Earlier text: EXAMINATION OF T. M. PREBLE’S FIRST-DAY SABBATHBrief Replies to an Essay against the Seventh-Day Sabbath.
By A. C. Bourdeau
Sunday evening, Sept. 3, 1871, Eld. Estes, of Jericho, Vt., read a lengthy essay in opposition to the seventh-day Sabbath, in the Baptist meeting-house at West Bolton, which was reviewed the next evening by my brother. A recent report in the Review and Herald shows the result of this effort against us, and evinces that man “can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.” In the following I present Eld. E.’s main positions with brief replies, as I noted them down when he read his discourse: Eld. E. Text: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” Rev. 1:10. In harmony with this text, “we,” Baptists, “believe that the first day is the Lord’s day. . . . the Christian Sabbath.” We accord with all Christian denominations, even the Catholics, and with all the ancients. Dissenters are no more than the spots in the sun. Reply. The text, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day,” taken in connection with other texts, represents that John was in the Spirit on the seventh-day Sabbath. See Ex. 20:10; Isa. 58:13; Mark 2:28. The first day is never called the Sabbath, or the Lord’s day, in the Bible. Being in the majority does not prove one to be right. If so, Christ, the apostles, the martyrs under papal persecutions, the reformers, etc., were all wrong. See Luke 12:32; 13:23, 24; Matt. 7:13, 14. The elder cannot claim that he is in the majority on the subject of baptism. Is he therefore wrong? Eld. E. There are no doctrines against which objections cannot be raised. We should hold to those doctrines that are the freest from objections. Some claim that the first-day Sabbath is wholly without Bible authority. Singular! Have given the subject study and reflection. Conclude that the first day should be kept, and not the Jewish Sabbath. Reply. One unanswerable objection against first-day observance is that it is not a Bible doctrine. But no real objection can be raised against the seventh-day or Bible Sabbath. The epithet, “Jewish Sabbath,” is never in the Bible applied to the Lord’s Sabbath, or rest day, which “was made for man.” Let us see what he will bring to warrant his conclusion. Eld. E. If the papacy which commenced about A. D. 600, changed the Sabbath, then the first day was not kept before that time. But if Constantine made the change, how did the Catholic church make the change? Yet early Christian writers state that Sunday was kept in the first centuries, before Constantine existed. Reply. The Roman Catholic religion, which is an amalgamation of heathenism and Christianity, commenced in embryo at a very early period of the Christian era. As the Gentiles embraced Christianity they had a tendency to retain many of their heathen traditions. The mystery of iniquity, which was to culminate in the man of sin, or papacy, who received civil power in A. D. 538 (See Rev. 13:1, 2; Dan. 7:8, 24–26), commenced to work in Paul’s time, and errors were taught and received even while the apostles were on the stage of action. 2 Thess. 2:3–7; Acts 20:28–32; 2 Tim. 4:1–4, etc. Constantine’s edict in 321, relative to “the venerable day of the sun,” only aided to introduce a heathen festival into that growing element of apostasy. Sunday was kept among heathen nations even before Christ. Webster’s first definition of Sunday is, “so called because this day was anciently dedicated to the sun, or to its worship.” The North British Review calls it, “The wild solar holiday of all pagan times.” Vol. 24, p. 409. Eld. E. The Bible has been in the world a long time. When the Puritans came to this country, they had the Bible, and they kept the Christian Sabbath; and the early Christians had the Bible before the papacy and Constantine existed, and they kept Sunday. The same Fathers that we quote to show that the Scriptures are authentic, we also quote to show that the first day was kept in the days of the apostles. Your attention is called to the testimonies of Eusebius, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Ignatius, and Barnabas. Having the testimonies of these writers we are compelled to conclude that the first day should be kept as being in harmony with apostolic example. Reply. Would Eld. E. consent to apply this kind of argument to all the views that the majority of Christians have entertained for a long time while they had the Bible, and adopt, for instance, sprinkling for baptism? He would prefer to know what the Bible teaches on the subject. The Bible contains internal evidence of its authenticity and divine origin, such as is drawn from the nature of its morals, and the fulfillment of its prophecies, etc. If the Fathers vindicate the authenticity of the Bible, they only endorse a truth already established. But if the Fathers make assertions respecting the faith and practice of the primitive church, which are contrary to the teachings of God’s word, then may their testimony be safely pronounced spurious. These writers existed in the second and fourth centuries, and they are not represented as producing any evidence from the Scripture to show that the first-day is the Lord’s day, and should be kept instead of the ancient Sabbath. Many of the doctrines of the papacy can be proved by their teachings. Those who quote the Fathers to establish a doctrine that is not found in the Bible, really say that the Bible is not a sufficient rule of faith. See 2 Tim. 3:15–17. Eld. E. “Lord’s day,” in our text cannot mean the seventh-day. It must mean the first-day. In the Greek the same word which limits “supper” in the text, “This is not to eat the Lord’s supper,” as being the supper of our Lord, limits “day” in our text, as being the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. This can be no other day than the first day of the week which the early writers called the Lord’s day. It is the day on which the disciples met to break bread (Acts 20:7); and Acts 2:46 shows that it was their custom thus to do; the day on which measures were taken, not as a local thing, but widespread, to relieve the want of the saints at Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1–3); the day on which the Holy Ghost was poured upon the disciples while they were all with one accord in one place (Acts 2); the day on which our Saviour rose from the dead, appeared unto the Marys, and met with his disciples as they were assembled together. Thus the Lord set the seal of honor upon the first day. And after his resurrection he met with them on this day only. Reply. The elder tries to connect the terms, “Lord’s supper” and “Lord’s day” together as an argument to prove that our Lord has one day as his own; but as his text and even the entire Scripture makes no mention of the first day as being the Lord’s day, he is compelled to call up the Fathers again to prove that Sunday is called the Lord’s day. We readily admit that Rev. 1:10 proves that in this dispensation the Lord has one day which he claims as his own; and preferring to go to the fountain head to get pure water, we find written in the sacred word, “The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Mark 2:28. “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Ex. 20:10. Thus the Lord claims the seventh-day Sabbath as his “holy day, . . . the holy of the Lord, honorable.” Isa. 58:13. Now while the seventh-day Sabbath is mentioned fifty-eight times in the New Testament, there are just eight texts which mention the first day of the week. We will briefly examine these texts in the order that Eld. E. has referred to them. Acts 20:7–13 shows that Paul once preached on the evening of the first day, which according to the Bible manner of reckoning time, was the same as our Saturday night, while he continued his meeting till break of day. Luke and others were sailing around a point of land from Troas to Assos, and Sunday morning Paul went on foot to join his brethren at Assos, and continued his long journey to Jerusalem, nine hundred miles distant. We should not keep that day because they then met to break bread, any more than we should keep every day because they were “daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house,” etc. See Acts 2:46. 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, shows that the Corinthians were commanded to lay by a “collection for the saints” on the first day, as139 other churches had been instructed to do. This passage proves exactly the opposite of public meetings on that day, for every one was to attend to this business “by himself,” or “at home.” Greek. Paul marks this day as a business day. Mark 16:9; Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; and John 20:1 show that Christ rose from the dead on that day. But they do not state that it was therefore the Sabbath. Luke 24:1 shows that the women brought spices to the grave of the Saviour on that day, and that they did this after they had “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment.” Chap. 23:56. John 20:19 shows that Christ appeared to his disciples on that day, when the doors were shut for fear of the Jews. They were not there to commemorate Christ’s resurrection, or to keep the Sabbath. They were eating a common meal of victuals, and they did not believe that Christ was risen from the dead. Mark 16:9–14. In John 20:26, “And after eight days again” (which must mean more than one week), “his disciples were within,” etc., Christ says nothing about the Sabbath, or the change of the Sabbath. Acts 2:1, 2, etc., simply brings to view the fact that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the disciples on the day of Pentecost, and that a great work was done for the people. The first day is passed in silence in this passage. And would God change the Sabbath without mentioning the first day? As to Christ’s meeting with his disciples after his resurrection on the first day only, I know not where the elder finds the fact, unless it be in the Scripture where it is stated that he was “seen of them forty days” (Acts 1:3), or in the one that reveals the fact that he appeared to his disciples on a fishing day. John 21:1–4. Now that we have examined all the texts which speak of the “first day of the week,” we cannot fail to see the truthfulness of the following facts: 1. It is not once revealed that God ever changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day; and “Surely the Lord God doeth nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” Amos 3:7, 2. 2. There is no divine command for first-day observance; and we read, “Where no law is there is no transgression.” Rom. 4:15; 1 John 3:4. 3. And God never blessed and sanctified the first day; never called it the Sabbath, or the Christian Sabbath, or by any other name that would represent it as being holy; and never told us in his word that that day was kept as the Sabbath in New Testament times, either by our Saviour, or by his apostles, or by any of the primitive church. What need we more to settle the question? Eld. E. Christ worked on the seventh day. He marked the Jewish Sabbath with no mark of favor or honor. It is claimed that it was his custom to go into the synagogue on the Sabbath day. He also was circumcised, paid tribute, . . . and kept Jewish notions, which were all to pass away. Should we do these things? The vail is taken away. Instead of the form, we have the Spirit; . . . instead of the old Jewish Sabbath to commemorate the first creation and the deliverance from Egypt, we have the Christian Sabbath to commemorate the new creation. Paul preached in the synagogues on the old Sabbath to have better access to the Jews. And he also circumcised Timothy, purified himself, etc. Should we therefore be circumcised? Reply. Christ magnified the law, of which the Sabbath commandment is a part, and made “it honorable.” Isa. 42:21. And he said, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Matt. 5:18. While heaven and earth last, and as long as any of the prophecies are in process of fulfillment, which cover the entire period of the new earth state (see Isa. 66:22, 23), no part of God’s law of ten commandments shall in the least degree be abrogated, or changed. Christ kept his Father’s commandments, kept the Sabbath, said, It is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days, that the Sabbath was made for man, etc. John 15:10; Mark 1:21; Matt. 12:12; Mark 2:27, 28. Does the Spirit do away with the form? Is there more form in keeping Saturday than in keeping Sunday? God made the worlds by his Son. Heb. 1:2; John 1:3; Col. 1:16; etc. And when we keep the Sabbath to commemorate the creation, we honor the Father and the Son. The Scripture is totally silent in regard to commemorating a new creation by keeping Sunday. We have seen that the apostles never kept Sunday for the Sabbath. But we see on the other hand that the disciples rested on the Sabbath while Christ was in the grave (Luke 23:56); and that Christ speaks of the Sabbath as existing long after the resurrection. Matt. 24:20. And as to Paul’s practice on this point, we clearly see that, 1. It was Paul’s manner to make the Sabbath a preaching day. Acts 17:2. 2. He spoke to the Gentile believers who also kept the Sabbath, on that day. Acts 13:42, 44. 3. He preached by a river side, where there was no synagogue, on that day. Acts 16:13. 4. And he reasoned in the synagogue, persuading the Jews and the Greeks, at Corinth, every Sabbath, and continued there a year and six months (seventy-eight Sabbaths), teaching the word of God. Acts 18:4, 11. Paul delighted in the law of God after the inward man. Rom. 7:22. See Rom. 3:31; 7:12, 14. And in 1 Cor. 7:19, Paul says, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.” Eld. E. The Bible makes no distinction between moral and ceremonial laws. A better division would be, the moral, the ceremonial, and the civil laws. But the law of Moses was abrogated as a whole. The seventh-day Sabbath was a positive institution—given to the Jews at Sinai, as a new thing, to commemorate their deliverance from Egyptian bondage. Deut. 5:14, 15. In Ex. 20:8–10, it is not stated which day to reckon from to keep the Sabbath. Col. 2:14, 16 shows that Christ “took it out of the way,” etc. This text does not speak of Sabbath years, but of “Sabbath days.” The Jews were prohibited from building fires on their Sabbath. The law cannot be taken apart. If you keep it you must swallow up the whole, gnat and camel. John calls the first day the Lord’s day, and Sunday is a good name for the Christian Sabbath. Reply. The idea that there are three laws does not disprove the fact that there are two laws—the moral and the ceremonial. If we take the one law position, and hold that that law was abolished as a whole, we place nearly a score of unanswerable objections against the Bible into the hands of infidels, showing that the Scriptures contradict themselves. For on the one hand we read of a law which was magnified, made honorable, established, and is holy, just, good, spiritual, royal, etc. Isa. 42:21; Rom. 3:31; 7:12, 14; James 2:8–12; etc. And on the other hand we read of a law which was carnal, shadowy, burdensome; and was abolished, broken down, taken out of the way, nailed to the cross, changed, disannulled, etc. Heb. 7:16; 10:1; Acts 15:10; Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14; Heb. 7:12, 18, etc. We should never confound these essentially different codes. One is God’s royal law, which is a rule of action (Eccl. 12:13), and the other is the law of shadows which pointed forward to the death of Christ. The Sabbath of the fourth commandment is not ceremonial, or a shadow pointing forward to redemption. On the contrary, it stands as a memorial pointing backward to creation. It was not made for the Jews only. Said Christ, “The Sabbath was made for man,” for the entire race of mankind. In Ex. 20:11, which the Elder omitted, it is shown that the fourth commandment enjoins the observance of the seventh day that God rested upon, and that he blessed and sanctified at the close of the creation week. Gen. 2:2, 3. Time was reckoned by weeks (Gen. 29:27, 28; 8:10, 12; etc.), and the Sabbath was kept before the promulgation of the law at Mount Sinai. Ex. 16. Thus it is evident that the Jews did not receive the Sabbath at Sinai as a new thing; but as an old institution which was ordained before the fall; and they had no difficulty with regard to knowing the time to commence the reckoning of the week. In Deut. 5:15, it is seen that as Moses repeated the decalogue to the Hebrews, he insisted that they should have their servants rest on the Sabbath as well as they, remembering that they themselves were servants in Egypt, and that God delivered them from their servitude, and that they should therefore keep the Sabbath strictly. This duty related to their servants as well as to themselves, their sons and daughters, etc. Other duties were enjoined upon them for the same reason. See Deut. 15:12–15; 24:17, 18. In all these cases, the Lord appeals to the gratitude of his people, as if he should say, I have been good to you, now obey me, and do good to others. In Col. 2:14–17, a kind of sabbaths is brought to view which were against us, and were connected with meat and drink, etc. In the expression “sabbath days” the word “days” is supplied. The original reads, “sabbaths,” which covers all the annual sabbaths, and the septennial sabbaths, which were shadows pointing forward to Christ, and were nailed to the cross. In Lev. 23, we see that the annual sabbaths were the feasts of the Jews which they observed, “besides the Sabbaths of the Lord.” The prohibition to not kindle fires on the Sabbath was binding upon the children of Israel only while they were in the wilderness where it was warm. It was not binding upon them in Palestine, where it was colder. Now from what we have seen in our examination of this subject, are we not sustained in suggesting that the Elder is mistaken in the application that he has made of his figure? If he adopts Sunday keeping without any Bible authority for so doing, only on the authority of the Fathers, why may he not adopt sprinkling for baptism, invocation of the saints, purgatory, etc., on the same authority, and endorse the Fathers on all these subjects? Wisdom and consistency would lead us to endorse the Bible view of the subject, and to adopt the conclusion: “Fear God and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” Eccl. 12:13, 14. SINCE our late article on Salt Lake, events have advanced. Judge McKean’s court has begun another session, and his former measures (narrated by us) have prepared the way for a new and momentous development. The displacement of the Mormon Territorial Marshal and Attorney-General, by the United States Marshal and Attorney-General for the Territory, had made it possible to obtain impartial juries. In “arraying” the jury of the present session, fidelity to the laws of the United States has been justly demanded as a qualification. All Mormons, then, who defy the law against polygamy have been set aside; the result is an entirely Gentile jury. Even Young’s editor of the Mormon newspaper (Deseret News) has been denied a seat among the jurors. The court has thus thrown a stunning thunderbolt into Mormondom, and the excitement in the Territory is said to be intense. The Mormons have at last learned that “Uncle Sam” is really on the soil, with a firm foot—that public justice, with the law in hand, sits enthroned in the court. It is reported that the jury have indicted Young and fourteen of his wives. If this is true, events will culminate quickly, and Brigham and his fellow-libertines will have to fight, flee, or succumb by putting away their concubines. There can be little fear of the first contingency. It would be too desperate. The United States troops are at Fort Douglas, in sight of the city. Their guns have thrown balls sheer over it, to a safe distance beyond. The Mormons know, therefore, that balls can be sent through it. Moreover, there is now ready access to the troops at stations along the great railroad. And then there is a formidable Gentile population on the spot, who have long been shocked by the vices of the “Saints,” and wish for a thorough purgation of the city. Still farther, there is a mighty army of miners in all the mountains that look down upon the valley. Scientific gentlemen, who are connected with the mining enterprises, told us that about twenty thousand of these stalwart men are now in the Territory, and thousands of them within easy reach of the city. These hardy men curse terribly the Mormon system. They have introduced, as we lately said, “free discussion” in the streets, and have utterly “dumfounded” the Mormon spies who, down to within a year or two, made it dangerous to speak above a whisper against the Church. They come down from the mountains, in hosts, to spend Saturday and Sunday in the city, and are free as their mountain winds in discussing the imposture and iniquities of Brigham Young and his fellow-leaders. Bad as these miners may be in some respects, they have had mothers, and many of them have wives and daughters at home, and they denounce the “mystery of iniquity” which everywhere stares them in the face, in the social system here. And well they may. They see enriched leaders, sanctimonious in aspect, with harems of from five to twenty-five wives so-called—a system of religious debauchery by which hundreds of legitimate wives and their children are depressed and degraded beyond endurance—women whose saddened faces show that they are consciously wrecked for life—a system of commingled depravity such as might well appall a Turk—of bigamy, adultery, and incest, sustained by so-called “Saints,” some of whom have two or more “sisters” for wives—some even mothers and their daughters. We speak of what we know. We have learned our facts (many of which we cannot record) from Mormons themselves. We have conversed, in their homes, with “first wives” who refuse to live with their polygamous husbands, and their sad stories have wrung our very heart and extorted our tears. Such facts indeed are universally known here, and we may well excuse the denunciatory wrath of the sturdy miners as they now defiantly stride these streets on Saturdays and Sundays. Moreover, these miners have old accounts to settle with Young and his associate leaders. The latter knew of the neighboring mines years since, but it was their shrewd policy to keep the secret, for if once discovered, tens of thousands of Gentiles would pour into the country, and Americanize, that is to say, civilize the region. Small groups ever and anon came into the mountains “prospecting,” but they strangely disappeared. The Mormon papers reported that they were frozen to death, though frequently at very unseasonable times. They came at last in companies large enough to defend themselves, and sent word down to Young and his associates, that, whereas their brother-miners had so often frozen to death in the neighborhood, it must be understood that for every miner thereafter thus frozen, a Mormon must freeze also. This ended the peril, but not the account. Now, these hard, brave men, with all their faults, are rigorous observers of law among themselves. Away from the established tribunals, they make their own laws in the mountains, and appoint their own judges, juries, and executioners. Scientific men among the mines assure us that nowhere else in the nation are mutual rights more sacred than among these mountaineers. They are content, therefore, with discussing Mormonism in the city, and with clinched fists swearing it to the nethermost parts; but any observer can see that a suitable provocation from Young would rouse them to the most summary measures. They would be likely to lay flat his thick adobe walls, and give him and his polygamous bishops and apostles the honors of prompt martyrdom. This possibility is the great danger of the revolution now in progress. It might complicate and retard the latter greatly. It needs the watchful care of the United States authorities. The latter must satisfy the miners and other Gentiles that they are doing their whole duty, if they would avert violence; but if, in the course of their legal proceedings, the Mormons should attempt their old policy of violence, then let the authorities summon the mountaineers to co-operate with the troops, and Brigham Young’s domination will be wiped out in twenty-four hours. Meanwhile, directly evangelical agencies are at work in the valley, and the territory generally, of which we shall speak hereafter. —The Methodist. Unsatisfied Appetite.
By Dr. South
Must it not now be one of the greatest miseries for a man to have a perpetual hunger upon him, and to have his appetite grow fiercer and sharper amid the very objects and opportunities of satisfaction? Yet so it is usually with men hugely rich. They have, and they covet; riches flow in upon them, and yet riches are the only things they are still looking after. Their desires are answered, and while they are answered they are enlarged; they grow wider and stronger, and bring such a dropsy upon the soul, that the more it takes in the more it may; just like some drunkards, who even drink themselves athirst, and have no reason in the world for their drinking more but their having drank too much already. There cannot be a greater plague than to be always baited with the importunities of a growing appetite. Beggars are troublesome, even in the streets as we pass through them; but how much more when a man shall carry a perpetually clamorous beggar in his breast, which shall never leave off crying, Give, give, whether a man has anything to give or not! Such a one, though ever so rich, is like a man with a numerous charge of children, with a great many hungry mouths about him to be fed, and little or nothing to feed them with. For he creates to himself a kind of new nature, by bringing himself under the power of new necessities and desires. Whereas nature considered in itself, and as true to its own rules, is contented with little, and reason and religion enables us to take up with less, and so adds to its strength by contracting its appetites and retrenching its occasions.—Dr. South.