he shall lose authority for Sunday-keeping, says, “But that does not prove that the fourth commandment is abolished.” A desperate effort to hold on to the fourth commandment, and yet abolish the very day it enjoins.

Prof. Lummis is very inconsistent in saying that we ought to keep either the first day or the seventh, and then saying that the law to keep the seventh day is not now in force. Why not in force, if, according to Mr. Love, the fourth command is not abolished?

Mr. Johnson’s view that Constantine’s paganized edict was a demand of Christianity is about as consistent as the remarks of a Jewish peddler with whom I conversed. I asked him if he kept the Sabbath (seventh day). He replied, “Yes; when I am in the city I keep it, but when in the country I keep Sunday.”

It is truly wonderful that the Reformers were so ignorant of the ecclesiastical origin of the so-called Lord’s day. The truth is, they were more honest than some of the theologians of this time.

It will be seen that Dr. Bacon and others urge the necessity of enforcing the civil law. These men make no allusion to the fact that there is a people urging the true Sabbath reform; yet their sentiments plainly show that they are not ignorant of this move.