®lf0 Ctbrarg nf f rinc0t0n ®lj00l0gtcal ^^mtnanj THE PUBLISHED BOOKS OF REV. WM. DeLOSS LOVE, D. D. ARE AS FOLLOWS 'Wisconsin in the War." Published in 1866. Christ Preaching to Spirits in Prison." Published in i883. 'Future Probation Examined." Published in 1888. 'St. Paul and Woman;" or, Paul's Requirement as to Woman's Silence. Published in 1894. 'Sabbath and Sunday." Published in 1896. SABBATH AND SUNDAY . y By Rev. Wm. DeLoss Love, D. D. Author of '''St. Paid and Woman,'" Etc, FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY CHICAGO NEW YORK TORONTO Piiblishets of Evangelical Literature COPYRIGHTED 1896, BY FLEMING H. REVELL CO. DEDICATION This book, entitled SABBATH AND SUNDAY Is hereby respectfully and afifectionately dedicated to the memory of George Edward Dexter My college class mate of more than fifty years ago, who lived past our semi-centennial, which occurred in June, 1893, and died at his home, Charles City, Iowa, August 20, 1894. It was contemplated to have Mr. Dexter prepare a legal department to this volume, giving an outline of the Sabbatic laws in the several half hundred States of the Union, and a statement of the principles which justify the enforcement of the civil law to sustain the Sabbath in a free government. But his death came too soon for the completion of my plan. One ever with him after their union speaks of his strong love for the Sabbath, and says that he read only the best of books and papers on that day, and always thanked God in family worship for the Lord's Day, at its close. Mr. Dexter was an Elder in the Presby terian Church. He became a practitioner at law in three different states. New York, Wisconsin and Minnesota. He acquired a large property, and, in his will, remembered his Alma Mater, Hamilton College. With a Christian character and useful living and prosperity in business and length of days -life was with him a noble suc- cess. Evergreen and fruitful of good be his memory. PREFACE. Every book, by its inherent value, should prove its right to have an existence. It is often well to preface a book with a statement or testimonies bear- ing on its value. These should be of the nature of proofs, not merely of opinions. The first ten chapters of the following work were first published in seven articles in the Bibliotheca Sacra between Oct. 1879 and July 1881. But all of that part has been revised, abridged and simplified in some respects and brought to date. The remaining seven chapters have not before been published. Rev Prof. Edwards A. Park, D. D., LL. D. then chief editor of the Bibliotheca Sacra, beside admit- ting the seven articles — 199 pages in all — to the columns of that portly quarterly, about ten years afterward wrote as follows, '' I thought very highly of your articles on the Sabbath and I now think it would be well to republish them. ... I thought that the value of your articles consisted largely in their extensive quotations from men eminent in the church." The greater portion of those quotations were from the early Fathers and pertain to these several iDoints: 1. That the civil and ceremonial laws of the Jews were temporary. 2. That all moral laws are per- manent. 3. That the early Christians under direction of the Apostles sacredly observed the PREFACE Lord's Day, and chiefly refused to regard the observ- ance of the seventh day as binding. 4. That the Apostles and early Fathers did not consider the fourth commandment abolished but held to the con- trary. 5. That some of them taught that the Lord's Day takes, in substance, the place of the seventh day Sabbath. 6. That the early Fathers did not appoint the Lord's Day as sacred, but the Apostles did so appoint it and the early Fathers so observed it. Since the early Christian Fathers held and taught these things, they can hardly fail to be true, and it is highly important for the Sabbath cause that they be widely known to be true. Oehler's Old Testa- ment Theology, translated from German into English by Eev. Geo. E. Day, of Yale Theological Seminary, at the close of its chapter on the Sabbath, cites the aforementioned articles in the Bibliotheca Sacra as on the " Conservative " side in respect to Sabbatic views. Prof. A. E. Waffle, author of the " Green Prize essay on the Lord's Day," in his appendix says, " Among the review articles I would call esioecial at- tention to a series of able articles in the Bibliotheca Sacra (1879-81) by Rev. Wm. DeLoss Love, D. D." He speaks with like approval of an article by Prof. Schaff in the Princeton Review Vol. xxxv. Rev. W. F. Crafts, D. D. in his volume " The Sab- bath for Man," gives like credit to the same articles, and in his appendix, makes a very long quotation from the present writer's article on "St. Paul and the Sabbath " in " Sabbath Essays," which in meaning is the same, in respect to that portion of Scripture, as that of the Series of Articles. The " essays " PREFACE were given at Sabbath Conventions in Springfield and Boston in the Autumn of 1879. It is thought that the above and other similar tes- timony, which might be given, will seem to justify the publication of the following work. CONTENTS Chapter I. -.-7 Introduction. Chapter II. - - lo Origin and History of the Sabbath. 1 Its basis for appointment that "God rested." 2 The early seventh day. 3 The week a seven of days, 4 The Sabbath at the giving of manna. 5 Septenary time among Gentile nations. 6 The early appointment of public worship. 7 The Sabbath in cuneiform inscriptions. 8 The Fourth Commandment itself shows a previous sacred seventh day. Chapter III. - - 33 Christ did not abolish or modify the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment. Chapter IV. 48 Christ's apostles did not teach or hold that either the Law or the Fourth Commandment is abolished. Chapter V. 75 The change of observance from the seventh to the Lord's Day possible snd probable. Chapter VI. 83 "The First Day" becomes the sacred weekly day among the early Christians. Chapter YII, -.-...„_ 120 The "Lord's Day" comes to be the Christian Sabbath. Chapter VIII. - 148 The Earl J Fathers confirm the teaching of the Apostles. Chapter IX. 182 The Early Fathers on the ceremonial and moral laws Chapter X 224 The Christian Sabbath in the New Dispensation. Chapter XI - - - 264 The advantages of the Sabbath for man's physical being. Chapter XII. 273 The advantages of the Sabbath for mental rest, capacity and culture. Chapter XIII. 2S0 The advantages of the Sabbath for Society and Social Regeneration. Chapter XIV. 285 The advantages of the Sabbath for the welfare and preservation of the State. Chapter XV. 293 The advantages of the Sabbath in its reward for observance. Chapter XVI. 301 The advantages and necessity of the Sabbath in morals and religion. Chapter XVII 309 How to keep the Sabbath. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY, No great and beneficent reform was ever accom- lished, no institution of value and power ever existed, without a firm basis of truth, of doctrine. Whenever the doctrine has become uncertain in the minds of the people, then the institution has languished, the revolution has faltered. This has been illustrated in the history of the Sabbath, and is now illustrated in its wide desecration. The lax continental Sab- bath, now so much imported to America, comes from erroneous doctrine. First, it proceeds from deficient faith as well as evil practice long existing in the Romish church. Secondly, from the untrue position taken by the Reformers of the sixteenth century, in holding that the "external observance" of the fourth commandment was merely Jewish and ceremonial, and therefore is now void; ^and, thirdly, from a wide- spread misrepresentation of the Reformers' actual views, which misrepresentation has been caused by ignoring their belief that the Sabbath was given to man at the beginning, and is moral and perpetual.' Without a divine command for the Sabbath, men will but illy keep it. They require more basis of 'Calvin's Institutes, Book ii. c. 8, Fourth Com.; Luther on Gal. ii. 19. 2 Calvin's Com.. Gen. ii. 3; Ex. xx. 11; Luther on Larger Cate- chism; Augsburg Confession. 8 SABBATH AND SUNDAY doctrine than doubt or example or expediency can afford. Nicholas Bownd's new doctrine of the Sab- bath, whether strictly correct or not, resulted, in his day, in a revival of religion as well as of Sabbath observance. The Puritan revival of Sabbath doc- trine, whether excessive or not, was both the fruit and the source of religious revival. But, on the other hand, every successful effort in the past to undermine or weaken the doctrine of the Sabbath has been at- tended or followed by bad morals and irreligion. Probably the Sabbath, or Lord's day, was never more observed than now as a holiday, but is less ob- served than sometimes in the past as a holy day. The present increasing loss in respect to its sacred char- acter has its chief cause in the wide=spread uncertain- ty in respect to its basis. Besides the imported de- fect in doctrine and practice, there exist serious errors among ourselves. The disciples of the seventh^day Sabbath have been increasing; and this has brought disesteem of the Christian Sabbath, or Lord's day, even among some who do not embrace their Sabbatar- ian views. Much has been said against the Puritan Sabbath to the detriment of the real Sabbath. A growing number of scholars, and even ministers, have been teaching that we cannot found the ob- servance of the Lord's day upon the fourth com- mandment; that that part of the decalogue, though not ceremonial, was positive, and not moral in its na- ture; and is annulled in the new dispensation. Some have said that the whole decalogue, as it stands in Exodus, has been abolished, because given to the Jews; and many have said that there was no Sabbath DIVERSE OPINIONS 9 at all until the time of Moses, and after the exodus from Egypt. Two opinions divide Christendom respecting the basis of the Lord's day; some holding that its au- thority is simply ecclesiastical, derived from the exami^le and tenching of the church since the apos- tles, and others that its aulhorily is from the apostles, or directly from Christ himself. The Roman Catholic church teaches that ''Sundays and lioly days all stand upon the same foundation, viz: the ordinance of the church"; and that Protestants inconsistently have to acknowledge the infallibility of the church, by de- pending on her authority to establish the observance of Sunday.^ Thus, instead of standing on a firm foundation of doctrine, we are somewhat lloating on a sea of uncertainty. Such diverse opinions tend to distraction of the public mind, to neglect and dese- cration of the weekly day of rest, and even to disbelief and unbelief in religion itself. Without salutary change we shall not have better but worse Sabbath observance. It will be the object of this book to awaken more interest in both the doctrine and sacred- ness of the Christian Sabbath, or Lord's day. ' Catholic Christian Instructed, p. 211. The Shortest Way to end Disputes in Religion, by Rev. Robert Manning, approved by Rev. Bishop Fitzpatrick, p. 19. CHAPTER II. THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE SABBATH. 1. Its basis for appointment was the fact that * God rested.' The record of the appointment is con- spicuously given in the first three verses of the sec- ond chapter of the Bible, really belonging to the first chapter. Drs. Paley, Hessey, R. W. Dale, and others tell us that the early reference to the Sabbath in Genesis is no proof of its early institution.^ We reply, it belongs to them to prove their objection. The record of the appointment being given along with that of the creation, the prima facie evidence is that the Sabbath was very early instituted and given to man. It does violence to the record to suppose that the appointment was delayed twenty-five centu- ries — until the Israelites were approaching Sinai. But was the seventh day given to man that of twenty-four hours, or that of God's rest from the close of the six days' creation to the beginning of some other? In the chief sense mail's day; for its characteristics are those of the natural day in the fourth commandment. Both are blessed and sancti- fied. God blessed the day by making it a blessing — a blessing chiefly to man, not to himself; hence it ^ Paley's Works, Bk. v. c. 7; Hessey on Sunday, p. 102; Dale on the Ten commandments, p. 88. 10 THE ORIGIN AND HISTOR Y OF THE SA BBA TH 11 was man's day. Yet God's rest was, in some sense, the prototype for that of man. Though in the early record the seventh day is not called the Sabbath, the characteristics of the two days being the same, there can be no reasonable doubt of their identity. In the commandment not only the first seventh day, but each succeding seventh, was consecrated; and probably at the close of creation each seventh day, as well as the first seventh, was devoted to religion and rest. The reason that in- duced the appointment of the day — "because that in it he had rested" — appeals to intelligence, and suggests that man was to know and regard the sacred time. And since he could know it in the beginning, it is presumable that it was then given him. He early could enjoy it, and by it commemo- rate his own origin as the last of God's earthly crea- tion. God's delight in the day must have been much in having his creatures enjoy it; hence it is improbable that he withheld it all the way from Eden to Sinai. The day not being an ordinance of nature, and not causing any break or mark in physi- cal events, man could not learn the specific hebdom- adal time from nature. He needed its positive appointment, and it having in itself a blessing for him, evidence of its early appointment may be ex- pected. 2. It apijears probable that the primitive pair, with their immediate descendants, early began to observe the seventh day. Cain made an offering to the Lord " in process of time "--at the end of days — end of some number of days. That number, in this instance, was probably .sr' re/?; for that was evidently 12 SABBATH AND SUNDAY the more common multitude of days employed by Jehovah in his appointments with men, and by man in his reckoning of periods. The first length of time which, according to the record, we are certain, God used in his communications with men, was the seven days' notice he gave Noah before causing it to rain upon the earth (Gen. vii. 4, 10); and in the first ncc'ount we have of man's first reckoning of time, Koah stayed seven days before sending forth the dove freni the ark the second time, and other seven before sending it the third time (Gen, viii. 10, 12). If he had waited seven days only once, it would have been less noticeable; doing it twice indicates that he often or constantly observed the specific weekly time. ]l is improl>able that he kept weekly time without a kiiovvledge of the Sabbath that marked off for him ilie weeks. We know of no day or event that ever designated weekly time as the Sabbath or Lord's day has done. We cannot suppose that God gave primi- tive man the week without a sacred day; he would sooner give it for the sake of that day than for any other reason. " God remembered Noah " (Gen. viii. 1). He did not let the flood continue too long; he stopped the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven; he sent a wind to assuage the waters. And Noah re- membered God; he doubtless consulted him about opening the ark, about sending forth the raven and the dove, about waiting other seven days twice over; naturally connecting the waiting with religious ser- vices appropriate to the seventh day; and when upon dry ground again he built an altar and sacrificed. " There is certainly indicated here a sevenfold divi- THE ORIGIN AND HISTOR Y OF THE SABBA TH l(i sion of days, whatever may be its reasons. Of these, no one seems more easy and natural than that which refers it to the traditionary remembrance of the crea- tion and its seventh day of rest." ' 3. Coming to the age of the early patriarchs, we find Jacob and Laban speaking so familiarly of the "week" (Gen. xxix. 27, 28)— a seven of days — that we infer the common acquaintance of their own fami- lies, and of their fathers, with that method of reckon- ing time. When Jacob died, Joseph "made a mourn- ing for his father seven days" (Gen. 1. 10), many Egyptians being with him. Here, in all, we find peo- ple of Haran, — a part of ancient Syria, — and of Ca- naan, and of Egypt, observing weeks. Measuring some time in that way, probably most of them so measured all, as we know was subsecj^uently the case with the Jews. Seven days elapsed in Egypt be- tween the smiting of the river and the Lord's next apj)eal to Pharaoh through his servant Moses (Ex. vii. 25). That the number seven became representative and symbolical after the giving of the fourth command- ment is not surprising; but what gave it such signifi- cance before the Mosaic period, except that God in the beginning made the seventh day conspicuous and sacred to man? The Lord protected Cain by a threat- ening of sevenfold vengeance upon any that should slay him (Gen. iv. 15); and Lamech boasted that he would be protected by a threatening of seventy and sevenfold vengeance (Gen. iv. 24). Jacob would serve seven years for Rachel (Gen. xxix. 18, 20), and he bowed before Esau seven times (Gen. xxxiii. 3). ' Tnyler Lewis, — I>ange on Genesis, p. 311. U SABBATH AND SUNDAY In Pharoah's dream seven kine appeared, and seven other kine ate them up; seven ears of corn came up, and seven thin ears devoured them (Gen. xli. 2-7). Then Joseph showed Pharoah that seven years of plenty were to be followed by seven years of famine; and the two series of seven years came (Gen. xli. 25- 30 xlvii. 53, 54). It is highly probable that this early symbolic use of the number seven had some connection with a sacred seventh day. Keil and Delitzsch affirm that the week was established at the creation.^ But since nature did not mark off the weeks as it does the days, what did divide them from each other, save ceremonies or services, and those of a religious character? Times and seasons, or their limits, — their first and last days, — w^ere customarily attended witli religious services. What more natural than that their weeks were marked off to them by sacred or religious days? How did they know weekly time? By the mere approximate of the fourth of a lunar month ? Or, by the seven notes of the diatonic scale? Or through the astronomical seven planets, then so awkwardly numbered as to embrace the sun and moon? Or was there the clear and dignified rea- son that God in the beginning, after the six days of creation, set apart, blessed, and sanctified the seventh day ? Did the prominence of the number seven make the week, or did the sacred day make both? History ascribes the earliest knowledge of astronomical sci- ence to the Babylonians and Egyptians.^ But Noah observed septenary time four hundred years before Egypt is even heard of, and near a thousand years ^ Com. on Pent,, Vol. i. p. 149. ' Lewis's Astronomy of Ancients, p. 256. THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE SABBATH. 15 before Babylon appears. The celestial bodies, once named the seven planets, and numbered in the fol- lowing order, — Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon, ^ — how much tendency have they to cause the observance of weekly time? But weekly , time first observed, then how much tendency in men to name the seven days after the seven planets. Be- sides, no evidence appears that these seven heavenly bodies were early selected and named. Plato and authors contemporary with him discourse of the seven planets; but Homer and Hesiod were apparently igno- rant of them, though speaking often of the stars.^ Tayler Lewis says truly of those who claim to be "the higher school of criticism," had they found in some Hindoo or Persian book a reference to some sevenfold division of time, and in a similar writing closely connected with it an account of a hexameral creation with its succeeding day of rest, they would have discovered a connection between the two ideas. But they violate their own canon, "that the Bible is to be interpreted like any other ancient writings," ^ and are unreasonably sceptical as to the connection between the week made up of God's creative work and his rest, and the week subsequently observed by man. The hebdomadal division of time seems as well known to the Hebrews before the giving of the law, and previous to their leaving Egypt, as afterward; the passover, given before the exodus, being pro- longed seven days, as well as the feast of tabernacles, given in the wilderness. God's rest began at man's origin; and apparently man's knowledge of that rest 1 Ibid., p. 246. 2 Ibid., pp. 62, 144, 290. 'Lange on Genesis, p. 811. 16 SABBATH AND SUNDAY and his observance of weekly time, also then com- menced. Men, knowing the week and the reason, would even naturally have a special regard for the limit day, the seventh of the w^eek. 4. When the Israelites journeyed in the wilder- ness, they were directed o2 God to gather twice as much manna on the sixth as on any other day, that the seventh might not be desecrated by gathering during its hours (Ex. xvi. 22, 23, 29). As this oc- curred before the decalogue was given on Sinai, it shows that the Sabbath existed previous to the latter event, and favors the view that the w^eekly day of rest was made known to man at the beginning. Dr. Hey- lin, ^ and Dr. Paley ^ a century and a half afterwards, with others following them, gave their opinion that this transaction in the wilderness was the first insti- tution of the Sabbath.^ But the first mention of the day in this j)assage, which is the first by the name "Sabbath" in the scriptures, refers to what God had said of it: ''The Lord hath said" (Ex. xvi. 23). If that was just previous, and the Sabbath was origi- nated on this occasion, then it was appointed in a private way, and first announced to Moses alone, which does not comport with its importance. We naturally should expect a fuller record, and more said ^ Works, fol. p. 348, Part. i. c. 4. ^ Moral and Political Philos- ophy, Bk. V. c. 7. 3 Dr. Paley's, or the Paley-Heylin views, evidently bore fruit after their kind. Rev. J. Willison of Dundee, Scotland, in a work on the "Santification of the Sabbath," published in 1819, refers to the same sentiments as advocated by Philip Limborch. Then, as now, they seem to have been inimical to the most sa- cred observance of the Sabbath. THE ORIGIN AND HISTOR Y OF THE SABBA TH. 1 7 of it, like that in the second of Genesis or the twen- tietli of Exodus. The Lord, in his rebuke of some for going out on the Sabbath to gather manna, says: "How long re- fuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws" (verse 28)? This, with tlie strong language of the next verse, seems to imply a more familiar acquaint- ance with the command than the offenders had, if they heard it first only the day previous. They were evidently familiar with the sixth day, and, therefore, doubtless, with the seventh, and the iveek. The Sab- bath, in this instance, seems to have come on the six- teenth of the month, and — it not being on the four- teenth—this fact is against the theory of the quar- terly division of the month to constitute the week, and favors the independent and divinely appointed date of the Sabbath. The original — " Let to=morrow be rest, a holy Sabbath to the Lord" (ver. 23) — de- fines and emphasizes th« rest by a phrase used here first, and only six times in the Bible; and this earliest use may have been to produce a new and strong im- pression on the multitude that had just issued from idolatrous Egypt, and needed more instruction and a more vigorous memory concerning that day. Objection : The surprise of the Hebrews in finding a double quantity of manna on the sixth day shows that the Sabbath was not before known to them.^ Reply: It was the miracle of a double suj)ply on one day that astonished them; a miraculous provision for the observance of the seventh day they had not before seen. 'Hengstenberg, Hessey, Sunday, p. Ill; Garden, Smith's Bible Diet., p. 2764. 18 SABBATH AND SUNDAY Objection second: The original is ''a" and not " the holy Sabbath," and therefore the people were not familiar with the day, and it had just been ap- pointed. Beply: The repetition of the word " rest," in the phrase " rest the holy Sabbath," — Sabbath meaning rest, — to define and emphasize the nature of the day to those who in Egypt may have partially forgotten it, because as bondmen not permitted to observe it, or to those who may have been only pros- elytes from the Egyptians, might naturally cause the expression "rest," instead of "the rest." Beply second: The sabbatical year, each seventh year, and day of atonement, are also designated by the word " Sabbath," and therefore the definite article may have been omitted in reference to the seventh-day Sabbath. Some claim — probably with insufficient reason — that the passover, appointed previous to this occasion in the wilderness, was also sometimes called a Sabbath/ Beply third: Preceding this time the seventh day, though sacredly observed, may not have been known as the Sabbath, — rest, — and therefore now, when first called such, the defin- ite article would naturally be omitted. We too readily suppose the day must have been called Sab- bath, or nothing. One measuring rule of time then was seven days; and the seventh, being the conclud- ing one, was a marked day, and independent of the divine appointment, might easily have become a sacred day. Previous to this, the seventh day of the passover feast had been made religious and devoted to "a holy convocation" (Ex. xii. 16). The early generations, especially, needed the appointment of ^ Caspar!, Bib. Sao., Vol. xiTiii. p. 471, ' Paley. * Paley. THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE SABBA TH. 19 convocation and worship. After the bondage of Egypt rest was more required and prized, and the usual name of the sacred day may then have been changed from seventh to Sabbath. Ohjeciion third: In Ezekiel (Ezek. xx. 10—12) God is reiDresented as giving his Sabbaths to Israel in the wilderness, as though they were then first in- stituted." Reply: He did not merely give them; he gave them ''to be a sign"; he wppointed them then to be a sign of his covenant with Israel. That does not denote recent origin, any more than God's appoint- ment of the bow in the cloud as a " token of a cove- nant" (Gen. ix. 13) denotes that it then first exist- ed. All the commandments were to be the sign of a covenant (Deut. v. 3; vi. 8), but some, at least, were given long before their engrossment at Sinai. Objection fourth: In Nehemiah (ix. 14) God is represented as making knoicn his Sabbath upon Mount Sinai, as though then he first made it known.^ Beptij: He did there emphcdiccdhj make it known to those who had in Egyi3t partially forgotten it, and not been allowed to observe it; but not then first, because he at least made it known in the wilderness before Israel arrived at Sinai. Bepli) second: God is elsewhere represented as making known his " mighty acts" and "glorious majesty (Ps. cxlv. 12; 1 Chron. xvi. 8); yet that does not imply the first proclama- tion of them, but a more fall one. Though this record concerning the manna does not prove the previous knowledge of the seventh day as sacred, it does not prove the lack of such knowledge. It adds to other strong probabilities that the seventh was at the beginning made known to man as religious. 20 SABBATH AND SUNDAY Objection: "If the Sabbath had been instituted at the time of the creation . . . and if it had been ob- served all along from that time to the departure of the Jews out of Egypt . . . it appears unaccount- able that no mention of it, no occasion of even the ob- scurest allusion to it, should occur." ^ Reply :'^ To object that the Bible, in its few brief memoranda of their (the patriarchs') lives, says nothing about their Sabbath=keei)ing, any more than it tells us of their forms of prayer and modes of worship), is a worthless argument." ^ The sacred seventh day may have been given in Eden, and yet not " observed all along." We have shown that there is probably repeated allusion to it in the septenary division of time. Notwithstanding the impressive promulgation of the fourth command through Moses on Sinai, the Scriptures do not mention the Sabbath between the death of Moses and near that of David — about four hundred and thirty-six years, — and yet it was gener- ally observed. We go through the histories of Joshua, of the Judges, of Samuel, and of Saul with- out its mention. It is the general belief that the in- stitution of sacrifice was observed from the time of the fall; but no mention is made of it between Abel's offering and Noah's building an altar after he left the ark, — by the usual chronology, about sixteen hun- dred and fifty years. There is no record respecting circumcision — boasted rite of the Jews — between Israel's renewal of it by Joshua on entering Canaan and the circumcision of John the Baptist, — about * Paley's Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy, Bk. 5,c. 7. ^Tayler Lewis, — Lange on Genesis, p. 197, THE ORIGIN AND HISTOR Y OF THE SABBA TH. 21 fourteen hundred and fifty years, — save Jeremiah's allusion once to the literal, and once to the figurative, observance (ix. 25, 26; iv. 4). Scripture history is given so much in outline and isolated sections, that the lack of any distinct mention of the seventh day as sacred between the creation and Moses is no approach to proof that it was not observed. The words ''seven,'' "seventh,'' and ''sevenfold" occur three hundred and eighty^ three times in the Old and New Testaments, and not without some special cause. The cause and origin of so frequent use certainly preceded the giving of the fourth commandment; though that event amplified the cause and increased the use. What cause so probable as that Grod rested the seventh day, and blessed and hallowed it? 5. The Jewish weekly measurement of time had a striking similarity in a like reckoning among other nations — the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Assyrians, Chaldees, Persians, Hindoos, Chinese, Peruvians. The claim that the Greeks and Romans obtained their weekly divisions of time from the Egyptians,^ and not until about the beginning of the Christian era, is not warranted. Some noted ancient Greek and Roman authors speak of the seventh day as sa- cred. Clement of Alexandria, writing in the second century, says: "The seventh day is recognized as sacred, not by the Hebrews only, but also by the Greeks."^ He then quotes from ancient authors — Hesiod: "The first, fourth, and seventh day is holy"; Homer: "And on the seventh there came the sa- cred day"; "The seventh was sacred"; Callimachus. ^ Smith's Bible Diet., p. 2764. 2 Ant. Nic. Lib., Vol. xii. pp. 284, 285. ^2 SABBATH AND SUNDAY "Among good days is the seventh day"; ''The sev- enth is among the prime, and the seventh is perfect." Further, Clement says: "The elegies of Solon, too, in- tensely deify the seventh day." " Among the Greeks says a modern writer, " seven was sacred to Apollo and to Dionysos, . . . particularly sacred in Eudoea, where the number was found to pervade, as it were, almost every sacred, private, or domestic re. lation." ^ Professor James Hadley enumerates nearly a score of instances where the number seven is sig- nificantly used in Homer, and four cases in Odyssey of noted action continuing six days, and terminating on the seventh in some critical event — "a curious circumstance, " he says, "in which we might almost be tempted to trace either a daw^ning or a vanishing of the week." ^ He states, as other authors do, that the Pythagoreans had a special regard for the number seven, and that Philolaus, in an exposition of Pyth- agorean doctrine, says concerning God, the author and governor of all things, that " he is without var- iation, even like himself, and like no other, even as the number seven." Among the Persians, in the re- ligion of Zoroaster, who was nearly or quite contem- porary with Moses, the number seven was sacred; and Persian modern literature "abounds in sevens." ^ Far back in Brahminism the number seven was especially noted and frequent, and that w^ithout being traceable to Egypt or any other nation. Porphyry says: "The Phoenicians consecrated one day in seven as holy. *' * ' Chambers' Encyclopaedia, Vol. viii. pp. 3GA. 865, 2 Essays p. 326. •''Hadley '8 Essays, p. 329. * Cited by President Dwight, ^VorkB, Vol. iii. p. 255. THE ORIGIN AND HIST OR Y OF THE SABBA TH. 23 The Sclavonians, while yet in their ancient paganism, held a weekly festival. ^ Lucian speaks of boys as having the seventh day for play. ^ Theophilus of Antioch has this phrase: "Concerning the seventh day, which all men acknowledge." ^ Former inhabi- tants of the coast of Guinea observed a weekly day in social and religious services.* An ancient Chinese writer says: "Every seven days comegthe revolution" — of the heavenly bodies, as Chinese scholars ex- plain, — indicating some former septenary division of time; and Gillespie^ says that by the Chinese calen- dar now there are four names in each lunar month, answering to our four Sundays of the month. Of Grecian wise men seven were singled out six centur- ies before Christ, and Plato gives the first list.® There were also the seven wonders of the world, and the seven ages of human life. The book of Job shows the observance of Septenary time in some land other than that of Israel, and in an age probably be- fore the time of Moses (Job ii. 13). Philo, contemporary of Christ, wrote a dissertation on the number seven, and said: "That day is the fes- tival not of one city or one country, but of all the earth" '; meaning, doubtless, that it was designed for all, though not observed by all. The Saracens had a weekly sacred day before the time of Mohammed^; and he made the number seven conspicuous in the ' Helmaldus, cited by Ussher, Works, Vol. xii. p. 578. 2 Ibid., p. 580. 3A.nt. Nic. Lib., Vol iii. p. 79. * Hurd's Rites and Ceremonies (1799), p. 456. ^Land of Sinim, p. 161; cited by Gillillan, p. 360. ''Hadley's Essays, p. 826. ^ Yonge's Translation, Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library, Vol. i. p. 26. ^ Purchas' Pilgrimage, cited by GilfiUan, p. 359, 24 SABBATH AND SUNDAY Koran, though unable to rer.d the Bible, by which he may, however, have been indirectly influenced, ^ The importance and dignity of the number seven is shown by Shakespeare's use of it. La Place said: " The week is perhaps the most ancient and incontes- table monument of human knowledge." Even if in some cases in the far past, as that of Hesiod, the reference be to the day of the month, and not of the week, still, the question- is, How came the seventh to be a noted and sacred day in so many na- tions, and generally without known copying from each other? The weekly division might be forgotten during the long ages, and yet the number seven re- main sacred. That other days than the seventh have been sacred or noted among gentile nations does not weaken the argument. There were other sacred days and numbers in the Jewish economy; though scarcely any number in any nation has been so con- spicuous as " seven. " Notwithstanding the Egyptians and others named the seven days after the seven planets, that does not prove that there was an astronomical cause for the septenary division; for there are no phenomena of the heavens sufficient to suggest it. After that di- vision was made and observed, and its cause and authority forgotten, the astronomical reason may have been originated in human fancy. ^ The fact that the seventh is so generally a marked or sacred day, with no satisfactory reason for it external to the Scriptures, favors the view that it was appointed as a religious day in the beginning. If so, it was indeed ^ Hadleys Essays, p. 337. 2 Tayler Lewis, — Lange on Gen. p. 311. THE ORIGIN AND HISTOR Y OF THE SA BBA TH. 25 for man, and it may be expected to continue while the race endures. Ohjedion: "It is no safe foundation for our think- ing ourselves bound to keep it [the Sabbath], that the patriarchs kept it before the law was given, and that the commandment had existed before the time of Moses, and was only confirmed by him and re- peated. . . . For if the law itself be done away in Christ, much more the things before the law." ' " And if Moses has vanished in the diviner glory of Christ, all that preceded Moses must have vanished, too." ^ Reply : Ceremonial and some other laws given expressly to the Jews were in force only while Juda- ism lasted. But moral commands — as, to worship God, and not to kill or steal — given to Adam, or Noah, or any other representative not of a nation, but of mankind, most certainly hold their binding force upon all men. Therefore, the Sabbath or any sacred day, having moral elements, if given to the race once, must, in respect to those elements, hold still, wherever known. Besides, moral elements, principles, laws, are not done away in Christ, even if their application and use be changed. The things done away, or vanished, in Christ are only such as have their fulfillment, completion or enlargement in him. 6. The fact of a septenary division of time in the early ages being established, the associated fact that public worship w^as in early time appointed and observed, gives a high degree of probability that the seventh day was sacred. '' Then began men to call * Dr. Thomas Arnold, Sermons, Vol. iii. No. xxii. pp. 256, 267. 2 Dr. R. W. Dale, Ten Commandments, p. 94. 26 SABBATH AND SUNDAY upon the name of the Lord" (Gen. iv. 26). Pro- fessor Stuart regarded this as teaching that social and public worship then commenced.' It cannot mean that there was previously no private worship; that Seth did not pray before his son Enos was born, nor any others prior to that date. I^ange, and Keil and Delitzsch also hold that this passage announces the inauguration of public religious services. We know, further, that in that primitive era there were consecrated places of worship. Noah built an altar unto the Lord (Gen. viii. 20). So did Abraham at both his first and second stopping=place in Canaan (Gen. xii. 1, 8); and to the latter he came again for worship after returning from Egypt (Gen. xiii. 3, 4). He built another altar after separating from Lot (Gen. xiii. 18), and still another at Beersheba (Gen. xxi. 33). Isaac built an altar when he dwelt in Gerar (Gen. xxvi. 6, 25). Jacob built one at Shalem (Gen. xxxiii. 18, 20), and one at Bethel (Gen. xxxv. 7), and offered sacrifices at Beersheba. It must have been the cus- tom to prepare and consecrate places of worship. Here are three positive factors, existing long before the time of Moses: septenary division of time, public worship, and places for public worship. When did they worship? On some particular day, at a stated time, doubtless, as we know their posterity soon did. When was that time, unless on the seventh day, the weekly limit in the hebdomadal period, which, at least, was the time a few centuries afterwards? Daily worship of equal length would have been unnatural. Daily sacrifices would have required too much time of each small community, and too much expenditure * Phelps' Perpetuity of the Sabbath, p. 3i. THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE SABBA TH. 27 of the life of animals. The later Jews were re- quired to offer at Jerusalem, on the Sabbath, double the number of sacrifices they offered on other days; the earlier Jews were, therefore, more likely to offer weekly sacrifice on the seventh day than on any other. 7. But we have other important ancient evidence, in the Chaldean account of the creation, as given by the cuneiform inscriptions found in the ruins of an- cient Babylon. The lamented George Smith, noted in Assyrian researches, says: "In the year 1869 I dis- covered, among other things, a curious religious cal- endar of the Assyrians, in which every month is di- vided into four weeks, and the seventh days, or 'sab- baths,' are marked out as days on which no work should be undertaken."^ H. Fox Talbot, F.R.S., in his translation of these Creation Tablets, renders two lines thus: " On the seventh day he appointed a holy day. And to cease from all business he commanded." He also says: " This fifth tablet is very important, because it affirms, clearly in my opinion, that the origin of the Sabbath was coeval with creation .... It has been known for some time that the Babylonians observed the Sabbath with considerable strictness. On that day the king was not allowed to take a drive in his chariot; various meats were forbidden to be eaten, and there were a number of other minute restric- tions. . . . But it was not known that they believ- ed the Sabbath to have been ordained at the creation. I have found, however, since this translation of the ^ Assyrian Discoveries, p. 12. 28 SABBATH AND SUNDAY fifth tablet was completed, that Mr. Sayce has recent- ly published a similiar opinion." * Rev. A. H. Sayce, M. A., so far as appears, has translated more of this " Babylonian Saints ' Calen- dar " than any other person. Both he and Mr. Smith have translated a Babylonian list of the thirteen months of the year and their patron deities. Mr. Sayce has translated in full the memorandum of each of the thirty days of the month in this calendar. That for the seventh day reads thus: "The seventh day. A feast of Merodach (and) Zir^Panitu. A festival. A sabbath. The prince of many nations the flesh of birds (and) cooked fruit eats not. The garments of his body he changes not. White robes he puts not on. Sacrifice he offers not. The king (in) his chariot rides not. In royal fashion he legislates not. A place of gar- rison the general (by word of) mouth appoints not. Medicine for his sickness of body he applies not. To make a sacred spot it is suitable. In the night in the presence of Merodacli and Istar, the king his offering makes. Sacrifice he offers. liaising his hand, the high place of the god he wor- ships."^ That this is not merely for the seventh day of the month, without any weekly significance, is manifest from the fact that nearly the same language is used in these memoranda for the fourteenth, the twenty- first, and the twenty-eighth days. And nothing like ^ Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, Vol, V. Part ii. pp. 427, 428. 2 Records of the Past, Vol. vii. pp. 160, 161. THE ORIGIN AND H I ST OR Y OF THE SA BBA TH. 29 it is used for any other of the thirty days except the nineteenth which seems to have been another sacred day, like the day of atonement in the Hebrew Calen- dar. Mr. Sayce says the month was divided into two lunations, each of " three periods of five days, the nineteenth ending the first period of the second luna- tion." ' Being thus a limit day, it was sacred. Mr. Sayce further says of this calendar: " But the chief interest attaching to it is due to the fact that it bears evidence to the existence of a seventh' day Sabbath, on which certain works were forbidden to be done, among the Babylonians and Assyrians. It will be observed that several of the regulations laid down are closely analagous to the sabbatical injunctions of the Levitical law and the practice of the Rabbinical Jews. What I have rendered "sabbath" is expressed by two Accadian words, which literally signify " dies nefastus," and a bilingual syllabary makes them equivalent to the Assyrian yum sulumi or "day of completion (of labors), or a day unlawful (to work upon)." The word Sabbath itself was not unknown to the Assyrians, and occurs under the form sabattu in W. A. I., II. 32, 16, where it is exjolained as a day of rest for the heart." Sabattu is also explained to mean " complete " in W. A. I., II. 25, 14. The cal- endar is written in Assyrian. The occurrence, how- ever, of numerous Accadian expressions and technical terms shows that it was of Accadian, and therefore non* Semitic origin, though borrowed by the Semites, along with the rest of the old Turanian theology and science. The original text must accordingly have been inscribed at some period anterior to the seven- ^Ibid., Vol. i. pp. 164, 165. so SABBATH AND SUNDAY teenth century, e. c, when the '' Accaclian language seems to have become extinct." ^ An American As- syrian scholar, Rev. Selah Merrill, D.D., also affirms that the Accadian language became extinct at least seventeen centuries before Christ, except as some of its words were brought into the Assyrian. These cuneiform inscriptions, therefore, seem to give posi- tive evidence, that the " Sabbath " existed at least two centuries prior to the giving of the decalogue on Sinai, and that, as Talbot says, " the origin of the Sab- bath was coeval with creation." Therefore, having the whole evidence in view, the modern, frequent statement, that it ' is unwarrantable to infer that the Sabbath was instituted at the beginning,' ^ we claim is unfounded, 8. The fourth commandment in itself indicates the probability that God had made the seventh day sacred, and given it to man as such, long before he gave the decalogue. The injunction to " remember " the day naturally implies that it was previously known. Remembrance ordinarily signifies retrospec- tion as well as prospection. It here implies retrospec- tion; for the Sabbath was known at the giving of manna, even if not at creation. The command to re- member is based on three reasons: God rested from his work, he blessed the seventh day, and he hal- lowed it. The past tense of the verb is used; each reason was an act of the past. The first one, God rested, we know dates at the close of creation. Were there two thousand and five hundred years between 1 Records of the Past, Vol. vii. pp. 157, 158, and 2d. note p. 160. ^ The Social Law of God, Sermons on the Ten Command- ments, by E. A. Washburn, D.D., p. 73. THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE SABBA TH. 31 that and the date of the other two reasons? Impro- bable. If they all dated at the beginning of God's rest, then the seventh day was made sacred at that time; whether or not then made known to man. Yet was it not made known when made sacred? If God's act of blessing and hallowing the seventh day occurred on the Mount while he wrote the deca- logue, we should not have had the Hebrew perfect tense, but the imperfect, or participle, which in this case would be nearly equivalent to the English pres- ent: remember the Sabbath=day, for God rested on it, and blesses and halloics it. The three reasons in the commandment for observ- ing the Sabbath-day being the same as the three for the appointment of the seventh day, as stated in the narrative of the creation, is aifother fact that appar- ently dates the sacred day at the beginning of God's rest. The language in Malachi, " Kemember the law of Moses " (Mai. iv. 4), naturally means not merely bear that law in mind in the future, but remember the law given through Moses heretofore ; and, in like man- ner, the fourth command rationally means, remember the Sabbath day given heretofore. The command to remember has especial signifi- cance, because at that age so much of history and of knowledge of God's works and commands depended upon human memory. The book of Genesis did not exist to preserve the sacred narratives until Moses' hand could write it; though he doubtless embraced in it some accounts previously written by inspired men. By the usual chronology Adam could tell Me- thuselah of the sacred seventh day; Methuselah, Shem; Shem, Abraham; Abraham, Isaac; Isaac, Jo- 32 SABBATH AND SUNDAY ■ seph; Joseph, Amram; Amram, his sons, Aaron and Moses. Memory had a high office. It being a legal axiom that a law continues while its reason continues, it follows that under a wise ruler the law is in force as soon as the reasons for it exist. One of the three reasons, and doubtless all, for the appointment of the Sabbath, began at the close of the creation. Should not this increase the probabilities nearly into assurance, that the seventh was given to man as a sacred day at his origin? CHAPTER III. CHRIST DID NOT ABOLISH OR MODIFY THE SABBATH. The decalogue had an ascendency over the other enactments of the Mosaic law, and was confirmed without rejDeal by Christ, in his own person and through his apostles. Its original superiority is evi- dent from its having been written by Jehovah him- self on the two tables of the covenant, made especial- ly for them, and kept in the holy of holies. No part of that law can be abolished, except by the enacting authority. But some claim that this decalogue was abolished by Christ, through himself and his disciples. Dr. Thomas Arnold si)eaks cautiously: "If the law itself be done away in Christ." * Dr. E. W. Dale says: "The Jewish revelation has become obsolete." ^ Dr. George B. Bacon says: " When I say that Christian- ity superseded the Jewish law, I mean, just as Paul meant, that it sui^erseded the whole of the Jewish law." ^ And many suppose that Christ himself began to disregard and violate the Sabbath. Dr. Heylin, in the seventeenth century, said that Christ abated the estimation which the people had of the Sabbath, pre- paratory for the abrogation of the day.* Theodore ^ Works, Vol. iii. p. 257, Sermon xxii. The Lord's Day. 2 Ten Commandments (Fourth), p. 93. ^ Sabbath Question, p. 101. *Hist. Sab., fol. p. 401, Part ii. c. 1. § 2. 33 2 34 SABBATH AND SUNDAY Parker said, on this question, " Paul rejects the author- ity of the Old Testament." ^ Reply : When Christ was requested to tell the greatest commandment of the law, he gave a summary of the first four as our duty to God, and of the last six as our duty to man. He added: "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matt. xxii. 35-40). He made no exception of the fourth commandment; he there- fore sustained that and the whole ten. In that.day no question had been raised about the abrogation of the fourth commandment or the Sabbath. He said to another: "Keep the commandments." When asked, "Which?" he specified the last six; the direction to the inquirer to sell his possessions having pertained to the tenth (Matt. xix. 16-22). By not naming the first three he did not reject them, nor the fourth by not naming it. He convicted the young man by the second table of the law; much more was he a sinner by the first. Christ testified that he came not to de- stroy the law; therefore the Sabbatic part of it he did not abolish. 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. v. 18). The sac- rificial and otherwise ceremonial law was fulfilled when Christ's propitiatory work was complete; but the chief elements of the sacred day did not pertain to that law, and no proof exists that their office has been fulfilled. Dr. Washington Gladden says this: "One of the ten commandments was, as it seems to me, distinctly repealed by our Lord."^ He is understood to refer ^ Christian Use of Sunday, p. 18. 2 Church and Kingdom, p. 51. CHRIST DID NOT ABOLISH THE SABBATH 35 to the fourth commandment, but he does not prove or profess to prove the statement, yet such claims of re- peal are hazardous for souls and sociology. Their efPect with some is to undermine the authority of the Scriptures. Jesus, instead of annulling the Sabbath, explained and enforced its observance, and purified it from rab- binical abuses. His justification of his disciples in plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath for their pres- ent need was t)n the ground of special necessity, like that of saving life or relieving suffering (Matt. xii. 1- 18; Mark ii. 23-28; iii. 2-6; Luke vi. 1-10; xiii 11-17; xiv. 1-G). Thus was David justified in relieving his hunger hy means not otherwise allowable (1 Sam. xxi. 1-6). But F. W. Robertson repeatedly implies that the fourth commandment — "In it thou shalt not do any work" (Ex. xx. 10) forbids doing even religious or necessary work.^ Reply: Such cannot have been the meaning; for God required Joshua, with priests and armed men, to march around Jericho on the Sab- bath (Josh, vi.); and the double sacrifices (Num. xxviii, 9, 10) and new baked shew=bread (Lev. xxiv. 5-8; 1 Chron. ix. 32), which the Lord appointed for the Sabbath, required ^ large amount of labor, yet it was not profanation of the day. The Sabbatic law forbade the ordinary secular work in order to promote rest and worship. Pharisaic dogmas added the x^ro- hibition of works of necessity and mercy; but Christ allowed them, and, by the case of David eating shew= bread, and that of the priests performing labor in the Temple on the Sabbath (Matt. xii. 5, 6), he showed ' Sermons (First Series), Shad, and Sub. Sab. Law, pp. 116, 118, 120. 36 SABBATH AND SUNDAY that his course was not inconsonant with the law of the KSabbath. And it is not shown that Christ ever al- lowed anything which the law denied. Jesus taught the application and adaptation of the Sabbath to the race, by saying that it " was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark ii. 27). Dr. R. W. Dale and others object that he did not mean that the Sabbath was made for man, in distinc- tion from the Jews, but for the Jewish man.^ We reply: The first truth in this language of Christ is, man was not made for institutions and ordinances, but these — including the Sabbath — for man. An im- plied truth is, the Sabbath was made for mankind. ''The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath" (Mark ii. 28). As Son of Man, he belonged to the 7'ace, though he came first to the house of Israel. So the Sabbath made for man was designed for the race of men, though for the Jews it was especially the seal of the covenant. The elements of the Sabbath are chiefly of a moral nature, such as rest, physical and spiritual, worship, and time to be kept holy. It cannot be found that G od has ever laid moral duties upon one nation or portion of mankind, without mak- ing the same binding ui^en all others where they were known and coald be practiced. Moral duties are uni- versal and permanent. Therefore, when Christ said the Sabbath was "made for man," he did not mean it was for Jeivs merely, but for all men. He gave no indication that he was defining the manner in v/hich Jews only should keep the Sabbath, nor that he inten- ded to have it abolished under the new dispensation.^ ^ Ten Commandments, by Dale, p. 92. 2 Dr. J. S. Stone, in The Eclectic, Vol. iv. p. 554. CHRIST DID NOT ABOLISH THE SABBATH 37 Dr. Dale gives no definite reason for his opinion that Christ referred merely to the Jews, as having the Sabbath made for them. But Dr. S. M. Hop- kins says specifically: "What Jesus said was not that the Sabbath was made for man or humanity at large, but for the man {ton anthropon); the Jewish Sabbath for Jewish man; just as we should say that the constitution was made for the people (the Ameri- can people), and not the people for the constitution. The failure of our translators to appreciate the force of the Greek article in this passage has largely con- tributed to mistaken views as to the universal and permanent obligations of the fourth commandment — an error which will undoubtedly be rectified in the new revision." ^ The revision shows no change. Alford, one of the revision committee until his death, translates it, "For the sake of man," without the article, meaning the generic man. Winer says: "To be particularly noticed, further, is the use of a sin- gular with the article to express in the person of a definite individual a whole class; as when we say, The soldier must be trained to arms." He gives as an example Matt. xii. 35: o ctyaOo^ a'^dpco-ix^ . . . h.^nlUi ayo.Od, " A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things."^ As we under- stand Professor Hopkins' rule, this must be a Jewish good man; according to Winer, and to reason, we think, it is any good man; the "definite individual** is taken for a " whole class." In this instance, and in the case of the Sabbath made for man (Mark, ii, 27), the Saviour is addressing unbelieving Pharisees; 1 Address at Pittsburgh, before the Evangelical Alliance. 2 New Testament Grammar (Am. ed.), p. 106. 38 SABBATH AND SUNDAY yet in neither case does he say anything limiting his application to the Jews, nor anything more appropri- ate or needful to them than to other men. Dr. Rob- inson says the article is also used " in the singular when the noun expresses a generic idea, or stands as the representative of a class, where in English, also, we commonly put //^e." ^ He cites, as one example, the passage Winer does (Matt, xii, 35), where he would translate, as Alford does, " the good man," representing a class, the generic good man. Dr. Robinson speaks again of the Greek usage, " where the singular, 6 hdp(i)-o^^ the man, is used in a collect- ive or generic sense, either for all mankind or for a particular class of men,"^ and cites Matt. iv. 4: "Man shall not live by bread alone," o avOpwru)^, the man, man used generically, though preceded by the defi- nite singular. But as we understand the rule of Dr. Hopkins and others, it must be merely the Jewish man. Pray, then, what is there in Scripture that is applicable to us Gentiles? Professor Hadley gives a class where the noun, though preceded by the defi- nite article, is used generically, and gives as his ex- ample, o avdpuj7TO(^ dvfjTo^ iffTi, man is mortal; the man; yet he says: " Man as such, comprehending every one of the species,"^ not merely all of one nationality, or a definite individual. Professor A. C. Kendrick, on the particular passage in question (Mark ii. 27), says, "Had it been d^^dpcoTto), it must have been for a man, spoken of indefinitely, whoever he might be, where av^/>£u-cu was used loosely for toj dydpw-co. The * Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 490, col. 2. 2 Ibid., p. 56, col. 2. 3 Greek Grammar, § 526 b. CHRIST DID NOT ABOLISH THE SABBATH 39 latter, r6 a^^opch-oj, may mean equally well 'the man,' i, c, the man referred to in the particular case, or 'for man' collectively and generically, the genus homo, which the Greek language has no other way of properly designating. That the latter is meant here, I should not think there is a moment's ground for doubting. Otherwise, it can here (Mark ii. 27) have no proper reference whatever." ^ Professor Hopkins illustrates: "The Jewish Sabbath for the Jewish man, just as we should say that the con- stitution was made for the people (the American peo- ple)." Rcphj: 1. If Christ had said "the Jewish man," as Dr. Ho]3kins says, " the American people," it would have been a parallel case; but as the fact is. it is not. The simple phrase, " The constitution was made for the people," unexi^lained by word, allusion, or implication, would mean for all people; as God's "constitution" of natural rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is for all people. 2. If Christ intended the truths of his gospel to be only for the Jews, then it might be that the Sabbath was made merely for them. But he says: "Preach the gospel to every creature." And under the old dispensation he desired to have the whole world made proselytes to the Jewish faith, as the Rechabites were — to that of the Sabbath with the rest. He made special prom- ises to the strangers that should come and keep his " Sabbaths" (Isa. Ivi. 3-8). 3. If Gentiles were not men, then the Sabbaths were not for them. Finally, a class of writers have for a long time been saying that Christ did not teach that the Sab- bath was for mankind in general, but that in saying ^Private correspondence. 40 SABBATH AND SUNDAY that it " was made for man," he said only that it was made for the Jews. The only reason we have found for such doctrine is that so clearly stated by Dr. Hopkins, which we have now considered, and which we conclude has no real foundation. Returning to Christ's instructions, when he inquir- ed of the Pharisees: '' Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil" (Mark iii. 4) ? "Is it laivful to heal on the Sabbath day " (Luke xiv. 3) ? and when he affirmed, " It is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days" (Matt. xii. 12), he each time im- plied, and intended to be understood, that he fully regarded the Scripture laws pertaining to the Sab- bath, though he disregarded the rabbinical perver- sions of them. The Great Teacher corrected the abuses of both the Sabbath and marriage, but never those concerning circumcision, or any other institu- tion not designed for all men and all time. Objection : Christ attended a feast on the Sabbath, thus putting dishonor upon it, which apparently set it aside (Luke xiv. (1-25). Reply: This is not in Scripture called " a feast," but "eating bread " (ver. 1). Probably it was only the cold lunch, or meal at noon; for it is not called " supper." That it was the mid^day meal is apparent from the fact that great multitudes (ver. 25) attended Christ as he seems to have been going from the Pharisee's house; this occurrence, after the evening meal, it being so late, would be improbable. The synagogue services closed about noon, the sixth hour. Josephus speaks of an assembly being dissolved then, "at which hour," he says, " our laws require us to go to dinner on Sab- CHRIST DID NOT ABOLISH THE SABBATH 41 bath days.'" Then, probably, one of Christ's hear- ers, living near by, invited him and his company and some of his own Pharisee friends, to his house for refreshment. Jesus and his apostles numbered thir- teen, and at such a time the number at the meal was naturally doubled or quadrupled. They must all eat somewhere, and eating together did not make it a secular occasion, which is what is generally meant by our term " feast." The Pharisees were ' watching him,' especially to see if he would heal on the Sab- bath the man present who had the " dropsy " (ver. 1, 2). All this gives a religious, rather than a secular aspect to the scene, Bengel says: "There was no wedding on this occasion." What Christ says of a wedding was in a parable uttered then, and out of courtesy he would make the occasion in the parable difiPerent from that at the house of his host. So far as appears, the Saviour's conversation there was wholly religious, and nothing of hilarity is witnessed among the guests. It was probably not an expensive meal; for no fire was allowed for the cooking of food on the Sabbath (Ex. xxxv. 3).^ The chief rooms 1 Life, § 54. 2 Professor Fairbairn argues that the prohibition of fires was only temporary, designed for wilderness experience, and quotes Josephus as implying that in his day only the Essenes refused to build fires on the Sabbath (Typology, Vol. ii. p. 143). The quotation is: "They are stricter than any other of the Jews in resting from their labors on the seventh day; for they not only get their food ready the day before, that they may not be oblig- ed to kindle a fire on that day, but they will not remove any vessel out of its place," etc. (Wars, Bk. ii. c. 8). Contrary to Fairbairn's inference, the passage implies, we think, that other Jews did refuse to build fires on the Sabbath; otherwise, the 42 SABBATH AND SUNDAY that some selected were simply the more conspicuous places for reclining at the table. No evidence appears that Christ disregarded the sacred day on this occasion, even though many were assembled together. In a day without printing, and with few manuscript books, there was more need of social religious communion, even on the Sabbath, than now. The "supper" made for Jesus at Bethany (John xii. 2) was evidently not on the Jewish Sabbath. He seems to have come from Jericho on Friday, to have rested during the Jewish legal Sabbath, and at even- ing, after its close, to have had a meal with his usual company, and the few friends at the house of their host. Even if it were the Sabbath, nothing appears which was improper for that day, nothing like a sec- ular feast. The great feast given the Saviour by his disciple Levi — his apostle Matthew — (Luke v. 29), cannot be claimed to have been on the Sabbath. It was prob- ably on Friday, as the next day seems to have been the seventh. Many say that when Jesus ate bread with the Pharisee on the Sabbath (Luke xiv. 1) "the meal must have been a costly and ceremonious one," " a splendid entertainment." ^ Much against it is the phrase " not only " would not have been inserted. In respect to removing vessels, etc., the Essenes went beyond other Jews. Philo says: "Moses, in many places, forbids any one to handle a fire on the Sabbath day " (Yonge's Translation, Vol. iii. p. 120), which shows that he understood the prohibition to be of uni- versal application. 2 See Alford and Trench, in loc. CHRIST DID NOT ABOLISH THE SABBATH 43 fact that no cooking could be done, or fire built, on the Sabbath. Against it is one reason for no cook- ing, "that thy man-servant and thy maid^servant may rest as well as thou." (Deut. v. 14). Yet, closing their day at six o'clock in the evening, they could have one warm meal before daylight passed by, which, on other days at least, was their chief meal ; though we, with the same rule against fires on Sunday, could not have a warm meal between midnight and mid- night — commencing and closing the day, as we do, at that hour. Objection Second: It was a feast that Christ attend- ed on this occasion, because " the Jews used to give entertainments on the Sabbath. See Nehemiah viii. 9-12; Tobitii. 1."* Reply: The day in this passage in Nehemiah is not called the Sabbath, but " holy unto the Lord " (ver. 9). It was on the first day of the seventh month (ver. 2). That was the time of the feast of trumpets. And though in Lev. xxiii. 24, 25 the day is called a Sabbath — in the Revised Version, a solemn rest — it was not the weekly one; it was not shahhcdh, but shahbathon, merely a day for sabbatiz- ing, a sabbatical day — one on which " no servile work should be done," but not one on which "no work" should be performed, as was the case with the weekly Sabbath and the day of atonement. It were useless to hold that the feast of trumpets always came on the Sabbath. The varying nature of the Jewish month forbids it. The Mischna implies that the Sabbath and that feast were not identical; stating, as it does, that when the feast of trumpets came on the Sabbath the ^Alford on Luke xiv. 1. 44 SABBATH AND SUNDAY trumpets were to be blowed only in the Temple, and not outside of it.^ The passage in Tobit (ii. 1) to which Alford refers does contain the phrase, " There was a good dinner prepared for me"; but the same verse shows that the occasion was not on the Sabbath, but " day of Pente- cost." Alford cites also Augustine; but the passages,^ though indicating luxurious ease and idleness, do not prove expensive feasts, and, besides, they pertain to customs in Augustine's time, and not in that of Christ. In another passage, not referred to by Al- ford, Augustine ^ speaks of reveling and drunkenness as practised by the Jews "of old"; but he doubtless refers to the prophets' day, when the desecrated Sab- baths were an abomination to God (Isa. i. 13). Al- ford's citations utterly fail to show that Christ at- tended a feast on the Sabbath. Other writers, perhaps by following Alford, have fallen into his error. "Christ attended a feast made on that day in his honor. . . . Jewish usage, in that age, justified social gatherings on the Sabbath, and Christ by his practice sanctioned this usage, while by his words he never rebuked it;"* " It was usual for the rich to give a feast on that day; and our Lord's attendance at such a feast," etc. ^ "It was customary to give feasts on that day, and our Savior is expressly said to have been a guest at ^ Surenhusius's Mischna, Parz ii. p. 344:, Roch Hash. Caput iv. (§ 1). Amsterdam, 1699. 2 On Ps. xxxii. 2; Ps. xci. 2, Latin numbering. ^Commentary on Matt. xxiv. 20. *Dic. Religious Knowledge, by Lyman Abbott and Prof. T. J. Conant, p. 824. Art. "Sabbath." 5 Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 2759. CHRIST DID NOT ABOLISH THE SABBATH 45 one." ' "Nehemiah, a Jewish reformer of the strict- est principle, gave directions for eating the fat, and drinking the sweet, and sending portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared, on the Sabbath, after the sermon" (see Neh. viii. 8, 10).^ Reply: This passage in Nehemiah has nothing to do with the ob- servance of the Sabbath; but the waiter here citing it, and writing the sentence which he hopes is proved by it, does cite this good sentence from Paulus on Luke xiv. 1-24: " We are not here to understand a public banquet." To sustain the charge against the Jews of holding social gatherings and giving feasts, —by which is meant those of a secular char- acter, — we find adduced such passages as these: 2 Chron. xxix., which does not speak of the Sabbath at all, but of special services consequent on the revival of religion in the beginning of Hezekiah's reign, and subsequent to the cleansing of the Temple; and Neh. viii. 9-13, which refers to the feast of the trumpets (Lev. xxiii. 24, 25), and to memorial services at the completion of the rebuilding of the wall around Jer- usalem, and Hosea ii. 11, which threatens divine judgments by taking away the Sabbath. But all these fail to sustain the foregoing charge. The error is frequent of ascribing the celebrations of mere feast^^days to the sacred Sabbath, probably because they are sometimes called " Holy unto the Lord" (Neh. viii: 9). And even the mirth (Neh. viii. 12) of feast=days was religious, rather than secu- ^ Kitto's Bib. Cyc. (Alexander's ed., third and enlarged), p. 713. 2 Questions of the Day, by John Hall, D. D., p. 201. See also Cox on "Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties," pp. 137, 436, 439; and George B. Bacon, D. D., on "The Sabbath Question," p. 74. 46 SABBATH AND SUNDAY lar. Josephus approvingly quotes Nicliolaus' plea for the Jews before Agrippa, in which he says of their observance of the seventh day: "It is dedi- cated to the learning of our customs and laws; we thinking it proper to reflect on them, as well as on any [good] thing else, in order to our avoiding of sin. If any one, therefore, examine into our observances, he will find that they are good in themselves."^ Whiston, learned in such things, corroborates Jose- phus; and both give a historic impression utterly inconsistent with secular feasts, or even secular vis- iting on the Sabbath among the Jews in our Savior's time. The fact that the Pharisees and Essenes, and perhaps the Sadducees, of that age, were very scrupu- lous and superstitious in observing the Sabbath, and put much merit in the outward acts of life, is irrecon- cilable with the theory that they attended secular feasts or even social gatherings on that sacred day. Philo, contemporary of Josephus, treating of Jewish laws and customs, says: "But the seventh day had an especial honor; for it is not permitted to do any- thing whatever on that day"; and, "It was invariably the custom, . . . especially on the seventh day, . . . to discuss matters of Philosophy, . . . in accordance with which custom, even to this day, the Jews hold philosophical discussions on the sev- enth day, disputing about their national philosophy."^ The learned Selden, after quoting various Jewish authorities, says: "The Jews, therefore, by no means ^Antiq., Bk. xvi. c. 2. § 4; see also ibid., c. vi. § 12; against Apion, Bk. i. §22; Wars, Bk. iv. c. 9, § 12. ^Life of Moses, i. c. 36, Yonge's Translation, Vol. iii. pp. 46, 119. CHRIST DID NOT ABOLISH THE SABBATH 47 count the Sabbath a burden, but a great blessing; they have it in high veneration, and affect to call it their spouse."^ Buxtorf gives similar testimony.^ Philo describes the " feasts " of " Barbarians and Gre- cians," with the apparent implication that Jewish feasts were free from all excesses and perversions. ^ We therefore conclude, though the Jews had their chief meal on the Sabbath near mid-day, instead of at evening, as on other days, and though they en- deavored to make the occasion cheerful, and set their best food cold upon the table, and gave time to con- versation, and frequently to short discourses, yet that they did not in our Saviour's time indulge in mere so- cial visiting, carnal festivities, or secular amusements during the Sabbath hours. We also conclude that the frequent statement in modern times that Christ was on the Sabbath a guest at a feast made in his honor, has done much to secularize the Lord's day. Professor Barrows, D, D., of Oberlin, whose studies had led him to some special examination of this subject, states that he knows of no evidence that Christ attended a feast, in the ordinary sense of the term, on the Sabbath, or that the Jews of that age were accustomed to hold sumptuous entertainments on that day. 'Selden de Jure nat. et gent. lib. iii. c. 10; Oper. Vol. i. pp. 326, 327. ^Buxtorf, Synag, Judaic, c. xv. pp. 299, 300; Edit. Basil, 1661. 3 Vol. i. p. 198, Cain and his birth. CHAPTER IV. DID NOT TEACH OR HOLD THAT EITHER THE LAW OR THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT IS ABOLISHED. The last chapter we closed by replying to some ob- jections. They were, that Christ did much toward abolishing the Sabbath of the decalogue by his teach- ing and by his sanction of Jewish secular festivities on that sacred day. Several incorrect statements, having the weight of objections, have been made by Jahn,^ Horne,^ Lightfoot,^ and Wetstein.* The last three of these writers depend on Luke xiv. 1 to main- tain their claim. They all have misapprehended such passages as Ex. xv. 20, 21; 2 Sam. vi. 14; Neh. viii. 9, 10. We have already sufficiently replied to these objections. We may add a few words. Jahn's editor, Professor Upham, says that the practices which that author names were all religious. He should have added that none of his Scripture pas- sages necessarily refer to the Sabbath at all. Home quotes the standard text, Luke xiv. 1, and then refers to Lightfoot and Wetstein. They chiefly rely on the ^ Archaeology (2d ed.), p. 443. 2 Introduction, Vol. iii. p. 292. 3 Horae Heb, et Talmud (London, 1823, p. 142, Lev. xiv. 1. * On Luke xiv. 1. 48 THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES 49 Mischna. But that is composed much of traditions relative to Jewish customs, was very meagre as late as the close of the second century, was not completed (the Babylonian one) until about the close of the fifth century, and that of Jerusalem, the inferior one, not much sooner, if as soon.' It is poor authority on which to convict Jesus Christ of attending secular feasts on the Sabbath among the Jews, when its date is not at our Saviour's time, and the Jews had so much degenerated in national customs at the time of its date. Some of the practices attributed by these and other writers to the Jews of Christ's day, Philo, con- temporary with him, denies, at least, with reference to the better class of Jews. Speaking of the joy the great lawgiver had provided in the Sabbath for the Hebrew people, and of their abstaining from secular labor and business on that day, he adds: "But not, as many do, running mad after the theater, the mimes, and dances, but philosophizing in the highest sense." ^ 2. But did the apostles teach that the fourth com- mandment was abrogated? They taught the binding nature of the whole moral law, without excepting that of a sacred day of rest. Paul, in one instance, names half the decalogue, and adds: " If there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love is the fufilling of the law " (Rom. xiii. 10). He says expressly: "The law is holy, and the command- ment holy and righteous and good" (Rom. vii. 12); ^Prof. Samuel Adler, Johnson's Encyclopaedia, " Talmnd " ; Rees' and Chambers' Encyclopaedias on " Talmud and Mischna." 2 De Moee, iii. p. 167, quoted by Milman, Hist. Jews, Vol. i. p. 203, note. 3 60 SABBATH AND SUNDAY " Do we then make of none effect the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law " (Rom iii. 31). The apostle never could have written thus, if one-tenth of the decalogue — more than that in lan- guage a^fi thought — were repealed, annulled, as F. W. Robertson and others say.^ Paul could not have meant that the sacred seventh of time was, like cir- cumcision and sacrifice, no longer needed, nor that all days should be equally devoted to the secular and religious. He himself still observed the seventh, and had added to it another religious day. Near the time he wrote the few sentences (Rom. xiv. 5; Gal. iv. 10; Col. ii. 16, 17) which some think imply the abolition of the Sabbatic principle, " he reasoned in the syna- gogue every Sabbath, as his custom was" (Acts xviii. 4; xvii. 2; xvi. 13; xiii. 14, 44); and on each Lord's day where he tarried he met with the disciples foi worship (Acts XX. 7); and he, or some other sacred writer, expressly enjoined on others to do likewise (Heb. X. 25). No evidence appears that he kept all days alike, or that he grew lax, and threw off the re- straints of holy time. If the Saviour intended to repeal the real Sabbath, why do we not find him or his apostles instructing the disciples to disregard the fourth commandment? Why not find him or them engaged on that day in secular labor, or diverting themselves by fishing? Why no case of conflict be- tween them and the Pharisees where the former set aside the sabbatic ordinances? 3. Do the following apostolic statements imply that the law is abolished? "Ye are not under law, * Robertson's Sermons, Sydenham Palace and Sabbath (Sec ond Series); Shad, and Sub. of Sab. (First Series.) The testimony of the apostles 51 but under grace" (Rom. vi. 15); ''If ye are led by the Spirit ye are not under the law" (Gal. v. 18); *'That he might redeem them which were under the law" (Gal. iv. 5); ''Ye also were made dead to the law" (Rom. vii. 4); "We have been discharged from the law" (Rom. vii. 6); "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life" (2 Cor. iii. 6). If in Christ we are not condemned by the law, nor in danger from its penalty, nor bound to seek justification by our own righteousness, nor longer burdened by ceremonial observances of the old dispensation; still love con- strains to obedience, the rule of the moral law is sweet to us, wherein we fail of obedience we obtain forgiveness, and, as Augustine says, "The law itself, by being fullfilled, becomes grace and truth ";^ and hence it is not abolished. Objection : " The law written and engraven in stones, with all its glory, is done away."^ Reply: Though the preceding sentence is from the pen of a respected and representative author, who believed it founded on Scripture, yet it is not Scripture. He refers to 2 Cor. iii. 7, 11. Why, and of what, does the apostle speak? Unquestionably, he had been charged with boasting (ver. 1) on account of some statements in his former epistle (1 Cor. v. 9; xiv. 18; xv. 10). Re- plying, he declares his joy at being a minister of the New Testament (ver. 6); and then, conceding much to the glory of the " ministration of death," — of the letter of the law, — he exalts far above it the glory of the "ministration of the Spirit." The comparison is between the two ministrations, not, as some authors ^ Manichaean Heresy, p. 321. 2 Dr. Geo. B. Bacon, Sabbath Question, p. 133. 62 SABBATH AND SUNDAY suppose, between the law and the Spirit. The former ministration was characterized by a law "written and engraven on stones" (ver. 7), and given through Moses in great glory (ver. 13); but that ministration and the dispensation lying back of it are passed away to give place to the ministration of the Spirit. This is not teaching that the law is abolished, but that it and its dispensation need no longer be relied upon as a way and means of salvation. Although the laws given by Jehovah to the Jews were not formally di- vided into kinds, they evidently had different offices. First, in general, they offered a way of righteousness and salvation for sinners. With such meaning the term "law "is often employed in the New Testament. As such it embraced the typical and ceremonial part; and more, the law of rectitude, the expression of God's will relative to right and wrong in his rational creatures. While the whole system of types, and the ceremonies pertaining thereto, was temporary, the laws, principles and rules pertaining to the moral state and conduct are permanent. The chief duties required in the decalogue are, in general, ever re- quired. They must be, since God is ever holy, and moral right and wrong will never change their nature. A ministration and its glory passing away is one thing; the abolition of that which ministers in some particular form is quite another thing. The law and its dispensation, as a dependence for redemption is void; the law, so far as it is the divine expression con- cerning the moral state and conduct of men, is in force, and is imperishable. Certain writers tell us that the "law written and engraven in stone, with all THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES 53 its glory, is done away "; ^ but all that the Scriptures tell us is that the glory of Moses' countenance " was to be done away," and that the glory of the "minis- tration of condemnation .... is done away." Meyer, Stanley, DeWette and Neander say that the two ministrations in this passage are compared, not the two religions of the two dispensations. De Wette ( ill loc. ) suggests that the old dispensation lying back of the ministration shares in the removal; but that is not the law as a guide of life, but the dispensation as a reliance for life eternal. That is abolished, because a better takes its place. But there are no better prin- ciples and rules of duty to supersede the moral pre- cepts of the decalogue; hence they are not abolished. Objection second: The following three passages indicate the abolition of the entire Sabbath, with other Jewish festive days, at the close of the old dis- l^ensation: ''One man csjeemeth one day above an- other; another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind" (Rom. xiv. 5); ''Ye observe days and months and seasons and years " (Gal. iv 10); " Let no man therefore, judge you . . . in respect of a feast day or new moon, or Sabbath day " (Col. ii. 16). Rephj : The first two of these passages would hardly be thought to refer to the weekly Sabbath, were it not for the third. Does that refer to it? The word Shcihbath — Sabbath rarest, and its derivative Shahbathon—a keeping of the Sab- bath, a resting, a Sabbatism — are ap^Dlied to five differ- ent days and the seventh year. The days are, the weekly Sabbath, the day of the atonement (Lev. xxiii. 32), the feast of trumpets (Lev. xxiii. 24), and the ^ Bacon, Sabbath Qaestion, p. 133. 64 SABBATH AND SUNDAY first and eighth of the feast of tabernacles (Lev. xxiii. 39). One Seventh- Day Adventist author says there were " seven annual Sabbaths," ^ besides the weekly one, as named in Lev. xxiii. His error is in reckon- ing the first and seventh days of unleavened bread and the day of pentecost as Sabbaths, which the sacred writer does not term such. Yet they were days of holy convocation, and this twenty4hird chap- ter of Leviticus is a catalogue of such days. With us the word " Sabbath " is a technical name, not always suggesting its literal meaning — a solemn rest. With the Jews, accustomed to hear the Script- ures in the Hebrew, the literal idea was more promi- nent; and Shahhafh and Shahhafhon alike brought to their minds the thought of rest. Yet the weekly Sab- bath and that of the atonement had a designation pe- culiar to themselves. In the fourth commandment it is, "day of the Sabbath" and "Sabbath of the Lord." In Lev. xxiii. 3 it is, Shahhath Shabhathon, — 7'est of resting, a sabbath of rest; and the same phrase oc- cures with reference to the day of atonement (Lev. xxiii. 32.) But in the case of the feasts of trum- pets (Lev. xxiii. 24.), and in that of the feast of tab- ernacles (Lev. xxiii, 39) only the word Shabbathon — a resting, a sabbatism — is used. The Septuagint notes this distinction. Another difference is this: In respect to the weekly Sabbath and the day of atone- ment the manner of command is, " Ye shall do no work " (Lev. xxiii. 3, 28) ; but in the case of the feast of trumpets and of the feast of tabernacles it is, " Ye shall d.o no servile work" (Lev. xxiii. 25,26). By the former jDhrase all kinds of labor were forbidden — ^ W. J. Littlejohn, The Constitutional Amendment: p. 114. THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES 55 toil with the hands and business, trade; by the latter, labor with the hands was forbidden, while mere busi- ness and trade were allowed. But on each of the whole five days a holy convocation was enjoined, and also on the first and seventh days of the feast of un- leavened bread, and at the feast of pentecost or the harvest (Lev. xxiii. 21). On these last three days, also, servile work was forbidden, but not all work. It seems certain that amid all these days of rest and convocation the apostle, by the word " Sabbaths," — Sabbath, R. V. — rests, at least embraced the weekly Sabbath. It came so much more frequently than the yearly Sabbath or Sabbatisms, and seventh year Sab- bath, that it were unreasonable to suppose the apostle by the term " Sabbaths " excluded it, and included them, without the least intimation of the omission. He would be more likely to exclude the Sabbatisms than the full Sabbaths, which were the one weekly day, and the one yearly day, the atonement. The seventh day was the only one of all usually called the Sabbath; the others had other names. The reasons are much stronger for supposing the apostle meant, by the word " Sabbath,*' the weekly days, rather than the yearly ones. The feast days are never called " Sabbaths." The day of atonement was a fast day, not feast day. This word " Sabbaths,"— C. 2.— in Col. ii. 16, some suppose to be* singular in meaning, — therefore refer- ring to the weekly Sabbath only, — though plural in form, in Greek owing to one peculiar ending of the singular, which finally assumed the termination of the plural without its meaning. Possibly adverse to that view is the fact that in a similar list of public 56 SABBATH AND SUNDAY occasions (Gal. iv. 10) the word *'days" occurs in plural form, referring to sacred festivals, and perhaps including the Sabbath. In the list in Colossians there is a descending scale — yearly festivals, monthly ones, weekly ones. This scale is the more notice- able, because in Gal. iv. 10, pertaining to the same subject, there is an ascending scale from days to years — the same scale reversed. Assuming, now, that the apostle, in Col. ii. 16, embraced the weekly day in the word ^' Sabbaths," or Sabbath, does it show that the fourth command- ment is obsolete? The apostles had to contend with Jews and the Judaizing Christians. Though the latter accepted Christ, and kept the first day of the week, they tenaciously held that Christians should continue the observance of some Jewish institutions, especially the seventh day. This Judaism was a stumbling to the Gentile Christians, and the cause of much discussion. The apostle's direction was: " Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" (Rom. xiv. 5) in respect to the observance of these Jewish days. His practice was indicated by the fact that he circumcised Timothy (Acts xvi. 3) to facilitate his acceptance with the Jews, since it was the young disciple's privilege by being of Jewish descent on his mother's side; and refused to circum- cise Titus (Gal. ii. 3-5), because he was a Gentile, and Christianity did not require it, and those who deemed it obligatory needed correction. The apostle was inspired to allow non-essentials to the Jewish, and to disallow their being made essentials to the Gentile, Christians. Among these non=essentials was the observance of the annual and monthly THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES 57 religious feasts, and probably of the seventh day. Paul was taught by inspiration that circumcision was no longer necessary, and probably that the seventh day was no longer obligatory. But while the former was purely ceremonial and national, the latter was not wholly ceremonial or national or judicial. So far as it was Jewish, positive, it was set aside; as moral, it remained. In the moral were rest, hallowed time, worship, probably a day for worship* and holy con- vocations (Lev. xxiii. 3). In the positive were the septenary division, the seventh=day obligation, memorial of deliverance from Egypt (Gen. xxxi. 16), and the Jewish civil, ceremonial, and judicial rela- tions; the last involving penalties for violation of sabbatic law. One evidence that the decalogue is moral, and was designed for man, is, that penalties are not annexed, and may therefore vary; as may also some specific duties not named in the decalogue itself. Doubtless the apostle was ignorant of these analytical distinctions; enough that he observed them, even if blindly, and as an inspired man could say. Christians need not keep the seventh, but should keep the first day, and on it observe their most sacred religious services. But if Paul rejected the Sabbath in any sense, it was merely the specific Jew- ish day, without embracing the moral elements of the ^Holy convocation requires a particular time or day for the assembling; and, the evils of making only half of Sunday religious, and the remainder secular, as by the Continental method, seem to indicate that natural as well as revealed re- ligion calls for a whole, and not a mere half stated day for holy rest and worship. And the tendencies of true worship in holy convocation are towards the sacred observance of the whole day. 58 SABBATH AND SUNDAY real Sabbath: for he was contending with Jews and Judaizing Christians, who were busy with the super- ficial positive, not with the deep=laid moral and spiritual, which the apostle was especially observing in the Lord's day. Objection third: Still, according to the apostle Paul, '' We are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held" (Rom. vii. 6); and therefore it is not binding upon us. For, as Arch- bishop Whately says, " There are very many pass- ages relative to the Mosaic law occurring in the writ- ings of the apostle Paul, whose most obvious and simple interpretation, at least, would seem to imply the entire abolition of that law by the establishment of the gospel."^ Reply: Bengel, Alford, Lange, and Meyer affirm, and Whately admits, that the phrase " that being dead wherein we were held " should read, " we being dead to that law wherein we were held." The law is not dead, or abolished, but believ- ers are dead to it. Meyer even says: "Paul is not discussing the abrogation of the law, but the fact that the Christian as such is no longer under it." ^ The apostle has just used the figure of the marriage relation. Believers are married to another, even Christ, and not to the law. In the law, with all its types, ceremonies, deeds, is not their hope; but it is in Christ Jesus. The extent of the apostle's mean- ing in saying, " We have been discharged from the law," (Rom. 7:6) "Ye are not under law " (Rom. vi. 14) is indicated by another of his statements: " For I testify again to every man that receiveth circum- cision that he is a debtor to do the whole law " (Gal. * Difficulties, etc., p. 142. ^Qq^^^ Rom. vii, 1. THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES 59 V. 3). He must conform to all its ceremonial obser- vances, and obey all its moral requirements. No other course is left him, if he insists on salvation by- law. But believers, accepting grace, enjoy the Anti- type, — types and ceremonies having passed away, — and delight in forgiveness for all violations of the moral law. Yet the law in its moral character and requirements, pointing out the way of duty, demand- ing holiness, and forbidding sin, is unabolished and unabolishable. As Dr. Bushnell says, " Plainly enough, the law of God can never be taken away from any world or creature; for with it, in close com- pany, goes abroad all the conserving principle, moral and physical, in which God's kingdom stands." ^ However, admit that it is all abolished. What then? Surely the apostles ought not to use it; we shall not find them using it. Alas for the theory! After Paul wrote his Epistle to the Komans, in which the foregoing passage occurs (Rom.vi.l4), he v/rites that to the Ephesians, in which he actually appeals to this abrogated law: "'Children, obey your parents in the Lord; for this is right. Honor thy father and mother, which is the first commandment with prom- ise; that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth '* (Eph. vi. 1-3). He does not even stumble at using the Jewish promise of long life in Canaan; the priciple in it makes it service- able, applicable. Nor does he hesitate to employ this commandment in addressing Gentile, as well as Jew- ish Christians. The fifth commandment and the fourth and all the others are for man not for Jews on- ly. He does not tell us that the law is abolished, ' Forgiveness and Law, p. 119. 60 SABBATH AND SUNDAY that he refers to this command as only a law of nat- ure; he summons it as embracing the authority of Jehovah descended on Mount Sinai. More, in the same Epistle where we are told that " we have been discharged from the law" (Rom. vii. 6), we find the apostle subsequently bringing forward the law itself, as still a law and obligatory: "He that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law"; hence he is deliv- ered from its condemnation. " For This, thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself " (Rom. xiii, 8, 9). He speaks of the second table. Is love abolished? Nay. Then all that which is condensed into love is not annulled. The apostle is consistent with himself, and must mean: If we love, we are delivered from the condemnation of the law, because now obedient, and forgiven for past disobedi- ence; delivered from the ceremonies and deeds of the law as our hope, because salvation is offered on the easier condition of repentance and faith; not deliv- ered from obligation to obey any of the law's moral precepts, yet privileged to obey them all by the one comprehensive principle of love. Nor is all this merely a Pauline peculiarity. The inspired James, at least twelve or fifteen years after the death of Christ, when the new dispensation had been more than fully inaugurated and established, appeals ex- pressly to the decalogue as a rule of duty, in an ad- dress to believers, who are dead to the law as a means of hope and merit: " If ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced by the law as trans- THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES 61 gressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and 3'et stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all. For he that said. Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now, if thou dost not commit adul- tery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law" (ii. 9-11). Definite commands are referred to, not as abolished, but as though in force as much as ever. What the sovereign God hath said is ap- pealed to — what he said on the mount, amid thun- derings and lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking. It is in our disx3ensa- tion, as it were in our time, that the apostles summon the law of Sinai to their aid in proclaiming the gos- pel; and it becomes uninspired men not to say any more that the law is abolished. If apostles of Jesus Christ may remind their hearers and readers of the commandments as still expressive of God's will, we need not recall our appeals to them, nor be troubled by the many assertions in our time that the decalogue and all the Old Testament laws are abrogated. Moreover, twenty-seven years after Christ's death, and after the law was abolished by his death — as some say — the apostle Paul pronounces the law holy, and " the commandment holy and righteous and good " (Rom vii. 12), and points out the good services of the law in making him know his sins (vii. 7-11) and in making others know their sins (vii. 5). He refers to the ten commandments; for, by way of illustration, he names one of them — that of covetousness (vii. 7). Have we outgrown the good services of the law ? Yet all this the apostle says just after declaring that be- lievers *'are not under the law" (vi. 14), "are dis- charged from the law" (vii. 6). Only one conclu- 62 SABBATH AND SUNDAY sion is rationally deducible: They who are risen with Christ are not under the law as their ground of sal- vation; yet are not delivered from the law as an in- structor in the evils of sin and the fruits of righteous- ness. Further, if Christ abolished the law, how did he deliver from its curse? If abolished, it had no curse; that, too, w^as abolished.' Objection fourth: Dr. Hopkins says: "Neither our divine Lord nor his apostles ever recognized the fourth commandment as containing a law for Chris- tians."' Reply: The fourth commandment stood by pre- vious enactment. It did not need recognition in order to its continuance. The question is, did Christ or his apostles ever reject it? 1. The apostles, so far as w^e learn, did not reject it. Both James and Paul directly appeal to the commandments; not nam- ing all of them at any time, not rejecting any, not intimating that the fourth or any other w^as annulled. Had it been annulled, a fact so striking w^ould have received attention. Paul's indication that no one might imi)ose upon Christians the obligation to ob- serve the seventh day, after the first had become the Lord's day (Col. ii. 16), is no evidence that the com- mandment had become void. That command, anal- yzed, had the following parts: (1) A division or part ^ After we had given the manuscript of this Article to the press, we found that the honored Rev. Amos A. Phelps, in a dis- cussion held in the year 1840, made the clear distinction that the law is "done away as a means of justification," but is not done away " as a rule of duty;" and he is original in the man- ner in which he has applied that fundamental analysis to this subject. — See Phelps on the Perpetuity of the Sabbath, p. 11. 2 Sabbath Question, p. 11. THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES 63 of six days; (2) A division of one day immediately following the division of six; (3) An appointment for all secular work during the first division; (4) An appointment for rest and holy keeping of time during the second division; (5) A commemoration of God's creation of the world by the first division, and of his rest by the second division; (6) A reckoning of time that made the first division the first six days, and the second division the seventh day. The apostles never said aught to set aside any one of these first five parts. Their teaching and example simply affected the ele- ment of time, and gave an additional object of com- memoration — that of Christ's resurrection. They did not revoke the commemoration of God's act of creation, nor of his rest; for still six days are devoted to labor, and one to rest. They put the original commemora- tion in the background by placing another before it. By changing the reckoning of time they did not make void the original commemoration ; because, with such variation of time as the daily revolution of the earth gives, what is the seventh day to some is the first to others, and exact identity of observance would be im- possible, and is not required. Though Paul taught that observance of the seventh day was optional (Col. ii. 16), he and the other apostles taught, by word and example, the duty and privilege of keeping the first day, and of laboring six days; and therefore in re- spect to its chief (the first four) elements, they "rec- ognized the fourth commandment as containing a law for Christians," and did not teach or allow the doc- trine that it is annulled. Even failure to enforce the fourth commandment would not be its abolition. 2. If they were Christians who followed Christ 64 SABBATH AND SUNDAY during his earthly ministry, then he did repeatedly "recognize the fourth commandment as containing a law for Christians." Even his corrections of the abuses of the Sabbath were indirect recognitions of the validity of the fourth commandment. Not one word did he ever say against it. A consideration of the decalogue has led us into the New Testament with the question: Has the deca- logue or fourth commandment been abolished? Re- turning to the Old Testament, we should note the fact that the primal reasons given in both Genesis (ii. 1-3) and Exodus (xx. 11) for observing the Sab- bath pertain to man, and not specifically to Jews, and that they agree well with Christ's declaration, that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sab- bath (Mark ii. 27). The reasons, God rested, and he blessed and hallowed the Sabbath, are too broad and benevolent to be confined to one nation. Ohjedion: "The Sabbath is described as a sign be- tween God and the people of Israel"; therefore, it seems, "the observance of it was peculiar to that peo- ple, and designed to be so"^ (Ex. xxxi. 16, 17; Ezek. XX. 12). "That rest . . . being only commemora- tive of their deliverance from Egyptian servitude, was not moral nor perpetual." ^ Reply: Previous to the above from Dr. Paley and Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Dr. Heylin had said the same f and they all seem to have written without due consideration. The Sab- bath may have been, and was, an especial sign of one thing to the Jews, and a sign of other things for all ^ Dr. Paley, Moral and Political Philosophy, chap. vii. 2 Jeremy Taylor, Law and Conscience, sec. 58. ^History of the Sabbath. Part i. chap. iv. sec. 6. THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES 65 men. The former does not exclude the latter. The sign described in Ex. xxxi. 16, 17 is consonant with that in Ex. xx. 11; and the reasons in the latter in- stance show that it was for man, and not Jews only. The eTewish nation existed as such long before the recognition of the Sabbath at the giving of manna in the wilderness. Who can say that the Sabbath was not a w^eekly sign long before, against all nations that serve not the true God? No doubt the Egyptians robbed the Jew^s much of this badge of their conse- cration to Jehovah. Israel desired to go three days' journey into the wilderness to " hold a feast unto the Lord" (Ex. X. 9). May not the feast have embraced a Sabbath, wdiich was one of "the set feasts of the Lord" (Lev. xxiii. 2, 3), and afterwards, at least, was a high feast day? The passover was an emphatic sign of fJewish nationality, and a marked memorial of Israel's dei3arture from Egypt (Ex. xii. 11, 27). But the law of the passover, being Jewish and temporary, w^as not put into the decalogue; while the law of the Sabbath was. The former was a memorial of deliver- ance from Egyptian bondage; the latter of the crea- tion. The reason of the former was limited; that of the latter was world-wide. The Sabbatic institution, in its whole range, seems to be commemorative of three events: First, of God's rest, and the close of creation; secondly, of God's special choice and ap- pointment of the Jews; thirdly, of Christ's resurrec- tion, and the completion of redemption. The Sabbath of the Jews in the wilderness, and to the end of the old dispensation, may not have been the exact suc- cessor of the sacred day instituted in the beginning, and observed by the patriarchs; though the latter, as 66 SABBATH AND SUNDAY well as the former, may have been the seventh by the current reckoning in its period. The weeks and days may have been disarranged during the Egyptian bond- age, and a correction or redating may have been com- menced at the giving of manna or at the institution of the passover, when a holy convocation was appointed. Objection Second: Archbishop Whatley says: *' The very law itself indicates, on the face of it, that the whole of its precepts were intended for the Israel- ites exclusively." * Dr. Thomas Arnold speaks doubt- fully about it;^ Dr. R. W. Dale implies that "the fourth commandment was given to the Jews" only;^ Dr. Geo. B. Bacon says the Sabbath commandment was " addressed not to the Christian church, but to the Jewish church;"* Bishop Robert Sanderson (born A. D. 1587) said " that no part of the law deliv- ered by Moses to the Jews doth bind Christians under the gospel by virtue of that delivery — no, not the ten commandments themselves, but least of all the fourth, which all confess to be, at least in some part, ceremon- ial";^ and Jeremy Taylor speaks of "laws which were to separate the Jews from the Gentiles. " ® Reply : It was not the design of the Jewish laws, or of the Sabbath in particular, to separate* the Gentiles from the Jews, if the former would forsake their idol- atry, and embrace the true religion. The Sabbath being made for man, as most of these writers admit, it inevitably follows that the fourth commandment, ^ Difficulties in the Writings of St. Paul, p. 147. 2Sermons, Vol. iii. No. 22, pp. 255-258. ^Ten Commandments, p. 93. * Sabbath Question, p. 97. ^Dr. Hessey on Sunday, p. 327. ® Christian Law and Conscience, sec. 44. THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES 67 which gave or confirmed the Sabbath, had in its moral part a binding force upon man. We prefer what Tertuliian says: "For why should God, the Founder of the Universe, the Governor of the whole world, the Fashioner of humanity, the Sower of universal na- tions, be believed to have given a law through Moses to one people, and not be said to have assigned it to all nations? For, unless he had given it to all, by no means would he have habitually permitted even pros- elytes out of the nations to have access to it. But — as is congruous with the goodness of God and with his equity as the Fashioner of mankind — he gave to all nations the self^same law. " ^ Whether the Sab- bath be for us or not, being made for man. at the time it w^as made it was not exclusively for Jews. Though the Decalogue was addressed to the Israel- ites, that does not prove Whately's claim that it was " intended for the Israelites exclusively." The teach- ing of Christ and his apostles especially indicates that the Jews were as much bound to give'the moral law to the world as Moses was to Israel from the mount. It has ever been God's way to speak unto one, or a few% that they might communicate to the many. Bishoj) Sanderson may say that " no part of the law delivered by Moses to the Jews doth bind Christians under the gospel by virtue of that deliv- ery "; but the inspired Paul and James reiterate that law as though binding alike on Jews and Gentiles as far as known to them, as though obtaining its divine force not from their lips, but from the voice of Jeho- vah, sounding in sublime peals from Sinai across the centuries. ^ Ans. to the Jews, Ant. Nic. Lib., Vol. xviii. p. 203. 68 SABBATH AND SUNDAY The Sabbath, besides having its place in the deca- logue, is throughout the old dispensation ranked with things moral, permanent, and highly important. It is placed above feasts, cgi'emonies, and sacrifices. Sacrifices and other solemnities are commanded to be observ^ed upon it; but while it is admitted to the dec- alogue, they are not. In all parts of the Pentateuch it is treated as though vrorthy of its place in the first table of the moral law. Its essential and great im- portance is indicated by the fact that a wilful viola- tion of it by the Jews was made punishable with death (Ex. xxxi. 14). Its observance is ranked as an essential aid to the highest virtues, and as equally binding. Is Israel pointed to the first commandment as of especial significance? the fourth is placed by its side: '' Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest; . . . And in all things that I have said unto you take ye heed; and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth" (Ex. xxiii. 12, 13). In another passage the first, second, and fifth command- ments are ranged with the fourth," and the obser- vance of them all is made requisite to holiness! "Ye shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy. Ye shall fear every one his father and his mother, and keep my Sabbaths; I am the Lord your God. Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods : I am the Lord your God" (Lev. xix. 1-3). One pas- sage declares that the Sabbath is a sign, and implies that it is a direct means for the sanctification of the people: "Verily, ye shall keep my Sabbath; for it is a sign between me and you throughout yonr genera- tions; that ye may know that I am the Lord which THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES 69 doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the Sabbath there- fore; for it is holy unto you" (Ex. xxxi. 18, 14). These Scripture facts unmistakably indicate that the Sabbath has in it very essential moral elements. It is not simply typical of a future rest; it is an abso- lute means to the rest and peace of holiness, here and hereafter. Farther on in Jewish history the true prophets are ever endeavoring to maintain the strict observance of the Sabbath in Israel. False and formal observances; ceremonies without the heart, the Lord through his prophets contemns (Isa. i. 11-14). But the highest divine favor is upon him that truly keeps the Sab- bath. Its observance is ranked with keeping judg- ment and doing justice and keeping from evil: ''Keep ye judgment, and do righteousness . . . Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that holdeth fast by it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil" (Isa. Ivi. 1, 2). And all strangers that ob- serve the Sabbath have equal blessings with Israel: " For thus saith the Lord of the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and hold fast by my covenant; unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a memorial and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. Also, the strangers that join themselves to the Lord, to minister unto him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from profaning it, and holdeth fast by my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of 70 SABBATH AND SUNDAY prayer" (Isa. Ivi. 4-7). Keeping the Sabbath is ranked with making and keeping a covenant with God, and with loving the name of the Lord. Sab- bath^keeping, when fully right, involves moral char- acter, embraces the intent of the heart, and in itself must have moral elements. As Bishop Daniel Wil- son says, the sanctification of the Sabbath is described as a main proof of essential piety.^ It involved prin- ciples and services demanded by our relations to God, and taught us even in the nature of things. 7. A moral law pertains to the duties of rational beings, and has its reasons in the nature and relations of things. A positive laio pertains also to the con- duct of rational beings; but has not its reasons in the nature and relations of things, but in the will of a governmental authority. Moral and positive laws are often combined. There is a moral law against murder; the state makes it also a positive law. The decalogue is composed of laws having each a moral nature; but in respect to their enactment merely for the Jewish nation they were positive laws. The Jew- ish civil and ceremonial laws were positive, because enacted for that nation, and in part for that age of the world. Yet they had some moral elements. All moral laws and elements are binding, wherever ap- plicable; but positive laws, so far as they are posi- tive, are binding only on those for whom they were enacted. ''Moral duties," says Bishop Butler, "arise out of the nature of the case itself, prior to external command. Positive duties do not arise out of the na- ture of the case, but from external command; nor ^ Divine Authority and Perpetual Obligation of the Lord's Day, p. 75. THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES 71 would they be duties at all, were it not for such com- mand, received from him whose creatures and sub- jects we are." * The decalogue — given when God met the great Hebrew host, and spake to them from Mount Sinai, written twice by his finger on tables of stone, preserved in the ark of the covenant — received this amazing enactment as positive law to the Jews, be- cause it was, in general, supreme moral law to man- kind. " Moral precepts are precepts," says Butler, " the reasons for which we see." The reasons for labor, for rest, for keeping holy time, for worship, we can see; and thus far the fourth commandment is moral in its nature. The reasons for the proportions of time devoted to labor and to rest, and for the number of the day that shall be sacred, we cannot see until expressly told; and in these respects this command is of the nature of positive law. The decalogue as a whole is moral; as a merely national law for the Jews, positive, like their civil and ceremonial law. The penalties of the decalogue, not being in the com- mands themselves, but in positive enactments for the Jews, were binding only on them, and in the Jewish dispensation, except as they involved moral prin- ciples. Some duties pertaining to the several com- mands, not being stated in them, but growing out of positive laws, were binding only upon that people, except as they had a morai, and therefore permanent nature. All of the ten commandments, with penalties, were undoubtedly more or less in force before their en- grossment at Sinai. The offerings to God by Abel, Noah, and others, implied a knowledge of the duty ^Complete Works, p. 176. 72 SABBATH AND SUNDAY to love and serve him. Idolatry and the use of im- ages were known to be evil; for Jacob required his household and all with him to put away the " strange gods" (Gen. xxxv. 2). The early frequent admin- istration of oaths doubtless implies a knowledge of the third commandment. The honor due to parents is indicated by the conduct of Noah's sons, and their father's blessing and the curse pronounced; and pa- rental authority was honored in the fact that Abra- ham was blessed for commanding his children after him (Gen. xviii. 19). Cain was cursed for murder, and the world was destroyed by flood because of cor- ruption and violence (Gen. vi. 11). Shechem suf- fered judgment for breaking what was afterwards the seventh commandment (Gen. xxxiv. 1-31). Four kings were smitten by Abram and his servants for breaking the eighth of the decalogue (Gen. xiv. 1-24) ; and Joseph's brethren protested against the charge of theft (Gen. xliv. 8). Abimelech remonstrated with Abraham for falsely testifying that his wife was his sister (Gen. xx.); and covetousness was a violation of law, and, especially with kings, a com- mon sin. Enoch was translated, and Noah preserved from destruction, because they walked with God (Gen. V. 24; vi. 9); while Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire, because the men were sinners before the Lord exceedingly (xiii. 13). Previous to the giving of the law at Sinai nine commandments of the decalogue had been given, and had been broken times without number; the fourth commandment was probably no exception. Even Archbishop Whately, in arguing that the whole Mosaic code, including the decalogue, had been abrogated,^ claims "that some 1 Difficulties of the writings of St. Paul, pp. 148, 150, 152. THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES 73 Sabbatical institution, in memory of the creation, existed in the patriarchal times, . . . that some kind of observance of the seventh day existed prior to the Mosaic law." * He also claims that, " though the Mosaic law does not bind us, our moral obliga- tions exist quite independent of that law," " and that we find " the most ample evidence of the observance of the Lord's day as a Christian festival by the apostles and their immediate converts, whose example has been followed by all Christian churches down to this day." ^ The decalogue, then, is abol- ished only so far as it was a system of positive laws for the Jews, Its moral character, in which are its more essential elements, remains, and is obligatory on us. Even the positive nature of the ante-Mosaic Sabbath— as its septenary character — continues, be- cause unaffected by the abolition or fulfilment of Judaism. All Jewish positive laws were based on moral principles; as, the command to offer the first- fruits, on the princixDle of thankful homage due the great Giver; and the requirement of sin=offerings, on the principle that there can be no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood — suffering. The posi- tive laws may be temporary, while the principles are eternal. Closing, now, this part of the discussion, we claim that a fair and full investigation shows that there was an ante^Mosaic sacred day, that the disbelievers in such a day fail to give a satisfactory account of the early septenary division of time, and modern researches in cuneiform inscriptions seem positively to confirm the other evidence of such a division, and 1 Ibid., p. 161. 2 Ibid., p. 161. 3 Ibid., p. 163. 74 SABBATH AND SUNDAY of a genuine Sabbath ; that none have shown that the decalogue, or even the fourth commandment, is abro- gated, or that either was given solely for the Jews; that the whole decalogue stands on a plane superior to that of the Jewish civil and ceremonial law; that the apostle Paul in teaching that the observance of the seventh day in the new dispensation was optional, as was that of other sacred days and seasons of the old dispensation, did nothing to undermine the moral elements of the fourth commandment; and that all moral elements are permanent and universal in their application. Thus we come out of the old dispensation with the moral, which are the chief, elements of the original Sabbath undiminished, un- tarnished, enforced upon us by both reason and Scripture, and, dissolved from their former positive ordinal element of time=reckoning, likely to assume some new relation in the new dispensation. CHAPTER V. THE CHANGE OF OBSERVANXE FROM THE SEVENTH TO THE lord's day. Having considered the Sabbath of the old dispen- sation, it is intended now to consider whether there is divine authority for a change of the weekly sacred day in the new dispensation, and if there is, in vrhat that authority consists. 1. The Lord's day has what is known in affairs of property as the right of possession, which should hold unless disproved. The Christian public gener- erally, through many centuries have kept the first day sacred; and they should continue as they have been born and bred, unless they find reason for change. We observe the Fourth of July as that of the declaration of indej)endence, not so much be- cause we have individually examined history to see whether that is the true day, as because the example of our fathers has naturally led us to suppose it is the right one. For like reasons we observe the first day of the week as the Sabbath. But if thorough re- search should i)rove that the third of July and the seventh day of the week are the ones to be observed, we ought to change. 2. The change of institutions in the change from the old dispensation to the new was not sudden and 75 76 SABBATH AND SUNDAY violent, but gradual and rational; the new institu- tions commencing, indeed, immediately, but the old ones disappearing gradually. The old institutions were not sinful, though the new had commenced, else they should have been at once abandoned. Hence time was taken for the people to think, and to change, not through force, but through principles. Baptism took the place, in a sense, pertaining to covenant, of circumcision. Baptism was commenced immediately; but circumcision was continued more or less by some of the Christians through many years. It was twenty years after the death of Christ — after the beginning of the new dispensation — that Paul circumcised Tim- othy. The Lord's supper took the place of the pass- over, and, instituted just as Christ was about to give his life for the world, it was intended to commemorate that act to the end of time. Yet the Christians did not immediately abandon the passover, but with some subsequent modifications, kept it several cen- turies. Christ's sacrifice took the place of the many temple sacrifices. But the Christians a long time continued to attend the temple services held in con- nection with the sacrifices, even until the temple was destroyed, and there was no more place for sacrifice. Immediately after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at pentecost the believers were continually in the temple praising God (Acts ii. 46, 47). When Peter healed a lame man, as he and John were going to the temple at the hou r of prayer, it was the evening hour for sacrifice. Twenty=seven years after the death of Christ we find Paul purifying himself, with four others that had a vow (Acts xxi. 26), and that cere- mony involved offering sacrifice in the temple (Num, CHANGE FROM SEVENTH TO LORD'S DAY 11 vi. 3-18). While doing this, then, as a matter of prudence with the Jews, he adopted principles and practices that contributed to the final abandonment of all sacrifices. We must conclude that while the institutions of the new dispensation were commenced at its beginning, those of the old were not immedi- ately forsaken. And by analogy, if we find that the apostles and primitive saints kept the first day, we shall also find that they did not at once give up all observance of the seventh day. 3 Our authority for the change from the institu- tions of the old dispensation to those of the new does not come so much by the explicit commands of the apostles as by their examples. We have Christ's dis- tinct command to be baptized, but neither his nor his apostles' command to discontinue circumcision. Yet the apostles taught that circumcision was not neces- sary to salvation, and under that principle it ceased. ^We have no command from either Christ or apostles to cease the observance of the passover. Christ gave command to his apostles to observe the Lord's sup- per; but he did not give that command to all believers nor did his apostles. We infer the duty and privi- lege of all Christians to observe it from the example of the apostles in administering it to all Christians of their time, which indicates their understanding of Christ's original command to observe it. In such things apostolic example is equal to command. We have no inspired command to cease off ering sacrifices; but from principles set forth in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and from the example of the apostles, and of the Christians under their instructions, in finally omitting sacrifices altogether, we conclude that it 78 SABBATH AND SUNDAY would be wrong in us now to offer sacrifices as under the old dispensation. By parity of reasoning, if the first day takes the place of the seventh, we shall not find a command to cease observing the seventh, and shall find inspired example in keeping the first day, rather than distinct command to keep it. Whatever the apostles of Christ taught by example, while under inspiration, we are bound to observe. If they and- the Christians with them carefully and steadily kept sacred the first day of the week, then, of course, the apostles gave instruction to those around them so to do; and that example and instruction are authorita- tive. We cannot think it right to go contrary to the universal apostolic instruction and example. From their example we get the light of duty. 4. A change of time for the sacred day from the seventh to the first day of the week is presumptively possible and probable. (1) So far as the original Sabbath pertained to the seventh day of the week, it admitted the possibility of a change. If changed, it would still read, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." So far as the day was positive, it was mut- able. (2) Nothing in its nature forbade a change Its time was not different in kind from that of other days. It could as well be a blessing to man on the first as on the seventh day if the Lord changed it. (3) Exact identity in observance of time is, and ever has been, a practical imj)ossibility never required. The world turns around; men do not keep the same time that we do either in Europe or California.* God * When the late Czar of Russia died we heard immediately of it here in the morning of the day on which it occnrred in the afternoon. CHANGE FROM SEVEXTH TO LORD'S DAY 7§ could therefore change the time without a viola- tion of his own law in the constitution of the day. Traveling westward the days lengthen, and continu- ing around the globe in that direction, we should lose one day, and of necessity must make a change in or- der to be in accord with other Sabbath worshipers. Going north of the Arctic circle we should have but one day and one night in the year, if measured by the visibility of the sun, and could not have a Sab- bath in unison with those nearer the equator. Two parties encircling the earth by going in different di- rections, east and west, will be two days apart when they meet at the point whence they started. An English ship touched at Pitcairn's Island in the Pa- cific on a Saturday, and found the islanders keeping Sunday. The explanation was in the fact that they had gone thither from the same home-land by sailing in opposite directions. Though differing one day in time, each party was in God's sight acceptably keep- ing the Lord's day, if either was; yet, continuing to- gether, an adjustment so as to keep the same time would be important and proper. (4) The essential chief point in the fourth commandment is not keep- ing a particular seventh day, but devoting six days to the general purposes of labor, and one — a seventh — to holy rest;^ and the seventh day might be termed the first, or the first the seventh. (5) The objects of rest could as well be secured on another day than the seventh, if God so direct. One of those objects i^ worship, which is not dependent on a particular time, though it should be conformed to the divine plan. Dr. Dale objects: ''The law required rest; it did not ^ Dr. Schaff, Apostolical Church, p. 556. 80 SABBATH AND SUNDAY require worship."^ And Professor Moses Stuart says: "There was no provision for social worship among the Hebrews on the Sabbath."^ The truth is, a "holy convocation" for public worship was expressly ap- pointed for the Sabbath before the Israelites broke up their encami^ment at Sinai (Lev. xxiii. 3).^ Nor were they ignorant of holy convocations previous to that time. We find in Ex. xii. 16 that "an holy con- vocation" was appointed for both the first and the seventh days of the passover feast when it was insti- tuted, before the Jews left Egypt. In their minds, doubtless, keeping the Sabbath "holy" implied a "holy convocation." (6) The command does not ab- solutely preclude a change of day; since it does not read, "Remember the seventh day," but "the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." Though on the seventh day then, it need not be always. The seventh was sub- sidiary to the Sabbath, and might, by divine appoint- ment, give place to another day. (7) The seventh day was chosen to commemorate a particular event — the creation. A change might be made, to commem- orate a greater event, on another day. (8) An event greater, in some aspects, has occurred — the resurrec- tion of Jesus Christ — the climax of his redemptive work. "If Christ hath not been raised then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Cor. xv. 14). "I create new heavens and a new earth" (Isa. Ixv. 17). The new creation is the beginning of the new dispensation. The original Sabbath commemorated the completion of the first creation; the Lord's day commemorates that of the second creation. Here are ^Ten Commandments, p. 99. 2 Old Test. Canon, pp. 66, 67. ^ See in loc. Kalisch, Lange, and Murphy. CHANGE FROM SEVENTH TO LORD'S DAY 81 two great events, and two special days commemorat- ing them. But the events and the origin of the days are in different eras and dispensations; yet both days pertain to weekly time. As the latter dispensation takes the place of the former, it might be expected that the commemorative day of the latter would take the place of that of the former. (9) Yet the change of time, while specially commemorating the new event, — the Redeemer's resurrection, — would not wholly discard the commemoration of the original event — the creation. For still there would be the six days' labor in memory of God's creative w^ork, and the one day of rest in memory of his rest. (10) The original Sabbath having been given in part to develop and sanctify man's religious nature, and the Lord's day being better fitted now^ in the new dispensation to accomplish the same purpose, it might be expected that it W' ould be put in the place of the original day. (11) The fact that Christ, as Lord of the Sabbath, absolved himself and followers from Jewish Sabbatic perversions, and from slavery to the letter of Sabbatic law, without abolishing the Sabbath, suggests the probability that he will change the time of the sacred day if sufficient reasons for it should arise. (12) The fact that through several centuries previous to the coming of Christ many Jews perverted the Sabbath, and in its name bound upon themselves and others many burdens grievious to be borne, suggests that the Lord of the Sabbath may change the time of the sacred day to relieve it from those multiform abuses, and to give his new church a new and free day for its most precious religious festivals, the commemora- 82 SABBATH AND SUNDAY tion of Christ's death, by the Lord's supper, and that of his resurrection, the completion of his redemption, by the new day itself. CHAPTER VI. " THE FIRST DAY " BECOMES THE SACRED WEEKLY DAY AMONG THE EARLY CHRISTIANS. In the chapter next preceding on the Sabbath we have seen that there was a possibility, and even prob- ability, of a change of observance from the seventh to some other day of the week. We now resume and proceed with the discussion. 1. The Lord's day in the new dispensation was the chief of all days with the apostles and early Chris- tians, and was their special day for rest and worship. (1). The Lord's day during the Apostolic age. (a) Christ, in the first instance, gave great significance and emphasis to his resurrection day, by appearing five different times to his disciples during its hours. — to Mary Magdalene (John xx. 14-17), to the othei women (Matt, xxviii. 9, 10), to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke xxiv. 13-31; Mark xvi. 12), to the ajpostle Peter separately (1 Cor. xv. 5), and to ten of the apostles collected together (Mark xvi. 14; Luke xxiv. 36-49; John xx. 19-23). In respect to power, he might just as well have risen on the seventh day. Why did he not do it, and give it the more honor? But simply appearing so many times on the day that he rose might not in itself have made it a sacred festival, either weekly, monthly, or annual 83 84 SABBATH AND SUNDAY Yet much more notice of it in its ^Yeekly round, either by himself or his apostles, would be nearly certain to make it a noted day, and sacred to the Christians. Objection: These admitted facts of Christ's appear- ance on the day that he rose do not prove a change of sacred time. Reply: Seventh=day authors are pro- fuse in their representations that First=day keepers adduce Christ's several manifestations of himself on his resurrection day as proof that that day in its week- ly recurrence should be kept holy, and the seventh day be spent as secular. Thus they mislead tens of thousands of their readers and adherents.^ First-day observers claim this: that the occurrences on the day in the morning of which Christ rose, constitute the beginning of a series of events, which soon led to the universal keeping by Christians of the first day of the week as sacred; and that that early observance and its causes have made the first day chief and holy in nearly the whole militant church in all subsequent (5) But, Christ, while not appearing again, so far as we learn, during the next six days after that of his resurrection, not even on the Sabbath embraced in that number, did appear on the next first day, at least to the eleven, and in commemoration, it would seem, of his resurrection, as well as mercifully to con- vince the doubting Thomas (John xx. 24-29). For some reasons, a portion of which apparently do not appear, the disciples, and especially the sacred writers, at once came to regard the first day of the week as ^Andrews, Hist. Sab., p. 143; also, Examination of Seven Reasons for Sunday=keeping, pp. 8, 9. THE ''FIRST DAY'' —THE SACRED DAY 85 sacred and honored. There it stands, with them a marked and remarkable day. Objection First: Christ and his disciples did not keep the day on which he rose as sacred and holy; he and two disciples traveled to Emmaus on that day and returned; the women went to embalm his body, which they would not have done on the ' Sabbath. Reply: It is not claimed that there was a constitu- tional change in the time of the first day, nor admit- ted that the Sabhath^s hours were different in nature from the time of other days, nor was it intended that the first day should be observed before its purport was understood; neither does any divine law prescribe how far it is proper to walk or ride on the Sabbath or the Lord's day. Objection Second: The "eight days''^ after the resurrection of Christ, when he appeared unto the eleven, were a day more than a week, and conse- quently the time was on our Monday.^ Reply: By the Hebrew reckoning it ivas at the beginning of the eighth day from Christ's resurrection. Just seven days from that event was the jirst day morning, and the following evening after sunset was the beginning of the Jewish eighth day — the close of the Koman seventh day — what we call Sunday evening. There was just a week between the two appearances of Christ to his apostles, or perhaps a few hours more than a week. The Jews were accustomed to speak of " eight days " when the eighth had been only com^ menced, not completed. The circumcision of Christ occurred '' when eight days were accomplished " ' W. H. Little John, Constitutional Amendment, pp. 31-36, 2 John XX. 26. 3 Andrews, Hist. Sab., pp. 147, 118, 86 SABBATH AND SUNDAY (Luke ii. 21), which was when the eighth day had been reached, not ended/ For, the law was, that " in the eighth day " of the child's life the rite of cir- cumcision should be observed (Lev. xn. 3); and in the case of John the Baptist, " on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child " (Luke i. 59). There- fore, since the phrase " when eight days were accom- lolished " means only after the eighth day was begun, the phrase, "after eight days" (John xx. 26) does not necessarily mean any more. And since " the same day" (»John xx. 19) reckoned from was the day, and not the later evening of the day, on which Christ rose, it was near the beginning of the eighth day from his resurrection when he appeared the second time to his assembled apostles, Thomas being with them, And therefore the time was the evening of Sunday, and 7iot of Monday, as the seventh=day Sab- batarians claim. Further, the terms " first day " and " eighth day " were interchangeable by common usage. They evi- dently meant the same, and the writings of the early Fathers show such use. Justin says, '• The first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth." ^ It was, therefore, natural to speak of the second " first," or " eighth," day as "eight days" after the first, the two extreme days being counted, Such method of reckoning was common in that age, as also that of excluding the two extremes. In Luke ix. 28 is a case of the inclu- sive method, and in Matt. xvii. 1 and Mark ix. 2 a case of the exclusive, both cases pertaining to the 1 See Towneend's Notes on Luke ii, 21. 2 Dialogue with Trypho, chap, xli.; Aut. Nic. Lib., Vol.ii. p. 139. THE ''FIRST DAY'' —THE SACRED DAY 87 same event — the transfiguration of Christ. Both modes of computing were occasionally employed by the same writer. In Tacitus' History, chapter xxix., Piso speaks of himself as Caesar — within the ex- tremes of— six days; and in chajpter xlviii. Piso is described as Caesar during four days.' Still further, though the Jews in Christ's time in some respects used the Hebrew chronology, they evi- dently often reckoned days by the number of different times the sun appeared. At evening, after sunset, and during the night, they would sf)eak of the next morning as the " morrow," just as we do, though by the Hebrew reckoning it was the same day. Paul preached at Troas in the night time, '' ready to depart on the morrow" (Acts xx. 7), at the next sun, the next day; yet, by Hebrew chronology it was really not the " morrow," but the same day. One man said to another, " The day groweth to an end, lodge here . . . and to-morrow get you early on your way " (Judges xix. 9). He did not mean after sunset, but after the next sun came. If it were already after sunset, he would have said the same. " Her judges are evening wolves; they gnaw not the bones till the morrow" (Zeph. iii. 3). Wolves prowl in darkness; yet the next sun was called the '' morrow," though strictly, by Hebrew reckoning, the morrow was not till after the next sun had set.^ When Paul ' contin- ued his speech until midnight," it was reckoned as the same day. He left Troas " at break of day" the next morning, and that was counted as ''on the mor- ^ See Webster and Wilkinson's Com. on Luke ix. 28. 2See also, Ex. xxxii. 6, 6; Lev. vii. 15, 16; Josh. vii. 13. 14; 2 Chrou. XX. 16. 17, 20; James iv. 13, U. 88 SABBATH AND SUNDAY row" (Acts XX. 7, 11). The night and the next morning were counted as parts of two different days. So, when Jesus was with his apostles during the evening next following his resurrection, it was a part of one day; and the next morning was a part of another day. Reckoning thus is strictly Biblical, and counting thus, the next Sunday, even in the morning, was " eight days " after. (c) Some suppose that Christ's ascension was on the first day of the week, making their inference from a passage in the epistle of Barnabas, as follows: "We celebrate the eighth with joyfulness, on which Jesus rose from the dead, and when he had manifested him- self he ascended into the heavens." ^ Hefele, also Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn, editors of the latest edition of the Apostolic Fathers, ^ reading the pas- sage with only a comma, instead of a period, after the word ''dead," suppose it teaches that Christ both rose and ascended on the eighth day. This view does not seem to be sufficiently well founded. (d) Whatever admissible rendering be given to Acts ii. 1, it is apparent that the descent of the Holy Spirit was on the day of Pentecost, and the general learned opinion now is, and the ancient Christian tradition was, that the day of pentecost occurred on the first day of the week, our Sunday. The reckon- ing which results in that conclusion is this: The preparation for Christ's last paschal supper (Matt, xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 8) was made near 1 Ant. Nic. Lib.; Vol. i. p. 128; see also, "The Apostolic Fath- ers," translated by Rev. G. A. Jackson, and edited by Prof. G. P. Fisher, p. 97. 2 Patrum Apostolicorum opera, Vol. i. p. 57. THE "FIRST DAY'' —THE SACRED DAY 89 the close of Thursday, the fifth day of the week, the fourteenth of the month Nisan, at which time the passover lamb among all the Jews at Jerusalem was slain. Jesus ate the passover meal at the usual time, the beginning of the sixth day, their Friday, our Thursday evening; and at that time the feast of un- leavened bread commenced. He was crucified on the sixth day, after the night succeeding Thursday. The wave offering was made on the seventh day, Sat- urday, the Jewish Sabbath, which was the second day of the feast, and the sixteenth of Nisan; and fifty days from that (Lev. xxiii. 15, 16) was the pentecost, on the first day of the week. According to this, the evidence is that the Redeemer again put special honor upon the day of his resurrection, by fulfilling his promise in the descent of the Holy Ghost on the seventh first day after that on which he rose from the dead, — seeming thus to require the continued ob- servance of the sacred week of seven days, and to ap- point the first day, instead of the seventh, as the hon- ored and especially religious one henceforth. That was the complete opening of the new disx^ensation, and the first day was then made the ''birthday of the Christian Chm'ch." ^ Such significance already given the first day by divine acts, together with the effu- sion of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, suggests the probability, that further and definite instruction was given by the Savior in person before his ascension, or by his Spirit afterwards, concerning the continued observance of that day, which instruction was well 1 Schaflf, Church History, Vol, i. p. 61; also, Dr. Smith's Old Test. Hist., p. 265. 90 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY understood by the apostles, and communicated by them to the Christians of their time, though not re- corded for our reading. Ohjection: "It is generally supposed that this pen- tecost . . . fell on the Jewish Sabbath, our Sa't- urday."* Reply: 1. We think it now generally sup- posed that this pentecost fell on our Sunday. But we seek truth, not merely the opinion of the majority. 2. The date of this pentecost depends on certain dates connected with the Jewish passover, and on the date of Christ's last paschal supper, and of his death. It is, therefore, involved in difhculties. Dr. Schaff speaks of it as an " intricate question," ^ and Alford as "ex- tremely difficult."^ Some authors, however, have added to the inherent difficulties by their own errors. Professor Hackett and Dr. William Smith, for ex- ample, agree in fixing upon Friday, the fifteenth of Nisan, as the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, and as that of Christ's death, and upon Satur- day, the Jewish Sabbath, as the time fifty days after which (Lev. xxiii. 15, 16) the day of Pentecost oc- curred. * And yet Hrof essor Hackett infers that pen- tecost that year "fell on the Jewish Sabbath, our Saturday," and Dr. Smith that it " fell on Sunday." The cause of this discrepancy must be this: The for- mer reckons Saturday, the second day of the feast, as the first of the fifty days, and the latter reckons the day following as the first of the fifty. Who reckons ^Hackett, Com. on Acts ii. 1. 2 Lange's Com. Matt. p. 454, note. 3Com., Matt. ixvi. 17-19. * New Test. Hist., pp. 314, 380. THE " FIRST DA Y " —THE SA CRED DAY 91 scripturally? Probably Dr. Smith, as we shall here- after attempt to show. ^ But if Professor Hackett and others err in their manner of counting, Dr. Lange seems to err in the counting itself. He assumes correctly, we suppose, that the second day of the passover or feast of unleav- ened bread that year was Saturday, and that the fifty days were to be counted from that. But in the same paragraph he obliges himself to reckon that Satur- day as the fii'st of the tifty, by saying, "This feast of [seven] weeks was celebrated on the fiftieth day after the first day of the passover festival.'' ^ Reckoning Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, as the first of the fifty, inevitably makes pentecost come on Saturday. But Dr. Lange says it came that year " on our Sunday.'' His general knowledge of the subject seems to bring him to a right conclusion; but his reasoning would lead to a wrong one. Olshausen says: ''It was from Friday evening at six o'clock that the fifty days began to be counted," ^ committing thus the same error in dating that Pro- fessor Hackett does. He also agrees with him in the conclusion that the fiftieth day fell upon Saturday. Yet on the same page he virtually contradicts him- self, by saying that ''Pentecost in the year of our nVe have more recently found that Dr. Smith in his Old Tes- tament History, p. 264, has this: "From the sixteenth of Nisan seven weeks were reckoned inclusively. '''' He includes the six- teenth, the Sabbath; doing that, his deduction in his New Tes- tament History, p. 380, note, is incorrect. He is inconsistent with himself, or has changed his opinion. Beginning with Sat- urday and counting seven weeks brings us to the eighth Satur- day: and does not include it, and that Saturday is the fiftieth day. 2 Com., Acts ii. 1, p. 26. ^ Com. Acts ii. 1; Vol. iii. p. 191. 92 SABBATH AND SUNDAY Lord's death fell upon Saturday; but it began at six o'clock in the evening, when the Sabbath was at a close, and it lasted till six o'clock on Sunday even- ing." That is saying that it came on Sunday, when he had before said it came on Saturday. Beginning with Saturday and closing on Sunday would give fifty- one days. We do not find that these discrepancies and errors in counting have heretofore been noticed. We therefore conclude that by them the real diflScul- ties of the subject may have been unduly magnified in the minds of many. 8. It seems to be a certainty that the early Chris- tians regarded the event of the outpouring of the Spirit — that is, pentecost — in the year in which Christ died, as occurring on the first day of the week. And ever since the primitive era the Christian world in general have conceived of Whitsuntide as com- memorative of the descent of the Holy Spirit at pen- tecost. Neander speaks of the feast of pentecost as the equivalent of Whitsuntide, observed in remem- brance of Christ risen and glorified, and of the effu- sion of the Holy Spirit. ^ Dr. Schaff says: "The church always celebrated p entecost on Sunday, the fiftieth day after Easter."^ Olshausen says: "The whole church, so far as we can trace the history of pentecost, have celebrated the feast on Sunday."^ Wieseler supposes that the Western church changed the celebration of pentecost from the seventh to the first day in conformity with her observance of Easter on that day. * But his supposition is not confirmed ^Hist. Ch., Vol. i. p. 300 (Torrey's Trans.). ^Hist. Apost. Church, p. 194, note. ^Com., Acts ii. 1, *Alfordj New Test, for English Readers, Acts ii, 1-4, THE " FIRST DAY'' —THE SACRED DAY 93 by proof; and if it were, it would not account for the celebration on the first day by the church in gen- eral. The Syriac New Testament was found divided into lessons to be read in public worship, and in the list of Sundays is the " Sunday of Pentecost. " ^ The Peshito Syriac version dates back, as the learned agree, to the close of the second, or beginning of the third, century, and some suppose to the close of the first or beginning of the second. So much evidence of belief in the primitive church that pentecost came on Sunday could hardly exist, unless it were founded on truth. And such general belief is entitled to much weight in discussing the question before us, Among the fixed data on this subject are the fol- lowing: Christ was crucified on Friday, and rose the next Sunday.^ The preparation for the passover, including the killing of the paschal lamb, was to be made on the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan (Ex. xii. 6, 18; Num. ix. 3; xxviii. 16), and the pass- over was to be-i eaten just after, at evening, near the beginning of the fifteenth (Lev. xxiii. 5). With the fifteenth the feast of unleavened bread, or passover, was to commence, and on that day was to be held a holy convocation (Lev. xxiii. 6, 7). The feast of first=fruits, including the wave offering, was to be ob- served during passover week, on the morrow after the ^ Dr. Gustav Seyflfarth holds the view that Christ died on Thursday, not Friday. See Lange on Matthew, Dr. Schaflf's note, p. 454, note, and p. 457. Rev. J. K. Aldrich holds the same the- ory, and presents a strong, yet not satisfactory argument in its favor. See Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. xxvii., July, 1870. But as they both regard Friday as the fifteenth, their view in respect to the day of pentecost need not be inharmonious with the one advocated in these pages. 94 SABBATH AND SUNDAY Sabbath (Lev, xxiii. 10, 11), and fifty days from that, inclusive or exclusive, was to be the day of pentecost (Lev. xxiii. 15, 16). Among the unsettled data are these: Was the Friday of that year on which Christ was crucified the fourteenth or fifteenth of Nisan? Was the Sunday on which he rose from the dead the sixteenth or seventeenth of Nisan? Did Jesus eat the passover meal at the usual Jewish time, or one day previous, i. e. at the beginning of the four- teenth or of the fifteenth of the month? Was the Sabbath on the morrow after which the wave offering was to be made the regular weekly Sabbath (Lev. xxiii. 11), or the first day of convocation in the pass- over week? Did the fifty days reckoned from the morrow after the Sabbath (Lev. xxiii. 15, 16) embrace the morrow itself? We know, from the evangelists, that Christ rose from the grave on the first day of the w^eek, and that the day preceding was the Sabbath, and that Christ was crucified on the day preceding the Sabbath — Friday. And accordingto the first three evangelists we know that Jesus ate the passover meal at evening, the beginning of Friday, apparently at the usual time. That usual time was certainly at the beginning of the fifteenth of Nisan (Lev. xxiii. 9; Num. xxviii. 17); and later in the day, it would seem, Christ was crucified. This reckoning makes Friday the fifteenth, and not the fourteenth, of Nisan, in the year of Christ's death. Nothing would make it seem otherwise, except this: The apostle John speaks of the Jews as on Friday forenoon yet to eat the passover (xviii. 28). If they had not already partaken of the first and chief passover meal, and were to do it the THE ''FIRST DAY'' —THE S ACHED DAY 95 following evening, then this Friday was the four- teenth, and not the fifteenth of the month. We need to determine the meaning of the phrase, "But that they might eat the passover" (John xviii. 28) In the New Testament the word "passover" Ud(Tya, has three significations. (1) It means the paschal lamh, as, "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover^^ (Mark xiv. 12).* There is the same use of the Hebrew word for passover in the Old Testament (Ex. xii. 21; Deut.xvi. 2, 5, 6). There is the same use of the Greek word in Joseph us.^ (2) It also means the one meal called the paschal supper, the first in the week of unleav- ened bread; as, "I will keep the passover at thy house . . . . And they made ready the passover" (Matt, xxvi. 18, 19).' The Old Testament has like use of the word, and the Septuagint translates the Hebrew by the Greek word for passover (Ex. xii. 48; Num. ix. 4, 5). With this meaning Josephus also employs the word.* (3) It means, further, the passover festival itself, or the feast of unleavened bread, lasting seven days; as, "Now ^tlie feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the passover" (Luke xxii. 1).^ And Josephus says of the feast of unleavened bread, the seven days, "And is by the Jews called the pass- over."^ Nothing forbids this third meaning of the word "passover" in John xviii. 28, unless the word "eat" confines it to the meaning of paschal supper. ^See also, Luke xxii. 7; 1 Cor. v. 7. 2 Ant. b. iii. ch. x, sec. 5. ^ ggg Luke xxii. 8, 13; Heb. xi. 28. * Ant., b. ii. ch. xiv. sec. 6. ^ See Luke ii. 41, 43; Matt. xxvi. 2; John ii. 13; vi. 4. ^ Wars, b. ii. ch. i. sec, 3, 96 SABBATH AND SUNDAY But such limitation is not always given by that ex- pression. The word "eat" is employed in the sense of celebrate, and that in reference to this same festi- val: "And they did eat the festival seven days" (2 Chron. XXX. 22). Such is the literal rendering.^ The word "eat" seems to have been used in preference to the word "keep," because the act of eating unleav- ened bread was prominent. Therefore the passage in question (Johnxviii. 28) does not necessarily imply that the Jews at the time of Christ's trial and cruci- fixion had not eaten the first passover meal the even- ing previous. They may have had in prospect their voluntary peace-offerings, and the eating therewith, w^hich were observed by private individuals and fami- lies, particularly on the first day of the passover week. Such offerings were provided for by Jewish law (Lev. vii. 15, 16; Num. x. 10). The foregoing conclusion is strengthened by chron- ological calculations, which show, that in the year of • Kome 783, of Christ, 30 (really 34), the year of his crucifixion, the fifteenth of Nisan fell on Friday.^ And such seems now to be the trend of discussion. Dr. Schaff in his " Apostolic Church," published in 1853, said, " While this Friday, according to the synoptical Gospels, seems to have been the fifteenth of Nisan, an unbiased interpretation of several pas- sages in the Gospel of John would make it the four- teenth."^ But in Lange on Matthew* he in one sentence favors the opposite view, and in Lange on ^Apostolic Church, p 193, note. ^15^(5^^ pp 4.55 455 uq^jq^ ^ See Robinson's Eng. Harmony, notes, p. 201. * Wiesler in Hertzog's Encyc. xxi. p. 550, quoted by Dr. SchaflE, Lange's Com., John, p. 563. THE ''FIRST DAY'' —THE SACRED DAY 97 John, published in 1875, he still more favors iV This is doubtless a change in the right direction. Did the fifty days reckoned "from the morrow after the Sabbath " (Lev. xxiii. 15, 16), include the morrow itself? In respect to this question, we have seen, that different men have reckoned differently,^ but we do not find that they themselves have noticed the difference. The direction is, "And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave- offering; seven Sabbaths shall be complete; even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath shall ye num- ber fifty days" (Lev. xxiii. 15, 16). The Septuagint reads, " Ye shall number to yourselves from the day after the Sabbath, from the day on which ye shall offer the sheaf of the heave^ offering, seven full weeks'; unto the morrow after the last week ye shall number fifty days." Does this language mean " from" in the sense of after the day on which the wave=offering was made, or from in the sense of icitJi, or inclusive of the day for that offering? We think the language is not decisive of that question in either the Hebrew or the Septuagint. We have in this Article seen instances of both the inclusive and exclusive.^ Still, the Scripture phrase seven sabbaths shall be com- plete," meaning, or at least implying, seven iveeJxS, seems decidedly to favor there being seven complete weeks after thewave^offering, and before the pente- cost; seven weeks exclusive of both extreme days. The Targum has the following; "And number to you after the first feast day of Pascha, from the day when you brought the sheaf for the elevation, seven weeks; 1 Ibid., pp. 562, 563. 2 gee pp. 90, 91. ^See p. 86. 6 98 SABBATH AND SUNDAY complete shall they be. Until the day after the seventh week you shall number fifty days." The phrase, " until the day after the seventh week," shows that pentecost, at one extreme was not to be included; and we may well infer, it would seem, that the day for the feast of first-fruits, at the other extreme was also not to be included. And the phrase, *' complete shall they be," still further seems to indicate, that the seven weeks were to be complete without either of the two feast= days standing at the extremes of the weeks. Turn- ing to Josephus, we get additional light. He speaks of the festival of first=fruits, of the wave= offering, and says, " When a week of weeks has passed over after this sacrifice (which weeks con- tain forty and nine days), on the fiftieth day, which is pentecost, etc." ^ The phrase " after this sacrifice" favors excluding the day of the wave offering in numbering fifty days. Dr. Robinson says that pen- tecost was " seven weeks after the sixteenth day of Nisan ; " ^ by which we understand him, that seven weeks were completed after that day, and then came pentecost; seven full weeks intervening between the first day of passover week and pentecost. Dr Rob- inson held that Christ's crucifixion was on the fif- teenth of Nisan,^ and, that being Friday, by his view pentecost was on Sunday. The sixteenth of Nisan in the year of Christ's death being the day of the wave-offering (Lev. xxiii, 6-11), and being also 'Ant., b. iii. ch. x. sec. 6. ^ Greek and English Lexicon, TZevrTj- XOffZT]. 3 Harmony of Gospels, notes; also Bib. Sac. Vol. ii., Aug. 1845. THE ''FIRST DAY" —THE SACRED DAY 99 Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, counting fifty days after that day we come to Sunday as the day of pentecost. If Friday, the day of crucifixon, was the fourteenth of Nisan, as some hold, and the first day of unleaven- ed bread was Saturday, the fifteenth, and the wave* offering, it being the second day of the feast, was on Sunday, the sixteenth, then numbering fifty days in- clusive of the day of the wave=offering, would bring the day of pentecost on Sunday. We think the former reckoning the true one, but either is pos- sibly correct. We feel bound to have in mind the fact that the primitive Christians said the day of pen- tecost was on Sunday. And we are aiming to show that, notwithstanding all disagreements in the reck- oning made by different scholars, nothing proves the primitive testimony untrue. All theories having any probability in their favor seem to be adjustable to the assertion of primitive church history, that the day of pentecost in the year of Christ's death came on Sunday, and was ever after observed by the Christians on that day. It is a very noteworthy fact in the series of first=day events, that the new dispensation, so far as can be decided, open- ed on Sunday, and not on Saturday. (c) We have thus far considered events which oc- curred within less than fifty days after Christ's resur- rection. We have no more in their immediate vicin- ity of time concerning the first day. We must wait to see whether those we already have, in connection with others unknown, will work any particular change of observance in sacred days, or whether those events, having passed by, will stand in history as iso- 100 SABBATH AND SUNDAY lated facts, without any special sequence. But we eagerly pass to the earliest date of apostolic or evan- gelistic writings, to see whether we discover any in- dications of change. The first three, or the synoptic Gospels, are the first writings of that kind which we may expect to find. They were written between about twenty = five and thirty=five years after Jesus' resurrection, and John's Gospel, fifty years or more after that event. We have been speaking of the " first day of the week; " but we do not find any such expression coming from the Saviour's lips, or from any of his disciples at the time of his death. He had foretold his death and resurrection; but the latter he spoke of as to occur on the " third day." Each of the three synoptic Gospels make record of it; Matthew (xx. 19) and Luke (xviii. 33) each once, and Mark three times (viii. 31; ix. 31; x. 34). The Scribes and Pharisees heard of that prophecy of his the next day after his crucifixion, and made it the basis of their request of Pilate for a guard to be stationed at his tomb in readiness for the third day morning (Matt, xxvii. 62-66). The angels repeated the prophecy to the women at the sepulchre on the morning of the resurrection (Luke xxiv. 7). The two disciples going to Emmaus reminded the Saviour of the " third day" on which he was to rise again (Luke xxiv. 21); and he spoke of it himself to his apostles assembled on the evening of the "third day" (Luke xxiv. 46). Nine several times the evangelists make some record respecting that " third day." That was the current phraseology, then, concerning the day of Christ's re- surrection. It was the " third day," not " first day." But when from twenty- five to fifty years have wit- THE -FIRST DAY''— THE SACRED DAY 101 nessed the inauguration of the Christian dispensation, what do we find? Each of the four evangelists, in his account of Christ's resurrection, says that he rose on the •' first day of the week," and Mark and John employ that term twice each (Matt, xxviii. 1; Mark xvi. 2, 9; Luke xxiv. 1; (John xx. 1, 19). Luke in his Gospel four times mentions the prophecy that Christ would rise the " third day "; yet, from twenty=five to thirty years after that frequent expression used at the time of the resurrection, he, in both his Gospel and treatise on the Acts of the Apostles (Acts xx. 7), speaks of the " first day " as though it were a phrase in common use, and dedicated to that one event. And about twenty^five years subsequent to Christ's death the apostle Paul uses the same term, " first day " (1 Cor. xvi. 2), as though not only it had peculiar sig- nificance, but was in some way specially observed at that time. The only way to account for this change of historic phrase, from " third day " to " first day " and for this occasional, yet incidental, mention of it by different inspired writers, is to sup- pose that it was already a noted day among all Chris- tians, and was well understood to be such. And the term " first day " seems to imply some contrast in the ordinary conceptions of the people between that and " seventh day "; as though the two days may have been observed by different classes in some special manner. (f) When, therefore, we come to read, "upon the first day of the week, when w^e were gathered to gether to break bread, Paul discoursed with them " (Acts XX. 7 ), we are prepared to accept the natural implication of the language, that on the "first day" 102 SABBATH AND SUNDAY the disciples customarily observed the Lord's supper, and held other religious services. That inference re- ceives additional force from the fact that, as recorded in the previous verse, the apostle and his companions, having come to Troas, "tarried seven days"; as though they had waited for the usual time for assem- bling. We find no intimation that the disciples were called together for a special occasion. The evangelists were not careful always to mention the same things. But in regard to so important an event as Christ's resurrection no one is silent. And no one fails to state that he rose on the "first day of the week." There must be meaning in that fact. And just about then when they record it, one of them also records that the latest of the apostles holds a meeting with the disciples on a "first day of the week." He does not speak of it as though it w^ere an unusual event. At that meeting a sacrament is ob- served, which was instituted in that series of events which culminated in Jesus' resurrection. The in- tent seems to be to bind into a close union the sacred commemoration of his sufferings and death, and the celebration of his victory over the grave. The one is placed in the hours of the other. The ordinance is sacred; the day seems to be sacred. And we find this fact in a line of events all of which conspire to give note and peculiarity to the "first day of the week." Objection: The "first day of the week" could not have been regarded as sacred or religious, because Paul set out upon a journey on that day. Conybeare and Howson tell us that the meeting at Troas was on " the evening which succeeded the Jewish Sab- THE " FIRST DAY''— THE SACRED DAY 103 bath." ' Dr. George B. Bacon ^ and many others have expressed the same opinion. Reply: (1) But Cony- beare and Howson admit that the opposite view may be correct, and quote Greswell, who ''supposes that they sailed from Assos on the Monday." (2) The question whether Paul and his companions journeyed from Troas on Sunday or Monday depends upon whether Luke reckoned by Jewish chronology, or by Roman, or Babylonian. The Jewish commenced and closed the day at sunset; the Roman, at midnight;^ the Babylonian and Persian, at sunrise.* If the reckoning was either Roman or Babylonian, the eve- ning in question belonged to the first day of the week, and the morrow to Monday. The highest authori- ties affirm that in the time of Christ, Jewish chronol- ogy had become modified by the Roman. ^ In some things it was the one; in others, the other. It had also become affected by the Babylonian. " Passages in the Old Testament show that by the Jewish reck- oning there were only three watches in the night: the first, or '' beginning of the watches" (Lam. ii. 19), the ''middle watch" (Judg. vii. 19), and the "morning watch " (Ex. xiv. 24; 1 Sam. xi. 11). But in the New Testament Matthew speaks of the "fourth watch " (xiv. 25), and the Saviour, of four sections or watches (Mark xiii. 85). Therefore Christ and the apostolic writers, in respect to night-watches, used 1 Life and Epistles of St. Paul, Vol ii. p. 206. ^Sabbath Question, p. 105. ^Hegewisch s Introduction, Chronology, p. 18. *Ibid., pp.17, 71. ^Smith's Bible Die, "Chronology, Day," p. 313; Home's In- troduction, Vol. iii. p. 162. ^ Hegewisch's Introduction to Chronology, pp. 17, 71. 104 SABBATH AND SUNDAY Roman chronology; for the Romans had four watches. ' But some will object that the Jews, on one occa- sion, brought their sick to Christ for healing on the Sabbath, as the "sun was setting," or had set (Luke iv. 40; Mark i. 32; Matt. viii. 16). This they would not have done on the Sabbath itself; therefore they kept Jewish time, and closed the day with sunset.^ Reply: First, they may have been only the more rigid Pharisaic Jews that would not bring their sick to be healed on the Sabbath. Secondly, though the Jews of Christ's time did close the Sabbath with sun- set, that does not prove that the evangelists, twenty^ five or fifty years afterwards, reckoned the day in the same manner^ when writing for Christians, chiefly converts from the Gentiles, who reckoned the day by the Roman method. A mixed chronology prevailed in that age, espe- cially among the Jews. Though they originally com- menced the day of twenty-four hours with sunset, they had now partly adopted the Babylonian method, and spoke of the lesser, the daylight day, as com- mencing at sunrise, or six in the morning. '' Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day" (John xi. 9)? The evangelists use the same natural day in speaking of the hours " third," " sixth," "ninth" (Matt, xxvii. 45; Mark xv. 25; Luke xxiii. 44; John xix. 14) when Christ's crucifixion occurred. And the Greeks and Romans also often reckoned by the lesser day of twelve hours, extending from sunrise ^ Smith and Barnum, Bible Die, p. 1175. . 2 jiev, W. A. Littlejohn, Constitutional Amendment, p. 176, THE " FIRST DAY''— THE SACRED DAY 105 to sunset.^ With such reckoning, it was natural to speak of the later or dusky evening as part of the daylight day which had just preceded it. A conven- ient, though varied, chronology was in the ascend- ency. Did Luke use Roman chronology in his account of Paul's visit to Troas? The following reasons indicate that he did: (a) He wrote mainly of and for Gen- tile Christian congregations in the Roman empire, and would be likely to use their chronology, which was Roman, (/?) The meeting at Troas was held upon, or continued into, the later evening of that day; the day had already some signs of being more or less sacred; by Jewish reckoning the later evening ruled the next "morrow"; Paul and his Christian companions did not spend that morrow sacredly; therefore the evening previous did not belong to the morrow; and the chronology was not Jewish. The signs of sacredness in the first day already found are, the distinction given to it by Christ, by his evange- lists, by Luke in this case under consideration. To which should be added — what occurred even earlier — Paul's direction to have certain sacred gifts decided upon and set aside on the " first day " (1 Cor. xvi. 2). That by Hebrew reckoning the later evening ruled the morrow, and made it sacred, if itself were sacred, is shown in the case of the yearly passover supper. That occurred after sunset, and was the beginning of the first day of the feast of unleavened bread (Lev. xxiii. 5, 6); Deut. xvi. 6-8). "The evening and the morning were the first day" (Gen. i. 5). Therefore, if the time of the meeting at Troas ^ Lange on John i. 39, p. 93, 1st col. 106 SABBATH AND SUNDAY were at all sacred, Luke in this record did not use Jewish chronology, (y) The series of noted events that occurred during the day of Christ's res- urrection commenced in the morning, and not in the evening. If it were, as some claim, the even- ing next following the Jewish Sabbath that the meeting was held in Troas, then the apostles cel- ebrated that wonderful event the night preceding the morrow or day of the week on which it occurred. That is altogether improbable. They would wait, at least, until the glad morning came; they would not wish to commemorate the day of his rising from the tomb and appearing to so many at so many different times, while they would yet have to say that the weekly day was not till the "morrow";^ and there- fore, doubtless, the evening of that meeting belonged to the daylight day preceding it, and not to the one following it; and the chronology used was Roman; and the next morrow was Monday, and not Sunday. (d) The apostle John probably used Roman chronol- ogy in describing a similar meeting subsequent to Christ's resurrection, and doubtless while writing more for Jewish Christians than Luke did in the Acts of the Apostles; and therefore it is nearly or quite certain that Luke employed Roman, and not Jewish chronology in the case now under consideration. John, having in his Gospel, recorded the fact of Christ's resurrection, says that he came and stood in the midst of his assembled disciples, " the same day at evening, being the first day of the week " (John XX. 19). It was the evening of the "first day of the week" (xx. 1). Was it the evening of the first day * See Discussion on " Morrow," pp. 86, 87. THE "FIRST DAY"— THE SACRED DAY 107 by Jewish or Roman chronology? The answer will depend, in part, upon whether that evening was before or after sunset. It was after sunset; First, because, as the doors were shut " for fear of the Jews" (vs. 19), it is altogether probable that they had sought shelter under the shades of evening. Secondly, because the two disciples who that day went to Emmaus, and communed with Christ on the way, had there, "toward evening . . . sat at meat" with him (Luke xxiv. 29, 30), then had trav- elled to Jerusalem, and there had found the disciples, before Jesus stood in the midst of them (Mark xvi. 12-14). It cannot reasonably be supposed that all this was done previous to sunset. Thirdly, because the disciples at Jerusalem were " at meat," at their evening meal, when Christ appeared among them (Mark xvi. 14). And the Jews' evening meal was not usually taken until their day's work was done, which was at sunset. .And on this day, so full of strange events, the disciples, in fear because of the Jews, would be likely to take their evening meal later than the usual time, rather than earlier. Fourthly, it was after sunset, the later evening, because the apostle John expressly says it was o(^>ta? late, the late evening (xx. 19), when Jesus appeared among his disciples. Ohjection: The word 3(/'ta? is sometimes applied to hours in the afternoon previous to evening; as, when Christ was about to feed five thousand, we read, " When it was evening" (Matt. xiv. 15). And it could not have been as late as sunset, or night^fall; for the people were in a desert place, and returned to their homes the same day, after being fed. Reply: 108 SABBATH AND SUNDAY The word, in Greek or English, is used relatively; and when the five thousand were fed it was, no doubt, late, as compared with the forenoon; the latter part of the afternoon had commenced. In the same pas- sage (vs. 23) the same Greek word is used again, sig- fying the time when Jesus was alone, the people hav- ing departed, and he having gone into a mountain to pray. The idea of late, in whatever language express- ed, unlimited and undefined by anything in the con- nection, would signify a time near or after sunset, or later still. Such is its acknowledged general meaning. In the case when the Saviour appeared to his apostles on the evening of his resurrection, instead of any circum- stances indicating that it was only about the middle of the afternoon, there are several showing that it was as late as what all nations naturally understand by the full evening. By Jewish computation there were two evenings — one, between three in the afternoon and sunset, or about six o'clock; and one after sunset. By late, d(pia? the later evening would certainly be meant, unless something in the connection confined it to the earlier. And all Greek linguists seem to agree that in this instance the later evening is the one indicated; as Robinson, Lange, Alford. The terms " earlier " and " later " are used relative to each other; though by Jewish chronology they belonged to two different days. The earlier evening would not be after sunset, at the beginning of the Jewish day, and the later one in the afternoon, at the close of the Jewish day, but just the reverse; the two evenings that touched each other at six o'clock being compared with each other, and the one coming last being the late one. THE "FIRST DAY'* —THE SACRED DAY 109 When Jesus manifested himself to his disciples John says it was " the same day at evening [later evening], being the first day of the week" (John xx. 19). The later evening, belonging to the first day, by Jewish reckoning was the evening preceding, Satur- day evening, that following the Jewish Sabbath. Therefore, if Jewish chronology is used, this meeting of Christ with his disciples was the evening before his resurrection, while yet his body lay in the tomb. That conclusion is absurd. Therefore the inevitable inference is, that not the Jewish, but the Roman or Babylonian, chronology is employed in this narrative; and the evening of the first day was the same as our Sunday evening; and the morrow after that evening was Monday, and not Sunday. In this meeting of Christ with his apostles at Jeru- salem, we have a key of interpretation in the case of the meeting at Troas. John using Roman chronolo- gy to describe an event at Jerusalem which occurred just after the Redeemer's resurrection, there is no good reason to suppose that Luke employed Jewish chronology to describe an event thirty years after at Troas, far towards Rome from Jerusalem. The meeting at Troas was certainly in the evening or "the first day of the week," (Acts xx. 7), or was con- tinued into the evening and until after midnight. By the Roman reckoning, that evening belonged to the daylight day preceding; the next day, or mor- row was the second day of the week or Monday. Paul and his companions travelled from Troas to- wards Assos, not on Sunday, but on Monday, and that first day of the week at Troas was apparently and, so far as appears, wholly devoted to religious 110 SABBATH AND SUNDAY services; it would seem, according to the usual cus- tom. It follows that this passage in Acts xx. 7 pre- sents a strong front against both the seventh^day Sabbatarians, on the one hand, and those who hold that the apostles and their contemporaries did not religiously observe the first day, but practiced secu- larity upon it, on the other. (g) The next notice we find in the sacred re- cord respecting the " first day " is Paul's direction to the church at Corinth: "Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come " (1 Cor. xvi. 2). It was a " collection for the saints" (vs. 1), persecuted and poor, at Jeru- salem. It was in part a return for the noble acts of the Christians there, who, during the protracted continuance of pentecost, to supply the " need " of those who had come from far^ freely sold their lands and houses, and brought the " prices and laid them at the apostles feet," in the sacred cause of Christian benevolence (Acts iv. 31-37). Equally sacred was the act enjoined upon the saints, and all the saints at Corinth. This was no mere secular call or business transaction. Each one was directed to decide upon and set aside the amount of his gift at home, or by himself, on the " first day." Yet there were to [be " gatherings," and that before he came. This implies collections, and some one place of deposit, — a church treasury. When were those "gatherings" most naturally made? "Upon the first day of the week; when we were gathered to- gether to break bread " (Acts xx. 7). This is ren- dered nearly or quite certain, by the testimony of THE " FIRST " DA Y— THE SA CRED DA Y 111 Justin Martyr, born only about forty years after this writing of the apostle Paul. In his account of the religious services held by Christians on Sunday, in connection with that part relating to the Lord's supper, he says: " They who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is col- lected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows, and those who through sickness or any other cause are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the stranger sojourning among us, and, in a word, takes care of all who are in want." ^ Paul's injunction and Justin's record evidently refer to the same practice, and help inter- pret each other. Paul says, " Upon the first day of the week "; Justin describes what occurred" upon the first day of the week," Sunday. Paul prescribes for the need of the afflicted saints; Justin tells what was done for such. Paul says, " Let every one of you lay by him in store," judging for himself; Jus- tin say, " They who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; " Paul speaks of " gatherings " of the gifts; Justin of "what is collected." Paul implies that there was some depository of the con- tributions; Justin says that contributions were "de- posited with the president." Paul's direction, or a similar one given by all the apostles, probably gave birth to the practice recorded by Justin; and since in Justin's time the gifts were " collected " on Sun- day, so doubtless they were in Paul's time. {h) Justin's record, and Paul's injunction taken together, would lead us to expect allusions, at least, to collections for the poor in other New Testament ^Ant. Nic. Lib., Vol. ii. pp. 65, 66. 112 SABBATH AND SUNDAY churches. Accordingly, we find that the apostle gave the same " order to the churches of Galatia " (1 Cor. xvi. 1). They were " churches," more than one; Galatia was a large region. The injunction to the church at Corinth began thus: " Upon the first day of the week." Surely, the " fore^front" of it was not omitted in the " order to the churches of Galatia." They, too, were to attend to this " upon the first day of the week." Further, the apostle commended the example of the Corinthians in this thing to the believers in Macedonia (2 Cor, ix. 1, 2), and that not in vain, for their zeal "stirred up very many." And he com- mended the example of both the Corinthians and Macedonians to the saints at Rome (Rom. xv. 26). In all these instances the contributions were, as he says, " for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem." All for the same object, they were un- questionably all to be taken by substantially the same measures. A specific direction that the money be laid aside in one case " upon the first day of the week," was no doubt repeated and deemed important in all cases. It was a part of their religious service, just as it was in Justin's day. We do not hear of any who determined to do it on the seventh day instead of the first. The facts increase in number, which show that the first was a noted and special day throughout all the Christian churches of Asia; and if there, everywhere. Objection: The observance of the first day of the week in the primitive Christian church, arose from the spontaneous feelings and judgment of the early Gentile churches while under apostolic supervision, THE "FIRST" DAY— THE SACRED DAY 113 and did not commence first at Jerusalem, or with Jewish Christians. Reply: Why, then, do we not hear of some difference of opinion on this point between Jewish and Gentile converts? Not a breath of it appears. If Sunday^keeping arose far off among the Gentiles, should we not hear of some dis- sent from it at Jerusalem? Some Judean professed believers, hearing of the work among the Gentiles, went down to them from Jerusalem teaching that circumcision " after the custom of Moses " (Acts xv, 1 ) was necessary to salvation. If the keeping of the Lord's day was first commenced there contrary to custom at Jerusalem, would not these same Jewish teachers have hastened down to administer correc- tion? The question concerning circumcision was respectfully sent back from the region of the Gen- tiles that it might be decided by the church, apostles, and elders, at the great religious centre. If the Lord's day were not already observed at Jerusalem, would not a similar question respecting it have been sent there from the Gentile Christians for decision? At Jerusalem Jesus rose from the dead; at Jerusalem appeared to so many on the day that he rose; at Jerusalem appeared to the eleven on the next return of the " first day of the week"; at Jerusalem on the day of pentecost, on the Lord's day, fulfilled his promise to send the Holy Spirit. At Jerusalem the great foundation facts occured on which is based the observance of Sunday at all. And the cheering and fruitful idea of making that a day of sacred commem- oration, did it arise not at Jerusalem, but far away among the Gentiles? It is certain that the words " first-day of the week " became consecrated phrase- 7 114 SABBATH AND SUNDAY ology in the apostolic churches. Yet the apostle and evangelist Matthew uses that language (xxviii. 1); and his Gospel was first written of the four, and was written especially for Jewish converts in Palestine, and he, according to tradition, resided in Jerusalem fifteen years after the resurrection of Christ, and wrote his Gospel at about the time that Paul and Peter were founding the church at Kome. It ap- pears that of all writings extant, his was the first to contain the expression, "first day of the week,'* as ap- plied to our Lord's resurrection. Which is the more probable: that the early church used that phrase as synonymous with Lord's day, and the latter term as in some sense sacred, contrary to the view and prac- tice of Matthew, or in accordance with them? And if after leaving Jerusalem he preached the gospel for a period in othei; parts, as tradition states, and was thus laboring when Paul met the disciples at Troas on the " first day of the week," and gave direction to the church at Corinth to set aside their gifts for the poor on the " first day of the week," is it at all probable that the idea of keeping the first day sacred was new or unacceptable to the apostle Matthew, or to Christians with him? What! did Paul give strict instructions to various Gentile churches to decide upon, and set apart their contributions for the poor saints at Jerusalem, " upon the first day of the week," and those saints themselves know nothing about observing that first day, or receive the sugges- tion first from their Gentile brethren? Did Paul and Barnabas carry up the new project of keeping sacred the first day, when they went from the Gen- tile churches to Jerusalem? If so, strange that we THE ''FIRST'' DAY— THE SACRED DAY 115 do not hear about it! Professor Stuart says that the early Christians " all agreed to keep holy " the first day of the week/ and we have yet to learn that any real evidence to the contrary anywhere appears. It will not be wise to assume or suppose that there is such evidence until it is produced. Objection : Jerome, one of the fathers, seems to sanc- tion visiting the tombs of martyrs, and the making of garments on Sunday. Reply: Jerome lived near- ly three centuries after the apostles, and what was approved by him, or practised by some in his day, cannot be considered as having ai3ostolic sanction. Visiting martyrs' tombs was certainly not gross dese- cration of the Lord's day; the making of garments may have been in stress of circumstances for the poor or those in bonds, and not a usual practice; these things may have been only in Jeromes' locality, and a laxness in observing the day may have prevailed in that age which was not known in the apostolic period. This does not constitute proof that the early Chris- tians were disagreed about keeping the first day sacred. Dr. Hessey,^ who quotes Jerome on this point, admits that the testimony of that Father is af- firmative and positive respecting the religious ob- servance of the Lord's day in the early centuries of the Christian era. Objection Second: Macknight says, the practice of abstaining from labor on the first day was condemned by the Council of Laodicea, a. d. 364, as Sabbatizing.^ Many others have followed him in the statement. »Com., Gal. iv. 10. 2 Sunday, p. 74. 3 Com., Col. ii. 16, p. 389. 116 SABBATH AND SUNDAY Reply : This objection seems to have arisen from an error in reading. What the Council of Laodicea did condemn was Judaizing on the seventh day. In con- sequence they decided that the New Testament Scrip- tures as well as the Old ought to be read at religious services whenever held on the seventh day, and that labor ought not to be wholly abstained from on that day. Their decision in substance w^as just the oppo- site of Macknight's statement. Authority for this representation is given by Neander/ Eadie,^ and the act of the Council itself.^ (i) The instance at Troas is the first mention of the first day of the week in connection with a Gentile congregation. Other instances are those relating to the church at Corinth, to the churches of Galatia, Macedonia and Rome. The Christian Gentiles, hav- ing Christ's resurrection as the foundation of their hope and joy, and his resurrection day as the time for many, at least, of their religious assemblies, and not having had the custom of observing the Jewish Sab- bath, it is nearly or quite certain that their one sacred festival day was the first of the week. This occasion at Troas was about twenty- five years after the resur- rection of Christ. And the Pauline instructions to the churches of Galatia, Achaia, Macedonia and Rome, were at about the same period. All evidence bearing on the subject is, that the disciples then regu- larly met on the first day; and since it is known that the inspired teachers exhorted and commanded regu- ^ Church Hist. (London ed.) Vol. iii. p. 422. 2Com., Col. ii. 16. 3 Canon, xxix. Morris's Lib. Fathers, St. Ephrem, p. 391. note. THE ''FIRST'' DAY— THE SACRED DAY 117 lar attendance on stated worship (Heb. x. 25), the time for it in general, with the Gentiles at least, must have been on that day. One of the strongest evi- dences that the first day of the week was then ob- served by the Christians through some divine author- ity, is this: The Gentile believers had been unaccus- tomed to the sacred observance of a septenary divi- sion of time, and now, for some reason, clearly seem to have been wont to attend the Lord's supper, and to set aside aside sacred gifts, " on the first day of the week." No ordinary cause could have produced such a revolution. And with inspired men for their religions teachers, how they could have made such a change without supposed divine authority is incom- prehensible. Further, their religious teachers being known to them as having wrought miracles, and as professedly speaking by divine inspiration, how those Christians could have been led to suppose that they had divine authority for keeping the first day, unless they really had it, is equally incomprehens- ible. Objection: ''The Lord instructed his disciples that the Sabbath would exist at least forty years after his death; since he taught them to pray con- tinually that their flight at the destruction of Jeru- salem, which occurred A. D. 70, might not take place on that day " (Matt. xxiv. 20).' Rephj : First, the gates of all cities were closed on at least the week- ly Sabbath, and travelling on those days could be only with the greatest difficulty. Hence the prayer that their flight might not be in such unfavorable circumstances. Secondly, if travelling on the Sab- ^ W. H. Little John, Constitutional Amendment, p. 65. 118 SABBATH AND SUNDAY bath were in all circumstances inherently wrong, the Saviour would not have given conditional permis- sion for it by enjoining prayer that if possible it might be prevented. Thirdly, the Jewish Sabbath did exist at the destruction of Jerusalem, though among Christians chiefly superseded' by the first day, and strict Jews and Jewish authorities still in power would interpose many obstacles to the flight of Christians or others on the seventh day. (j) Tracing the course and instructions of the apostle, we find that the Christians of his time had special religious services of their own, separate from those of the Jews. Giving directions respecting the incestuous person, the apostle Paul says: "Ye being gathered together" (1 Cor. v. 4). Speaking of abuses that had crept into the observance of the Lord's supper by the church at Corinth, — certainly a meeting separate from the Jews, — he says: "Ye come together not for the better . . . When ye come together in the church . . . When, therefore, ye assemble yourselves together in one place " ( 1 Cor. xi. 17, 18, 20). Writing concerning the exercise of spiritual gifts, he remarks: " In the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding . . . If therefore the whole church be assembled together . . . When ye come together . . . If there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church " (1. Cor. xiv. 19, 23, 26, 28). Speaking of women, he says: "Let your women keep silence in the churches . . . It is a shame for a woman to speak in the church " (1 Cor. xiv. 84, 85). In all these instances they must have been Christian, and not Jewish, assemblies. The apostles ordained elders THE " FIRST ''DAY— THE SA CRED DA Y 119 in the churches (Acts xiv. 23), which must have been in Christian, and not Jewish, assemblies. Apostles and Christians met for consultation and ad- vice (Acts XV. 4, 6, 23; xx. 17, 28), which must have been in meetings by themselves. Each church was regarded as a *' flock" (1 Pet. v. 2, 3), a company, and they could not have been without meetings distinctively their own. They must have had their assemblies or synagogues of worshippers, under the superintendence of their own church officers (James ii. 2, 3). In the nature of the case, these meetings of Christians could not have been held ordinarily at the time of Jewish asssemblies for the Christians frequently attended the latter (Acts v. 42; xviii. 4: xix. 8), and desired the Jews to attend their religious services (1 Cor. xiv. 23). When, therefore, were these distinctively Christian meetings held? We have no trace that one of them was held on the seventh day. We have positive evidence that one or more were held on the first day, with many probabilities that that was the chief day for all Christian assemblies (Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2, etc). The only day named in the New Testa- ment for the observance of the Lord's supper after its institution is the first day of the week. Con- tributions for the poor were determined upon and set aside, and probably collected on that day. Natural- ly, even if not by command, the chief Christian as- semblies would cluster upon some one day of the week. Those distinctive assemblies must have been numerous, and all the probabilities are that their special day was the first, and not the seventh, of the week. CHAPTER VII. THE "lord's day" COMES TO BE THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. Within about thirty or thirty-five years after the date of Luke's treatise on the Acts of the Apos- tles, and of Paul's first Epistle to the church at Cor- inth, the first day of the week, as we learn from the apostle John (Rev. i. 10), had come to have a dis- tinctive and sacred title, — the " Lord's day," — just as the commemorations of the sufferings and death of Christ had come to have the sacred title of " Lord's supper" (1 Cor. xi. 20). It was the Lord's supper, because he gave it, and it commemorated his propi- tiatory death; it was the Lord's day because he gave it, and it commemorated his triumph over death and hell. He gave the supper in person, be- fore his death; he evidently gave the day in person, after his death, by rising upon it, by appearing so much upon it, by producing in some way such an impression that the apostles and disciples immedi- ately began to observe it, and appointed the most precious of all their religious services, the Lord's supper, upon it. Objection : By the Lord's day may have been meant Easter=day, on which the Lord's resurrection was an- nually celebrated. Reply: None of the early fathers 120 THE ■ LORDS DA V" — THE CHRISTIAN SABBA TH 121 use the phrase with that meaning; and, since the day in the year for Easter was a long time in question, the apostle John did not refer to a doubtful day in addressing the churches on so important a matter. Objection second: The apostle may have been speaking of the Sabbath, and may have given it a designation similar to that in Isa. Iviii. 13: " my holy day."' Reply: If John meant the Sabbath, he would doubtless have called it by its usual name. The early fathers used the term " Lord's day " for the first day of the week, copying, no doubt, from the apostle. They also were careful to distinguish be- tween Sabbath and Lord's day; and we should not expect that their teacher, the apostle, would use a term of confusion, as he did if by Lord's day he meant the Sabbath. Besides, the phraseology for Lord's day, in this case, is peculiar to itself, as we shall see. It is never used elsewhere for the seventh- day Sabbath, either in the Greek of the Old Testa- ment or that of the new. It is mere groundless as- sumption to say that it here means the Sabbath. Objection third: By the Lord's day the apostle meant the day of judgment, often designated "the day of our Lord" (1 Cor. i. 8 ), " the day of the Lord " (1 Cor, V. 5; 1 Thess. v. 2; 2 Pet. iii. 10), ''the day of the Lord " (2 Thess. ii. 2). Reply: John evidently speaks of a literal day; Peter and Paul, quite as evi- dently, of a great event, occupying more than a com- mon day. The latter speak of a day in the unknown future; while John speaks of one in the known past. If Peter and Paul referred to the destruction of Jeru- salem, — which is nearly impossible, — that does not an- 1 Andrews' History of the Sabbath, pp. 188-192. 122 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY swer to the day which John had for meditation and visions. Moreover the phraseology of John is, A'upt- axfj 'H/iipd; while that of the other apostles is, 'H/xipa Kupiou, or the like; the adjective form, Koptaxfj, being used in the former instance, and never in the latter in Scripture, pertaining to day, except in this case; which distinction the fathers also carefully ob- serve. On " the Lord's day " John was " in the Spirit " (Rev. i. 10), as if there w^ere some similarity between that and the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of pentecost. On that day the Lord appeared to the beloved apostle, and spake to him (Rev. i. 10-18), much as he appeared to Mary Magdalene and the other women, to the two that went to Emmaus, to Cephas and to the ten, on the original first day; but more gloriously to Jolin alone, the last of the twelve on earth. On that day the Savior communicated to the apostle much or all of the book known as the Revelation by John, thus still more signalizing the first day of the week. Neander, referring to the early " special observance of Sunday in place of the Sabbath," says: "The first intimation of this change is in Acts xx. 7, where by the Lord's day can hardly be understood the day of judgment." ^ That the Lord's day was one in special honor to Christ the Lord is indicated by usage in similar cases. The phrase " Lord's supper " (1 Cor. xi. 20) indicates a special supper in memory and honor of the Lord; the phrase " Table of the Lord" (1 Cor. x. 21) indi- cates a table spread to his honor; that of "apostles of Christ " means apostles devoted to his service and 1 Church History, Vol. i. p. 295. THE •' LORDS DAY' — THE CHKISTIA N SA BBA TH 1 23 honor; that of "Lord's house" (Ps. cxvi. 19) means a house dedicated to his glory: that of '' feasts of the Lord" (Lev. xxiii. 4) implies the same honor to him; and "Lord's day" (Rev. i. 10) must mean a day in special honor of the Lord. We have in these various citations from Scripture incontestible evidence that the first day of the week was at least one of special and sacred significance and observance to the apostles, and to Christians con- temporary with them. What Christian having knowl- edge of these facts could consent not to keep the Lord's day? If to some not enough seems to be said on the subject in the New Testament, let them recall how little is said in the apostolic writings on baptism and the Lord's supiDer. The latter institutions are brought down to us in a connected chain of Christian example from the apostles themselves, and not less so the sacred Lord's day. The evidence acquires much strength from the fact that nowhere among the Chris- tians immediately succeeding the apostles appears any doubt or neglect about observing the first day of the week. Ohjcdion: The apostle Paul gives countenance to the theory and practice of not observing one day more than another. He says: " One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind" (Rom, xiv. 5). Reply: The reference is to Jewish days and ceremonies, and not the least to the Lord's day. For, just preceding (vs. 1), doubtful disputations are spoken of, and no evidence appears tiiat there was any disputation about keeping the Lord's day. Next (vs. 2, 3), questions about eating 124 SABBATH AND SUNDAY "herbs" and eating "all things" are spoken of; and those were Jewish questions, and not Christian, ex- cept as it was important that the Christian conscience should get released from superstitions concerning them. Then the observing of days is classed with eating or not eating, and both were Jewish. The passage teaches that the observing of such Jewish ceremonies and days is optional. But Alford says: " I therefore infer that sabbatical obligation to keep any day, whether seventh or first, was not recognized in apos- tolic times." ^ Yet he does not disclaim all obliga- tion to observe the Lord's day. But concerning the claim that Rom. xiv, 5 refers to Jewish days only, he declares that it is "a quibble of the poorest kind." We need not be moved by this assertion; since the more accurate Ellicott, referring to Alford's remark, says: "It, however, can scarcely be considered exe- getically exact to urge this verse against any theory of a Christian Sabbath, when the apostle is only speak- ing of legal and Judaizing observances." ^ The attempt has been made by modern review writers, as also hy Bishop Hooper more than three centuries ago,^ to render the Greek phrase et? /jLtav <7a[^ftdz(ov (Matt, xxviii. 1, and in parallel pas- sages) "on one of the Sabbaths"; thence inferring that the New Testament writers recognized as a Sab- bath the first, as well as the seventh, day of the week. That construction ignores Hebraistic usage, which was to date each day of the week from the Sabbath; and read, for our Sunday, first day after the Sabbath, ^ New Test, for English Readers, Rom. xiv. 6. 2 Com. Gal. iv. 10. 3 Early Writings, p. 342. THE '• LORDS DAY" — THE CHRISTIAN SABBA TH 125 or between the Sabbaths; for our Monday, second day after the Sabbath; and so on through the six days. This attempt to find the first day of the week recognized by the New Testament writers as one of the Sabbaths is defeated by the fact that Jewish writers, as in the Tahnud, uniformly designate the first, second, etc., day of the week by giving the re- quired numeral, and following it the word for Sab- bath, as in the Greek phrase before us.^ They seem to have had no other way for specifying any day of the w^eek, except the Sabbath. The fact that the plural for Sabbath is used indicates either the two Sabbaths at the tw^o extremes of the six days, or a transfer of the Aramaean form, or a plural of distinc- tion, after the analogy of the names of festivals.' The plural is certainly sometimes used when only one Sabbath is referred to (Matt. xii. 1; Luke iv. 16; See 13:10). The foregoing Jewish method of designat- ing the days of the w^eek seems to have prevailed long before Christ came and by his resurrection sig- nalized the first day of the week. Previous to that the first day could not have been thought of as a Sabbath. A passage illustrating the ancient usage occurs in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho. Justin speaks of Christ's resurrection as occurring on the first day after the Sabbath, jj-ia zwv aa^^dzxw^j} If we render this " in one of the Sabbaths," as some would, we are in immediate difficulty. Justin is en- deavoring to tell on what day the resurrection oc- ^ See Lightfoot's Horae Heb. et Tal. on Matt, xxviii. 1. 2 Winer's ISewTest. Grammar, pp. 176, 177. ^Patrologiae, Tom. vi. p. 566. Dialogus cum Tryphone Ju- daeo, c. 41; Ant. Nic. Lib., Vol. ii. p. 139. 126 SABBATH AND SUNDAY curred, and by that rendering he simply says it was on one of two days. Besides, in the next sentence he repeats the same phrase, and adds concerning the day, remaining {ixi'Mmpa) the first or chief (7:pu>T7j). If he means, ''one of the Sabbaths," which one? If he means the first after the Sabbath, that is intelligible. That he did mean the first after the Sabbath, is proved by the fact that he immediately says, " It is called, however, the eighth ("V'^'''^/)-" Justin must have written this within less than a century after the Gospels were written, only forty or fifty years after the apostle John's death, and the passage makes the usage of that time very evident. Besides, the mean- ing cannot be one Sabbath of the Sabbaths, because aafi^dnr^ is neuter, and iiU feminine. It must be one day {rjij.l(ja) of the Sabbaths, which is awkward and improbable; or else one day after the Sabbath, or the first between the Sabbaths, either of which is natural and probable. We now turn to ask. What were the example and precept of the apostles respecting the seventh day? Their continuing for a time after pentecost to attend meetings of the Jews on that day is no proof that* they regarded, and would continue to regard, the seventh as the more sacred in the new dispensation. The fact that no record appears of their holding a distinctively Christian service on the seventh day, while it does appear that they held such services on the first day, indicates that there was probably a change in respect to the sacredness of the two days; and we may w^ell look for some evidence that the sev- enth day had lost its strong hold upon the intelligent and unbiased Christian mind. THE " LORDS DA F " — THE CHRISTIAN SA BE A TH 127 Does such evidence appear? Turn to Col. ii. 16: " Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day, or of a new moon, or of a Sabbath day." Much depends upon the meaning of this one verse. Two quite different classes unite in holding that the word "Sabbaths" {na^S^idrw'^) does not refer to the seventh=day Sabbath, but to other Jewish festivals. They are, first, the seventli=day Sabbatarians, who contend that their Sabbath cannot be meant; and secondly, those who sacredly observe the Lord's day under the impression that if in the New Testament any release is given from observing the day there called ''Sabbaths," it negatives all argument to show that the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath. A third class hinge much on this verse, to show that the fourth commandment is abrogated. We deem all three classes wrong. Who- ever may be wrong, and whatever the true interpreta- tion, this passage is the Rosetta stone of the new dis- pensation on the Sabbath question. It has not a tri= lingual inscription, like the Egyptian stone found at Rosetta, but receives a tri-lingual application. And as that ancient stone contained the elements of a key to the hieroglyphics in Egypt, so this text, by its true meaning, has a key to the right understanding of the Scriptures pertaining to the Sabbath. Some seventh=day Sabbatarians acknowledge that if the word ''Sabbaths" in this verse does refer to the sev- enth day, then that settles the case against them. And all non= Sabbath Lord's day men might well ac- knowledge that if this verse does not teach that the fourth commandment is abolished, then the case is 128 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY settled against them. If its help is denied them, they cannot sustain their opinion. Andrews ^ and other seventh day Sabbatarian au- thors, in their endeavor to show that ''Sabbaths" means Hebrew festivals other than the weekly Sab- bath, are, unfortunately for the truth, we think, able to ally important names to their cause. There do join them eminent Lord's day Sabbath advocates. These scholars vary in the degree of positiveness with which they hold their opinions on this point; but among those who more or less entertain them are the following: Albert Barnes,^ Dr. Justin Edwards,^ Dr. Pond,* President Timothy Dwight,^ Professor Moses Stuart,^ and apparently Dr. Charles Hodge.' And it is no small item in the conception of the seventh-day Sabbatarians that two noted publishing societies come to the aid of their opinions on this question: the American Tract Society, in two publications,^ and the Congregational Publishing Society.^ If the interpretation of the foregoing authors is correct, then where is there aught in the New Testa- ment to release us from observing the seventh day still, even though we also keep the Lord's day? That they are not correct, — that the word v in Col. ^Hist. Sab. pp. 87, 138, 159. 2 Com., Col. ii. 16. pp. 306, 307. ^Com. Fam. Test., p. 328; Sab. Manual, pp. 135, 136. * Christian Theology, p. 631, 5 Theology, Vol. iii. p. 258. ^Com., Rom. xiv. 5. ^ Systematic Theology, Vol. iii. p. 832, 8 Family Test., with notes, Col. ii. 16; New Test., with notes, Col. ii. 16. * Dr. Pond's Theology, p. 631. THE " LORD'S DA Y ''—THE CHRISTIAN SABBA TH 129 ii. 16 does not refer to ceremonial feast days, but to the weekly Sabbath,— seems to be certain for the fol- lowing reasons: 1. Another word in the verse, that for "feast day" {^»p'^^i) means feast; is in numerous in- stances used to signify feast; is apjplied to the Jewish ceremonial feasts (to the passover, Luke ii. 41; John xiii. 1; to the feast of tabernacles, John vii. 2, 8, 10, 11, 14, 37; feasts not specified. Matt. xxvi. 5;xxvii. 15; Mark xiv 2; xv. 6; Luke xxiii. 17; John iv. 45); is translated "feast" in the twenty-seven instances of its occurrence in the New Testament, except in this one case of Col. ii. 16, and ought to be so translated here and is in the revised version. The Lord seems not to have inspired men to use two words with pre- cisely the same meaning in the same catalogue of ceremonial days or other objects, and inspired men seem not to have done it. 2. The word fraiSiSdra}'^, though frequently occurring, does not in any other instance in the New Testament mean Jewish cere- monial days, and the natural inference is that it does not here. The common reader, and all readers, would naturally suppose that it means here what it does everywhere else. 3. The ceremonial feast days of the Jews, though often spoken of in the New Testament, never take the name, nature, or entire observance of the weekly Sabbath. Each has its own distinctive name and character, and never has occasion to take " Sabbath " for its name. There is no gleam of evi- dence that the Jews of the apostles' time, or any of the people to whom he wrote, had ever heard the feast days called " Sabbaths." He would not in one epistle originate a new name for them. 4. None of those feast days are ever called Sabbaths in the Old Testa- 130 SABBATH AND SUNDAY ment Hebrew, save the day of atonement in two in- stances (Lev. xvi. 31; xxiii. 32), and possibly the first day of convocation in the passover feast in one pas- sage (Lev. xxiii. 11, 15). In the latter case, however, there can be no positive proof that the convocation day is called a " Sabbath,"^ and in either case it was not to give the day the name " Sabbath," but to indi- cate that it, was to be more sacredly kept than other ceremonial feast days. That difference seems to have been simply between doing no work, and no servile work. The single word ^^t (Shabbath), used to des- ignate the seventh day, or Sabbath, in the fourth commandment, is not even applied to the day of atonement without the qualifying or defining word X'^^t. (Shabbathon) accompanying it. 5. In the sin- gle instance where the feast of trumpets is in the English acccepted version called a "Sabbath" (Lev. xxiii. 24), and in the one verse where the feast of tabernacles is twice called a "Sabbath" (Lev. xxiii. 39), there is a mistranslation. The revised version reads "solemn rest." The Hebrew for "Sabbath" is Shahhath or Shahhath Shabhathon. The day of atonement is given the latter, the double name, I'est of resting. But the feasts of trumpets and taber- nacles are called merely Shabhathoji, a Sabbatism, a partial rest day. 6. This difference is very clearly noted in the Septuagint, where the seventh day, the day of atonement, and the seventh year are termed Sabbaths, and the two feast days merely rest days; the former being translated by the Greek (TaiS/Sdrwv, and the latter by avd7zao(Tt<;, rest. Therefore there is no authority for calling those two feast days ceremon- * Subject discussed, p. 368. Bib. Sac. THE " LORD'S DA Y ''—THE CHRISTIAN SABBA TH 131 ial Sabbaths. They were called Sabbatisms merely to describe them as days to be kept in paii like the weekly Sabbath. 7. The translations of the Penta- teuch into the Chaldee language, which are called Targums, make the same distinctions that the Septua- gint does between Sabbaths and Sabbatisms, or mere rest days, showing that the ancient Jews never called their ordinary feast days by the name "Sabbath." 8. So far as English, Greek, and Hebrew concordances reveal the use of the word "Sabbath," or "Sabbaths," it is always applied to the seventh=day Sabbath, in both the Old and New Testaments, outside of one chapter in the book of Leviticus (xxiii), and one verse in a second chapter (xvi. 31) — referring to Sabbath and day of atonement — with the exception of the Sabbatic year, and the application to the year seems to be confined to Leviticus, and a single verse elsewhere (2 Chron. xxxvi. 21). The single verse now under discussion (Col. ii. 16), is, of course, excepted. With a use of the word "Sabbath," ap- plied to feast days, so very limited, is it probable that a single other case, — removed from the former by more than fifteen hundred years in time, and by nearly all the books in the Bible, — is an exception to the great rule of usage? We think not. 9. In Col. ii. 16 the phraseology, " Of a feast, or of a new moon, or of a Sabbath day," is, in substance, a copy of Ezek. xlv. 17, where we read, "In the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the Sabbaths." TJie difference in the English accepted version is between " holy day," in the former instance, and "feasts" in the latter. But we have seen that "holy day" should have been ren- 132 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY dered "feast." Besides, "holy day" often really means ceremonial "feast," as in Neh. viii. 9-11 ,wliere the feast of tabernacles is spoken of. Six other in- stances occur in the Old Testament, besides this in Ezekiel, where the word "Sabbaths" is joined to those of "feasts" and "new moon." And in each of these seven cases the word for "Sabbath" or "Sab- baths" is not the Hebrew for Sahhatism, or mere rest day, but is that for the weekly Sabbath. Now, it is nearly or quite certain that the apostle borrowed his phrase in CoL ii. 16, from the like phrases in the Old Testament, and also that he meant by the word "Sab- baths" what is meant by it whence he borrowed — the seventh=day Sabbath. 10. The word "Sabbath" or "Sabbaths" in the New Testament, Greek or English (Col. ii. 16 aside), being never applied to feast days, is, nevertheless, applied to the seventh day at least fifty^nine times. Is it not arbitrary and unreasonable to take the word in the sixtieth instance, and declare that it means feast days! Is it not an error to even suppose that it means feast days? 11. There are only two instances in the whole Bible where the word "Sabbath" is certainly applied to a ceremonial feast day, the day of atonement, which was a fast day, not feast day, when the people were to afflict their souls, and even there not unqualified; and there are nearly one hundred and fifty instances where the word " Sabbath " or " Sabbath=day," singular or plural, is applied to the weekly seventh day. One hundred and fifty against two. The day of atonement oc- curred once, while the weekly Sabbath occurred fifty- tw^o times in the year. In respect to passages, one hundred and fifty against two, and in respect to days THE ''LORD'S DA F " — THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH 133 in the year, fifty4wo against one! What! on this basis, say that in the one lone passage left, the word " Sabbaths " means ceremonial feast days, and does not mean the weekly Sabbath! This seems like doing violence to the word of God. Can Christian men longer consent to do it, when they consider the facts of the case? No preconceived or cherished opinions can justify us in holding any doctrine inconsistent with light that comes from the sacred page. "Let no man, therefore, judge you ... in respect of . . . a Sabbath day." It is ageeed by all that this makes it optional with us whether or not to keep the "Sab- bath days." If the term means seventh-day Sab- baths, then it is left to our choice, and there is no ob- ligation upon us to keep them. This being the apos- tolic teaching and example enjoining us to sacredly regard the Lord's day, it inevitably follows that we have here evidence of a change of the sacred weekly day in early Christianity. The evidence may have come suddenly upon us, we may have found it where we least expected it, but, unless there is essential de- fect in the foregoing data and reasoning, we have come to proof of a change of observance in the sacred weekly day under the apostolic supervision. The ex- ample, as well as the instructions, of the apostles, on such a question, must be ample authority to all those who accept them as inspired teachers sent from God.* We must conclude that Christ first, and his apostles following him, gave absolute authority for the universal special observance among Christians of ♦Another marked difference between feast days and Sabbaths was this: On feast days "no servile work" should be done, while on Sabbaths "no manner of work" should be done. Lev. xxiii. 134 SABBATH AND SUNDAY the first day of the week, at least to some extent. That the apostles had full authority from their Lord to direct on this subject, is unquestionable. They had delegated power to bind and to loose, in affairs of the church (Matt, xviii. 18). They could remit sins, and were sent by Christ, as he was sent of the Father (John xx. 21-28). The Holy Ghost would teach them and bring all things to their remem- brance (John xiv. 26). They were authorized to pronounce men accursed (Gal. i. 8); under their ministry Ananias and Sapphira were smitten dead (Acts V. 5, 10); Hymeneus and Alexander for their heresy were delivered unto Satan (1 Tim. i. 20). The apostles gave direction as to discipline in the church (1 Cor. v. 13); they corrected abuses that crept into the observance of her ordinances (1 Cor. xi. 20-30); they absolved Christian converts from ceremonial observances of the law (Acts xv. 24, 29); and surely they had authority to say whether in the Christian dispensation, the seventh or the first day of the week was to be kept sacred. (o) Next comes one of the most fundamental of all questions pertaining to the whole subject. Does the apostolic authority releasing from obligation to keep the seventh=day Sabbath, abolish the fourth commandment, or render it inapplicable to the Lord's day? This we have heretofore discussed, when considering whether the apostles taught that the Decalogue, or even the fourth commandment, has been abrogated. We may here give an outline of the view there presented, with some addition. First, the command to keep the seventh day is not exactly THE ''LORD'S DAY'' — THE CHRISTIAN SABBA TH 135 the same with the fourth commandment; therefore, the one may be set aside without wholly annulling the other. The command pertained to the seventh day; but we have shown that there might be a change of day without abrogating the command. We have found a new weekly day observed, at least to some extent, called the " Lord's day." We need to observe the distinction between proportional and ordinal. We have, in the new dispensation, a pro- portional seventh of time to be held as sacred. We have not the ordinal seventh. The former is by far the greater. It holds in itself all the moyxd elements of the command. The seventh ordinal was contin- ued until the first ordinal was instituted. No matter whether the primitive saints and the apostles under- stood all this. The apostles in due time knew and taught that the Lord's day was thenceforth to be the best of all days; and that the seventh day must retire from the chief position. Dr. Joseph Cook says; "The whole scope of the Sermon on the Mount shows that the moral spirit of the whole Decalogue is re^nstituted. This is as true of the fourth commandment as of the fifth, sixth, or seventh." ^ This is not enough to meet those w^ho say that the Decalogue or the fourth commandment is abolished; for they say it was abolished with Christ's death. Nor was it intended distinctively for them. Where is the evidence that Christ ever " re^nstituted " the moral part of any portion of God's word? He recognized it; that is enough; it stands by his own first fiat. But the men who claim ^ Boston Lectures. 136 SABBATH AND SUNDAY the abolition of the fourth commandment, or of the Decalogue, say that nothing of these now stand save what the apostles " re-instituted." Where is the evidence that they re^instituted the law? They, too, recognized much; yet nothing of the law stands by virtue of their recognition, but by its original enact- ment. Their recognition confirms the original enact- ment; that is our blessing. Mr. Cook says, again, " The teaching and example of the apostles and our Lord substituted for the seventh the first day of the week." True; but we must say more to those who claim that nothing of the moral law stands except what the apostles " re^instituted." We must deny that the moral law was ever abolished. Then we must demand proof that the apostles ever speak as though they were " re=instituting " any divine moral laws. Christ gave a new commandment (John xiii. 34), and the apostles rehearsed it (1 John iii, 23), but not as re=instituting it. Just so they repeated the commands of the Decalogue, not as re-enacting them, but as appealing to them for divine authority. That the apostles held to the binding and permanent nature of the Decalogue, is evident from the follow- ing: Paul, in Rom. xiii. 9, teaches the obligation to observe the last five commandments, naming the subject of each; and James teaches the same by one comprehensive declaration (ii. 8), and specifies the sixth and seventh (ii. 11). Paul, in Eph. vi. 2, teaches the duty of keeping the fifth commandment; and James (v. 12) specifically teaches the obligation to observe the third commandment; and Paul again, in 1 Cor. vi. 9, and viii. 4-6 shows the duty of obey- ing the second, and in Rom. i. 18-25, that of obey- THE ''LORD'S DAY'' — THE CHRISTIAN SABBA TH 137 ing the first commandment. Concerning the fourth, Paul teaches exemption from the former seventh^ day Sabbath (Col. ii. 16) but he, and the whole his- tory of the church subsequent to Christ's resurrec- tion, so far as given in the New Testament, teach both the privilege and duty to keep sacred a new seventh day, in commemoration of that resurrection, the completion of redemption. Now, in respect to the abolition of the seventh day as of binding nature, Paul does speak as if giving a new message (Col. ii. 16); and also in respect to the first day (1 Cor. xvi. 2). But how is it with reference to the other com- mands? Paul refers to the "law" and the "com- mandment," given of old, as existing still (Rom. xiii. 8, 9; Eph. vi. 2), and James speaks more emphati- cally of the "royal law according to the Scripture" (ii. 8), and of the "duty to keep the whole law" (ii. 10), and of the great Sovereign who gave the law, as, "he that said" (ii. 11), im plying that as he commanded, so it should be done, and so the law would remain. Dr. Hessey tells us that " we are nowhere told that we are to obey the commandments called moral because they are con- tained in the Decalogue," ^ What telling would he have besides these repeated appeals to the Decalogue by two inspired apostles. Further, that the moral law is nowhere, and in no part, abrogated, may be inferred from the appar- ent fact that no holiness, or state of mind, on the part of any human beings, is ever acceptable to God, unless in it is embraced the spirit of full obedi- ence by the active powers, by which we do not mean ^Sunday, p. 152. 13d SABBATH AND SUNDAY full sanctification, nor, necessarily obedience with the greatest possible strength ; yet, without any con- scious disobedience or known reservation. " The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression" (Ezek. xxxiii. 12); " Blessed are they that keep his testimonies and that seek him with the whole heart. Yea, they do no un- righteousness (Ps. cxix. 2, 8); "Ye cannot serve God and mammon " (Matt. vi. 24) ; " Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all" (Jas. ii. 10); "Thou that art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and that canst not look on perverseness " (Hab. i. 13); "Wherein- soever our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things " (1 John iii. 20). The Old and New Testament are agreed on this point. Able men have so understood the Scriptures in re- gard to it. Calvin, commenting on Matt. vi. 24, says: " Since God everywhere commends sincerity, while a double heart is abominable, all those are deceived who think he will be contented with half of their heart." ^ President Edwards says: " If there be a full compliance of will, the person has done his duty."^ " If a man, in the state and acts of his will and in- clination, does properly and directly fall in with these duties, he therein performs them." ^ This as- sumes that full obedience of the will is necessary to true virtue and acceptance with God. The West- minster Confession of Faith says: "The moral law ^ Com., in loc. 2 Works, Vol. ii. p. 104; Freedom of the Will, Part iii. seo. iv. * Ibid., p. 105, sec. v, THE ''LORD'S DA F " — THE CHRISTIAN SABBA TH 139 doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof . . . Neither doth Christ in the gospel anyway dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation." ^ The modern doctrine that Christ by his death, or by his apostles, ''abol- ished," as Robertson and others say, the moral law, or Decalogue, or that he both abolished it and re- newed it, as some say, w^ould have seemed a strange opinion to those Westminster divines. Baxter said, " If you would be truly converted, be sure that you make an absolute resignation of yourselves and all that you have, to God." ^ President Edwards says, of the surrender in conversion: " Giving up ourselves with all that we have, wholly and forever unto Christ, without keeping back anything or m-aking any reserve."^ The Assembly's Larger Catechism says of the penitent: '' He so grieves for,, and hates his sins, as that he turns from them all to God, purposing and endeavoring constantly to walk with him in all the ways of new obedience." * Such is evangelical preaching everywhere. But can we be fully accepted with God after conversion with less obedience than at conversion? Impossible! God is not changeable. He always requires what Edwards calls '' a full com- pliance of will," in the sense of full obedience of will to his will, to his moral law. Without that '' full compliance," we cannot be fully accepted with him. It was so in the old dispensation and is so in the new. ^ Chap. xix. sec. v. 2 Orme's Life of Baxter, Vol. ii. p. 82. See, also, Prof. Mor- gan on "The Holiness acceptable to God," p. 66, etc. 3 Works, Vol. iii. p. 189; Religious Affections, Twelfth Sign. *Ques. 76, Ans.; see also Westminster Con. of Faith, chap. XV. sec. ii. 140 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY But, has that will of God, that moral law, been once interrupted by its abolition? What cause for its ab- rogation could there have been in Christ's death? And what proof is there that there was such a cause or such a fact? But this moral will and law of God is much of it revealed in the Old Testament, the once Jewish Scriptures. What occassion is there, therefore, to say, with Dr. Dale, that " the Jewish revelation has become obselete;"^ or with Dr. G. B. Bacon, that " Christianity superseded the whole of the Jewish law;" ^ or even with Dr. Thomas Arnold, to question whether " The law itself be done away in Christ."' When Paul changed the fifth commandment, by extending its reward beyond long life in Canaan to long life " on the earth " (Eph. vi. 2, 3), he did not revoke the duty to honor father and mother. When he and the other apostles, under the guidance of their Saviour, instituted an order of services in the apostolic churches, which made the first or Lord's day sacred, and left the observance of the seventh day optional, they did by no means revoke anything in the fourth commandment which did not pertain to the seventh day in its ordinal sense. So far as we know, they never uttered one word against the fourth commandment, nor even assumed that they set it aside. We know very well that all they who now reject the seventh and keep the first day, and with that simple change, endeavor strictly to obey the fourth commandment, do find something of that ' Ten Commandments (Fourth), p. 93. 2 Sabbath Question, p. 101. ^ Works, Vol. iii. p. 257: Sermon xxii., The Lord's day. THE ''LORD'*S DAY'^— THE CHRISTIAN SABBA TH 141 commandment left to them. Therefore it would seem that there is something in the fourth command- ment besides the ordinal element of the seventh day. The sacredness of the seventh day is separable from the rest; and therefore, when Paul, and doubtless all the apostles previously, formally released men from keeping holy the seventh day, he did not annul or proclaim annulled, the whole fourth commandment. What is separable in practice is in theory separable. Assume it as a fact, that when Paul announced release from the obligation to observe the seventh day, the Christians were actually devoting the first day to religious services, and to religious joy on account of Christ's resurrection, were they not in effect, keeping the fourth commandment with the exception of the ordinal seventh=day feature of it? Then who has the right to say, that when the apostle gave his direction in Col. ii. 16, he substantially revoked the fourth commandment? The Christians were in substance keeping the greater part of it. That Paul did not cite it and say that in the main it was binding still, does not justify the assumption that it was all annulled. It was to stand until repeal- ed. When the Lord, through the apostle Paul, released the whole Christian world thereafter from the obligation to observe the seventh day, did he at the same time revoke the command, " Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work " (Ex. xx. 9)? W^ho will say he did, and give us proof of it? No proof can be given. But what about the remaining part of the fourth command? We find the church under the apostolic supervision released from the ordinal 8eventh=day feature, and we find that at least a few 142 SABBATH AND SUNDAY years previous to that, the first day with them was noted, and devoted in part to religious purposes, with no evidence that the whole of it was not held sacred. From these premises sound reasoning will not justify the inference, that the whole of the fourth commandment is made null and void. And if not, then are we not driven to the conclusion, that by divine authority, through inspired men, a change has been made in the time, in the ordinal religious element, of the weekly religious day? We can not say that the new is to be kept as was the old in all particulars. For, while apostles supervised still, we find the Sabbatic sacrifices in the temple not trans- ferred to the Lord's day, and we find observed on that day the Lord's supper, which did not pertain to any commemorations or transactions of the seventh^ day Sabbath. The clause in the command which requires, us to restrain our children and servants from labor during more than six days in seven, is that, too, annulled? Are we left without a " Thus saith the Lord " for our own benefit and that of our families in respect to the time for labor? No, we are not thus left. Releasing from the ordinal seventh day observance does not release from this part of the command. But, why not keep the command pre- cisely as it reads? Because we find another day taking in substance the place of the former one in this new dispensation. In all this the Lord's^day Sabbath advocates are not usurping authority to change the fourth com- mandment; but they are taking care not to change it, or unlawfully to announce it abolished, or no longer in force. It is not a question whether devoted THE ' -LORD'S DA F" — THE CHRISTIAN SABBA TH 143 Christians would observe the Lord's day if there were no fourth commandment. But it is a question whether Christians of little experience and knowl- edge, and those of small devotion, will faithfully observe it, if they understand that no real authority can be brought from the Decalogue enjoining the observance of the Lord's day. It is a question whether the world must reel and totter and fall into ^^ ruin, because it has no such law as the fourth com- mandment contains. Long enough some have tried the method of having no law for the Sabbath, noth- ing but the good instincts and principles of the partially sanctified, and the prudence of selfdnterest, and the vain conceits and the godless notions of an im- penitent world. The Christian spirit in our land is shivering and shuddering at the prospect and fear of the coming of the Continental sabbath, the fruit of unsound Sabbatic doctrine. Hence, the strongest obligation rests upon all Christians to yield no inch of ground to error on this subject, to tenaciously hold every element and thought of truth pertaining to one sacred day in seven. Ohjection: We cannot distinguish in the fourth commandment both moral and positive elements, and properly claim permanence and authority for the former and not for the latter, and yet include in the former the requirement to suspend all labor one day in seven. Rcphj : We admit that one part of the septenary feature in the fourth command is jDositive; but we are not to assume that (dl of the positive in the command is repealed. The ordinal septenary ele- ment is repealed, according to Paul's inspired word (Col. ii. 16). The proportional septenary element 144: ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY is not repealed, because the primitive church, while under apostolic supervision, did, at least to some extent, sacredly regard the first day, which is as truly septenary in the proportional as the seventh day, and no evidence appears that they did not regard it as wholly sacred. That there are moral elements in the fourth commandment pertaining to rest, worship, spiritual culture, and holiness, it would seem that no thoughtful person can deny. Its company in the Decalogue is a guarantee for its moral nature in part. If it were wholly positive, we should have no right to assume its abolition without divine instruction to that end. If we knew it was wholly both positive and transient, we should not look for it where it is. But its moral elements existed before even the formal command itself. They were combined and crystallized in it. Bishop Butler says: "Moral duties arise out of the nature of the case itself, prior to external com- mand." ^ Those moral elements are also permanent. Archbishop Whately says, that moral precepts are binding on all in all ages.^ It is not needful to make a very studied division between the moral and posi- tive in this command, because revelation comes to our aid. It tells us, and subsequent evidence tells us, that the primitive church, under the guidance of the apostles, while they were under the guidance of Christ, changed their chief weekly sacred day from the seventh to the first of the week. We are not left simply to take the moral elements, and be guided by them as well as we may. We are blessed by the in- » Complete Works, p. 176. 2 Difficulties in Writings of St. Paul, p. 169. THE "LORD'S DAY" — THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH 146 spired singling out for us of other positive elements, and the locating of them in the Lord's day. In all of the chief institutions of the old and new dispensations, there are certain underlying moral principles that unite them. And wherever these moral princii)les appear, they have, as Whately im- plies, a binding force on us. There was the principle of a covenant with God, entered into by Abel, by Noah (Gen. ix. 9), especially developed in Abraham (Gen. xvii. 2), made anew and amplified in the new dispensation (Heb. viii. 6). But the constituent elements of it on God's part are everlasting. Wher- ever it appears in the divine word, it makes an ob- ligatory injunction on us, and that because of its moral and eternal nature. The articles of that cove- nant are distinctly declared to be the Ten Command- ments (Deut. iv. 13). They were very conspicuously promulgated. Their nature is such that all moral beings must be bound by them in general. A slight change in them to adapt them to the world, instead of to the Jews merely, has been made. But that does not render them inapplicable to us. The fourth, where the chief change has been made, is still appli- cable and obligatory as it stands changed, because the covenant in its elementary part is everlasting. The principle of sacrifice is another great underlying bond, uniting the two dispensations. It took the form of animal, symbolic sacrifices in the old, and was perfected and finished on God's part by Christ's sacrifice in the new. It remains for believers ever to hold him as their sacrifice (1 Cor. v. 7) before the Father, and to be themselves a " living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God" (Rom. xii. 1). So, the law of Ue SABBATH AND SUNDAY the Sabbath has certain moral constituent parts, join- ing the two hemispheres of the world's redemptive history. It appeared in the seventh day previous to the Decologue, and held its course all the way until in Christ Jesus it was made anew. Its inner nature even unites the two worlds, present and future; its rest here being a symbol of the rest that remaineth to the people of God (Heb. iv. 9). It has not sunken from human sight, for we find the substance of it in the Lord's day now, Its moral elements, along with those of the other commands, were codified and chiseled into tables of stone, that they might forever be written in human hearts. The importance is too great, and it is now too late, to suppose that they have become inoperative or have been abolished. Rev. Newman Smyth, D.D., is understood in one volume to sanction the vie\V* that the fourth com- mandment is abolished. He says: " His [Christ's] word, ' the Sabbath was made for man,' finally makes the glorious Christian privilege break loose from the restraints of the law." * ^ Mr. Smyth^s own words con- vict him of error. He says: " A wonderful revolu- tion was wrought in the transference of the sanctity of their Sabbath to the Lord's day." ^ Transference is not abolition. The " moral leadership of the Bible," *• moral good," "moral progress," are with him favorite thoughts.^ He says again: ''Man's moral sentiments, and their growth, come from the Father of lights, or all is darkness." * He evidently * Old Faiths in New Lights, p. 86. 2 Ibid., p. 354. 3 Ibid., pp. 76, 78, 80; 67, 7S. *Ibid., p. 69. THE ''LORD'S DAY''— THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH U7 believes that moral truth is eternal. He cannot, then, consistently believe that the moral element,, " the sanctity " of the fourth commandment, is abro- gated; or, that men can legitimately, " break loose from the restraints of the [moral] law." CHAPTEK VIII. THE EARLY FATHEES CONFIRM THE TEACHINGS OF THE APOSTLES. The proposition we are now seeking to establish is this: The first or Lord's day in the new dispensa- tion was the chief of all days with the apostles and early Christians, and was their special day for rest and religious worship. In adducing evidence to sus- tain this proposition, we have devoted several chap- ters to a consideration of. First, The Lord's Day dur- ing Apostolic Age. We now consider: Secondly, The Lord's day during the Four Cen- turies next subsequent to the Era of the Apostles. In prosecuting this investigation, we expect to find evidence that overthrows the peculiar tenets on this subject of the following classes; the Seventh-day Sabbatarians, who hold that the observance of Sun- day as the Sabbath was a corruption that came into the church not until some time after the earliest of the fathers who succeeded the apostles; the non^ Sabbath Lord'S'day men, who hold that we cannot found the observance of the Lord's day on the fourth command- ment, and hence that it is abrogated; the large class who believe that the sacred observance of the Lord's day was not established during the apostolic period, but by the church subsequently; and the Christian Sabbatarians, who fail to reinforce their own argu- 148 TESTIMONY OF THE EARL Y FA THERS 149 merits for a Christian Sabbath from the passage in Col. ii. 16— holding, as they do, that the word " sab- baths " there does not refer to the Jewish seventh-day Sabbath. If the testimony of the early fathers is really at variance with the peculiar sabbatic views of all the foregoing classes, then the way of faith on the Sab- bath question is made very clear; and if that way shall obtain general credence in the church, it will certainly lead to a far better observance of the Lord's day than now exists. Such understanding of the patristic testimony, if it can be confirmed, fully sus- tains the view heretofore taken in these chapters con- cerning the Lord's day during the apostolic age. The early fathers — those nearly or quite contem- porary with, and those soon succeeding, the apostles — speak definitely of the first or Lord's day as religi- ously kept by themselves and their fellow^Christians. Respecting their testimony, it is not here claimed that it is exceedingly valuable in doctrine or wisdom, but that it has peculiar importance in respect to the history of customs and practices in the religious life of the early Christians. As Dr. Hessey says, '' Those whose exegesis of Scripture is indifferent may be ad- mitted as witnesses to matter of fact." ^ It is not of chief consequence to know that these patristical writings were by the authors whose names they bear, but that they date in the early Christian era, and are historically trustworthy. The Epistle of Barnabas, though probably not writ- ten by Paul's noted companion of that name, was certainly in existence in the early part of the second ^ Sunday, p. 41. 150 SABBATH AND SUNDAY century — Hilgenfeld says at the close of the first,' — and therefore dated in the apostle John's time, or at least within twenty or thirty years of his death. Writing in behalf of Christians, the author of that epistle says: "We keep the eighth day with joyful- ness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead." ^ The first day the patristic writers sometimes called the eighth, because it comes next after the seventh. We see that the eighth was the first, be- cause it commemorated the resurrection of Christ. This positive declaration of the keeping of Jesus' res- urrection day, made while the apostle John yet lived, or within a few years after his decease, would in that early time have been contradicted if it were untrue. But no such denial appears. If Christians had been divided in respect to keeping the first day, Barnabas's declaration would not have been so universal. Objection: This epistle was not written by the Barnabas of Scripture, and is therefore a forgery and fraud.^ Reply: It may have been written by an- other Barnabas, or by one who from respect to that name assumed it as a nom de plume. In either case, it is not a forgery. It has won historic confidence by being found carefully preserved with the Codex Sinaiticus of the Scriptures; and that copy of the epistle restored the first four and a half chapters of the Greek text, which part was previously known to the learned only in an ancient Latin version. It ^ Ante Nicene Library, Vol. i. p. 100. 2 Ibid., p. 128. — Bishop Lightfoot says, previous to the year 80. 3 Andrews, Hist. Sab., pp. 211, 242; Littlejohn, Constitutional Amendment, p. 248. TESTIMONY OF THE EARL Y FA THERS 151 were folly now, after the most eminent scholars in patristic lore have scanned and accepted this epistle, to deny its genuineness, or the force of this passage concerning Christ's resurrection day. The Epistle to the Magnesians (shorter recension), ascribed to Ignatius, contemporary of the apostle John, is now by the more reliable scholars regarded as genuine. Even Professor J. B. Lightfoot, who held that the three epistles in Syriac discovered by Dr. Cureton were only an abstract of the genuine, ' has changed his opinion, and now accepts the shorter recension of the Greek. He holds that this epistle to the Magnesians, even if it were not actually writ- ten by Ignatius, may be safely regarded as having been composed by some competent and authoritative person as early as the middle of the second century.^ It has been found in the early Greek, Armenian, and Latin. The shorter recension has the following: " If, therefore, those that were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day; on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death." ^ The word "day" is in question, some sup- posing it should be " life " — Lord's life. Drs. Rob- erts and Donaldson, the latest English editors, accept the word " day " ; and Zahn, editor of the latest edi- tion of the Ignatian epistles, says the title.' Melito was contemporary with Dionysius; doubtless they understood the meaning of " Lord's day " alike, and both as Justin did, and he as being identical with first day or Sunday. Irenaeus, a martyr, bishop of Lyons; A. d. 178, is quoted by an early subsequent writer as saying: "This [custom] of not bending the knee upon Sun- day is a symbol of the resurrection, through which which we have been set free, by the grace of Christ, from our sins and from death . . . and took its rise from apostolic times." " The writer speaks defin- itely of " the Lord's day " as the Sunday spoken of by Irenaeus, and he undoubtedly knew the bishop's meaning. A question early arose whether the close of the paschal fast should be on the fourteenth day of the moon, whatever day of the week it came, or on the Lord's day alone. The former was the practice of many Eastern churches, and the latter of the Western. The bishops of various districts issued epistles on the subject. Eusebius says that Irenaeus presided over the churches in Gaul, and the bishops there, as in other parts, unanimously communicated " that the mystery of our Lord's resurrection should be celebrated on no other day than the Lord's day; and that on this day alone we should observe the close of the paschal fasts." ^ Andrews twice says that there is no instance where the term Lord's day is found in Irenaeus's works.* The above is an in- stance reported by Eusebius. ^ Spicilegium Syriacum, Cureton, p 57. See also, Apostolic Fathers: (Jackson and Prof. Fisher eds.), p. 190. 2Ant. Nic. Lib., Vol. ix. pp. 162,163. 3 Eccl. Hist., Vol. ii. p. 236. *Hist. Sab. pp. 217, 273. 158 iiABBATH AND SUNDAY Clement, made presbyter of the church at Alexan- dria about A. D. 189, quotes from Plato, where he says the philosopher all but predicts the economy of salvation, and also where he fancifully supposes Plato prophesies of the " Lord's day," under the name of " the eighth." ' Andrews admits that Clement em- ploys the term ', Lord's day," but says it is not cer- tain that he means a natural day.^ Yet, in the same paragraph Clement makes other quotations; four from Homer, one from Hesiod, and two from Calli- machus, where the seventh day is named, plainly a natural day; and Clement therefore must have meant the literal Lord's day, a natural day, the first of the week. But if any doubt remains about this refer- ence, another makes his testimony clear, where he speaks of the true Gnostic, by which he means the real Christian, as keeping " Lord's day " in commem- oration of the Lord's resurrection." ^ An important testimony — in a work quoted from by Eusebius, but discovered in full by Dr. Cureton, among the Nitrian MSS. in 1843, — is that of Barde- sanes, who flourished near the close of the second century. Drs. Cureton and Hessey put the time about the middle of the second century; but they are doubtless in error as to the conquest of Arabia by the Komans to w^hich Bardesanes refers as then re- cent. There were three such wars; one waged by Avidius Cassius, about a. d. 162-5; another by Septtimius Severus in A. d. 195-6, and the third 'Ant. Nic. Lib., Vol. xii. pp. 284, 286. 2 Hist. Sab., p. 219. *Ant. Nic. Lib., Vol. xii. p. 461. TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS 159 by Macrinus, A. D. 217-18.' The second was the greatest, and probably the one referred to by Barde- sanes. He discourses first of the Jewish Sabbath observance, and then says: " Wherever we be, all of us aie called by the one name of the Messiah — Chris- tians; and upon one day, which is the first of the week, we assemble ourselves together, and on the ap- pointed days we abstain from food." ^ This evidence is indisputable. Tertullian, reputed to have been converted to Christianity A. D. 185, speaks of " the sacred rites of the Lord's day in the church,"^ distinctly implying that there was such a day, and that it was religiously observed. In one place he sayS: " We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be un- lawful ";* and in another: " We, however (just as we have received), only on the day of the Lord's resur- rection ought to guard not only against kneeling," etc.^ The two passages together show that by the Lord's day he meant the day of Christ's resurrection, and that day they kept joyfully, and not with fasting and other austerities; and the latter passage shows that they had received directions in regard to observ- ing the Lord's day from those who had gone before them. In two passages he repels the charge of opposers that the Christians worshipped the sun; in one, saying: " We devote Sunday to rejoicing from a far different reason than sun-worship";® and in the other, charging upon the pagans the naming of the ^Smith's Die. Biog., Vol. i. p. 257. 'Spicilegium Syriacum, p. 32. 3Ant. Nic. Lib., Vol. xv. p. 428. *Ibid., Vol. xi. p. 336. 5 Ibid., p. 199. nbid., p. 85. Ubid., pp. 449, 450. 160 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY first day of the week by the term Sunday, he says: " It is you, at all events, who have even admitted the sun into the calendar of the week."^ In connection with this last passage he says: " We make Sunday a day of festivity," by which he meant religious joy, not secular festivity. In his essay on idolatry he speaks of the Christians as having " a festive day every eighth day," and of that as the Lord's day.^ In his discourse on prayer he speaks of what is appro- priate " on the day of the Lord's resurrection," and says, " Deferring even our business, lest we give any place to the devil "^; by which he implies that busi- ness on the Lord's day ought to be and was suspend- ed. Neander regards this passage as " indicative of the transfer of the law of the Jewish Sabbath to Sunday," and of TertuUian's belief that attending to any business on Sunday is sinful.^ Notice that in respect to some part of the keeping of the Lord's day Tertullian speaks of having received instruction from those who had gone before. Probably he had also in respect to omitting business. Mr. Andrews, the seventh=day Sabbatarian, implies that Tertullian uses the term " Lord's day " in only three instances of any moment.* We have given five, including two where it is called by the more explicit phrase " the day of the Lord's resurrection " ; and seven, including two more where the term " Sunday " is used as equiva- lent to Lord's day. Another seventh^day author,^ claiming Neander for authority, professedly quotes from him (Kose's translation): " The festival of Sun- 1 Ant. Nic. Lib., Vol. xi. pp. 162, 163. ^Ihid., p. 199. 3 Church History, Vol. i. pp. 295, 296. *Hist. Sab., p. 222. 6 W. H. Fahnestock, M. D. " Bible Sabbath." ' TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY hATHERS 161 day, 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." If any such language ever escaped from Neander's pen, the seventh^day writers ought not to be allowed now to suppose that any such idea as it conveys was that historian's latest testimony. On the contrary, in the records which had his seal at his death, he cites Acts xx. 7 and Rev. i. 10 as apostolic intimations of a change among the early Christians from the seventh to the first day of the week; which latter, following the apostle John, he terms the " Lord's day." He also cites Barnabas and Ignatius, whom we have already quoted, as giving evidence to the same fact of change. He held, further, that the early churches " composed of Jewish Christians, though they admitted with the rest the festival of Sunday, yet retained also that of the Sabbath."^ We have, then, Neander's sanction to our main de- duction from not only Tertullian's testimony, but from that of Barnabas and Ignatius also. It is certain that Tertullian used the names " Lord's day " and " Sunday " as equivalent. Undoubtedly, then, Justin by the word Sunday meant Lord's day: and Dionysius by Lord's day meant Sunday; and Melito, Irenaeus, Clement, and others before and after, used these names interchangeably. Seventh day Sabbatarian authors have positively declared that there is no early evidence that the term " Lord's day" meant the first day. But when we find from the dis- tinguished Tertullian that they did in his time mean the same, and find no evidence of any other usage, we * Church History, Vol. i. (Torrey's translation), pp. 295, 296. 162 SABBATH AND SUNDAY may well conclude that the apostle John by the term " Lord's day " meant the first day of the week, which commemorated our Lord's resurrection, and that the meaning which he gave was ever after continued. So, also, we may well conclude that the sacredness as- cribed to the Lord's day by Tertullian had from the first been known in the Christian church. Much evidence tends to that conclusion; no real evidence tends to the contrary. Shall we find this view corrob- orated by testimonies of later dates? Minucius Felix, author of Octavius, about A. D. 166 or 198, said of the Christians, " On a solemn day they assemble at the feast. " ^ The speaker in the dialogue from which this is taken refers to the Lord's day and supper. The character of the latter he misrepresents ; but that does not weaken this evidence of the day's observance. We have reviewed, up to this point, the first cen- tury after the apostle John's death, and we find in that time thirteen thoroughly credible witnesses con- curring in the fact that the Christians of that era re- garded and observed the first or Lord's day as the chief of all days ; and we find no contemporay testi- mony to the contrary. Cyprian, raised to the rank of presbyter A. D. 247, — one of the martyrs in Africa, — speaks of the Lord's day as sacred", and as at once the first and the eighth; and, by a play upon the ordinal, he recalls the fact of *' the observance of the eighth day in the Jewish cir- cumcision of the flesh. "^ Origen, in his Commentary on Exodus, says the 1 Ant. Nic. Lib., Vol. xiii. p. 464. 2 Ant. Nic. Lib., Vol. viii. p. 198. TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS 163 Lord's day is superior to the Jewish Sabbath; ^ and in his noted work against Celsus, the epicurean phil- osopher (a. d. 244-249), he acknowledges that he kept the Lord's day, and says, " The perfect Christ- ian ... is always keeping the Lord's day." ^ Origen was one of the most learned men of his time and must have known the views of the earlier Fath- ers; and had he disagreed with them and their fellow Christians respecting the Lord's day, it would some- where appear. Anatolius, bishop of Laodicea, A. D. 270, whom Eu- sebius ranks as superior to all of his time in science and learnino:,^ in his Paschal Canon, speaks of the Lord's day by name at least ten different times. He says the Lord's resurrection took place upon it, and that " on the Lord's day was it that light was shown to us in the beginning, and now also in the end the com forts of all present and the tokens of all future blessings." ^ Victori nus, martyr, bishop of Petabio, A. D. 270-290, speaks of the Lord's day as one of joy and thanksgiv- ing.' The Apostolic Constitutions, attributed to Clement of Rome, for the most part dating at least between A. D. 150 and 350, placed by Bunsen in the second or third century, and certainly referred to by Epiphan- ius, who died A. D. 402, — contains this: ''On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that is, the Lord's ^ Patrologiae, Tom. xii. p. 345. 2 Ant. Nic. Lib., Vol xxiii. p. 509. ^ Eccl. Hist., Bk vii. chap. 32. * Ant. Nic. Lib., Vol. xiv. pp. 420, 425. 5 Ibid., Vol. xviii. p. 390. 164 SABBATH AND SUNDAY day, assemble yourselves together, without fail, giv- ing thanks to God, and praising him for those mer- cies God has bestowed upon you through Christ." ^ Peter, a martyr and a bishop of Alexandria, A. D. 306, in a sermon on penitence said: "The Lord's day we celebrate as a day of joy, because on it He rose again; on which day we have received it for a custom not even to bow the knee. . . . On the Lord's day we ought not to fast, for it is a day of joy for the res- urrection of our Lord." ^ Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea A. D. 315 (dying pre- vious to 340), besides stating that Irenseus (bishop of Lyons a. d. 178) wrote an epistle on celebrating the mystery of Christ's resurrection on the day of the Lord only,^ states twice that Constantine appointed the first and chief of all days, the day of the Lord, for prayer,* — not, however, that he originated it, — and says that he commanded all to assemble on the Lord's day for refreshment to the body, and for comfort and invigoration to the soul by divine precepts.^ In his commentary on the ninety^second Psalm Eusebius speaks of the "saving Lord's day ... in which th9 Savior of the world . . . obtained the victory over death." '^ Constantine's edict concerning the Lord's day, A. D. 321, would never have been issued, if pre- viously the day had not long been observed by the Christians. 1 Ant. Nic. Lib., Vol. xvii. p. 189. 2 Ibid., Vol. xiv. p. 322. 3 Eccl. Hist., Bk. v. Chap. xxiv. p. 239. * Life Const., Bk. iv. chap, xviii. p. 189; Orat. Praise Const., chap. ix. p. 828. ^Ibid., chap. xvii. p. 378. ^Patrologise Grsecse, Tom. xxiii. p. 1170. TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS 165 The Nicene Council, A. D. 325, assumed the exist- ence and the customary observance by the Christians of the Lord's day, in their decision that as a rule prayer on that day should be offered standing, and not kneeling,' and that Easter should be celebrated on that day.^ Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, A. D. 326, recog- nizes the Lord's day so much as to suppose that in the phrase ''upon Sheminith,'' — upon the eighth, — in the title of the sixth Psalm, there is a reference to that day;" and as to say, in comments on the phrase "This is the day which the Lord hath made," in Ps. cxvii. 24 (cxviii. our version), "The phrase signifies the resurrection day of our Savior, which is named from him, to^w^t, the Loixi's day." Elsewhere he speaks of the persecutions suffered by the Christians while they were at prayer on the Lord's day.* EpijDlianius, bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, A. D. 367, a man of extensive reading, speaks of the Lord's day as established hij the apostles;^ and if in his time that were not a conceded fact, we should probably find it contradicted. Basil, bishop of C^esarea, A. D. 370, exalts the day on which Christ arose and believers rose with him.^ Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, A. D. 372, magnifies the Lord's day as the day the Lord hath made, and as * Christian Councils, Hefele, p. 434. -Canon xx of Counc; Schaflf's Hist. Ch, p. 876; also Ch. Hist., Vol. ii. p. 383. 'Opera, Tom. i. folio, Pars ii. p. 1014. ♦Lib. of Fafh.,Hi6t. Tracts, p. 195. ^ Opera, folio, Tom. i. p. 1104: chap. xxii. Exp. Eid. Cathol. ^ Opera, (Paris ed.), Tom. ii. p. 123. 166 SABBATH AND SUNDAY commemorating Christ's resurrection and the begin- ing of creation.^ Ambrose, bishop of Milan, a. d. 374, speaks often of the Lord's day, implying that it was the day of His resmTection.^ Jerome, ordained presbyter a. d. 379, speaks often of the Lord's day, of its sacredness to Christians, of church attendance upon it, and of its distinction from Jewish sacred days.^ Gregory of Nazianzus, made bishop of Constanti- nople A. D. 380, refers often to the Lord's day and to the memory of his resurrection.* Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, A. D. 385, dis- courses of the Christians as honoring the Lord's day because of the blessing of his resurrection,^ Gaudentius, bishop of Brescia, A. d. 387, calls the first the Lord's day, and identifies it as that of His resurrection; and of the beginning of creation.^ Augustine, ordained bishop of Hippo A. D. 395, expresses his view of the Lord's day by saying to Faustus the Manichaean, " What you call Sunday, we call the Lord's day; and on it we do not worship the sun, but commemorate the Lord's resurrection."^ Chrysostom, elected archbishop of Constantinople A. D.,397, speaking of the Lord's day, says, ''All the unutterable blessings, and that which is the root and ^ In Christ, Res., Opera, fol. Colon. Agrip. p. 454. 2 Opera, fol. Tom. ii. p. 883, C. Epist. 3 Opera, Tom. iv. p. 272, in Epist. Gal. iv.lO. *Comm. Opera, fol. Tom. ii. p. 1094; Orat. xli. ^Biblioth. Veterum Patrnm, Vol. v. p. 860. ^ Biblioth. Vererum Patrum, p. 945, De Paschae, Tract i. ^Manichean Heresy (Edinburgh ed.), p. 324. TESTIMONY OF TSE EARLY FATHERS 167 the beginning of our life, took place on this day."* Cyril, made bishop of Alexandria A. d. 412, in dis- coursing on the purposes of the Sabbath of the old dispensation, assumes often that the Lord's day is to be honored.^ Theodoret, made bishop of Cyrus a. d. 420 or 423, speaks of the Jews as observing the Sabbath, and of the Christians as keeping sacred the Lord's day,^ Socrates, the historian who flourished about A. D. 420, speaks of the Lord's day and of the Sabbath as occurring weekly.* Sozomen, also an historian, and contemporary with Socrates, speaks of the Lord's day as that which the Jews called the first day of the week, and of Con- stantine's honoring the day because on it Christ arose from the dead.^ His language implies that it was not made the Lord's day by Constantine, but that it was such before his edict, Sedulius, presbyter and poet, who flourished about A. D. 450, in his Paschal Song, gives high honor to the Lord's day.^ Leo the Great, bishop of Rome A. d. 440-461, speaks of the day of our Lord's resurrection as sacred, and gtves a summary of the reasons that make it so conspicuous/ iHomil. 1 Cor. xvi. 2, Lib. Fathers (Oxford ed.), p. 606. ^De Adorat. in Spir. et Verit., Opera, fol., Vol. i. pp. 619, 620; de Fast. Paschal., Tom. vi. p. 82. ^De Fabulis Haer., Tom. iv. p. 219. * Greek Eccl. Hist., Vol. iii. p. 436, Bk. vi. chap. viii. ^Ibid., Vol. iv. p. 16, Bk. 1. chap. viii. •^Biblioth. Vet. Patr., Tom. vi. p. 470, H. Lib. iv. ^Schaff's Hist. Christ. Church, Vol. ii. p. 385; Leon Epist. ix. ad Dioscurum Alex. Episc, chap. 1. 168 SABBATH AND SUNDAY The Coucil of Eliberis, or Elvira (Hefele), A. d. 305 or 306, threatened with church suspension any one, living in town or city, who should absent him- self from church three Lord's days/ The Council of Laodicea, A. D. 363, voted that Christians should rest from labor on the Lord's day if they were able;^ seeming to imply, as Dr. Heurtley suggests, that some of them had not always the com- mand of their own time.^ The Council of Antioch, A. d. 340, ordained that refusal to partake of the communion, which was ob- served each Lord's day, should be visited with excommunication.* The Council of Sardica, A. d. 347, adopted the action of the Council of Eliberis.^ The Council of Gangra, about the middle of the fourth century, condemned those who contemned the house of God.^ The First Council of Toledo, A. d, 400, decreed that those who refused to partake of the communion which was observed each Lord's day, should be ex- communicated.^ The Fourth Council of Carthage, A. D. 436, added to the foregoing that if one left the church while the minister was preaching he should be anathematized.^ ^Conc. Elib. Canon xxi. Labbi, Tom. ii. col. 9, p. 376. 2 Cone. Laod. Canon xxix. Labbi, Tom. ii. col. 570; Neander's Church Hist., Vol. ii. p. 300. ^Hessey, Sunday, p. 316. *Conc. Antioch, Canon ii. Labbi, Tom. ii. col. 1309. •''Cone. Sardica, Canon li. Labbi, Tom. iii. col. 20. ^Ccnc, Gangra, Canon v. Labbi, Tom. ii. col. 1101. ^Conc. Toledo, i. Canon xiii. Labbi, Tom. iii. col. 1000. ^Conc. Carthag. iv. Canon xxiv. Labbi, Tom. iii. col. 953. TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS 169 In the case of each Council there is indicated a pre- vious knowledge of the Lord's day and the church services on that day. When Christianity came to assume control of national affairs, civil action was often taken in favor of the Lord's day. Constantine, A. d. 321, command- ed the general observance of the Lord's day; grant- ing to Christians leisure for religious services, and enjoining upon pagan soldiers prayer to God on that day;' also ordering the suspension of suits and courts of justice, yet granting civil action, on Sun- day, for the emancipation of slaves.^ Under Valen- tinian and Valens, A. d. 368, a law was enacted forbidding the exaction of taxes and collection of other dues on Sunday.^ Theodosius I., A. D. 379 and 386, forbade civil proceedings and pagan spectacles or theatrical performances; and the latter Theodos- ius II. forbade, A. d. 425.* Leo and Anthemius, a. d. 469, forbade other secular amusements, and granted to Christians other immunities from civil annoyances and proceedings on the Lord's day.^ Such is the course of history through about four centuries succeeding the death of most of the apostles. From beginning to end it shows an un- broken chain of evidence that the Christians sacredly observed the Lord's day. No testimony to the con- ^Life Const., Bk. iv. chaps. 18, 19. 2 Neander's Ch. Hist., Vol. ii. p. 300. ^Schaff's Church Hist., Vol ii. p. 381; Hessey, Sunday, pp. 83, 84. *Ibid., also Robertson's Church Hist., Vol. i. j). 248; Hessey, Sunday, p. 83. ^Cod. Theod. xv. 5, 2, a 386; Hessey, Sunday, pp. 83, 84. 170 SABBATH AND SUNDAY trary, or reference to it, anywhere appears. The proofs are doubled, and often more than quadrupled, all along the line; the earlier life of some witnesses continually overlapping the later of others. The seed of testimony, which we discover in the apostolic and earlier patristic days, develops into the lofty tree with wide^spreading branches after a few centuries have passed by. This universal observance of the Lord's day among the early Christians is proof that they regarded such observance an obligation as well as privilege, and that they believed the obligation had been imposed by divine authority. Such belief on the part of the apostles was equal to inspiration. Suppose the pilgrims had crossed the Atlantic to Plymouth Rock in the ship Neptune, and not in the Mayflower. Could subsequent history, through four hundred years, possibly state, repeat, and reiterate that they came in the Mayflower, with not the least dispute, or even allusion, to the contrary? Impos- sible! Suppose the Lord's day were not sacred and chief with the apostles and early Christians, could all subsequent history, through four centuries, represent and reiterate that it was sacred and chief, with 'no statement to the contrary? Equally impossible! Objection: First-day authors rely on the phrase Dominicnm Se^^vasti? " Hast thou kept the Lord's day? " as a genuine question, put by the persecutors to the Christians in the primitive era, and as there- fore showing that the first day was then kept sacred. We deny its genuineness, and the validity of the in- ference from it,^ Reply: So far as appears to the present writer this objection is well founded. And 'Andrews, Hist. Sab., chap. xv. TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS 171 the phrase in question has been so often adduced in the first-day argument as to justify calling attention to its probable lack of authority. Dr. Justin Ed wards/ Gurney, the English author,' President Ap- pleton of Bowdoin college,^ Rev. A. A. Phelps,* Henry Wilkinson,^ Gilfillan,'^and the recently issued volume, " Sabbath Essays," ^ all quote this language as reli- able. In the ancient Christian writings Dominicum sometimes stands for Lord's supper, and for Lord's day and Lord's house; the word for supper, day, and house being understood, and inferable from the con- nection. McClintock and Strong cite a passage from Cyprian where they say Dominicum means both Lord's supper and Lord's house in the same para- graph.^ But their translation would not be accepted by many, is certainly not necessitated, and is contrary to that given by the Ante Nicene Library, which ren- ders the word " Lord's supper " in both instances.^ The sufferings of many early Christians led to a vol- ume entitled '* Acta MarUjrum,''^ of which there have been several editions, Ruinart's being apparently the most valuable, and in it the word Dominicum often occurs. But, so far as we learn, no one has found it there joined to the word servasti with diem either 1 Sabbath Manual, p. 120. 2Hi6t. Authen., and Use, Sab., pp. 87, 88. MVorks, Vol. ii. p. 219. *Perpet. Sab. 141. ^ Formerly Primiipal Magdalen Hall, Oxford, quoted by Pres. Appleton. ^ The Sabbath, p. 7. ^ Sabbath Essays, p. 249. 8 Bib. Tbeo. Eccl. Cyc, Vol. ii. p. 859. ^Ant. Nic. Lib., Vol. xiii. p. 11. 172 SABBATH AND SUNDAY expressed or understood. Bishop Andrewes, of Win- chester, born A. D. 1555, seems to have first given this quotation from the Acta Martyrum, and he gave it erroneously, probably by some mistake of memory or copying. From him the error, if it be such, has come down through centuries, no first-day Sabbatarian author taking pains to verify the quotation, or to at- tempt it. But no dependence need be placed on the dialogue introduced by the question, Dominicum ser- vasU? The verified quotations from the Fathers are of themselves sufficient to show that the early Chris- tians observed the first day of the week as the most sacred of the seven. We now consider: Thirdly, how the seventh day was regarded by the Christians during the three centuries next succeeding the apostles. If we find evidence that it was as strict- ly observed by them, as by themselves and their fathers before the new dispensation commenced, then we must conclude that the primitive Christians kept equally sacred two days in the week, and that the Lord's day was not intended to take the place of the seventh^day Sabbath. After the destruction of Jerusalem, at least, the Christians began to omit more than ever the observ- ance of the seventh day, and to regard it as no longer binding. The temple destroyed, the sacrifices having ceased, the holy place no more, — then, if not before, began to dawn upon the common Christian mind the fact that the Jewish economy was abrogated, and that Judaic rites and ceremonies were no longer required by the Lord. Yielding the seventh day wa s one of the last steps in breaking off from the old order of things, TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS 173 and Judaizing Christians- continued long to observe both the seventh day and the first. But as might have been expected, the observance of the two days by Christians in general was not permanently practiced. The earlier Gentile Christians embraced their new faith in connection with worship in Jewish syna- gogues; and therefore, probably, with the Jews, more or less observed the seventh day for a season. But we know not when the observance of the first day of the week was commenced, unless as early as the day of pentecost, or earlier. And doubtless quite early many Gentiles and many Jewish Christians began to avail themselves of the apostolic privilege of omitting the strict religious observance of the seventh day — a privilege embraced in such sayings as that of Paul: " Let no man therefore judge you ... in respect of . . . the sabbath=days " (Col. ii. 16). Yet the historical part of the New Testament is too early to give much light respecting the omission to keep the seventh day sacred. Appeal must be made again to the early fathers, whose views doubtless were directly, in some cases, in most indirectly, received from the apostles. Here we are at issue with the Sabbatarians, who advocate the seventh day as still the Sabbath. They contend that the fathers of the second century at least did not sanction the neglect to keep holy the seventh day. We maintain that while they did not deem it sinful to keep both days, and re- garded it as impossible for a Christian to neglect the first day, they strenuously opposed binding the con- sciences of believers to the observance of the seventh. Ignatius, contempory of the apostle John, by the shorter recension, speaks of Christians as '' no longer 174 SABBATH AND SUNDAY observino- the sabbath" — seventh day; and, by the longer recension, exhorts to the spiritual observance of the seventh, but deprecates the " Jewish " formal method. ^ The epistle of Barnabas, while commending the eighth (first) day, speaks of the Lord as abolishing Jewish sacrifices, new moons, and Sabbaths; ^ and as saying, " Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me." ^ Justin Martyr implies that the Christians did not feel obligated to keep the seventh day, by saying " We, too, would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and, in short, all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you." Also, " How is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us, — I speak of fleshly cir- cumcisions, and Sabbaths, and feasts." * Irenaeus treating of symbolic, signs, says that sacrifices sugges- ted the " true sacrifice," " circumcision after the flesh typified that after the spirit," and " Sabbaths taught that we should continue day by day in God's service," implying that all these had passed away.^ Be it observed that the fathers did not regard the seventh- day Sabbath as the whole of the fourth command- ment. Not once can we find in their writings the statement that the fourth commandment is abolished. But we do find there the strongest affirmations that the decalogue is unrepealed and yet in force, and even also that the fourth commandment is not abol- ished. Those specific testimonies we consider here- after. 1 Ant. Nic. Lib; Vol. i. p. 150. ^ 15^^. p, iQg^ 3 Ibid; p. 128. * Ibid; Vol. ii p. 109. 5 Ant. Nic. Lib; Vol. v. pp. 427, 422. TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS 175 TertuUian, exhorting Christians not to mingle in heathen festivals, since they would not in the Jewish, says, ''By us, to whom Sabbaths are strange, and the new moons, and festivals formerly beloved of God." ^ More explicitly he says, " The observance of the Sab- bath is being demonstrated to have been temporary." ^ Bardesanes contrasts the observance of the seventh day by the Jews with that of the first by the Chris- tians, implying that the latter did not regard the sev- enth as sacred.^ Origen gives a list of the sacred days he was accustomed to observe, without including the Sabbath,* and speaks of the Lord of the Sabbath as having changed it.^ Victorinus says, "Lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, says by his prophets that his soul hateth, which Sabbath he in his body abolished.® Anatolius, a. d. 270, speaks often of the Lord's day and its celebration, but not of the seventh as having any honor in com- parison with the first. ^ Eusebius speaks of the Sab- bath, meaning the seventh day, as a Mosaic institu- tion, and of the Lord's day as "more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath."^ Athanasius speaks emphati- cally of the Sabbath, seventh day, as having passed.^ Cyril, archbishop of Jerusalem, elected presbyter a. d. J Ibid, Vol. xi. p. 162. 2 Ibid, xviii. p. 211. '^Spicilegium, Syriacum, pp. 31, 32. * Ant. Nic. Lib., Vol. xxiii. p. 509. s Com. in Matt. Opera, Tom. iii. 543 E. ^Ant. Nic. Lib., Vol. xviii. p. 390. 'Ibid., xiv. p. 425. ^ Comm. on Ps. xcii. ^De Sab. et Cir. Opera, Tom. ii. fol. p. 55. 176 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY 345, says, "Nor throw thyself into the assemblies of the heathen spectacles .... And fall not into Judaism . . . Abstain from all observance of Sab- baths, and from calling any indifferent meat common or unclean." ^ Hilary, elected bishop of Poitiers, about A. D. 350, speaks of the first day as much supe- rior to the seventh, and as the one observed by Chris- tians.^ Epiphanius speaks of the great Sabbath, rest, in Christ, to which the smaller or original one was introductory.^ Ambrose speaks of the Lord's day as preferred over other divine works,* and of the Sab- bath, seventh day, as secondary to it.^ Gregory of Nyssa speaks of the Sabbath, seventh day, as though it pertained to the former Jewish institutions.* Je- rome, contrasting Jewish with Christian institutions, places the Sabbath with the former.^ Augustine says, ''The rest of the Sabbath we consider no longer bind- ing as an observance." ^ Thus we find a stream of evidence adverse to the ob- servance of the seventh^day Sabbath among Christians, running through three centuries, and having its source among the Fathers nearest the apostles, and among the apostles themselves. Paul condemns binding the conscience to Sabbaths; Ignatius says, Christians no longer observe that day as chief, but the Lord's day; and. three centuries after, Augustine says. Christians ' Lib. of Fathers, Cyril, p. 51; Lee. iv. sec. 37. 2Prol. in Lib. Psal. Opera, col. 8. 3 Adv. Haer. Opera, fol. Tom. i. p. 159. * Enarratio in Ps. xliii. Opera, Tom. i. col. 887 E. 5 Enar. in Ps. ilvii. Opera, Tom. i. col. 936. D. ^ In Chris. Resur., Opera, fol. p. 456. ^ Expl. Ps. cxviii.; Hessey., Sun., p. 806. * Reply to Fanstus, Bk. vi. sec. 4. p. 172. TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS 177 consider Sabbath^keeping no longer binding. But note should be taken that when the Fathers taught that the seventh day need not be observed, they also taught that the first should be observed; that when the seventh lost its sacredness, the first received a sa- credness in the universal Christian esteem. Nearly every i^atristic writer who teaches that it is not a duty to observe the seventh day teaches equally that it is the duty, or practice, of Christians to observe the Lord's day. The two days were not observed in exactly the same manner. Sunday had nothing of the sacrifices, or shew^bread, or fasts of the seventh day; and it had the Lord's supper, and rejoicing over Christ's resurrection, and its glorious assurances, which the seventh day. had only in symbols. Yet, both days had convocations. Scripture reading, praise, prayer, and omission of the usual secular duties; as though the Lord's day had absorbed all the moral elements of the original Sabbath, and left the posi- tive, to most of which the Judaizers still clung with much tenacity. This reveiw of the patristic writings confirms the testimony and impressions given by the New Testament in various respects. It shows that the first day of the week was celebrated by the apos- tles and early Christians in commemoration of Christ's resurrection; that it was the distinctive Chris- tian day for sacred regard; that the chief and regular Christian assemblies were held upon it; that no evi- dence appears in the patristic writings, as none does in the New Testament, of Christians assembling as such on the seventh day, as the chief of all days; that the early fathers certainly used the term "Lord's day" as synonymous with "first day," and doubtless 178 SABBATH AND SUNDAY in imitation of the apostle John's language; that ac- cording to apostolic authority, Christians are released from the obligation to observe the seventh day, and are bound to observe the first; that the statement of Roman Catholic writers that Protestants are indebted to that church for authority to keep the Lord's day^ is unfounded, since we trace the observance to the apostles; and that we ought to accept inspired exam- ple and instruction, though without express com- mand, as authority for change of observance from the seventh to the first day, or else, in consistency, con- tinue sacrifices, circumcision, and the passover, since they are revoked in the new dispensation by example and instruction rather than by command. The testi- mony of the fathers is utterly irreconcilable with any theory of New Testament teaching on this subject, except that the apostles and contemporary Christians regarded the first day of the week as the chief of all days, held on it their chief religious services, and be- lieved it to be sacred. And according to this showing from Scripture and the early patristic writings, those who observe the seventh day as now the chief day in the week, to be carefully kept sacred, have no basis for their peculiar theory and practice. It follows that the reason for their increase of numbers during these later years has been the misinformation on this subject dissemi- nated by their publications and living teachers. We have shown from the Scriptures that the apostles and early Christians observed the first or Lord's day as chief and sacred. We have commenced with the fathers contemporary with and immediately succeed- ifiib. Sac, Vol. xxxvi. p. 731. TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS 179 ing the last of the apostles, and traced their testi- mony through the next succeeding four centuries. And we find in that space a long line of nearly fifty human witnesses, whose united testimony concen- trates upon this, that the religious observance of the Lord's day was begun in the days of the apostles, and under their sanction. There arises no one note of dissonance in the whole troop of men, nor anywhere around them. This would not and could not be true unless our main proposition were true, that the Lord's day in all that time were first and chief. Nor is there simjply a single utterance from each of these many witnesses, but some seventy=five different passages give their concurrent voice, and still more could be cited. And yet, in this long lapse of nearly fifteen hundred years, the writings of these fifty men have nearly all perished. And in the three centuries next succeeding the apostle John we have found and named nearly twenty men who directly, or indirectly, testify that in all that time the seventh =day Sabbath took a quite inferior place, at least in the Christian heart, as compared with the Lord's day. And their number, and the number of their testimonies, could both be much increased. This concurrent testimony respecting the first and seventh days is just what might be expected. The Lord's day coming forward to the chief place, the seventh day would retire to a quite inferior one. And yet all this is proved to be the fruit of apostolic instruction and example, and therefore the result of the word and act of Jesus Christ, who by it all is the more glorified. In view of the facts ascertained or collected in this discussion, we see no occasion for any first day Sab- 180 SABBATH AND SUNDAY batarians to "confess to a consciousness of obscurity" in regard to the ''authoritative change" from the seventh to the Lord's day, whether the latter be strictly a Sabbath or not; nor even for any to affirm that the change is a "difficult point to establish." ^ We have not precisely mathematical demonstration for the change, but we have the highest probabilities that our Lord in some way has given the first day of the week to be kept sacred in the new dispensation. And on the highest probabilities in all moral questions men are at liberty, and are bound, to believe and to act. For equally strong, or stronger, reasons there is no real basis for what Dr. Hessey calls the "ecclesiastical theory" respecting the Lord's day: ^ the view that the sacred observance of the first day has no authority except in the history of the church since the apostolic era. For we obtain New Testament evidence that in the apostles' time the first day was relis^iously ob- served, and the obligations to keep holy the seventh day were cancelled. Further, we get evidence from the fathers, beginning with those contemporary with the last of the apostles, that they understood the apostles to authorize the keeping of the first day sacred, and to release from keeping the seventh as the Sabbath, and that th© apostles authoritatively acted in this under instruction from their divine Master. And again, according to this discussion, the view of some even American evangelical ministers, that the early Christians were disagreed on the question of keeping the first day in a religious manner, is entirely ^ Sabbath Essays; Mass. Sab. Conventions, p. 149. 2 Sunday, pp. 8, 132. TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS 181 wrong. Not the least evidence of such disagreement appears in the New Testament, and positive evidence of agreement on that point appears in the patristic writings. Some early Christians held to more obliga- tion to keep the seventh day than others did, but all agreed in the obligation to keep the first day. CHAPTER IX. THE EARLY FATHERS ON THE CEREMONIAL AND MORAL LAWS. Having shown from the apostolic and succeeding fathers ot the primitive era that the Christians of their time kept sacred the first day of the week, and did not regard the seventh day as binding for holy observance, we come to a third and more difficult question: Did the early fathers teach that setting aside the seventh day involves, in form or in sub- stance, the abrogation of the fourth commandment ? Two parties in opinion here come distinctly before us. One party is made up of two divisions, of which one says that the fourth commandment is in form abolished; that the Scriptures so teach, and the fathers also. The other division, not going so far, says that the early fathers did not found the observ- ance of the first day on the fourth commandment, and we cannot; and that in substance that command is not in force, except analogically by its principle; — there was a sacred seventh day in the old dispensa- tion, and there is another in the new. The second party holds that we properly can base the observance of the Lord's day on the fourth commandment; but are disposed to confess that we have to do it despite the views and testimony of the early fathers. They in consequence claim that the patristical writings on X82 FATHERS ON CEREMONIAL AND MORAL LA WS 183 this subject are not trustworthy, since they stand adverse, as they think, to the doctrine of the Christian Sabbath as depending on the fourth command. They confess, even many of the most intelligent men on the Sabbath question confess, that in this one re- spect of patristical evidence, the cause of a sacred Sabbath is weak. The two parties understand the fathers alike in this respect, as wholly rejecting any sacred day based on the fourth commandment. But, while one party so understands them to the detriment of the command, the other understands them to the detriment of the fathers themselves. We do not fully agree with either party, but believe that the true ap- prehension of the language of the father's casts no detriment on either themselves or the command, and is entirely consistent ivith a Christian Sabbath founded on both the command and the teaching and example of the apostles^ which is the teaching of Jesus Christ. Dr. Hessey says, " The early church never appealed to the fourth commandment as a ground for observ- ing Sunday." ^ Again, he says that none of the ** early fathers " " refer to the fourth commandment, or to God's rest after the creation, for the sanction of the Lord's day." ^ Dr. Hopkins, of Auburn Theo- logical Seminary, says, " neither Christ nor his apostles, nor the primitive fathers taught that the fourth commandment was of moral and permanent obligation."^ In the volume, entitled " Sabbath Es- says," of the Massachusetts Sabbath Conventions, > Sunday, p. 203. 2 Ibid., pp. 53, 54. ^Pittsburgh Evangelical Alliance Address. 184 SABBATH AND SUNDAY Prof. E. C, Smyth, D. D., of Andover, says: "Paul, I think, we must believe, gave his pagan converts no command to keep the first day of the week as a sab- bath of the law. Nor is it put in any such relation, so far as I am aware, by any teacher of the Christian church in the early centuries." ^ Reply: These state- ments, even though wholly true, are only negatives. Any number of these would fail to equal one positive. These authors do not affirm that the early fathers declared the fourth commandment abolished, yet they lean towards that conclusion. They imply, at least the first two authors imply, that since the fathers did not undertake to found the Christian Sabbath on the fourth commandment, we may not. But that conclu- sion we think is not warranted. The fathers may not have brought this j)recise point under their in- vestigation, except a few of them in isolated in- stances. Their circumstances may not have led them to do so. They may not have known as much on this particular question as we ought to know. The author of the article in " Sabbath Essays" just referred to, wisely says of the fathers: " We are in a better position than were they to see the true rela- tions of the new economy to the old." ^ In conse- quence of this truth we claim that we may base the observance of the Lord's day on the fourth command- ment, though the Christian teachers of the early cen- turies did not. We expect to show that it would have been unnatural for them to do so, though nat- ural for us. But some go farther, and say that the fathers 1 Sabbath Essays, p. 227. 2 Sabbath Essays, p. 230. FATHERS ON CEREMONIAL AND MORAL LA WS 185 taught that the fourth commandment is actually abol- ished. Dr. Hopkins says: "The universal sentiment of the early Christian church was that the fourth com- mandment had been abrogated as a law, together with the rest of the Jewish ritual to which it belonged." ' From this we dissent, and expect to prove it to be an error. We therefore attempt to show: The early fathers, in rejecting the seventh^day sab- bath of their time did not discard the moral elements or the original Sabbath, nor the septenary propor- tional positive element, but only the septenary or- dinal positive time element.^ That is, their question of debate was, whether the seventh day or the first should be kept sacred. Yet, not so much whether the first should be, for that was in general assumed and declared, but whether the seventh was still bind- ing. Now, it were possible for them to have that simple question in mind, — what really j:)ertained to the ordinal time element, — without at the same time discussing whether one tenth part of the decalogue was abolished. They might even, in appealing or referring to the fourth commandment, do so merely to show that it did not require unalterable observance of the seventh day; that God was not inconsistent with himself in causing the seventh day to be set aside and the first to be kept; that the sacredness of the seventh day was not such that it could not be cancelled. They might discuss that question with- out discussing whether the whole fourth command- ment in its entire length and breadth were abrogated; and that we claim was the phase of the discussion. ' Pittsburgh Address. 2 See Bib. Sac, Vol. iixvii. pp. 164, 430, 431, 434, 435. 186 SABBATH AND SUNDAY Had they contended that the fourth commandment was abolished they would have had far more opposi- tion than they did, and the discussions preserved to us, and even the mere allusions to the subject would show it. The Christians of that age, holding to the sacredness of the Old Testament as they did, could not have maintained themselves against the Jews and Judaizing Christians if they had been understood to hold and teach that one= tenth j)art of the decalogue was stricken out. But many of the allusions to this subject by the early fathers occur in their addresses to pagan rulers and philosophers, in which they speak of the Chris- tian custom and rule of keeping Sunday as the Lord's day. And in all that was said to them there was no occasion to involve more than the ordinal time element. They had with the pagans no reason to go farther back for their authority than to the apostles and Christ. And that same authority, so near at hand, and so thoroughly accepted by even all Judaizing Christians, was their all-sufficient appeal. Jesus had risen from the dead; thenceforth the day was sacred; that was enough; there was no occasion in their minds to get authority from the decalogue. Hence, their references to the fourth commandment were in rebutting objections, and were generally or always to this point — the obligation to keep the seventh day can be remitted. And that simple question touches only the ordinal time element, and does not involve the question whether what God gave as his law on Mount Sinai, written in tables of stone, were in one tenth part effaced. With us it is quite different. The early fathers looked back only a few years for their FATHERS ON CEREMONIAL AND MORAL LA WS 187 authority. One or more of them had touched the hands of an ai:)ostle; with others there was only one between themselves and him. But we at the best must look back nearly two thousand years. Looking thus more than half way to Sinai, our minds inevit- ably demand that we look to Sinai itself. Havinp^ no visible personal authority, as the earlier of the fathers had, nor any with only one or tw^o genera- tions between them and il. as others of the fathers had, and being obliged to rest on written testimony and authority, we necessarily demand all that can be had. And therefore Christians of this day summon not only Christ's resurrection and the apostles' teaching and example, but they instinctively demand also Sinai's law. Besides, they cannot l)ear to admit that the moral law given by Jehovah, in any of its elements wherever found, is abolished. Times and seasons and dispensations may change, but the intu- itive feeling is, that a moral truth or law is never repealed. These things we say, not to be accepted w^ithout proofs, but as preparatory to a right under- standing of the fathers on the question whether in discarding the seventh day they discarded also the fourth commandment. It was assumed by all the early Christians, that their first or Lord's day was to come as often as the seventh day had. In effect they assumed that the septenary propoiiional time element was to remain. This came by intuitive deductions and divine assumptions, and therefore was not debated. They also assumed that their sacred day was to be devoted to sacred, or devotional and sacred, commemorative purposes. The modern view of some, that keeping 188 SABBATH AND SUNDAY every day alike (Rom. xiv. 5) involved no special observance of the Lord's day not only had no favor, but seems to have had scarcely a thought from the fathers. The more reliable commentators, as EUi- cott,^ Meyer,^ Lightfoot,^ agree that the Pauline reference in Eomans, to which we have just referred, pertains only to Judaistic ceremonial days. And since the fathers, as far back as the apostolic era, as we have shown, undividedly agree as to the obser- vance -of the Lord's day, they could have had no sympathy with the thought of keeping no day at all, or all days the same. No adequate conception of this subject can be ob- tained without a view of the seventh^day Sabbath as it was generally regarded and observed by the Jews in the patristic era. Jesus made various corrections of abuses of the Sabbath, but we are not to under- stand that those reforms widely prevailed among the Jewish people of that age, or that the Christians, even, so far adopted them as to have all their false notions and practices immediately corrected. The Rabbinical doctors still taught, and the people still believed, the strangest absurdities respecting Sabbath desecration. The Rabbins enumerated thirty=nine principal prohibited works, each having its long list of secondary or subordinate works, per- forming any one of which was a violation of the Sab- bath. The principal were such as ploughing, sowing, reaping, threshing, grinding, healing, hunting, bear- ing burdens, etc. Hence, teachers and people in general still believed it unlawful to heal a sick man ' Com. Gal. iv. 10 (Am. ed.). ^Com. Rom. xiv. 5. ^Com. Gal. iv. 10, and his reference to Origen. FA THEiiS ON CEREMONIA L AND MORA L LA WS 189 (John V. 16) or to loose a crippled woman from her bonds (Luke xiii. 14) on the Sabbath; unlawful for the healed one to carry a light cushion on which he had been resting, as he went to his home (John v. 10) ; unlawful on the Sabbath to pick a head of wheat and shell it in the hand to appease hunger, for that would be both reaping and threshing; unlawful to walk on the grass, for the bruising of the tender leaves would be a kind of grinding; ' unlawful to wear shoes with nails in them, for that would be bearing a burden, and so be a violation, they said, of the divine precept in Neh. xiii. 10; unlawful to carry any burden, ex- cept upon hoih shoulders instead of upon one, the former rendering the task so light that it would not really be a burden; unlawful to carry water to any animal, for that would be bearing a burden, though lawful to fill a trough with water and lead the animal to watering (Luke xiii. 15), for then the animal would carry the water; unlawful to put an ointment or plaster on a diseased eye for the purpose of heal- ing it, though allowable to do it to allay the pain; un- lawful, as the Essenes held, to remove a dish or any vessel out of its place; ^ or, as one class of Samaritans held, to remove one's self ou the seventh day from the place or posture in which sunset found him on the sixth day. ^ Other superstitious notions were subsequently add- ed, some of them in the time of the fathers; as, an animal fallen into a ditch should not be removed on ^ Jennings Jewish Antiquities, Vol. ii. p. 157. ^ Heylin's Hist. Sab. Part i. chap. 8. sec. 2. 8 Smith's Bible Diet., p, 2759; also, Farrar's Life of Christ, Vol. 1. p. 432. 190 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY the Sabbath, though some nourishment might be thrown to it, no one might whistle a tune or play on an instrument; no Jew might milk his kine on the Sabbath day, but might get another to do it, and then purchase the milk; the lame might use a staff on the Sabbath, but the blind might not; no one might carry money in his purse or pocket; no one should knock at a door with a ring or hammer; no one might walk through a stream on stilts, for he would carry the stilts; a tailor must not go out on Friday afternoon with his needle fastened to his raiment, lest he forget it and carry that burden on the Sab- bath; a cock must not have a ribbon on its leg, for that would be carrying a burden; a physician must not be sent for on the Sabbath; one suffering from rheumatism, must not have the afflicted part rubbed or fomented, for that would be labor; no one must wear a false tooth, for that might necessitate labor; ^ no one catch a flea while it hopped about, for that would be a kind of hunting; and still other strictures were put upon the Sabbath-life, too trivial or too of- fensive to mention. Such was the Sabbath known to both Jews and Christian converts from Judaism in the early Chris- tian era; such the Pharisaic Jews insisted should be observed, and the Judaizing Christians complained of ^ Respecting "a false tooth and a tooth of gold," there were two rulings given in a passage relating to women; one by a Rabbi alloxving a person to wear such tooth; the other made by his superiors, — the wise men, — forbidding a woman to wear it on going out of her house on the Sabbath, because there would be a possibility of its falling out of her mouth; in which case she would be obliged to resort to labor in order to restore it. — Mishna, Sabbath, chap. vi. 5, Rev. Selah Merrill, D. D. f-A THERS ON CEREMONIA L A ND MORA L LA WS 1 91 their Christian brethren if they did not observe it In these circumstances it were preposterous to sup- pose that the Jewish Sabbath, as known to the fath- ers in the early Christian era was identical with that of the fourth commandment. It was rather like the ' Sabbaths which God could not away with ' in the prophet's time (Isa. i. 13) ; it was the Jewish pos/YiW and did not contain the moral and holy elements which the Lord placed in the Sabbath of the deca- logue. In such associations even the name "Sab- bath " had lost much of the sweetness it was origi- nally designed always to have. The early Christians turned with pleasure to the new name, and new in- stitution in part, the Lord's day. The existing Jew- ish Sabbath had become a reproach ; and after Christ and his apostles had given such significance to the first day, it were easy for earnest and simple believers to transfer to it their affections for the one sacred day. Especially so, when the current of their thoughts and feelings was turning from types to the antitype, and the Jews and Judaizing nominal Christ- ians were more or less absorbed, and wished to absorb others, with the mere outward and ceremonial of the Sabbath, and of other Jewish institutions. The fathers did not stop to philosophize on what they did, in some respects they knew not what they did; yet, emphatically, it was not the Sabbath as an institution that they fully rejected, but the Sabbath as an ordi- nal day, the Jewish seventh^day. Though the fathers did not attempt to philosophize on this subject, there was a philosophy in their con- duct. They engaged in the practical question of pro- tecting the churches against Judaism, against the ef- 192 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY forts of some to impose on the Christian conscience Rabbinic superstitions, and Judaic institutions that had accomplished their end and passed away. The chief of these were sacrifice, circumcision, Judaic feasts, and the Jewish Sabbath of that time. But neither apostles nor fathers said aught against these until for animal sacrifice was substituted the blood of Christ; for circumcision of the flesh that of the heart, and for baptism in respect to the seal of the covenant; for the Passover feast, the Lord's supper, and for the Jewish or seventh-day Sabbath, the Lord's day. The apostolic and patristic aim was to bring Christians away from the old to the new. Clearly, they were only Jewish institutions which they sought to dis- place. If there are other sabbatic elements than the merely Jewish — and we have seen that there are — of those the fathers did not treat. All principles and institutions that are common to mem they left un- touched. They opposed sabbatizing only as they opi3osed Judaizing. Their testimony bears at this day only against Saturday Sabbatarianism, not against the Lord's-day Sabbath. Even Robertson, who says that Paul declared the Sabbath "abbrogated," ^ says also of the apostle Paul's teaching: "To urge the ob- servance of the Sabbath as indispensable to salvation, was, according to him, to Judaize; 'to turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, wherewith they de- sire to be in bondage.'"^ Of course the Christian fathers rejected such observance of the seventh-day Sabbath; but in that rejection they did not embrace 1 Sermons (Second Series), pp. 201, 202, 209; also (First Series), pp. 116, 118. 2 Ibid. (Second Series), p. 204. FATHERS ON CEREMONIAL AND MORAL LA WS 193 the rejection of the whole fourth commandment. We must examine in detail. One writer, to sustain his theory of " the emancipa- tion of Christians from the fourth commandment as a law," ^ refers to Barnabas. This is the passage from which he quotes: ''Furthermore, he saith unto them, 'Your new moons and Sabbaths I cannot away with.' Look ye how he saith, 'Your present Sab- baths are not acceptable unto me, but the Sabbath which I have made, in the which, when I have fin- ished all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day, which is the beginning of the new world.' Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day unto glad- ness, in the which Jesus also rose from the dead, and, after that he had been manifested, ascended into the heavens." - One inference drawn from this by Prof. Hopkins is, — "That as an outward ceremonial observ- ance God rejected it" [the Sabbath]. Reply : 1. He did reject the mere formal Sabbath in Isaiah's time (Isa. i. 13), 2, The argument of Barnabas is to the point, that God rejected the formal Jewish Sabbaths in his own time. What he says makes no decision on the true Sabbath of the fourth commandment, except by implication that the seventh day was not to be kept by Christians. Another inference made is, ^^ That even under the Old Testament it [the Sabbath] was to be kept holy chiefly as a symbol of future good. " Reply : 1. The Lord's day taking substantially the place of the Sab- bath, might also be a symbol of future good, even of ^ Prof. S. M. Hopkins, Pittsburgh Alliance Address. 2 Apostolic Fathers (Jackson and Fisher's ed.), p. 97; see also, Ant. Nic. Lib. Vol. i, p. 128. 194 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY the heavenly rest. 2. Barnabas seems to have a con- ception that the Lord's day, •' the eighth day, " is a kind of Sabbath. He says: " But the Sabbath which I have made," as Jackson and Fisher translate. Al- though the word " Sabbath " is not expressed in the original, it seems clearly to be implied, and to have some relation to the " eighth day. " as though that took the place of the Sabbath in the new dispensa- tion. A third inference by Prof. Hopkins is, — Bar- nabas teaches that the import of the Sabbath of the old dispensation "was realized in the blessings of the gospel." Reply: Not realized without one sa- cred day in seven; " Wherefore also we keep the eighth day." From all this we conclude, that since the for- mal Sabbaths of Isaiah's time did not emancipate the Jews from the real Sabbath of the fourth command- ment, the Jewish Sabbath of Barnabas's time did not emancipate Christians from that command, except from the observance of the seventh^day. All other principles in that command stand unchanged. The direction concerning the " six days " is untouched The observance of a proportional seventh part of time is unaffected, because that is had in the keep- ing of the " eighth day. " The element of " convoca- tion " remains, for Justin Martyr particularly tells us of the public services held by Christians on " Sun- day. " The date of Barnabas's epistle is conceded by late and able editors to have been within the first quarter of the second century. ' The writer must have been living when the apostle John died. His conception of the Jewish Sabbath of that time prob- ably accorded with the one then current among * Apostolic Fathers (Jackson and Fisher's ed.), p. 88. PaTHERS on ceremonial and moral la WS 196 Christians. Therefore, his view is initial and repres- entative, and as a key it may assist in understanding others of the fathers. Prof. Smyth has cited Ignatius in favor of the view that the fourth commandment was '' limited as a statute" to the old dispensation; is "no longer liter- ally binding," " no longer formally prescriptive," "not for us an outward ordinance." Yet, he does not go'as far as some. He holds that the fourth com- mandment is "a revelation to us of a creative counsel and purpose of God in which we have a part as well as the chosen people," that it " suggests universal maxims," "is still directory," "discloses permanent and authoritative i)rnciples, to be conscientiously ap- plied as j)?'/> Patrologiae Graecae, Tom. xxiii. pp. 1170, 1171; Stuart's Translation in Gurney on the Sabbath. Appendix B. 16 258 SABBATH AND SUNDAY to the analogy of the Jewish law."^ Reply: We do not claim that it " identifies " the two days, but in substance identifies the moral elements of the two days; that it teaches that the Lord's day under the new covenant takes in substance the place of the sev- enth day under the old covenant, it is the Christian Snbbath, and in respect to moral elements has the authority of the fourth commandment. (9) It seems that the idea and even the name " Sabbath " was applied by one of the fathers to the Lord's day, near the close of the second century, about one hundred years after the last of the apostles. Clement of Alexandria, widely known and highly in- fluential in his tiniQ, commenting on the fourth com- mandment says, " The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a rest, — abstraction from ills, — preparing for the primal day, our true rest; which, in truth, is the first creation of light, in which all things are viewed and possessed . . . The discourse has turned on the seventh and the eighth. For the eighth may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh, and the seventh manifestly the sixth, and the latter [ the eighth ] properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work."^ Among Clement's thoughts are these: (1) There is a near relation and clear similarity between the seventh day and the first, or "eighth"; (2) The first day of the week is analogous to the first of creation; (3) In the new dispensation the seventh day in a sense becomes the sixth, "a day of work," and the eighth bceomes the seventh, a day of "rest" ; (4) The first or "eighth " day has sabbatic endowments, might "properly" be ^Sunday, notes, p. 301. THE SABBA TH IN THE NE W DJSPENSA TION 25d termed the " Sabbath," and " possibly" will yet be so named. Such thoughts, being in Clement's mind, and writings, were certainly entertained in that early age by others. The primitive Christians, having certainly perceived the likeness between the seventh and Lord's day, must have also seen that the name of the former — Sabbath — would in many respects be suitable as a name of the latter, except that it already had a better one, in their conception. Objection: "It is not certain that Clement refers directly to the eighth day. The word for day does not appear in the original." Reply: The word " day," — "seventh day," — had been previously used in the same sec- tion; the passage is distinctly on the fourth com- mandment, and therefore "day" may well be sup- posed to be understood, especially as Clement speaks of the "seventh "as a "working," — day for work. Objection Second: "The meaning may be that under the gospel dispensation the Christian has a true rest, or Sabbath." Reply: Clement is speaking of particular numbers, — seventh and eighth, — and not expressly of dispensations or of Christian p)rivi- leges. Those numliers have no significance here unless they refer to days, nor the days any signifi- cance unless the writer has the conception that the "eighth" or first day of the week is in substance a " Sabbath," and might yet be called, or even proved to be, such. Objection Third: "The use of the pas- sage to support an authoritative transfer of the ancient Sabbath to the Lord's day is hazardous." Reply: It is not proposed to use it for an "authori- tative transfer," but to show that the early fathers recognized sabbatic elements in the Lord's day, and 260 SABBATH AND SUNDAY were very far from saying that the fourth command- ment was void because the seventh=day observance was no longer binding. We have aimed to show that the fathers' testimony does not forbid finding a basis for the Lord's day in the fourth commandment. We claim to have shown that Scripture does not for- bid it. Therefore the fourth commandment asserts its own demand, subject only to such modification as the New Testament gives. There we find an abso- lute release from the observance of the seventh day (Col. ii. 16), and in its place the privilege and obli- gation to observe the Lord's day. The appeal to patristical lore is to interpret and confirm the New Testament instruction. In the writings of the fathers we find ample proof that the Lord's day in that age was kept "holy," though not according to all Judaic sabbatic rules. The commandment itself has not varied its demand for holiness. Clement's reflections above given show that in his mind was doubtless the same thought that naturally has come to many other minds in the centuries past, and comes to many still, — the Lord's day does in substance take the place of the seventh day in the fourth of the Sinaitic commandments But why is there so great importance in finding a basis for Sabbath observance in the fourth com- mandment, and in holding tenaciously to that basis? Because, (1) If such is God's revealed will it is transgression and peril to disregard it. (2) It gives the most consistent and beautiful array of divine truth. On any other theory the fourth command- ment stands mutilated in the most wonderful body of laws that ever existed among men. That com- THE SABBA TH IN THE NE W DISPENSA TION 26 1 mandment made whole accords with the fact that a day of rest was set apart and hallowed from the close of creation, and with the evidence that such a day was given for the observance of mankind previous to the existence of the Jewish nation. The divine common law, or law of precedent, in which the ante- Mosaic Sabbath was based, might be expected to receive expression in some divine statute like that of the decalogue, and that statute might be expected to continue. By divine common law, in distinction from divine statute, the Lord,s day, or Christian Sabbath, has its authority in the new dispensation. This doctrine of the continuity of sacred time from the beginning, based in both the divine law of prece- dent and the decalogue, accords best with the impor- tance of the Sabbath and the welfare of men. (3) We may know a priori that human nature needs to anchor to the firm foundation of God's command- ments. (4) History tells us that whercA^er the doc- trine of the abrogation of the fourth commandment has found sway, there Sabbath desecration has been the sure result. The Jews ever disregarded and de- spised the Sabbath unless confronted with the divine sabbatic requirements. Many who condemned the principles of the Puritan Sabbath acknowledged its conservative and healthful influence. Many noted men who have advocated the theories of the Euro- pean continental Sabbath have mourned over their evil fruits, and have in the comparison admired and desired the purer American Sabbath when free from foreign embarrassments and corruptions. Man left to his own free will, without the divine will, is sure to go astray. Therefore we should enthrone forever 262 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY the whole moral law. the moral elements of the fourth commandment with all the rest. We must choose whether to regard them as void or binding. Who, with fair and full consideration, can accept the for- mer alternative? NOTES. 1. It should be noticed that the modern general view of the Sabbath is well supported by that emi- nent theologian and reasoner Jonathan Edwards, of more than a century and a half ago. He held that the Sabbath was instituted at the close of creation as a personal blessing to man, and is therefore binding upon him now as it has been in all ages past where- ever known. He held also that the Sabbath is one day in seven and that under the gospel dispensation this day is the first day of the week and that the Christian Sabbath in the sense of the fourth com- mand is as much the seventh as the Jewish Sabbath, because it is kept after six days of labor as well as that. Its observance honors God as the keeping of His command, and should be kept free from worldly con- cerns that it may be devoted to religious exercises. 2. The discussion of this subject shows that the Christian Sabbath, or the sacred observance of one day in seven, is not a merely Jewish Institution. It was not only ante=^Sinaitic, but ante^Mosaic, dating at the close of creation: it has a moral principle, therefore that principle is a law founded on the nature and needs of man and irrepealable. Its repe- tition at Sinai was simply its engrossment; a few out- ward observances were merely adaptations to Jewish ceremonial and civil laws subsequently repealed; a THE SABBA TH IN THE NEW DISPENSATION 263 change of time was a later adaptation to the Chris- tian dispensation which must stand while the Chris- tian dispensation remains. 3. When Christ told his hearers that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, his chief motive was to rebuke Judaic superstitions. But the truth he cited concerning the Sabbath was no less a truth because brought forward incidentally and not as the primary object. The Sabbath is of such a nature as to be applicable to all men and not to Jews merely. The distinction between the secular and the spiritual is adapted to all classes of men and lasts while life lasts. Therefore it should be observ- ed by all men : neither Christ n(;r his apostles said any thing contrary to this. 4. Let it never be forgotten that apostolic unity in doctrine and in practice constitute divine instruc- tion and authority. Let it be also remembered that the earliest Christians were taught by Christ and his apostles and that the Early Fathers, some of them contemporory with the apostles, are agreed in holding the first day of the week as sacred. In act- ual history there is no division of testimony. 5. Let those who speak lightly of the Puritan Sabbath remember that imperfect though it may have been, it was a magnificent protest against great worldliness in the church at that time and served a grand purpose. Much of its spirit might well be retained. CHAPTER XI. THE ADVANTAGES OF THE SABBATH FOR MAN'S PHYSI- CAL BEING. When the Savior said, " The Sabbath was made for man " (Mark ii: 27), he announced a fundamental and most valuable divine law for human welfare. The human body of necessity occupies a large place in man's attention and wants. The efficiency of that body is very wide and serviceable when it is pos- sessed and governed by a right mind. There must be then, a great importance in due attention to the real wants of the physical nature in this life. How many sick beds and how many faint and drooping forms demonstrate, that there has been a lack of appliance for the health of the body; and also, that there should be strict vigilance with all the healthy and robust, to preserve the physical force and strength which they already possess. One law of demand for the human system is that of rest. Laws for rest are stationed all along the physical nature. The lungs rest after each breath we take; the blood-ves- sels rest between the heart=beatings; the nerves and brain will have rest and will revenge themselves upon us if we cut short the supply. The ordaining of day and night to follow each other in quick succession through sill ages of 26i THE SABBA TH FOR PH YSICAL BEING 265 the world, was a merciful appointment of God. — Without it the human species would probably have become extinct at a very early period of time. The night is needful to refresh and invigorate our weak bodies, that can endure but a few hours of toil without sleep. If rest be not willingly given, the body will take it against will. The person long wear- ied by sorrow, in spite of himself will fall asleep, if he persists in denying the demand for rest. So was it apparently with the three disciples whom Christ asked to watch with him in the garden of his agony. So is it often with criminals the very night preceding their execution. They have been known to sleep soundly for nine successive hours the last night of their earthly existence. Bonaparte once passed three entire days and nights without sleep; but he could no longer contend against this law of rest, and sank to sleep on his horse. As surely as there is a God, one of his laws in our physical being is that which calls for rest. But, experience and observation have shown, that the rest of night, and all forms of daily and nightly rest put together, are insufficient for the highest good of man's physical being. There must be days as well as nights of rest. The steady routine of day and night, without breaks and openings in its course, is inimical to man's highest state of health and physi- cal efficiency. Dr. Carpenter, the distinguished Eng- lish physician, physiologist, and author, says it has been found by those who employ horses in coaching, that in traveling a certain distance, it is better to work a horse four days, and give him a fifth day for rest, than to divide the same distance into five parts 266 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY for five days, and give him no one day of rest. Mr. Bionconi, to whom Ireland is much indebted for "establishing and maintaining its system of public cars," at a meeting of the British Association for the advancement of science, in Dublin, in 1857, said, " I found that I could work a horse with more advantage eight miles a day for six days, than six miles a day for seven days; and therefore I discovered that by not working on Sunday I made a saving of twelve per cent. " ^ Intervals, changes, that shall give variations to the course, are demanded by the physical nature. But some regularity in the intervals is important. A term of twenty days for work, and then of four days for rest, will not suffice like the four for work and one for rest in regular order. It is found that the physical nature looses its vigor by a long suc- cession of working days without intervening rest days; that the tone of vigor grows less and less as by a regular falling scale. Numerous experiments have demonstrated this. Whether the physical being shows that the day of interval and rest should be every seventh may not be so clear. But the law of God, copied from his law of creation, has revealed to us that the seventh, day for interval and for rest is for the best, and destruction would doubtless come if any other ordinal than the seventh were taken. The distinguished Jonathan Edwards held that there was probably some Divine law in human being, which demands the seventh rather than any other ordinal day for rest, though the reason of it is as yet unknown to us. The once infidel France tried the tenth day in place of the ^ Kev. Joseph Cook, Sabbath Essays, p. 40. THE SABBATH FOR PHYSICAL BEING 267 seventh, and that was doubtless one of the evil ele- ments that plunged the nation into anarchy and blood. The long centuries have given numerous opportunities for experiment in this matter. The conclusion of all candid and well-informed minds put to this question has been, that a seventh day for rest is needful for man's physical being. The com- munities where this law is observed are healthier, stronger, more temperate, of greater longevity. The better soldiers in physical capacity during the late American war, did not come from the Sabbath^ breaking communities, but from those in general where God's law of weekly rest had been observed. When the great " New West " was almost unknown, and emigrants from the East went in caravans from the Mississippi across the Rocky mountains to Cali- fornia, it was repeatedly demonstrated by experiment, that the companies of travelers that stopped their teams on prairies or hillsides, and gave to them, and took for themselves, the Lord's day rest, reached their journey's end the soonest and safest. Years ago, when the Crystal Palace exhibition was at its height, six hundred and forty one physicians of Lon- don subscribed a petition to the British Parliament against opening that Palace for profit on Sundays, and in the petition they said, "Your petitioners, from their acquaintance with the laboring classes and with the laws which regulate the human econ- omy, are convinced that a seventh day of rest, in- stituted by God, and coeval with the existence of man is essential to the bodily health and mental vigor of men in every station of life." The British House of Commons many years since made an in- 268 ^ SABBATH AND SUNDAY vestigation of the effects of laboring seven days in the week compared with laboring six and resting one. Among the many witnesses they summoned, was Dr. Fane of London, who had been in the early part of his life the physician of a public medical institu- tion and had been engaged in the study and prac- tice of medicine forty years. He gave a lengthy and important testimony, showing that one day in seven is greatly needed as a day of rest to restore to the body and mind, that energy and vigor and strength which they lose by six days of laborious application. He gave it as his opinion that the night was not a sufficient restorative power to secure the attainment of long life. He considered the Sabbath not only a positive institution which should be observed be- cause the Divine Will demands it, but that it should also be kept as a natural duty to preserve life; that he who habitually violates it by labor is virtu- ally guilty of suicide. He regarded the Sabbath as a great " sustaining, repairing and healing power. " A committee in the Pennsylvania Legislature, in their report in regard to the employment of laborers on their state canals on the Sabbath, asserted it as the result of their own experience, that man and beast will perform more labor by resting one day in seven than by working the whole seven. Years ago the Minister of Marine in France ordered that no workmen be employed in the government dock-yards on the Sabbath, on the ground that more labor will be performed by resting on the Sabbath than by working seven days in the week. During some years past there has been a somewhat poj)ular call for more holidays. Without now judg- THE SABBATH FOR PHYSICAL BEING 269 ing whether there should be more or not, one thing is certain, there ought to be more holy days and even a well-kept and universally kept Sabbath. The more holidays some people have, the worse they are off. A laboring man of New York city who had freely pat- ronized Sabbath excursions under the plea for more recreation, recently abandoned them, saying, that he found himself by them made more weary and unfit for his week's work then to come, than he was on Saturday night. Jorgensen says, " The moroseness occasioned by the want of a Sabbath in France has an effect on the cleanliness of young men engaged in manual labor; they pursue their daily drudgery in their dirty working dresses, and habit renders them at length averse to a change of linen and clothes." Cleanliness is one protection against disease. It is found that suicides occur more in Sabbath breaking than in Sabbath keeping countries, and far more among Sabbath breakers than among Sabbath keep- ers." Coleridge says, I feel as if God had, by giving the Sabbath, given fifty two Springs in the year." All laboring men who are dependent on others for employment, have a direct and important interest in maintaining the Sabbath. No Sabbath means for many of them eventually more labor with no more pay. John Stuart Mill said, " Operatives are per- fectly right in thinking that if all worked on Sunday, seven days' work would be given for six days' wages." ^ It is seen that there must be a well^observed law of rest for all, or there will be no liberty of rest for those who wish it. Sir David Wilkie, a celebrated painter, said, " Those artists who wrought on Sunday were ^ Sabbath Essays p. 42. 270 ' • SABBATH AND SUNDAY soon disqualified from working at all." Professor Ernest Curtius, a distinguished philologist and an- tiquary of Germany, says, " The alternation of work- ing and resting days appeared, even to the ancients, as something so primeval in its origin, so indispen- sible, and so closely connected with religion, that they perceived in it, not an innovation of human cleverness, but a divine ordinance; as Plato says, ' Out of pity for the wretched life of mortals, the De- ity had arranged days of festal recreation and re- freshment." ^ William Von Humboldt says, "I am satisfied that the six days are really the true, fit, and adequate measure of time for work, w^hether as re- spects the physical strength of man, or his persever- ance in a uniform occupation. There is also some- thing human in the arrangement by w^hich those ani- mals which assist man in his work enjoy rest along with him. To lengthen beyond the proper measure the periods of returning repose, would be as inhuman as it would be foolish. An example of this occurred within my own experience. When I was in Paris during the time of the Revolution, it happened, that, without regard to the divine institution, this appointment was made to give way to the dry, wretched decimal sys- tem. Every tenth day was directed to be observed as a Sunday, and all ordinary business went on for nine days in succession. When it became distinctly evident that this was far too much, many kept holi- day on the Sunday also, as far as the police laws al- lowed; and so arose on the other hand, too much leisure. In this way one always oscillates between * Sabbath Essays, p. 26, note, quoted by Rev. "W.W. Atterbury, Sec.N. Y. Sab. Com. THE SABBATH FOR PHYSICAL BEING 271 the two extremes, so soon as one leaves the rei^ular and ordained middle path." ' Lord Macauley, in discoursing on the physical ben- efits of the Sabbath says: "While industry is sus- pended — while the plow lies in the furrow — while the exchange is silent — while no smoke ascends from the factory, a process is going on quite as important to the wealth of the nation as any process which is per- formed on more busy days. Man, the machine of machines, is repairing and winding up, so that he re- turns to his labors on Monday with clearer intellect — with livelier spirits — with renewed corporgil vigor." Rev. Dr. C. A.Huntley gives the following: "Or- dinarily, men are no losers by giving up one day in seven, to God, even in temporal things, but gainers rather. Indeed, man was not made for unceasing la- bour, whether bodily or mental. For a little while he may, perhaps, do more work in seven days than in six; but not for a continviance. God's physical laws forbid the attempt as plainly and intelligibly as his moral laws. In the end he will be found to have done the most who has at due intervals suspended his labor, that he may return to it again with re- cruited strength and renewed vigor, and with that calmness and self=possession which he has gained by communion with God in those intervals."^ We could add to the foregoing matter on this sub- ject a great multitude of other facts and testimonies. Enough have been given to show that there is a deep-seated law in the physical nature of man, which absolutely requires a weekly day of rest. It is a ^Letters, etc. Vol. i. p. 207; Sabbath Essays, p. 29. 2 Form of Sound Words, p. 269. 272 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY law of God, nearly or quite as well established as any law in nature can be. And since Jehovah has revealed that one seventh part of time should be given to rest, the allotted weekly day of rest should be one day in seven. CHAPTER XII. THE ADVANTAGES OF THE SABBATH FOE MENTAL BEST, CAPACITY, AND CULTURE. A Bane mind works best in a sound body. Being shown that the weekly rest is needful for the physi- cal man, it is in that already shown that the rest is needful for the intellectual man. The dependence of the mind upon the body in this mortal state, is so great and constant as to be beyond human calcula- tion. We know that none of us now have any com- mand of our intellect without the body. And we know that a diseased body gives a beclouded mind; and sometimes even goes so far, that though the mind remain in the body it becomes useless, help- less. We know also, that rest of mind means rest of body too, and often we can not tell whether it is body 07ily that is tired, or body and mind both. Rest for the body is rest for the mind. Weekly rest for the body is weekly rest for the mind. A Sabbath for the body is a Sabbath for the soul. As the day of weekly rest is economy for the physical being, so it is for the intellectual powers ; as it enhances the physical capacities, and increases the amount of their executive power, so it does the same for the endow- ments and executiveness of the understanding. Nu- merous demonstrations have shown, that men of great intellectual labor must take the weekly rest, or risk 17 278 274 SABBATH AND SUNDAY the failure or ruin of their mental powers. Close ob- servation has shown, that under secular labor and mental application, the intellect loses more vigor each day than it regains each night, until at the end of the week the rest-day can make full reparation ; or if it be not allowed to do that that then premature failure of mental capacities is quite sure to be the result. Many men of long life and great intellectual labors have attributed their long-continued success to the fact, that on each weekly rest-day they have unstrung the bow, and given it relaxation. A man of twenty^five year's observation in New York City, has said that those merchants of his acquaintance who have kept their counting rooms open on Sun- day, have failed without exception. William Wilber- force, the celebrated philanthropist, one of the most laborious men that ever entered the British Parlia- ment, said he could never have accomplished so much public business as he did, except for the rest of the Sabbath. Many public men who began life with him, found an early grave. Some became maniacs, and put an end to their own existence. The cause of their premature and untimely end, Wilberforce attributed to their violation of the law of nature in disregarding the Sabbath, and allowing themselves no mental rest on that day. A distin- guished financier, charged with an immense amount of business during the memorable years of 1836 and 1837, said: "I should have been a dead man, had it not been for the Sabbath." Isaac Taylor says: "I am prepared to affirm, that to the studious especially, and whether younger or older, a Sabbath well spent, — spent in happy exercises of the heart — devotional TBE SABBATH FOR THE INTELLECT 275 and domestic — a Sunday given to the soul is the best of all means of refreshment to the mere intellect." It is a law in general, that they who give best ob- servance to the Sabbath, give also the best and most successful attention to pursuits and studies, and studies that most promote culture, civilization and so- cial happiness. Lord Macauley says: "If the Sunday had not been observed as a day of rest, but the axe, the spade, the anvil, and the loom, had been at work every day during the last three centuries (in Great Britain), I have not the smallest doubt that we should have been at this moment a poorer people and a less civilized people than we are." The blessing to domesiic life, of keeping the Sabbath, is incalcula- ble. The Sabbath kept holy, will bring a peaceful and contented spirit, will difPuse solid comfort and enduring prosperity. There is a conservative power in " not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words" one day in the week, according to the ancient Divine instruction respecting the keeping of the Sabbath. Jonathan Edwards says: "A peculiar blessing may be ex- pected upon those families where there is due care taken that the Sabbath be strictly and devoutly ol)- eerved." Even Pierre Proudhon, the Atheist, yet penetra- ting philosopher, in discussing the Mosaic Sabbath, relative to its hygienic, social, political and moral bearings, aims to show, and does show, that it is really fitted to the nature and wants of man.^ As quoted by Dr. Paul Niemeyer, Proudhon says con- cerning the septenary element of the Sabbath, * Sabbath Essays, p. 28. 276 SABBATH AND SUNDAY " Shorten the week by a single day, and the labor bears too small a proportion to the rest; lengthen the week to the same extent, and labor becomes excessive. Establish every three days a half-day of rest, and you increase by a fraction the loss of time, while in severing the natural unity of the day you break the numerical harmony of things. Ac- cord, on the other hand, forty weight hours of rest after twelve consecutive days of toil, you kill the man with inertia after having exhausted him with fatigue." Niemeyer, himself professor of hygiene in the Leipsic universities, has entered into similar in- vestigations and comes to the same conclusions. A summary of what he says he expresses thus: "If religion calls the seventh day ' the day of the Lord.' the hygienists for the reasons I have exhibited, will call Sunday the day of man." ^ Other hygienists and social philosophers, as Ochsenbein,^ and Dr. Haegler ^ of Bale, have come to like opinions on purely scientific grounds in our own day. The evi- dence accumulates, and may be called sufficient for the positive deduction, that nature accords with Scrip- ture in demanding a septenary Sabbath. The Sabbath expands and cultivates the intellect through the study of the holy Scriptures which it se- cures. The chief part of the study of the Bible is done on the Sabbath. There would be but little Biblical study in the week=time were it not for the influence and sacred occupation, of the Sabbath. An open Bible is a true symbol of knowledge opened to 1 Ibid, p. 33, 2 Ibid, p. SO. 3 Ibid, p. 83. THE SABBATH FOR THE INTELLECT 277 the people. Ignorance is the mark set upon the people wherever the Bible is withheld from them. The Bible bestows a view of the only living and true God, and of his infinite attributes. There is an ele- vating, strengthening, and expanding power in look- ing daily towards the eternal Jehovah. We can not think of the great '' I am," who is without beginning and without end, Almighty, Omnipotent, heart- searching, holy, and merciful, without intellectual expansion and culture. It produces due sobriety, reflection, and thought on high themes, as well as on the minutiae of life, that each person may do all to the glory of God. The Bible is also superior to all other books in making man acquainted with himself, and that enlarges and improves the understanding. Self-knowledge is a way to success. Self^acquaint- ance may guide the doom of our destiny. It enables one to supply the defects of his character. It shows him his need, and where to go for help. And yet, all the books of the world are not equal for self-knowl- edge to many a single page of the Bible. That book also gives one a glance into the future state and eternity, which promotes carefulness and depth of thought, and that promotes intellectual discrimina- tion and strength. It also to a wonderful degree re- veals the distinction between sin and holiness, and that gives sharpness, watchfulness and strength to the mind. The raised aud exalted character of Bibli- cal literature is also in a high degree fitted to expand and cultivate the mental powers. And all of this and yet other gains are secured by remembering the Sab- bath-day to keep it holy. But it is not desif^ned that this mental culture shall 278 SABBATH AND SUNDAY be sought as a chief end on the Sabbath. It is rather an incidental benefit. It comes in connection with the convocation services which God has appointed for the Sabbath, and with our enjoyments as intel- lectual beings, who must have something for the mind to feed upon during its waking hours. Mental 7'estf we should remember, is one of the Sabbath's advantages. A member of the English Parliament, Hon. Hugh Mason, gave November 30, 1880, at Free Trade Hall, Manchester, the following: '* There is nothing to which I look forward with greater pleas- ure, hope, and thankfulness, than the periodical re- turn of the Day of Rest. It is not only that I may have the pleasure and the profit of assembling in the House of Prayer with other men and women like= minded; there is something in addition to that, some- thing which every busy brain and busy mind rel- ishes — the day of rest from worldly work, the throwing away of every mean and secular occupation, and feeling that the mind is completely at rest from all the distractions and all the anxieties which beset busy people in the course of their daily life," * Bishop John Hooper, a Reformed clergyman of the sixteenth century, who died a martyr under Queen Mary, left valuable writings on the subject of the Sabbath, in which is the following: "That man might breathe and have repose, this Sabbath was instituted, not only that the body should be re- stored unto strength and made able to sustain the travails of the week to come, but also that the soul and spirit of man whiles the body is at rest, might upon the Sabbath learn and know so the blessed will * Time's Feast Heaven's Foretaste, pp. 112, 113. THE SABBATH FOR THE INTELLECT 279 of his Maker that it leave not the labor and adversity of sin only, but also by God's grace receive such strength and force in the contemplation of God's most merciful promise, that it may be able to sustain all the troubles of temptation in the week that fol- loweth. . . . God by this commandment pro- videth for the temporal and civil life of man, and likewise for all things which be necessary and expe- dient for man in this life. If man, and beast that is man's servant, should without repose and rest always labor, they might never endure 'the travail of the earth." CHAPTER XIII. THE ADVANTAGES OF THE SABBATH FOR SOCIETY AND SOCIAL REGENERATION. The family is one of the first and best of the insti- tutions ever given* by God for the human race. And the Sabbath is one of the best and most potent friends which the family ever had. On the Sabbath, and es- pecially in the house of God, the claims of our social nature, and the kinds of needed social regeneration, receive their most pungent and thorough considera- tion. Reforms in society receive more their origin and impetus on the Lord's day, than on all other days of the week. The nature of a happy family, and the duties it involves, are especially thought of and fash- ioned on the Christian Sabbath. The old Jewish family was superior to all heathen families around it. The Christian family excels all others of its time, other opportunities being equally distributed. And it is the Christian Sabbath that gives a great part of its character and value to the Christian family. In the Christian family the desire is to know what God wants, and generally in the unchristian, to get what self wants. In the Christian family, when some new intimation comes of what is pleasing to the Lord, there is an endeavor to conform the rules and regula- tions of the family to the new light. So that that family becomes constituted and ordered somewhat 280 THE SABBATH FOR SOCIAL REGENERATION 281 according to the Divine pattern, much as Moses' artificers conformed the tabernacle and the furnish- ing of it to the pattern which Moses saw in the mount. And in all this process lie the principles of social regeneration. By these principles society can be purified and built up in righteousness. In this way in heathen lands Christianity entering the souls of individuals, leavens families, and they leaven so- ciety and moral renovation ensues, and the Sabbath is a potent agency for it all. The servants of God in general live longer and do more for the benefit of society than others do; and they in great part get their Christian character and abilities through means and agencies given by the Sabbath. It is found that the average length of human life in Christian lands is increasing. The increase is greatly owing to religion; and the religious people on an average live longer than others. And they live longer because of right and useful business, and be- cause of Divine solace in their burdens and cares. This is a part of the blessings conferred by the Lord upon those that serve him. And that service of the Lord is always a means of regeneration in society. A servant of the Lord must and will bear his testi- mony against evil. The witness of many combined becomes a powerful lever for social improvement. But without the Sabbath these grave questions of purity and reform and happiness would get but little faithful and impressive consideration. The heathen moral philosophers of old, could write well some moral maxims and principles, but they had no sacred Sah- hath in which to get the listening ear of the people, even if they would. Widely extended reformations could not follow. 282 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY Canon Farrar says this: "For families in which, like sheltered flowers, spring up all that is purest and sweetest in human lives; for marriage exalted to an almost sacramental dignity; for all that circle of heavenly blessings which result from a common self-sacrifice; for that beautiful unison of noble manhood, stainless woman- hood, joyous infancy, and uncontaminated youth; in one word, for all that there is of divinity and sweetness in the one word Home! for this — to an extent which we can hardly realize — we are indebted to Christianity alone." ^ But how could we have Christianity without the Sabbath? Count Monta- lembert says: "There is no religion without wor- ship, and there is no worship without the Sabbath." From the testimony of these two distinguished wri- ters we may deduce the lesson, that good society de- pends in great measure upon the Sabbath. The mere fact of the frequent change from the secular to the religious given by the Sabbath, and then back again to the secular for provision for our earthly needs in itself makes the Sabbath an especial blessing to society. A French writer has the fol- lowing: "God knows that we have need of change, and he provides generously for this necessity of our nature. He does not, indeed, grant to most of us the costly pleasure of travel, but he gives something else — the Lord's day — the Christian Sabbath, which interrupts the rude labour of the week, which brings with it family joys and rest of conscience, which gives us communion with our father and our breth- ren, and which procures to us here below a fore- ^ Witn ess of history to Christ, p. 183. THE SABBATH FOR SOCIAL REGENERATION 283 taste of the life to come. Ah! if only, in our fever= ish, harassed age, each toiler would but accept the blessings of the Sabbath! WUhout fhe Sabbath life is but one long sigh. Woe to the poor toiler, above all, who on that day gives himself to work as a beast of burden, incapable of discerning the needs of his body, or as if he had no soul to guide him!" " Le Besoin de Cha.ngement,''^ Bulletin Dominical^ May, 1880} The Earl of Shaftesbury says: "Sunday is a day so sacred, so important, so indispensable to man, that it ought to be hedged round by every form of reverence. Its adaptability to the wants and necessities of society, the wisdom of its insti- tution, proves it to be Divine; and, my lords, the working people of this country — the great bulk of the working people — regard it in that light. They differ, no doubt, many of them. Some take a religi- ous view of the matter; others take a more political view of it; but all are of this mind, that the sanctity of Sunday is to them a grand protection." ^ Says Emerson : '* Two inestimable advantages Christianity has given us — first, the institution of preaching, the speech of man to man; and, secondly, the Sabbath, the jubilee of the whole world, whose light dawns welcome alike into the closet of the philosopher, into the garret of toil; and into prison cells, and everywhere suggests, even to the vile, the dig- nity of spiritual being. Let it stand for evermore a temple, which new light, new love, and new hope shall restore to more than its first splendour to mankind." * Dr. Gritton's Times' Feast Heaven's Foretaste, p. 111. -Dr. GrittoD"s Time's Feast, etc., p. 117. 284 SABBATH AND SUNDAY It cannot be that the best state of society is ever secured without the Sabbath. We may judge so from first principles involved in the case, and we may know it also from the history of society in many lands. The purest state of society has always existed where the Sabbath has been best kept. The family there has been less disintegrated by sin, divorce has there been less frequent. Morality has there most prevailed. Improvement in Sabbath observance in any community means social improvement. A profan- ation of the Sabbath means a lower state of morals, and society more impure. The Sabbath converted from a holy day to a holiday means other looseness of morals, and general social degradation. A thorough social regeneration were impossible without the aid of a holy Sabbath. CHAPTER XIV. THE ADVANTAGES OF THE SABBATH FOR THE WEL. FARE AND PRESERVATION OF THE STATE. What can save nations and give them enduring life? This has been one of the questions of the ages. Many sad and disastrous experiments have been made. The rise and fall of nations fill many pages of history. Mankind are clambering for wealth. Can wealth really exalt and perpetuate a nation? It gives a basis on which men erect their pride and ostentation. It often gives convenience and comfort, though not as much as general prosperity gives with neither ex- treme poverty nor great riches. Wealth often se- cures praise and glory, and even sycophancy and worship from some. Will any tell us that a nation rich in resources and treasures is a splendid object? Its splendor is no insurance for permanence. Will any point to memorable examples of antiquity, and read to us the full roll of opulent nations of the past? Their splendor passed away as the mist of the morn- ing. They are fallen and destroyed. Not even the name of some is any honor to them in history. With many or all of them their riches were their destroying worm. Can physical power, force of arms, mighty armies, fleets and navies, cause a nation to en- 285 286 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY dure? Where now is ancient Rome, that sat upon her seven hills of glory and power, that sent her fleets and governors and armies abroad among the nations on schemes of conquest, and left scarcely a dominion of the world beyond her wide embrace? Rome is now only one of the feeblest of states instead of a kingdom, and it were almost forgotten among men, except for the dazzling views of her former splen- dor. What could have saved Rome so that no his- torian should have ever written the sad story of her decline and fall? Alexander the Great was so endowed with power that he conquered the world, as we say, and then sat down and wept that there was no more for him to conquer. And yet, w^ith all his might, he was so weak that he w^as seduced and ruined by the vices of the very people whom he had vanquished. He has no honorable name like even that of Socrates, and yet Socrates never had ten soldiers at his command. Can literature and the arts truly perpetuate a na- tion? The wisdom and learning of all Greece, which stretching downwards in the stream of time become a fascination and a wonder for the present world, were unable to save. Neither her learning nor eloquence could uproot the slavery of her masses, or cast out the demon of her corruption. Her transgressions of even nature's holy laws finally swept her away with all the rubbish of nations long since destroyed and lost. Can commerce give the elements of endurance to nations? What power has commerce which wealth has not? Since the latter fails the former must. Does our system of almost universal education, now so THE SABBATH FOR THE STATE 287 noted and so absorbent of attention and admiration, our common schools strewn abroad in almost every district where universal freedom has long prevailed, and our seminaries of learning, dotting and enlight- ening and gilding our nation, do all these really give a guarantee in themselves of endurance to this nation? Education, learning, separate from gospel conversion and culture of the soul, after all the glorying it has received, is of very doubtful influence and character. Mere knowledge may be used for sin and corruption, and often has been. Many statistics among civilized nations go to show that the morals of men have often grown worse while their intellectual advantages have grown better. Not even morality has the power to preser^^e if des- titute of the element of righteousness. The outward moral life, without the inner heart of piety, will leave the heart of sin to break forth in ulcers of corruption. Morality is not righteousness itself. If a man goes into a field where grow both wheat and corn, and coming to a plant which of course has leaves and stems, begins to contend that it is wheat because it has leaves and stems, when it is plain to every be- holder that the plant is only a tare, he w^ould not be more unwise than one who claims that morality is righteousness because the two have some features in common. One inherent property of gold is mallea- bility, the capacity of being drawn under the ham- mer or rolling press. But w^hat folly for one to bring us a piece of iVo??, and, demonstrating that it also is malleable, should set up a stout argument that the iron is gold and that we ought to receive it as such in payment of debt. Greater folly is it to contend that 288 ' SABBATH AhD SUNDAY morality is righteousness, or equally valuable for a nation. But what can preserve nations? The Divine word says that "Righteousness exalteth a nation." In that exaltation continued there is permanence. Right- eousness is so right, so pure, so fair and so full of love to God and men, that it will not itself perish, nor suffer that which it permeates to perish. The very elements of righteousness are purifying and ex- alting. It will drive out evil, it will contend against all corrupting and degrading forces. Righteousness can not work at all, either with individuals or nations, except it makes pure, or keeps pure, or prospers and builds. A nation that receives and cherishes right- eousness may be sure that it has a preserving and el- evating force within itself. Righteousness put into the heart and life of a nation, will cleanse and ennoble, will give a national and normal power, will make the laws and functions of being do the part which the all^wise God has assigned them. The sine qua non of national prosperity and pres- ervation is righteousness, and a sine qua non of national righteousness is a holily kept Sabbath. But even an outwardly observed Sabbath is of great national value. Since the physical, intellectual and social man requires the Sabbath for his good, then the state demands it on the same grounds. The high- est interests of the state are made up of the highest interests of the individuals comprising the state. Says Blackstone, the noted law commentator, " The keeping of one day in seven holy, or a time of relaxation and refreshment, as well as for public worship, is of ad- mirable service to a state, considered merely as a civil THE SABBATH FOR THE STATE 289 institution." Adam Smith, a Scottish philosopher and political economist, says: "The Sabbath as a po- litical institution, is of inestimable value independ- ently of its claims to Divine authority." History and reason, the analysis and synthesis of the whole subject, overwhelmingly confirm all this testimony of so able men. Nations may rise or fall by the observance or non- observance of the Sabbath. Sabbath desecration will eat out industry, integrity and honor, in the long trial. No nation can afford to do without a well-ob- served Sabbath. Criticize the Puritans as much as we will, admit though we may that some of them were over-rigid in their Sabbath observance, it still remains true, that their sacredly observed Sabbath was a great means of their grand exaltation and honor among men, and of their being the salt of preservation and purity to both England and America. The days of a lax Sabbath in England, have been eras of deterioration and corruption. A forerunner of ruin in the French nation was the at- tempt to annihilate the Sabbath. When private and public virtue begins to rise in any land the Sabbath begins to be better observed. Even a poorly ob- served Sabbath is better than none for national in- tegrity. The Sabbath is one of the bulwarks of the state. Strange that so many are blind, to its value. Laws to protect the Sabbath, are wise and just if w^ithin the bounds of discretion, and not an interference with rightful liberty. Sir Charles Reed, chairman of the London School Board says: "The defence of the Sabbath is a patriotic duty. Those who would 18 290 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY remove the ancient landmarks are not the working- man's true friend. Their success means a loss, and not a gain, to the laboring man." And laws for the defence of the Sabbath as a civil institution, are not laws for the establishment of re- ligion, nor for the union of church and state. Some regard for morals, and for the means of good morals, must be had for the true welfare of the state. The Sabbath being filled with blessings for the physical, intellectual, and social man, it can be protected with- out any just charge of ecclesiastical legislation or op- pression. "Laws which suspend labour on Sundays are not laws to enforce the religious observance of the day. They give men the opportunity of relig- iously observing the day; but they do not, they can not enforce the keeping of the day holy to God. They protect men in the enjoyment of a great physi- cal and moral blessing. They secure the labourer from the grip of his employer by declaring ordinary labour to be illegal on Sundays."' Pere Hyacinthe, at Geneva Conference, gave this testimony: "The Lord's day is not the day of God only; it is the day of humanity. This is the true democratic festival — this day of God and man. And yet this is the day which certain friends of the peo- ple wish to deprive them of. False friends that cheat them with the name of liberty, thinking only of their bodily needs, and not wisely even of those." ^ Thus do men of different nationalities, and of differ- ent schools of the Christian faith, agree in their tes- timony respecting the Sabbath. ^ Sunday Laws, by Charles Hill, p. 10. 2 Dr. Gritton's Time's Feast, etc., pp. 115, 116. THE SABBATH FOR THE STATE 291 Another French writer, Monsieur Loyson, pleading for a well' observed Sabbath in France, points to two nations which in some measure exemplify what he desires: "Let us examine two industrial powers which are fully our equals, if they do not surpass us — England and the United States. In London, in the great city, where floods of busy men fill the streets, in the midst of the repeated incessant sound of all the echoes of labour, there occurs every week a day which recalls to me those of my childhood. The gigantic machine which, on the eve of that day, put all in movement, stops: everywhere repose and si- lence; the bells alone — Protestant bells, I know, but — they send their sweet melodies heavenwards. It seems as if the very fogs of the Thames and of the ocean had grown lighter. Let me not be told that the Sunday rest in England is a remnant of feu- dality and aristocracy, soon to be swept away by the breath of Liberty. Behold in America that strong and young Anglo= Saxon race, which certainly is not of the Middle Ages, and which has in its constitution the most complete liberty. It also observes Sunday . . . and sends us across the ocean the same answer as England — the silence of God at the blas- phemies of men. No; we do not ask that the Sun- day should be imposed upon the people by laws of which the application would oflPer more inconvenience than advantage. We ask the liberty of the Sunday, and Sunday by liberty." ^ While the wise and good of European lands look with longing desire to the Christian Sabbath of the * " Daily News," Sept. 27, 1867. Dr. Gritton's Times Feast, etc., p. 132. 292 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY United States, shall we of this union be so false to our own weal and honor as to adopt the European Continental Sabbath, which changes the weekly holy- day into a worldly holiday, and which is so great a sorrow to all the godly that have to endure it? CHAPTER XV. THE ADVANTAGES OF THE SABBATH IN ITS REWARD FOR OBSERVANCE. Encouragement and hope for doing right are primal qualities. These the Sabbath gives. One exemplify- ing passage is this; " Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord, and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heri- tage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it" (Isa. lviii:14). In the scriptures the keeping of the Sabbath is supposed to be ac- companied with the keeping of the other command- ments. It is so important and cardinal a duty that often around it seem to circle, as the planets around their central orb, all the other duties of the Christian religion. Great is the reward for striving to keep all of Christ's words. He says: ''Blessed are the poor in spirit." " Blessed are the meek." " Blessed are the pure in heart." He says, also: " Blessed is the man that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it. . . . Also the sons of the stranger, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, or taketh hold of my covenant " (Isa. lvi:26). Sabbath-keeping is placed by the side of keeping cove- nant with God. Has God any rewards for his ser- vants? Has he blessings for his people? They are vouchsafed to him who keeps the Sabbath holy. 293 294 SABBATH AND SUNDAY And punishment awaits those who profane the Sab- bath. " Her priests have violated my law and have hid their eyes from my Sabbaths, and I am profaned among them. Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them " ( Ezek. xxii :26, 31). The same Divine principles pertaining to reward and punishment pervade the new dispensation that be- longed to the old. We have the sacred day and the sacred convocations of the day to observe now as much as ever. The weight of obligation is increased as we come into the new dispensation, for the light and the advantages are the more. They who do not regard the Sabbath may know that they have not the guarantee for the Divine blessing. They may receive mercies still, but not because of the promise. The young have peculiar advantages for prosperity in ob- serving the Sabbath. If they will early begm to do it, and then persevere, they will in some way ride upon the high places of the earth ; they will be safely borne through the stormiest trials; they will have Divine provision for their wants; they will be fed with the heritage of Jacob. Pres. Wayland, in speaking of the observance of the Sabbath, says: " Every attentive observer has remarked, that the vio- lation of this command by the young, is one of the most decided marks of incipient degeneracy. Religi- ous restraint is fast losing its hold upon that young man, who, having been brought up in the fear of God, begins to spend the Sabbath in idleness, or in amusement. " When it is found that the law of the Sabbath is trampled upon by individuals or communities, there is no surer evidence thai there has become an insane THE SABBATH IN ITS REWARD 295 love of the world; reason is subjected to appetite and passion; a heaven=daring spirit has begun its rule; recklessness is engendered ; carnal pleasure — not duty and the highest happiness — has become the law of the soul, and the judgments of God are upon the track, and without repentance and reformation the doom of final condemnation is sealed. On the other hand, if the law of the Sabbath is ob- served, if the day is esteemed a delight, if it is pleas- ure to the soul, or to the community, to honor the day as that which God has honored, then the blessing will be that which God gave to the day in the begin- ning. He " blessed the seventh day and sanctified it"; he will assuredly bless those who also sanctify it. No sabbath^keeping person was ever without the special and peculiar blessing of God; no sabbath- keeping nation has ever perished; no sabbath^keep- ing soul has ever been lost. In the keeping of his commandments there is great reward (Psalm xix:ll). This is true respecting the statute of the Sabbath or of any other command. Very many are the evidences of providential prosper- ity and preservation to those who keep the Sabbath. Working seven days in the week instead of six, on the score of economy has many times been proven a failure, both for man and beast; for man both physic- ally and mentally. Those who would make haste in journeying by traveling on the Sabbath, have often been defeated in their object, besides abusing their own souls by their disregard of God's requirements, and doing harm to others by their evil example. Those who sacredly rest on the Sabbath, clearly ob- tain physical, intellectual, and religious reward. Be- 296 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY sides that, they seem on the whole to have a peculiar favoring of Providence, which gives them blessings in addition to those of the natural laws ordained of God. Sabbath-breaking causes recklessness, and that causes more accidents, and more deaths by- accidents on that day than on any other in propor- tion to the amount of exposure. And in addition, providential judgments often especially seem to fol- low those who trample on the Sabbath. In the Boston Sabbath convention, year 1879, M. Field Fowler, Esq., gave the following testimony con- cerning the running of the Metropolitan horse=cars in that city: " Soon I saw some of the evils growing out of this business. In the first place, we had much trouble with our conductors in keeping them honest. It is impossible to get honest men, and keep them so, and make them work on Sundays You employ them to violate the Fourth commandment, and expect them to respect the Eighth; you find human nature is such that both conductors and drivers suffer. Drivers become reckless, are not careful, their facul- ties become blunted, and more accidents result. The managers employed detectives. I remember a young man came to one of the directors, and wanted to know why he was discharged. " Because we think more money goes into your pockets than comes out." He confessed it; and the reason he gave was, that his driver said if he would not divide with him, he would put him over the road so that he couldn't get half as many passengers. In every way it was demoralizing. Furthermore, as to the horses, what is the result? You work horses every day, year in and year out. Talk about cruelty to animals, why, it is like putting THE SABBATH IN ITS REWARD 291 a horse on a treadmill, and keeping him going until he almost drops. The result is, you use up horses in a very short time. Of course some work them harder than others, but I believe two or three years is con- sidered about the average length of usefulness of a horse on New York roads, and three or four here, per- haps. The harder you work them the more you have to feed them. The president of one of the horse railroads of New York told me he made an experi- ment, and decided the thing to his satisfaction. He found that, on every thousand horses, it cost them a thousand dollars a day more to feed them than if they had Sunday to rest in ... I am convinced by investigation that the running of horse=cars on Sun- day involves the employment of certainly twenty=five per cent, if not more of horses, than if you rest them on that day. Take the omnibuses; they don't run Sundays. Mr. Hathorne tried it one year, and he said if kept up it would ruin him. New York omni- buses do not run on Sundays; there is no profit in it." ' The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insur- ance Company, discern the same principle of reward for keeping the Sabbath, and express themselves thus: "The custom of making rej^airs and improve- ments on the Sabbath is, in our opinion, a loss in the end. ... If men are required to work on the Sab- bath, the influence will be demoralizing. They will not have the same respect for any law as they other- wise would, nor will they, in our opinion, have the same respect for their employers' interest. The whole practice is wrong, and contrary to the instinct of those even who have religious convictions. . . . * Sabbath Essays, pp. 422, 423. 298 SABBATH AND SUNDAY Work of necessity is different and there would be no difference of opinion on that point. But be careful not to imagine a mercenary feeling into a necessity!" The unprofitableness of violating the fourth com- mandment is being more and more acknowledged and considered by the truly observing. Rev. W. W. Atterbury, Secretary of the New York Sabbath Com- mittee, in the Boston Convention said: " In Germany many of the prominent pastors have felt the vital need of a more religious observance of the day, and are ac- tively engaged in promoting it; and the Supreme Church Council of Prussia, and several of the provin- cial synods, have earnestly taken up the matter. The Reformed Church assemblies of Bohemia and Hun- gary have recently called attention to the same sub- ject. In the Roman Catholic Church, in France and to some extent in Belgium and elsewhere, there ex- ists a similar movement; and a religious association formed for this purpose a few years ago received the special benediction of Pope Pius IX. . . . Soci- eties have been formed in nearly every country of Europe for promoting the secular and civil as well as the religious observance of Sunday. The Social Democrats of Germany, at their Conference in 1877, affirmed as one of their principles, the suspension of work on Sunday to be assumed by the State." ^ If we contrast the Sabbath observed with the Sab- bath desecrated, we shall everywhere see that there is reward for sacredly regarding the fourth command- ment. The Church^going throngs are far more attractive to the candid eye than the Sabbath=break- ing excursions. The quiet Sabbath=keeping family ' Sab. Essays, pp. 406, 407. THE SABBATH IN ITS REWARD 299 is far more beautiful at home, than the pleasure- seekers abroad. The young man who goes to the Sanctuary and the Sabbath= school, and then to his father's roof for Sabbath=reading and conversation, gives far better promise than the young man who sleeps away the church=going hours, and then strolls off through fields and woods, or dashes through the streets on a Sunday afternoon ride. The Sabbath^ keeping, church going young lady is far more lovely and promising than the worldly, vain, church^hating young woman — hardly a lady — who invites company to her parlors, or seeks it by walks with young men on the Lord's day. Children trained to Sabbath observance, have far superior manners, and graces of spirit, as compared with those that are trained in an utterly Sabbathless home. An English Sabbath is thus described by one born and loved in it: ''Which of the Sabbath=desecrating nations of Europe does not envy us? They may throw out the taunt against our English Sunday of irisieness, and melancholy, and gloom: but hardly can they look upon the glad multitudes as they throng to the house of God — the closed shop and warehouse announcing that the inmates are enjoying their privileged and protected rest — the well=dressed artisan and his family meditating in the fields at eventide — and the great city, with its silence un- broken by the sound of axe or hammer, — hardly can their eyes rest on such a scene as this, without the thought forcing itself upon them, Happy are the people that are in such a case: yea blessed are the people who have the Lord for their God." ^ ^Our Sundays, by Dr. Moore, p. 29; Dr. Gritton's Time'e Feast, etc. p. 119. 300 SABBATH AND SUNDAY Yet another English writer, Dr. James Hamilton, says: *'0h! blessed Sabbath, needed for a world of innocence! Without thee, what would be a world of sin! Like its Lord, it rises upon us as the light of seven days with healing in its wings. It has been the coronation^day of martyrs — the feast-day of saints. It has been from the first until now, the sublime custom of the Churches of God. Still the outgoings of its morning and evening rejoice. It is a day of heaven and earth, life's sweetest calm, pov- erty's best birthright, labour's only rest. Nothing has such hoary antiquity upon it — nothing contains in it such a history — nothing draws along with it such a glory. Nurse of virtue! Seal of truth! The household's richest patrimony, the nation's noblest safeguard! The pledge of peace, the fountain of in- telligence, the strength of law! The oracle of in- struction! The ark of mercy! The patent of our manhood's spiritual greatness— the harbinger of our soul's sanctified perfection — the glory of religion — the watch4ower of immortality — the ladder set up on earth whose top reacheth to heaven, with angels of God ascending and descending upon it." CHAPTER XVI. THE ADVANTAGES AND NECESSITY OF THE SABBATH IN RESPECT TO MORALS AND RELIGION. The highest commendation of the Christian Sab- bath or Lord's day, is its inestimable moral and re- ligious benefits. The religious nature of man is the crown of his being. Our Creator designed that it should preside as ruler over all our other endow- ment. How it would impoverish us all to be de- prived of our religious capacities. Benefit our moral nature and you send a refreshing, fructifying stream through all the other human faculties and interests. It is a fact many times proven, that the allowed dese- cration of the Christian Sabbath is followed by a de- praving of morals. On the contrary, it is equally proven, that the sacred observance of the Sabbath re- sults in well=kept laws, and purified morality. Who are the criminals that die on the gallows? With few exceptions they are Sabbath^breakers. Who fill up our jails, prisons and penitentiaries? Desecrators of the Sabbath. Who become maniacs through vices of any kind, and afterwards crowd our lunatic asylums, or go so often into the suicide's grave? The great proportion are Sabbath^breakers. Go through all the by-ways, highways, and avenues of society, from the lowest and most degraded of mankind, to those the most opulent and proud, and ask. Who are the vicious? who are contaminators of private and 301 g02 , SABBATH AND SUNDAY j)ublic morals; who are swearers, thieves, gamblers, robbers, defaulters, murderers; who are sowing the seeds of death, and scattering the fire-brands of hell? One of the most comprehensive replies to these ques- tions will be. Sabbath -breakers. Sir William Black- stone says again, "The profanation of the Sabbath is an offense against God and religion." And again he says: "A corruption of morals usually follows a profanation of the Sabbath." "A committee in the British House of Commons in 1832, en the observance of the Sabbath, was composed of the following eminent men : Sir Andrew Agnew, Mr. Burton, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Morpeth, Sir Thomas Fowler Baring. One gentleman testified before them, that he had been employed as chaplain of prisons twenty-eight years, that during that time not less than seven thousand prisoners had annually passed under his care, and that during the twenty-eight years he had had, in a measure, the religious instruction of one hundred thousand criminals. He said he made it a point to see in private those who were charged with capital offences, and that he did not recollect a single case among them all, where the party had not been a Sabbath^breaker, and in many cases they had as- sured him, that Sabbath=breaking was the first stejj in their course of crime. He adds, "I may say in reference to prisoners of all classes that nineteen out of twenty of them have neglected the Sabbath." An investigation on this point was once made in the State prison of Connecticut, and at that time ninety out of one hundred of its inmates had been habitual Sabbath=breakers. A similar examination with a similar result was had in Massachusetts prisons. Of THE SABBATH FOR MORALS AND RELIGION 303 the one thousand, six hundred and fifty-three crimi- nals who had been committed to the New York State Auburn Prison previous to the year 1840, only twen- ty^ nine had kept the Sabbath. Such has been the result of all investigations ever made on the subject,^ so far as they have been made known. The enemies of religion understand this subject. They know that to make the name of Jesus Christ forgotten, they must blo^ out the Sabbath as a relig- ious day. Bold and rank infidelity has no respect for the Sabbath. The infidels of France fitted their means to their ends as well as they could, when they changed the week of seven days to that of ten, thus hoping to rid themselves and the French nation of the remembrance of the Lord's day. But the result of the experiment proved two things; that man needed the rest of the Sab- bath; that also he needed its religions influence. For, the nine days of labor, with the tenth for a holiday," increased the exhaustion of man and diminished the aggregate amount of labor." What else? The total abrogation of the Sabbath by Revo- lutionary France was followed by a general corrup- tion of morals; the sense of moral obligation between man and man was greatly extinguished; the marriage relation was widely broken up and men and women lived together almost as brutes. Twenty thousand divorces were registered in the short space of eight- een months. Then the Frenchmen fell to the work of chopping off human heads. The faction to- day in power filled the gutters of the streets of Paris with the blood of their enemies, and to-mor- row their own headless bodies were carted out of 304 , SABBATH AND SUNDAY the city by thousands. Human sympathy and af^ fection were well-nigh gone. Men became tigers, the dupes and servants of hell. All these fruits were in fact the manifest indignation and desertion of God, because of the impious attempts to blot out the Sab- bath from the memory of man. The observance of the Lord's day is a necessity foi the due and full worship of God by the human race. Without it the spirit to glorify God and to praise him will not have adequate development and growth. Nor will man cultivate properly his religious nature without that day. Without it worldliness will over- whelm him, and leave his soul barren, and hard, and unfruitful of good. Cruel unbelief will come in, the heart of man will become beaten down into fallow- ground desolation, or will run into the thickets of vice and corruption. It may unqualifiedly be said, that spiritual religion never prospers without the Sabbath. Every revival of religion results in the more faithful observance of the Lord's day, or creates that observance where it had not been before. Dr. Chalmers said, "We never, in the whole course of our recollections, met with a Christian friend, who bore upon his character every other evidence of the Spirit's operations, who did not remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." And the pious and ardent McCheyne said, " Can you name one godly minister of any denomination in all Scotland, who does not hold the duty of the entire sanctification of the Lord's day? Did you ever meet with a lively believer in any country under heaven — one who loved Christ, and lived a holy life — who did not delight in keeping holy to God the entire Lord's THE SABBATH FOR MORALS AND RELIGION 305 day ? " Even if there be exceptions to McCheyne's rule, what he has in mind shows the united trend of true piety and the sacred observance of the Sabbath. Lord Karnes said, " Sunday is a day of account, and a candid account every seventh day is the best prex^a- ration for the great day of account:" Lord Bacon said, ''The first creature of God in the works of days was the light of sense, and the last was the light of reason, and his Sabbath work ever since is the illumi- nation of the Spirit." Indeed, who are emphatically illumined by the Spirit save they who regard the Sabbath. They who keep the Sabbath holy are un- der the training ef the Holy Spirit; at least during its sacred hours. Blessed Teacher! able to make wise unto Salvation, and for eternity. The Lord's day thus becomes one of the best evi- dences of the truth of Christianity, and even an evi- dence of the existence of God. It is the Lord's daij, that now, in the new dispensation, becomes the high- est evidence. It commemorates Christ's resurrection. Therefore it is the Lord's day. It is a remembrance of Christ's completed work. It points ever to the capstone of the perfected evidences of Christ's son- ship with God. " If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Cor. XV. 14). The Lord's day is also a remembrancer of the Divine assurance that all men will be raised from the dead. " If there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen." "And if Christ be not raised, your faith, is vain; ye are yet in your sins." (1 Cor. XV. 13, 17. Christianity has an immense su- periority over Judaism; the new covenant is better than the old. (Heb. viii:6-8). We can not dispense 19 306 ^ SABBATH AND SUNDAY with the Lord's day. We can not go back to the an- cient types and symbols. The benefits of Chris- tianity can not be without Christ. Christ can not be to us the Life without his resurrection. We in part deny his resurrection if we deny the Lord's day. If we deny or discard even a paH of the day, we deny or discard, or profane a part of the power of the religion of Christ. Sir Walter Scott said, "Give to the world one=half of Sunday, and you will find that religion has no strong hold of the other " It is one of the laws perceived in nature, and demon- strated in history, that the highest success of religion requires frequent entire days sacredly devoted to her service, and not merely parts of days. The holiliess of the day passes out if worldliness comes in. Pure spring water will not retain its clearness, if a coloring liquid be intermingled with it. God has appointed sacred services for secular days; but he has never made half of the same day sacred and the other half secular, and men will never successfully do it. They will not desire to do it when they are illu- mined and led by the Holy Spirit. In lands where the half religious, and the half secular sys- tem for the Lord's day has been adopted, the tn- telligent and devoted Christians look with longing to the countries where the Christian Sabbath is sa- credly kept through all its hours. These various truths confirm the doctrine that the holy observance of the Lord's day is of perpetual obligation for the well-being of man in his entire nature, physical, in- tellectual, moral and religious. We come in this discussion to a trilemma, a choice between three alternatives. One choice is, that the THE SABBATH FOR MORALS AND RELIGION 30? world have no weekly Sabbath. Both reason and scripture cry out against such a horrid preference. Another choice is, that only the seventh day be ob- served as the Sabbath. Such a decision would put mankind back into Judaism, the old dispensation; whereas we know that the new covenant is better, and by Divine purpose takes the place of the old, The remaining choice is, to follow the teaching of Scripture and providence, and accept the Lord's day as the Christian Sabbath, oi perpehtal obligation and of so great and peculiar advantages, that they con- spire with Scripture evidence to pronounce it the day of Heaven. This view comports with reason as well as with the word of God. Christianity is better than Judaism, though not contrary to it, since it grew out of it. The Christian Sabbath has in the Old Tes- tament its basis and in the New Testament its cap- stone. No candid and thorough examination of Scripture can set aside all Sabbaths, even though the old dispensation has closed; nor can it adhere only to the Mosaic Sabbath. We do despite to the revela- tion from God in the new dispensation, if we discard all testimony in favor of the Lord's day as the sacred weekly rest day in the Divine economy. Since we must choose for our Sabbath between the seventh day and the first, the great mass of the Christian world would do violence to their most intelligent and devout convictions, if they were to reject the Lord's day and choose the seventh. Such a gross anomaly mankind will never witness. And if Christians uni- versally were to contemplate abandoning the Lord's day and observing no Sabbath, even the Godless, in their sober reflections, would protest against such a 308 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY profanation of both reason and Scripture. They who love the Christian Sabbath have unbounded reasons for rejoicing, and thanksgiving to God, be- cause their holy day stands on so firm a basis, and is so replete with blessings to the Church of God, and to mankind. CHAPTER XVII. HOW TO KEEP THE SABBATH. The Scriptures tell us that by steadfastly, and with open face, beholding the glory of the Lord we may be made partakers of his glory. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2 Cor. iii. 18) So the Sabbath may be a mission to us, in which we may behold the holiness of the Lord and thus be made partakers of his holiness. The Divine command is, to "Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy." By endeavoring to keep this com- mand men may find great assistance for personal ho- liness of heart and life. A part of the assistance lies in the aid to a real conception of the nature of holi- ness. The Sabbath demands the putting away of all secular things, beyond the requisites of necessity and mercy, and the taking of the spiritual and religious for our thoughts and our ways during its sacred time. This in its true spirit involves a most salutary train- ing for holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. One passage of Scripture preeminently sets forth the Divine method for keeping the Sabbath-day holy. It is this: " If thou turn away thy foot from the Sab- bath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and 309 310 SABBATH AND SUNDAY call the Sabbath a delight and the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor it, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will make thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and I will feed thee with the heritage of Jacob, thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. (Isa. Iviii. 13, 14) The foregoing passage is kindred to the Fourth Commandment. The latter tells us to keep the Sab- bath " holy." The former says it is a " holy day," and therefore, it is to be holily kept. The very holi- ness is to be regarded as a " delight," and not as a dread. It is to be esteemed " the holy of the Lord, honorable." God in his holiness is to be honored upon it, Secular " ways," and " pleasure," and " words," are not to be indulged. With such holy observance one will "delight" himself "in the Lord," and will be transformed into likeness to Christ the Lord. More minutely: In the foregoing passage from Isaiah, the Lord sets forth the keeping of the Sabbath both negatively and positively. On the negative side we are to keep the Sabbath by refraining from cer- tain things, and on the positive side by engaging in certain things. The things to be refrained from are these: " Doing thine own ways," " Finding thine own pleasure," and "speaking thine own words." The things to be engaged in are these: "Turn away thy foot from the Sabbath," " Call the Sabbath a delight," and the holy of the Lord, honorable," " Honor him," " Delight thyself in theLord." HOW TO KEEP THE SABBATH 811 On the negative side: 1. " Not doing thine own ways." It implies, of course, not doing any sinful " ways," for those are wrong on all days The reference is distinctly to secular " ways," which are right on other days of the week, but unnecessary on the Sabbath, and un- friendly to the holy keeping of that day. God has given us, in a sense, six days as our own. In them we are to do all our work, and engage in all proper and useful ways. But the Sabbath is the Lord's day, and on it we are not to attend to our business, our week=day employments, or any of our "own ways." Whatever we do on the Sabbath which is of our "own ways," in that we violate the holy time. Upon that day we are to do wholly according to God's ways. 2. " Nor finding thine own pleasure." To keep the Sabbath one must cease finding not only sinful pleasure, but also all wordly pleasures suitable and proper on the six secular days, of the week. "Thine OWN pleasure." That is what the Lord has given us as specifically ours in the week time. It does not embrace God's peculiar pleasure for us on the Sab- bath. 3. " Nor speaking thine own words." Words that are wicked on any day should, of course, be excluded on the Lord's day. But, we have a great amount of conversation and public speaking during the six days which should not be admitted to the Sabbath. The inference is necessitated, that if we engage in secular or worldly conversation on the Sabbath, whether about business or about pleasure, except as some necessity or mercy, or some religious end, requires it, we violate the commandment of God. There may be 312 SABBATH AND SUNDAY conversation about the works of God in nature, or about people and society, or even business, which has a religious bearing or design. Such conversation is allowable on the Sabbath. But, the mere gossipy, talk, that has no moral or religious air, or vein about it, is a desecration of the Christian Sabbath. Our conversation on the Sabbath should be appropriate to '' the holy of the Lord," which the Sabbath is termed in the text. We turn now to the positive side, to the things which should be engaged in on the Sabbath. 1. " Turn away thy foot from the Sabbath." Turning the foot to or upon the Sabbath, would be trampling upon it. We are to turn our foot away from that. Hence we are to take pains, make calcu- lations, and preparations, to observe the Sabbath's sacred hours, hours appointed to a sacred use. We should not pack great worldliness and exhaustion upon ourselves, or upon others on Saturday, so as to load its burden ofP partly upon the Lord's day, or so as to render ourselves unfit to spend the Sabbath holily, or other than as sleeping animals. While the Sabbath is in part for both physical and mental, as well as spiritual, rest, we yet should leave our rational natures for some activity upon it. Without that we can not obtain and enjoy rest in God, for which that holy day was in chief part designed. We should have express plans to keep the Sabbath holy, plans not to trample on its designs, nature, or claims. 2. "Call the Sabbath a delight." Though we re- frain from all outivard violations of the Sabbath, and though that refraining be useful, yet unless our souls take actual "delight" in the Sabbath, we are found HOW TO KEEP THE SABBATH 313 wanting. Without that the heart which God approves is not in us. It is far better for others, and for our- selves, not to violate outwardly, even if we are desti- tute of the right heart; but the real and full blessing can come u^Don us only when we "delight" to observe outwardly and inwardly, and in our hearts really call the Sabbath itself a " delight." 3. "Call the Sabbath and the holy of the Lord honorable." This does not say or mean, "Call the Sabbath the holy to the Lord," but "the holy of the Lord," "of Jehovah," a day of holiness given of God for men, a day "honorable," of especial honor because it is so sacred a gift from God's great bounties. The early Christians called the first day of the week, "the day of heaven," "the queen of days." To a true saint in the enjoyment of religion, the Christian Sabbath will always be a "delight," and "honorable," the choicest of all the week. Its hours will not drag heavily with him. Communing with God, or being in a state accordant with such com- munion, his temptations will not be many, or strong, or harassing, to break over the restraints of the day; he will not find his thoughts ever roaming for worldly themes ; his heart will not long for the day to be gone. He will rejoice in its coming; for then he may lay aside the secular cares and engagements of the week and yield his soul to the communions and enjoyments more in unison with his si)irit; and then his religious thoughts, meditations, and society, may be uninter- ruptea by the world. Often can he exclaim, with the primitive saints, " Day of heaven ! " " Queen of days ! " 4. "Honor him." The Sabbath is probably here personified, and the pronoun "him" refers to the Sab- SU . SABBATH AND SUNDAY bath, and not to Jehovah. And the idea is, that men should honor the day on which God has bestowed some splendor of his glory by sanctifying it, as re- corded in the beginning ( Gen. ii. 3 ) . Jehovah honors the day by appointing it to holy pur^DOses. Can we honor it by devoting it to secular purposes? God honored it by making it a day of "holy convocation" (Lev. xxiii. 2). Can we honor it by neglecting the con- vocation for worship, and by disobeying the command, t' Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together," (Heb. X. 25)? How unlike God are those who turn their foot to the Sabbath, and trample upon it. What a difference between those who aim only to refrain from positive transgressions of the Sabbath, and those who rise into a far higher atmosphere, and as by intuition, or the perpetual bubblings of an ever= flowing fountain, pour forth their joy and praise, and Sabbatic honors, unto the Lord! 5. " Delight thyself in the Lord." If we make and treat the Sabbath as a " delight," by that we shall be so trained and built up that God will be a delight to us, and not a being of fear and dread. There is no cause for wonder that those who do not keep the Sab- bath holy do not have joy and comfort in the Lord, do not like solid religious reading on the Sabbath, do not love to meet in the sanctuary. We find that in the text we have, negative and pos- itive together, eight distinct and emphatic principles for our guidance in keej^ing the Sabbath day holy. From those principles we may deduce many lessons of closer application to ourselves. A few we do well now to name and consider: 1. It is wrong to jDut seven days' works into six, if HOW TO KEEP THE SABBATH 816 that is going to make us stupid and unfit for God's worship and the sanctuary. For God has provided for only six days' work in the seven, and he has pro- vided for the sanctuary and for our attendance upon it. 2. All intellectual labor on the Sabbath other than what is moral and religious, or what is requisite for spiritual worship, or for necessary mercy, is Sabbath profanation. Children and students who learn their secular lessons of the week on the Lord's day, do wrong, and their parents and teachers do wrong who allow them in it. Keeping secular book^accounts on the Sabbath is also wrong and a kind of partial suicide. 3. Publishing a secular newspaper on the Sabbath day is a violation of the day, and is a very great evil, because it tempts thousands to desecrate the Sabbath by secular, and often corrupting, reading. Purchas- ing the secular newspaper on the Sabbath is also wrong, as well as advertising in it, and running a train, or being a newsboy to carry it and sell it, is wrong. Editors and publishers are bound to exempt one day in seven from all labor for the secular press. If all laborers in this business, or any other business, can not always keep precisely the same hours free from secularities, and devoted to sacred purposes, still all laborers should keep holy one day in seven. 4. Traveling or journeying on the Sabbath, except from providential necessity or mercy, is violation of the fourth commandment. Pleasure^riding on that day is particularly embraced by one of the condemna- tory principles of the text; for it \^ finding one^s own pleasure on the Sabbath. Riding to church; in case of need of it, on that day is allowable; for it is find- 316 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY ing God's pleasure. Riding to church, as some prob- ably do, for mere fashion and show, is wrong. If any think it hard that they cannot indulge in pleasure^ riding on the Sabbath, they should be reminded that their hearts are not in unison with the Lord, else the Sabbath properly kept would be their "delight." If any need to ride for health on the Sabbath, that is al- lowable if they cannot get health enough in that way in the week4ime= Yet, they should be careful about it, lest their example encourage secular pleasure=rid- ing. To take all of one s medicine on the Sabbath looks to men a little like sponging from the Lord, and to the Lord no doubt it looks worse still. Walking for mere pleasure on the Sabbath amid sights and curiosities, whether of people or smaller things, is likely to secularize the mind and unfit it for God's holy purposes in this day. Walking for exercise on the Sabbath, or getting into the open air for health's sake, where no associations or tendencies are evil, is allowable. Yet, we need to keep strict watch, lest in. getting a little good to ourselves by any such indulg- ence, we do much harm to others in connection with it. 5. Secular visiting on the Sabbath is Sabbath trespassing. A little religions visiting in special cases may sometimes be well; yet, ordinarily we should leave people by themselves, and without much company, on the Lord's day, except as they are in church. These restrictive principles will create bet- ter personal character, and better society in the end. If any have not a heart for all this, it is sad that they do not love God's ways instead of their own ways; for God's ways are fitted to make the most and the best of them. now TO KEEP THE SABBATH 8lt (6) Visiting on the Sabbath by means of secular letter^ writing, must be accounted a violation of the (lay. If persons write religiously on the Sabbath, the secular matters should be left until a week=day. Writing on secular matters must be a secular act which belongs to our own six days, and not to the Lord's holy day which he has reserved for our own religious benefit. But, writing itself is a mechani- cal act, and composing is a mere intellectual act, without in itself being religious at all, and it were generally better to defer all of that, doubtless, even the religious letter=writing, from the Sabbath to the vreek^time, and take on the Lord's day, after our act- ive religious work, and necessary secular duties, such reading and communing as will leave us more in the passive rather than the active state. At least, we should not write of secular matters on the Sabbath, unless for an immediate religious purpose, or for some real necessity or mercy. If any say that they must write even their secular letters on the Sabbath because they have not time during the week, they should be reminded that there is a way of dishonor- ing God and doing the less to pay for it, and a way of honoring him and doing 7nore, and being the greater, in consequence. They who think they can improve upon God's ordering of aflpairs will be poor at last. (7) Corporations and joint stock companies vio- late the Sabbath if thay allow their property to be unnecessarily employed in secular business on the Lord's day. Railroad managers should curtail the running of trains on the Sabbath as much as con- sistent with necessity and mercy. They never should 318 ' SABBATH AND SUNDAY run them for Sabbath=breaking excursions. Owners of railroad stock should protest against the use of their property in Sabbath desecration and ever pro- test. (8) Imposing unecessary labor on employes on the Sabbath is desecration of the day. In the Fourth commandment the prohibition of labor extends to "thy man-servant, nor thy maid=servant " (Ex. xx: 10). As given in Deuteronomy we read, "That thy man-servant and thy maid= servant may rest as well as thou" (v: 14). Employers should provide as much as they can for the keeping of the Sabbath, and the attendance at church, by those they employ. It is one important and legitimate way of doing good. (9) The Sabbath is violated by undue sleep- ing and lolling during its hours; and also by un- due indulgence of appetite resulting in excessive dullness. Overheating over=strains internal organs, and sometimes makes the blood settle back too much into the brain, or produces other unhealthy conges- tion. Many persons can sleep too much at once. With active pursuits during the week, and over^sleep on the Sabbath, there is not sufficient exercise to keep the circulation good on the surface, and so the blood settles in upon internal and sensitive organs, which cannot bear the load without danger to health, and sometimes to life. In this way it is demonstrable that people are better off to get up in proper season, and get out to church, than to lie asleep half the day, and then perhaps go a Sabbath^breaking in the after- noon and evening. Doubtless we have a right to sleep more if we wish on Sundays than on other days, because the Sabbath is in part for physical re- HOW TO KEEP THE SABBATH 319 cuperation and rest; but we have not a right to allow sleei) and stupor to tresj)ass on religious service and spirUual rest, for which the Sabbath was preemi- nently designed. If any object that we cannot found the ooservance of the Lord's day on the Fourth Conunandment we reply: First by disagreeing with that statement; Secondly, there was an ante-Sinaitic Sabbath, a pre- mosaic Sabbath, dating, doubtless, from the close of Creation. That Sabbath was for man. Found the Lord's day Sabbath on that. If any say we are not bound to keef) the Lord's day holy, we disagree, for this reason; the early Chris- tians, as Vv^e have seen, deemed the Lord's day holy^ the chief of all days and they sacredly observed it. Those early Christians derived their belief and prac- tice directly or closely from the Apostles and the Apostles from Christ or the Holy Spirit. Therefore we should keep holy the Lord's day. Some object that we are wrongly bound to keep Jewish Sabbatic laws and customs. Not so. We are not bound to keep any merely Jewish laws or cus- toms. Jewish merely civil and ceremonial laws are obsolete. Strong analogy sometimes holds us to a Jewish principle. Circumstances alter cases. The Jews could not build fires on their Sabbath but they could on each Sabbath between sun and sun. Their holy time ending at sunset, they could then have fire and pre]3are their usually chief meal of the day, it being during the same daylight with their Sabbath. But with the same law in force we could not have that privilege; our Sabbath commencing and closing with midnight. Their gathering sticks on the Sab- 320 SABBATH AND SUNDAY bath was like our hauling cord wood from the forest to the home door on that day. In both cases it would be a high affront to heaven. We should take notice that the character of an act depends upon the motive for it, or the end in view. Preparing shew bread for the temple on the Sabbath, and placing it there was a sacred and holy act. But except for its object it would have been secular and sinful. The same difference with the double sacri- fice on the Sabbath is to be noticed. So with us; two parties may be riding together by pr ivate or pub- lic conveyance on the Sabbath, and the act of each will be sinful or holy according to the end in view, which may be seeking amusement or the service of God in divine worship. If the right object is ever made an excuse for pursuing the wrong that also is sinful. From the Scripture law of the Sabbath the forego- ing requisites and prohibitions are deduced. They are drawn from the Sabbatic moral law; not from civic and ceremonial provisions or enactments made speci- fically for the Jewish nation in their particular cir- cumstances, and not made binding upon all men. But these lessons derived from the moral law are preeminently fitted to promote holiness. They re- quire holiness of heart and life during one seventh part of time. The mere outward observance is not satisfactory to Jehovah. Holiness taught one sev- enth part of the time, is in itself fitted to promote holiness during the secular j)art of the week, and during the whole life. The Sabbath is God's great training school and university for holiness and for heaven. The holy " convocation " divinely appointed now TO KEEP THE SABBATH 321 for the Sabbath, is exactly fitted to the design for holi- ness, and the holiness when sufficiently cultivated, pre- pares the soul to see the Lord in peace. In the fourth of Hebrews we are taught, that the S abbatic rest on earth is a symbol of the holy rest which remains for all the servants of God in heaven. This fact assumes that the earthly Sabbath is designed to qualify peni- tent and obedient minds for the endless condition of heavenly glory. It also suggests that we are not left in the new dispensation without a Sabbath, for, as preparatory for heaven it is as much needful now as ever, and in its added commemoration of Christ's resurrection, its service for the heavenly rest is greatly heightened. 20 322 APPENDIX. APPENDIX. I. Prof. Geo. T. Ladd, D.D., of Yale College in his work, "The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture," in writing concerning the Sabbath speaks of "discrepancies" in the * 'two editions ' respecting that day (Ex. 20:8 11, and Deut. 5:12-15). [Vol. I., pp. loi, 102.] He also speaks of "two variant and some- what conflicting forms" in the two copies of the sacred Fourth Commandment In respect to these statements, "Discrepancy" savors of disagreement or contradiction, we ought not in that sense to admit of discrepancy in the two accounts. One copy may exceed another without contradicting it. The two copies of the command are not, as we think, "somewhat conflicting, forms." He speaks also of a "number of slight variations, note- worthy differences as to the reason for the Sabbath law." In Exodus, the Creation is given as one reason for the Sab- bath law; in Deuteronomy two reasons are added, deliverance from bondage in Egypt and the obligation to give rest to laborers. The reasons given in the two cases are not con- flicting The history of the Israelites gave emphasis to the additional reasons for the existence of the Sabbath law. II. In the body of this work it is attempted to show that the day of Pentecost occurred upon the Lord's Day. Further discussion of that point may be found in the Bibliotheca Sacra of April, 1880, pp. 368-373. INDEX Index of names of persons and subjects not readily found by the Table of Contents. Accadian, 29. Alexander, 286. Aldrich, 93. Alford, 42, 43, 44, 58, 108, 124, 238. Andrews, 85, 128, 152. Andrewes, 172. Apfstolic Fathers, 88. Apostolic Authority, 118,263. Appleton, 171. Artists, 269. Arnold, 25, 33, 66, 140. Assos 103. Assyrian, 27, 29. Atterbury, 270, 298. Augustine, 44, 5i. Bacon, 33, 51, 66, 103, 140, 305. Barnes, 128. Barrows, 47. Babylon, 27, 103. Baxter, 139. Bengel, 41, 58. Bionconi, 266. Blackstone, 288, 301, 302. Bryennios, 165. Bush, 223. Bushnell, 59. Burrow, 227, 229. Butler, 70, 71, 144. Buxtorf, 47. Calvin, 138. Carpenter, 265. Celestial bodies, 15. Convocation, 57, 80. Conybeare, 103. Collections, no. Constantine, 164, 219, 228. Contrast, comparison, 238. Coleridge, 269. Commons, 302. Continental Sabbath, 292. Cook. 135, 266. Chronology, 104, 106, 109. Changes, 142. Chalmers, 304. Corporations, 317. Crabbe, 238. Crystal Palace, 267. Crucifixion, 93, 99. Dale, ID, 25, 33, 36, 66, 79, 140. De Wette, 53. Dominicum, 172. Donaldson, 151. Dwight, 128. Early Fathers, 263. Easter, 92, 120, 236. Ecclesiastical Theory, 180. Edwards, 128, 138, 139, 171, 262, 266, 275. 324 SABBATH AND SUNDAY, Ellicott, 124, 188. Emerson, 283. Evenings, 107, 108. F Fairbairn, 41. Family, 280, 282- Farre, 268. Farrar, 282. Feast, 42, 45, 49, 95, 105, 128, 133- First Day, 235. Fisher, 236. G Gilfillan, 171. Gladden, 34. Gurney, 257. H Hackett, 90. Hadley, 22, 38. Hamilton, 300. Hessey, 10, 115, 137, 149, 180, 183, 202, 204, 205, 208, 257. Heylin, 16, 33, 64. Hodge, 128. Hooker, 216. Hooper, 278. Hopkins, 37, 39, 62, 183, 193, 194, 203, 213. Home, 48. Humboldt, 270. Hyacinthe, 290. Inscriptions, 27. J Jahn, 48. Jerome, 115, 218, 226. Jewish Superstitions, 263. Josephus, 46, 98, Justification, 62. Justin on Sunday, 153. K Kames, 305. Kendrick, 38. Koran, 24. Lange, 58, 108. La Place, 24. Law, 70, 73. Lewis, 15. Licinius, 220. Lightfoot, 48, 151, 188. Littlejohn, 85, 104. Lord's Day, 120, i6i. Lord's Supper, 120. Lord Bacon, 305. Loyson, 29T. Luther, 253. M Manna, 17. Mason, 278, Memory, 31. Merrill, 30. Meyer, 53, 58, 188. Mill, 269. Mischna, 49, Mohammed, 23. Montalembert, 282. Moral duties, 36, 70. Morality, 287. Morrow, 87. Murphy, 223. McKnight, 115 McClintock, 171. Macauley, 271, 275. McCheyne, 304, 305. N Nations' weekly time, 21. Neander, 53, 116, 160, 228. Nisan, 93, 96. Niemeyer, 275. O Olshausen, 92. Ordinal, 140. P Paley, 10, 16, 64. Parker, 34. Parliament, 274. Passover, 95. Persian, 103. INDEX, 325 Peel, 302. Pentecost, 89. Pond, 128. Pusey, 226. Puritan, 8, 261, 263, 289. Phelps, 62, 171. Philo, 46, 47, 49, 230. Pliny, 152. Plato, 270. Philosophers, 281. Protestants, 178. Proudhon, 275. R Rabbins, 188, 234. Reed, 289. Reforms, 280. Rest, 264, 278, 291. Resurrection, 83, loi. Religious freedom, 220. Righteousness, 287, 288. Robertson, 35,50,139.192.254- Robinson, 98, 108. Roman Catholic, 9, 178, 298. Rosetta Stone, 127. S Sanderson, 66. Sayce, 28. Sabbath perversions, 188. Septuagint, 54, 223. Selden, 46. SeyflFarth, 93. SchafF, 90, 92, 96. Shabbath, 53, 130. Supper, 42. Spellman, 229, 230. Socrates, 286. Scott, 306. Shaftesbury, 283. Stillingfleet, 218. Strong, 171. Smith, 90, 91, 289. Smyth, 146, 184, 195, 205, 210, 216. Stanley, 53. Stuart. 26. 80. 128. Tacitus, 87. Talbot, 27. Talmud, 125. Taylor, 64, 66, 274. Time differences, 78. Theodosius, 228. Trench, 42. Troas, 102, 109. Upham, 48. U W Washburn, 30. Watch, 107. Wayland, 294. Westminster, 138. Wetstein, 48. Wilberforce, 274. Wieseler, 92. Wilkinson, 171. Whitsuntide, 92. Winer, 37, 156. Wilson, 70. Whately, 58, 66, 67, 72, 144. SPECIAL SCRIPTURE TEXTS Lev. 23: 54, 57. Lev. 16,21: 130. Nehemiah 8,9? 43, 132. Isaiah 58,13,14: 310. Mark 2,27: 36, 38, 263. Acts 20,7: 50, 87. Rom. 3,31: 50. Rom. 6,14: 58. Rom. 7,6: 51. Rom. 13,8: 60. Rom. 14,5: 50. I Cor. 16,2: no. Gal. 4,10: 50. Col. 2,t6: 50, 55, 141, 127, Heb. 4,4: 156. Heb. 10,25: 50. Rev. i,io: 120. 1B029YC Bl: LK 05-29-03 32180 MS Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 1 1012 01274 4167