book v., chap. 23, of Eusebius, will largely apply, in principle, to the

citation found in chap. 24, of the same book. In the latter, as in the former, case, the historian is not giving the exact utterance of Irenæus, but simply declares, in substance, his decision in regard to the proper time for the celebration of the passover festival.

Before passing from Irenæus to the consideration of another case of the fathers, it would be proper to commend the candor of our opponent, as manifested in his hearty condemnation of the looseness of Dwight and others in their statements of historic facts. In making the concession which the gentleman has, he will doubtless bring upon himself the condemnation of those who exalt success above truth. He has taken from such one of their most potent weapons. The language of Irenæus, which is here admitted to be of spurious origin, has figured largely in the discussion of this question, in the past. It was pointed and decisive, and seemed to furnish just the material necessary to the satisfactory making out of a case, otherwise sadly deficient in the proofs which it needed. It will, therefore, be yielded up with reluctance. Nevertheless, we hope that the acknowledgment, made by our opponent in this article, will lead clergymen, for the future, to desist from the use of it, until they are able to refute what the writer in the _Statesman_ here asserts.

In the meanwhile, the reader must not allow himself to suppose that the gentleman, by saying what he has, has really brought Sabbatarians under obligation to hint for new light, since what he here asserts is but a fact with which they have been familiar for years, and which they have iterated and re-iterated until they have almost despaired of bringing their opponents to an acknowledgment of the real state of things. Occasionally, others outside of their ranks have, as does the gentleman, borne testimony to the accuracy of their statements. If the reader would have an illustration of this, taken from the writings of an anti-Sabbatarian author, he will find it in the works of Domville, in which, substantially, the same conclusions are reached, Mr. Domville not only tracing the mistake to Dr. Dwight, but also allowing that the language cited was probably taken from the interpolated epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians.

Up to this point, we have carefully examined, one by one, the historic quotations from ancient writers, which have been presented for our consideration; henceforth, we shall pursue a different course. As we have now reached, in the person of Tertullian, the close of the second, and the opening of the third, century of the Christian era, we find ourselves in a period when it is so generally acknowledged that the work of apostasy was so manifest that the utterances of the men of those times—even though they were pointed and explicit in regard to the sanctity of the first day of the week, as looked upon by themselves—could furnish no reliable standard of Christian faith in our day.

The gentleman himself is compelled to admit that his own witness, Tertullian, became, in the second year of the third century, an ardent advocate of the errors, follies, and heresies, of Montanus. Not only so, but the writings of that father are proverbial, among scholars, for the fanciful conceits and the false notions which are so conspicuous upon their pages. Tertullian was a fiery zealot and a bitter partisan, manifestly credulous beyond bounds, and more earnest for his sect than anxious for the reliability of the sources of his information. Zell, in his popular Encyclopedia, speaks of him as follows:—

“After he was past middle age, he embraced the doctrines of Montanus, to which his ardent, sensuous imagination, and ascetic tendencies would incline him. He is said to have been determined to that course by the ill-treatment he received from the Roman clergy. Whether he remained a Montanist till his death, cannot be decided.... They [his works] are characterized by vast learning, profound and comprehensive thought, fiery imagination, and passionate partisanship, leading into exaggeration and sophistry. His style is frequently obscure.”

Montanus was a false prophet of the second century, who believed himself to have received, from the Holy Ghost, revelations which were withheld from the apostles; he denied the doctrine of the trinity, the propriety of second marriage, and the forgiveness of certain sins. The disciple of such a man is surely a strange witness to be found in the employ of orthodoxy. Should his appearance, however, be excused, as it is above, by the statement that he was introduced, not because of the reliability of his own opinion, but simply to testify of the usage of his own times; it may be replied, first, that an ardent partisan, a person of strong imagination, and a notorious heretic, is hardly qualified to speak reliably, even in a matter of this nature, since, from the very constitution of his mind, he would almost of necessity allow what he said to be warped by prejudice, or biased by conceptions of interest; secondly, that in the quotation presented from his pen, it is not a little remarkable that, instead of asserting a general usage of Sunday-keeping, he is manifestly finding fault with a large class of his fellow-Christians for not regarding the day in the same light, and observing it with the same rigor, that he did; thirdly, that it is by no means impossible that the very men, whom in his fiery zeal he thus upbraids, were, after all, sounder than himself in the faith, and would, could they be fairly heard upon this subject, vindicate their supposed desecration of the first day, from the same grounds as do the Sabbatarians now, _i. e._, because they did not look upon it as holy time.

If the above responses are not satisfactory, and if it be insisted that the testimony of the witness shall, after all, he received, then we propose that he be called to the stand once more, and be allowed to fill up the measure of what he has to say upon this subject. We have seen that, according to his opinion, many of his fellow-disciples were lax in their Sunday-keeping habits, and that to one who believed that no labor should be performed upon it, whatever, they treated it very much as men would treat a mere festival occasion. But where did Tertullian and his sympathizers obtain their notions of the manner in which Sunday should be kept? Was it from the Scriptures? We shall see; here is the witness; let him speak for himself:

“As often as the anniversary comes around, we make offerings for the dead as birth-day honors. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day, to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege, also, from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign (of the cross). If for these and other such rules, you insist upon leaving positive Scripture injunctions, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom, as their strengthener, and faith, as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has.”—_De Corona_, sects. 3 and 4.

The reader will at once observe that tradition is the foundation which is here laid for that kind of Sunday observance for which Tertullian was so great a stickler. Not only so, but the fact is brought to light, also, that the men whom he represented were in the habit of offering prayers for the dead; of signing themselves with the sign of the cross; and going through other ceremonies, which to us, at the present time, are not only ridiculous in the extreme, but bear upon their face the impress of the man of sin so unmistakably that none will be deceived.

If Tertullian was indeed a fair specimen of the Christian men of his time; if his writings have not been tampered with; and if the opinions of the men of his day, as expressed by himself, should have weight with us in the decision of religious questions, where shall we stop in our acceptance of their creeds? If, because they believed with him in the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, this fact should have weight with us in bringing us to the same conclusion, independently of Scripture proof, then how can we stop short of their faith in other particulars? such as the acceptance of tradition in doctrinal matters, prayers for the dead, the sign of the cross, etc., etc. In fact, how can we avoid becoming papists ourselves, in the largest sense of the term, since, having gone as far as we have for the purpose of making out Sunday sanctity, we have surrendered nearly all the distinctive principles of Protestantism?

Of course each individual is at liberty to use his own discretion as to the measure of confidence which he will give to the writings before us; so far as we are concerned, personally, we would not attach to them the slightest weight in the decision of a grave religious question. From the very nature of that which has been already cited, it is manifestly a serious slander upon the true church of the second, and the first part of the third century, to hold them responsible for the fanciful conceits and destructive errors of this reputed defender of the faith.

Certain it is, that if Tertullian is correctly reported, his writings are not a safe criterion of the sentiments of the Christians of his age in very many points, and it may be fairly concluded, that among them is that concerning the Sabbath, since what he has said of it finds no warrant in the open Bible, which the men of this day hold in their hands. Not only is what he has written absurd and dangerous in the extreme, but his productions are characterized by the most glaring contradictions. Another has said of him: “It would be wiser for Christianity, retreating upon its genuine records in the New Testament, to disclaim this fierce African, than identify itself with his furious, invectives, by unsatisfactory apologies for their unchristian fanaticisms.” (Milman, in note on Gibbon’s Dec. and Fall of the Rom. Emp., chap. xv.)

We leave him, therefore, with his follies and foibles, his errors and faults, his assertions and contradictions, with those who have a taste for this kind of literature.

With the case of Origen it will not be necessary that much time should be consumed. Mr. Mosheim has well remarked of him, that had “the justice of his judgment been equal to the immensity of his genius, the fervor of his piety, his indefatigable patience, his extensive erudition, and his other eminent and superior talents, all encomium must have fallen short of his merits.” Unfortunately, however, with an erudition which was truly remarkable, he united a credulity almost without parallel. So numerous and so grave were the errors of his personal faith, that his individual opinions, unsupported by facts and arguments, are utterly worthless in the decision of any theological proposition. Having adopted the mystical system of interpreting the Scriptures, he reached conclusions utterly unsound and preposterous in many cases.

That this is so, the orthodox reader will at once perceive, when we state, first, that he was a believer in the pre-existence of the human soul, and that souls were condemned to animate mortal bodies, because of sins committed in a pre-existent state; secondly, that he was a Restorationist, and believed in the final universal salvation of all men, after enduring long periods of punishment. Nor does the advocacy of such sentiments furnish the only difficulty in the way of his testimony, as drawn from his writings now extant. There would indeed be some satisfaction derived from the study of these documents, fanciful though they might appear to be in many respects, if we could only feel assured that they represented correctly the sentiments of the alleged author.

Unhappily, this is not the case. Those who admire Origen most, while attributing much in what he is said to have written, to that weakness of discrimination which is everywhere so manifest in his productions, are compelled to go beyond this, in order to explain many of the grosser views therein contained, by admitting that they were not his own, but that they are the result of fraud and interpolation.

On this point, another, with great candor and friendly charity, when speaking of the sect known as Origenists, after first stating that “he was a man of great talents, and a most indefatigable student, but having a strong attachment to the Platonic philosophy, and a natural turn to mystical and allegorical interpretations, which led him to corrupt greatly the simplicity of the gospel, declares that these circumstances render it very difficult to ascertain exactly what his real sentiments were.” He says, also, “1. Being a man of unquestionable talents and high character, his genuine works were interpolated, and others written under his name, in order to _forge_ his sanction to sentiments of which, possibly, he never heard.... 3. Origen had many enemies, who probably attributed to him many things which he did not believe, in order, either to injure his fame, or bring his character under censure.”—_Encyc. of Rel. Knowl._, Art. Origenists.

Having said thus much in reference to the testimony before us, it would be possible to take up the writings of this distinguished father, and show from them that there is room for a difference of opinion as to whether he believed that the so-called Christian Sabbath was indeed to be regarded as of twenty-four hours’ duration, merely, or whether it covered alike all days of the week, and the whole of our dispensation. This, however, would be a tedious and unprofitable expenditure of time and labor. We leave the whole question, therefore, respecting the teaching of the works of Origen, as one of no significance in this controversy; first, because if we know anything about what he did believe, he was wholly unreliable, either as a teacher of sound doctrine, or as a representative of the better men of his own time; and, secondly, because what he has written has been so corrupted, that we have no guarantee that it truthfully expresses what he believed.

As we presume the majority of our readers are not particularly interested in reference to which posture was assumed in prayer on the first day of the week, by the early church, and as Peter of Alexandria and the Council of Nice are quoted solely in reference to “this independent question,” we shall not discuss the note in which reference is made to them. There remains, therefore, only the case of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, to occupy us longer. What this author says was written about A. D. 253. It will be observed, that in what is declared by him and the Council, the first day of the week is called the Lord’s day; beyond this, his testimony is of no value. It is neither stated that the title was applied by divine authority, nor is it affirmed that this day had superseded in Sabbatic honor the ancient Sabbath of the Lord.

There is, however, in reference to circumcision as something which prefigured the Lord’s day, or eighth day, enough of mysticism to furnish us with a clue to the character of the men whose intellectual perceptions were so fine that they could discover in an institution which was administered on the eighth day after the birth of the male child, on whatever day of the week that eighth day might fall, a prefiguring of the distinction which was to be bestowed on the definite first day of the week, which had in it, not eight, but only seven, days, in all. Mr. Mosheim, in alluding to a period in close proximity to that in which Cyprian lived, mentions it as one in “which the greater part of the Christian doctors had been engaged in adopting those vain fictions of Platonic philosophy and popular opinions, which, after the time of Constantine, were confirmed, enlarged, and embellished in various ways,” and from which he declares “arose that extravagant veneration for departed saints, and those absurd notions of a certain fire destined to purify separate souls, that then prevailed, and of which the public marks were everywhere to be seen.”—_Eccles. Hist._, Fourth Century, part ii., chap. iii.

It is now time to take a retrospective view of the territory over which we have been passing. Be it remembered that the reader was lured from the contemplation of the Scriptures, with this precious promise, that outside of them were to be found the most convincing proofs that the Lord’s day was and had been the proper title of the first day of the week since the resurrection of Christ; but what have we seen? Manifestly, not that which we had anticipated:

First, we have discovered that Ignatius, the first witness introduced, does not mention the Lord’s day at all, but simply speaks of the Lord’s life.

Secondly, that the epistle of Barnabas was a forgery, made up of the most absurd and ridiculous fancies, and written by an unknown character somewhere, perhaps in the second or third century, though purporting to be the work of the companion of Paul.

Thirdly, that it is becoming more and more a matter of doubt whether that which is attributed to Justin Martyr was ever seen by him, and that he not only does not call the Sunday the Lord’s day, but also inculcates in what he says, the Romish heresy respecting the use of water in sacrament, &c., &c.

Fourthly, that Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and Melito, bishop of Sardis, while indeed they do speak of the Lord’s day, do not furnish any clue by which we can determine which day they regarded as such.

Fifthly, that Pliny, a heathen writer, employs neither the term Lord’s day nor Sabbath, but simply speaks of a stated day, without identification.

Sixthly, that Irenæus is not properly represented as speaking of the Sunday in the use of the title Lord’s day, since that expression, in both the instances alluded to, was the language of Eusebius, who lived in the fourth century, and not of Irenæus, who lived in the second.

Seventhly, that Tertullian, who lived at the close of the second and the commencement of the third century, and who was a wild fanatic of the Montanist school, utterly unworthy to represent the sentiments of his times, is the first witness from whom the gentleman has succeeded in obtaining an unequivocal application of the term, Lord’s day, to the first day of the week; also, that he had connected with it, prayers for the dead, the sign of the cross, &c., &c.

Eighthly, that Origen was a man of great learning; that it was questionable whether he believed in a septenary Sabbath, or in one that covered the whole dispensation; and that, in fact, it is admitted by his friends that his works have become so corrupt as to be utterly untrustworthy in the matter of deciding respecting his real opinions.

Ninthly, that Cyprian and his colleagues addressed us from a point of time too far removed from the period of the alleged change of Sabbaths, and too fully within that of the great apostasy, to be of service in an exegesis of the Scriptures.

Tenthly, that three of the most pointed and satisfactory of the testimonies heretofore employed by first-day writers, are now abandoned as having been the result of mistake in translation, or in the matter of attributing them to the proper persons. Summing, up, therefore, in a word we inquire again, What has been gained by this departure? We believe that all must see that it has been an entire failure; for, so far as the Sabbath is concerned, we think the reader will hesitate long before he will leave the Scriptures, in the matter of deciding upon its obligation, in order to build the structure of his faith from such material as we have been handling over.

Also, as to the question of what day John referred to in Rev. 1:10, when he said, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day,” he will deliberate very much before he will decide that it was the first day of the week, simply because an untrustworthy man, admitted to have been heretical on many points, called it such 200 years after the birth of Christ, while Jehovah himself has given to the seventh day that honor, styling it the “Sabbath of the Lord,” “the holy of the Lord, honorable,” &c., and while Christ himself has declared in so many words, that he was the Lord of the Sabbath day. Mark 2:27, 28.

STATESMAN’S REPLY. ARTICLE NINE. THEORIES OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.

With the facts of history before us concerning sacred time for nearly three centuries after the resurrection of Christ—facts drawn from the inspired writers of the New Testament and their immediate successors, we are prepared to consider the different theories of the Christian Sabbath. These theories may be summed up in three. Of one or another of these, all the remaining theories are simply modifications.

The first of these three leading theories is as follows: “The Sabbath was a Jewish institution, and expired with the Jewish dispensation. The Lord’s day is not in any proper sense a Sabbath. It has an origin, a reason, and an obligation, not drawn from the fourth commandment, but peculiarly its own, as an institution belonging specially to the New-Testament dispensation.”

The second theory, in the order in which we notice these different views, maintains that the observance of the Sabbath, as required under the Old-Testament dispensation, knows no change in any particular. The observance of the seventh day of the week is essential to the proper observance of the Sabbath under the gospel dispensation. The observance of the first day of the week is without divine warrant—a departure from the law of God through the corruptions which crept into the church.

The third theory agrees with the second in maintaining that the Sabbath existed from the beginning, and that it has never been abolished or superseded. It disagrees with the second theory in maintaining that the essential idea of the law of the Sabbath is not the holiness of a portion of time, but the _consecration of a specified proportion of time_, one day in seven; that, in accordance with this, a change of day was admissible; that a change was actually made by divine warrant from the resurrection of Christ; and that the first day of the week, the Lord’s day, is the true Christian Sabbath, having its moral sanction in the fourth commandment.

By many of those who hold the first of these theories, the Lord’s day is made a purely ecclesiastical institution, without any other warrant for its observance than the action of the church, by whose authority and in whose wisdom, the day is set apart for divine service. By others who accept the same general theory, apostolic authority in the early church is admitted to afford a divine warrant for the observance of the day. In a complete treatise on the Lord’s day, a careful discussion of this theory would be required. Its want of any sufficient foundation could be satisfactorily shown by a presentation of the following points: (1.) The declaration of the Lord of the Sabbath is explicit—“The Sabbath was made for man.” It was not made for any portion of the human family, but for the race of mankind. (2.) Thus, from the design of its Lord, and the very nature of the institution, the Sabbath cannot be limited to any locality or dispensation. (3.) Accordingly, it was given to man at his creation. (Gen. 3:3.) (4.) For the same reason, the law of the Sabbath has its proper place, not among ceremonial, local, or positive enactments, but among the immutable moral precepts of the decalogue. (5.) This law is, therefore, of universal and perpetual obligation upon our race. These points would give room for many articles; but, inasmuch as on all of them there is entire agreement between our seventh-day Sabbatarian friends and ourselves, we pass to a consideration of the second theory, which they accept as correct.

To make good their case, the advocates of the second theory must show that the seventh day continued to be the Sabbath observed by the church after the resurrection of Christ, just as before; and that, in the observance of the first day, a great departure took place from the original practice of the Christian church. They must not make _bare_ statements, but they must furnish proof. Instead of appealing to the letter of the law, and insisting that fact must conform to their interpretation of it, they must accept the facts of history, and put their interpretations to the test. It is more reasonable to conclude that an interpretation of law is wrong, than to reject the attested facts of history, when the interpretation and the facts do not harmonize.

Let us briefly sum up the facts already fully brought to view. Christ himself, after his resurrection, passed by the seventh day, and repeatedly put special honor on the first day of the week. This same day was honored by the Pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit. Christian congregations met for regular weekly service, not on the seventh day, but on the first day of the week. The inspired apostle Paul pointedly condemned the Judaizing teachers who insisted on the observance by Christians of the seventh-day Sabbath. The early writers, companions of the apostles, and others of the succeeding generations, bear the clearest and most explicit testimony to the same facts—the non-observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, and the stated meetings of Christians for divine service on the first day of the week, the Lord’s day. Now, if their theory is correct, how will the seventh-day Sabbatarians explain the fact that Christ himself, the Holy Spirit, inspired apostles, and Christian congregations all through the early church, ignored the seventh day and honored the first? A general and vague statement to the effect that an unwarranted change was made from the original practice of the Christian church will not do here. Was not the practice of the apostles and first organized congregations of Christians the original practice of the Christian church? That practice was, as we have seen, to observe the first day of the week. We repeat what we have already proved at length, viz., that there is not an instance in the Scriptures of the observance of the seventh day by any Christian church, nor of any regard to that day, after Christ’s resurrection, by apostles or their fellow-laborers, except as they availed themselves, in their missionary work, of the meetings of Jewish assemblies in Jewish places of worship. “An unwarranted change!” Let those who take such language upon their lips consider that their charge lies at the door of Christ and his Spirit, and the inspired apostles.

But now, for the sake of the argument, let us leave all the testimony of the inspired writers of the New Testament to the first-day Sabbath out of view. Again we have the vague charge of unwarranted change. Perhaps the most definite form of this charge is that which makes the change the work of the little horn in Daniel’s prophecy, chapter seven. But will the expounder of Daniel be a little more explicit, and tell us who the historical personage is, and give us the dates and names of history? Does the little horn represent Antiochus Epiphanes? if so, then, of course, his change of the law of the Sabbath must have been before the Christian era. Will our expositor give us some facts just here? If the little horn means the papacy, then, according to the prophecy itself, it did not arise until the Roman Empire, represented by the fourth beast, was broken into ten fragments, represented by the ten horns. The little horn sprang up after these, and its change of the law of the Sabbath must date after the fall of the old empire of Rome. But for centuries before this event, we have the testimony of numerous writers that the Christian churches everywhere observed, not the seventh, but the first, day of the week, the Lord’s day. Again we ask for facts, not mere statements and theories.

Leaving this vague attempt to connect the assumed unwarranted change with Daniel’s prophesy, we come to what is, if possible, still more vague and indefinite. A change, it is asserted, was made by some particular officer or council of the church, as it became corrupt and began to depart from the practice of the original church of Christ. Who was this officer? or where did this council meet? But we will not make unreasonable demands for historical testimony. Let us grant that such an officer or such a council there was at some time or other. The question then arises, When did the change take place? In the days of Cyprian, A. D. 250? The answer is clear. The change most have been made before his day. Origen and Tertullian, fifty years earlier, knew only the first day of the week, the Lord’s day, as the Christian Sabbath. Was the change then made in their day? We might assume that it was, only for the clear testimony of Irenæus and Justin Martyr, carrying us back another half century, and the equally explicit testimony of still earlier writers, carrying us back to the apostles themselves.

Notwithstanding all this dearth of historical testimony as to the existence of the supposed ruler or council, let it be further granted that by some such corrupting authority, at some time a decree changing the day for Sabbath observance was issued. How did the supposed legislators establish their decree? How did they make it effectual over all the different parts of the church? Must we we suppose that a change like this was effected in the church, and not a scrap of a record left concerning it? The attempt made by the church to establish a common day for the anniversary of Christ’s resurrection gave rise to long and bitter controversy, and led to division. And yet, as Prof F. D. Maurice has well said, “It is supposed that this far more important change, affecting all the daily relations and circumstances of life, took effect by the decree of some apostle or some ecclesiastical synod, of which no record, no legend, even is preserved! Or, perhaps, a half-heathen, more than half-heathen, statute of Constantine,[14] about the _Dies Solis_ accomplished what the legislators of the church could not accomplish—succeeded not only in securing its adoption by Athanasians, Arians, Semi-Arians, whose controversies Constantine could never heal, but in securing the allegiance of all the barbarous tribes which accepted the gospel under such various conditions in later times. Can any suppositions make greater demands on our credulity than these?” A Procrustean bed indeed must be that interpretation of the law of the Sabbath which, to conform them to itself, must thus deal with the facts of history and the probabilities of historical evidence.

Just here is the difficulty in the theory of Seventh-day Sabbatarians. They have somehow got lodged in their mind the idea that the last one of the seven days of the week is the sacred day, the observance of which is absolutely essential to the proper keeping of the Sabbath. What has already been proved from history, inspired and uninspired, is sufficient to show that this theory is unworthy of men who, like Christ and his apostles, would grasp the true significance of the law of the Sabbath. But as so much stress is laid upon the question of time, we shall devote our next article to this crucial and very practical point.

Footnote 14:

The attempt to attribute the change of day to Constantine’s decree is hardly worth noticing. It is enough to remember that it was issued in the beginning of the fourth century. No one who knows anything of the writings of Tertullian and Origen dating back more than a century before Constantine, to say nothing of still earlier writers, will venture to ascribe the change to Roman Emperor’s decree. Besides, the language of the very decree referred to recognizes the honorable diameter of the first day of the week. It recognizes that day as already “venerable.”—_The Christian._

A REJOINDER. “THEORIES OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.”

The thoughtful reader need not be told that the article which he has just read, entitled, “Theories of the Christian Sabbath,” has advanced the discussion of the question before us in no material respect. The space devoted so generously to the consideration of theories, in regard to the unsoundness of which there is no difference of opinion between the gentleman and myself, is thrown away, so far as the present argument is concerned. While this is true, however, if it serves no other purpose, it has at least made it clear that, if the gentleman fails to make out his case in the end, it will not be because he has not had ample room for the presentation and elaboration of facts and arguments, since one who was crippled in his effort by a lack of space would hardly be willing to devote so much time and attention to subjects foreign to the present issue.

That which is said with reference to these theories might also be repeated in reference to the statement and restatement of points which it is claimed have been proved. Of course, it is the prerogative of any writer to conduct his own argument in his own way. All that we would call attention to is the fact that the line of policy pursued, in these things, is of a nature to satisfy even the most casual observer, that one who felt that he had resources upon which to draw, without limit, would not compel us to pass again and again over the same ground. There is, however, an apology which might properly be offered in the case of the gentleman, for calling our attention to these trivial points so repeatedly, which is found in the fact that his articles were written before our rejoinders were in print. We believe that, were not this the case, and had he perused what has been said in reply to them, we should be spared the monotony of answering them again. However, lest we should seem to avoid them, it will only be necessary that we say enough, bearing upon each point, to revive, in the mind of one who has followed us thus far, the fuller consideration given to all of them heretofore.

To the statement that Sabbatarians, in order to make good their case, must make their views harmonize with the facts of history, it is enough to say that, if it is meant by this, the facts of sacred history, as contained in the Bible, this we have already done; for before it can be urged that the opposite is true, as we have elsewhere seen, it must be shown that there is some transaction found in the sacred record which is in conflict with our interpretation of the law. This has not been done; for not only has it been made to appear that the Sabbath law is explicit in its requirement of the observance of the seventh day of the week, but also that there is not a single case of its violation, by a good man, to be found in the inspired pages.

Nor is this all; we have gone beyond this, and proved, by the record, that the opposite was true of the Sunday, since upon it Christ and two of his disciples, on the day of his resurrection, as well as Paul and Luke and others at a subsequent period, did perform upon it labor, which the gentleman himself has not attempted, and will not undertake, to harmonize with any just conception of intelligent Sabbath-keeping. So far as it regards the absence of any mention of meetings of Christians on the Sabbath, it is sufficient to say, as we have already done, that, as in the history given, the account relates largely to missionary trips, where there was no church as yet developed, and, consequently, no possibility of separate meetings, such a record would be out of the question; also, that the argument is only a negative one, and really can have no force, until it can be demonstrated that God’s plan is first to command, and then show, in every instance what the commandment means, by practical illustrations furnished from the history of his people; a doctrine which is not only unsound and untrue, but absurd in the extreme.

If, on the other hand, the gentleman means to be understood as insisting that the history of the church since the close of the canon of inspiration must be made to teach the faith which we hold as one which has always been entertained by the church, and therefore sound, we repudiate, in the name of Protestantism, this most pernicious view, and in all matters of practical duty, such as Sabbath-keeping, we decide according to the written word. To the first source (church history), the gentleman has appealed, and if every candid man and woman who has witnessed his effort has not been disgusted with the source to which he has applied, then we know of nothing which would be calculated to create in him this condition of mind.

With the summary, in which it is claimed that Christ, and the apostles, and the Holy Spirit, and the early church, did repeatedly honor the first day of the week, we will not weary the reader here. We have disproved every one of these points, and we trust to the intelligence of those whom we are addressing, in the confident belief that what has been said, in the absence of even an attempt at refutation, needs not to be reproduced here.

We had barely mentioned, in our original articles, that Seventh-day Adventists held to the opinion that the pope of Rome had been instrumental in bringing about the change of the Sabbath. No effort was made to develop the argument on that point, since we did not dare to presume that room would be granted for the perfecting of the work; in fact, what was said was uttered rather with a view to calling the attention of the curious to our published works upon that subject, than for any other purpose. Now, however, this point is made to assume a prominence which does not really belong to it, in an argument so largely doctrinal rather than historic.

With this, nevertheless, we have no fault to find. Nothing is more satisfactory than the awakening of a spirit of investigation on all branches of this great subject; at the same time, we submit that the attitude of the gentleman must be very unsatisfactory to himself, since he will readily perceive that to an opponent, chafing under a denial of the privilege of answering him in the columns of his own paper, this whole affair wears the aspect of an empty bravado. “Tell us,” says the editor, and he repeats his invitation again and again, “Whom did this little horn represent? Was it Antiochus? or the pope? If the latter, then how, and when, and where, did he bring about the transition?”

But we reply, Whom do you mean, sir, by the term, “us”? Truly, you would not require us to come to Philadelphia to enlighten you personally upon that point. Certainly, you are not particularly anxious that we should write a series of articles for the benefit of the readers of the _Review_, on a matter with which they are as familiar as they are with the history of their own country; but if, indeed, you had in your mind the readers of the _Statesman_, then it may be inquired again, How has it been possible for us to reach them, under the circumstances? since, throwing your forces behind the wall of your editorial prerogative, and closing against us the gate of possibility, you have shut us out from all access to them. Gladly would we have availed ourselves of the opportunity of doing that which we have been denied the privilege of attempting before the men, many of whom, we believe, would have been glad to follow this matter to the end; but as this cannot be done, a brief reply will be made here.

The first inquiry, relating, as it does, to the point whether Antiochus Epiphanes or the pope, was meant by the “little horn,” in the seventh of Daniel, need not consume time. It has been urged by some that the “little horn,” of Dan. 8:9, applied to the former character. We believe the papists still insist upon this; but the gentleman, upon reflection—if in what he has said he has confounded the two—will not seriously argue against the almost universal admission of Protestant writers, that the power brought to view in the seventh chapter of Daniel’s prophecy, is that of the papacy. In fact, reasoning as he does himself, most satisfactorily, that it could not arise until after the appearance of the original ten, which represented the final breaking up of the Roman Empire into ten parts, he more than intimates his personal conviction that it could not represent Antiochus Epiphanes, who reigned one hundred and seventy-five years before Christ, since the Roman Empire was not partitioned among the barbarians who invaded it, until A. D. 483, more than six hundred years after the death of the Syrian king.

The following, from a standard authority, will serve to show an almost universal agreement on this subject; and with its presentation we pass to the investigation of questions more difficult, and more worthy of our reflection. “Among Protestant writers, this (‘the little horn,’ of Dan. 7:8) is considered to be the popedom.”—_A. Clarke, Com. in loco._

“To none can this (‘He shall speak great words againt the Most High’) apply so well, and so fully, as to the popes of Rome.”—_Idem_, v. 25.

The real point of debate, as intimated above, is the question whether the Roman Catholic church has been instrumental in bringing about the change of the Sabbath. The gentleman errs in asserting that we have anywhere stated that such a change was brought about by any particular officer or council. This we have never urged, nor does it accord with the view held by us. The “little horn” represented, not one, merely, but a whole line of priest-kings, who were to extend from the time of their rise, to the Judgment, and the setting up of the kingdom of God. Of this line of rulers, it is stated—not that they should really succeed in bringing about an actual change in the requirements of the law of God—but that they should “_think_” to accomplish this end. It is also said that, for a time, times, and dividing of time (1260 years), the saints of God and the law of God should be delivered into their hands. Not, indeed, that God would forsake either his people or his law, utterly, but that, for the period in question, they should be permitted to pursue a course destructive to the one, and antagonistic to the other. In other words, that they should put to death the saints, and presume to alter the commandments of God.

These specifications are simply introduced by way of identification. It is not said that the power indicated should spring into life suddenly, and without a previous stage of development; nor is it declared that the principles which were to characterize it in its mature life should be wholly peculiar to itself. Other powers, such as pagan Rome, might have persecuted the people of God before the rise of the papacy, as they unquestionably did. Other men might have begun the work of tampering with the law of God, long before the days of the hierarchy, and might have prepared to its hands the materials necessary to the accomplishment of the final blasphemous work of the man of sin.

In the days of Paul, “the mystery of iniquity began to work,” and from that point, its history was one of gradual development. Some of the most destructive heresies afterward incorporated into the faith of papists, it is well understood, were fully fledged, and quite generally accepted, before the installation of the first pope. So, too, concerning the first-day Sabbath. There can be little doubt that before the bishop of Rome became the “Corrector of Heretics,” in A. D. 538, or entered the chair of St. Peter, the Sunday had come to be regarded, by many, as the rival, if not the superior, of the ancient Sabbath. Just how extensively the sentiment prevailed, however, it is hard to determine from church history, because, as has been shown in a previous article, the sources of our information have been so corrupted by unprincipled Romanists, that it is difficult to arrive at the facts in the case.

One thing is certain; there was a mighty struggle on this question, the gentleman to the contrary, notwithstanding, which has left the marks of its existence in the records of the past. Clear down to the rise of Roman Catholicism, there were men who were strenuous for the observance of the seventh day, and rejecters of its rival. Doubtless the Sunday, by slow degrees, had worked itself into almost universal acceptance as a festival resting upon human, and not divine, authority; but the Sabbath of the Lord still continued in the faith of many, especially in the East, as a day to be sacredly devoted to the worship of God. On this point, Neander, the learned church historian, has given distinct and unequivocal utterance:—

“The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intention of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect; far from them and from the early apostolic church to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century, a false application of this kind had began to take place; for men appear, by that time, to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.”—_Rose’s Translation of Neander_, p. 186.[15]

Giesler also remarks as follows: “While the Christians of Palestine, who kept the whole Jewish law, celebrated, of course, all the Jewish festivals, the heathen converts observed only the Sabbath, and in remembrance of the closing scenes of our Saviour’s life, the passover, though without the Jewish superstitions. Besides these, the Sunday as the day of our Saviour’s resurrection, was devoted to religious worship.”—_Church Hist., Apostolic Age to A. D. 70._

Lyman Coleman, in his “Ancient Christianity Exemplified,” testifies as follows: “The observance of the Lord’s day as the first day of the week was at first introduced as a separate institution. Both this and the Jewish Sabbath were kept for some time; finally, the latter passed wholly over into the former, which now took the place of the ancient Sabbath of the Israelites. But their Sabbath, the last day of the week, was strictly kept in connection with that of the first day for a long time after the overthrow of the temple and its worship. Down even to the fifth century, the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church, but with a rigor and solemnity gradually diminishing, until it was wholly discontinued.... Both were observed in the Christian church down to the fifth century, with this difference, that in the eastern church, both days were regarded as joyful occasions; but in the western, the Jewish Sabbath was kept as a fast.” Chap. 26, sect. 2.

Wm. Twisse, whose antique style comports with that of the period in which he wrote, most pointedly declares the same fact in a work entitled, “The Morality of the Fourth Commandment:” “Yet for some hundred years in the primitive church, not the Lord’s day only, but the seventh day also, was religiously observed, not by Ebion and Cerinthus only, but by pious Christians also, as Baronius writeth and Gomaius confesseth, and Rivut also.” Page 9, London, 1641.

Morer, in speaking of the early Christians, remarks of them as follows: “The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons, and it is not to be doubted but they derived the practice from the apostles themselves.”—_Morer’s Lord’s Day_, p. 189.

Edward Brerewood, professor in Gresham College, London, writes: “The ancient Sabbath did remain, and was observed by the Christians of the east church above three hundred years after our Saviour’s death, and besides that, no other day, for more hundred years than I spoke of before, was known in the church by the name of the Sabbath.” Page 77, ed. 1631.

Prof. Stuart, in speaking of the period between A. D. 321 and the council of Laodicea, A. D. 364, furnishes the following interesting statement, which discloses the historic fact concerning the ebb and flow of discussion on this subject in the early church: “The practice of it [the keeping of the Sabbath], was continued by Christians who were jealous for the honor of the Mosaic law, and finally became, as we have seen, predominant throughout Christendom. It was supposed at length that the fourth commandment did require the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath [not merely a seventh part of time], and reasoning as Christians of the present day are wont to do, viz., that _all_ which belongs to the ten commandments was immutable and perpetual, the churches in general came gradually to regard the seventh-day Sabbath as altogether sacred.”—_Appendix to Gurney’s Hist. of Sabbath_, pp. 115, 116.

Concerning the same council, Prynne has made a similar historic record; “The seventh-day Sabbath was solemnized by Christ, the apostles, and primitive Christians, till the Laodicean Council did, in a manner, quite abolish the observance of it.... The Council of Laodicea, A. D. 364, first settled the observance of the Lord’s day, and prohibited keeping of the Jewish Sabbath, under an anathema.”—_Dissertation on the Lord’s Sabbath_, pp. 33, 44, ed. 1633.

In alluding to the differences in practice between the eastern and the western churches, Neander distinctly sets forth the resolute animosity of the latter to the ancient Sabbath of the Lord, and the manner in which they sought to bring it into disrepute, while elevating the Sunday into favor. He says: “In the western churches, particularly the Roman, where opposition to Judaism was the prevailing tendency, this very opposition produced the custom of celebrating the Saturday as a fast day. This difference of customs would, of course, be striking, where members of the Oriental church spent their Sabbath day in the western church.”—_Hist. Chris. Rel. and Church, First Three Centuries. Rose’s trans._, p. 186.

Peter Heylyn also marks the peculiar favor shown to the first day of the week in the western church; and while he declares at one time that it was near “nine hundred years from the Saviour’s birth before restraint of husbandry on this day [Sunday] had been first thought of in the east,” he elsewhere records the fact that in the fifth and sixth centuries general unanimity respecting the exaltation to divine honor was reached. He writes: “The faithful, being united more than ever before, became more uniform in matters of devotion, and in that uniformity did agree together to give the Lord’s day all the honors of a holy festival, yet this was not done all at once, but by degrees, the fifth and sixth centuries being fully spent before it came unto that hight which has since continued. The emperors and the prelates in these times had the same affections, both earnest to advance this day above all others; and to the edicts of the one, and to the ecclesiastical constitutions of the others, it stands indebted for many of those privileges and exemptions which it still enjoyeth.”—_Hist. Sab._, part 2, chap. 4, sect. 1.

Thus it has been proved, by citations from men who have possessed the resources, as well as the disposition, to make themselves acquainted with the history of the first centuries of the Christian church, first, that the first day of the week was looked upon for a long time as a merely human institution; secondly, that the Edenic Sabbath was for centuries after the crucifixion of Christ quite generally celebrated; thirdly, that prejudice against it seems to have been strongest and to have originated earliest at Rome, where, in order to bring it into odium, it was made a day of fasting, while the Sunday was treated as a festival; fourthly, that after a struggle, which extended through hundreds of years, the ancient Sabbath was finally quite generally repudiated, and the Sunday, through the united efforts of prelates, councils, and emperors, was enthroned and enforced upon all.

Into the details of this long and varying conflict, in which victory seems first to have favored the one side and then the other, we are restricted by the limits of our communication from entering. The intelligent reader can readily fill in the outlines which have been given, and will not be slow to perceive that the contest, from the very nature of things, must have been one of intense interest and heated debate. If he would satisfy himself most fully that the gentleman is mistaken in saying that it has left no traces, we refer him for a more full discussion to the authorities quoted.

Changing now the point of view, we will come to the present time. We return once more to the charge that the church of Rome, availing itself of the condition of things which preceded its rise, has consummated the terrible work which was begun with the great apostasy, long before the papacy proper was fully developed. In prosecuting the labor thus entered upon, the reader is invited to pause a moment and decide upon certain principles which ought to govern in the decision of the question. He will remember that if he has been educated in the observance of Sunday, he will be in danger of requiring more testimony than could reasonably be demanded, since his education, and personal interest, and standing, would all incline him to a conservatism which needs to be guarded with a jealous care, lest it should result in a bias which would terminate in the rejection of sufficient light.

All that we ask him to do is to treat this subject the same as he would any other matter of fact. To illustrate: If the body of a murdered man were discovered upon the street, and if there should be found in the community one whose character was bad in every respect, concerning whom those who knew him best had given warning; if on the garments of this suspicious personage blood stains were found; if, in the meantime, a careful examination of the wounds should show that they had been inflicted by a weapon peculiar to the notorious individual; and if, in addition to the foregoing, he should step forward and frankly confess that he had done the deed, no court in the world would hesitate to inflict the penalty of the law, because of any doubt regarding the guilt of the offending party. Now applying the same principles to the case in hand, if every one can be shown to hold good in every particular, then consistency demands that they should produce a conviction equally clear and strong with that in the mind of the court, in determining in the case of the homicide upon the infliction of punishment.

But is it true that the charge against the Roman Catholic church can be made out as conclusively as that against the individual mentioned above? Let us see. The first point there brought forward was the unquestionable fact that the man had been murdered. This was the starting point of the whole affair. That which answers to it in the case before us is the fact that the change of the Sabbath has been made out beyond reasonable doubt; for God commanded the observance of the seventh day, while, somehow, Christendom is generally observing the first, though utterly incapable of furnishing Scripture warrant for the change.

The second point was that respecting the bad reputation of a certain character in the community—its parallel in the persons of the popes is found in the fact that, as we have seen, their rise and history were symbolized centuries before their appearance under the type of the “little horn” of the seventh of Daniel, by one who never errs in his analysis of character, and who declared of the “man of sin” that he should “think to change times and laws,” and that they should be given into his hands for “a time and times and the dividing of time,” thus proving that this blasphemous power who was to open his mouth in blasphemy against God is capable of attempting the transfer of God’s holy Sabbath to a day different from that pointed out in the commandment.

The third point, which related to blood stains upon the garments of the suspected person, finds its counterpart in the teachings of Romanism, most clearly. We learn, in the writings of Moses, that the blood is the life of the individual. This, however, is not more true than it is that the fourth commandment is the life of the Sabbatic institution. If you mar that commandment, you mar the Sabbath in the same ratio. If you destroy that commandment, you destroy the Sabbath. But the assumed ability to alter this precept as well as others of the decalogue is one of the very crimes of which Rome has been guilty, by which she has blotched all over in the most loathsome manner the garments of a once spotless Christianity, and a profoundly reverent faith. That this is so will become manifest when we present a copy of the decalogue as it has been mutilated by the Romish church in the exercise of a pretended divine right to accomplish such a work. For this purpose we append the ten commandments as they stand in Butler’s catechism.[16]

“1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me, &c. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 3. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day. 4. Honor thy father and thy mother. 5. Thou shalt not kill. 6. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 7. Thou shalt not steal, 8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. 9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife. 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.”

Hero it will be seen that the second commandment is dropped out altogether, and that the tenth is divided; a portion of it retaining its ancient number, and the remaining portion of it being numbered as the ninth commandment, thereby making the complement of the original ten, which would have been reduced to nine by ignoring the one against image worship. It will also be perceived that with the exception of the words, “Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day,” the fourth commandment is left out entirely. True, it may be that in the Douay Bible the original commandments are allowed to remain intact, but we shall see hereafter that the above arrangement is not accidental, and that the power to make these changes is unhesitatingly claimed.

The fourth point was that concerning the form and nature of the wound, whereby it was discovered that it was made with a weapon precisely such as one possessed by the suspected party. The correspondence in this particular will be found in the boundary of the new Sabbath; in its beginning and ending, occurring as they do at twelve o’clock, midnight, are the unmistakable marks of the band of one who most assuredly did not live at Jerusalem, and who left upon the creature of his own power the badge of its origin at Rome.

The Jews, as we have seen heretofore, by the agreement of commentators and scholars generally, as well as by the testimony of the Bible, commenced and ended their days with the setting of the sun. At Rome, on the other hand, as well as in other parts of the world, the day began as we now begin the Sunday—at midnight. In this, it is made apparent that some one has been tampering with a day which it is claimed was hallowed by Christ eighteen hundred years ago; since, if it had originated at that time and in that place, it would have conformed in its beginning and ending to the weekly Sabbath, the day of Pentecost, and the other days in the Jewish calendar. The presumption concerning whom this person is, is already made out. The certainty respecting it will be established under the next heading.

The fifth point cited above was the confession of the culprit. Under ordinary circumstances, this alone would have made a conviction inevitable. Answering to it in the fullest degree are the oft-repeated declarations of Romanists, that they have changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, and that they had the ability and the right thus to do. Respecting these assumptions, we might introduce quotations almost without number, but we must content ourselves with a few brief but pointed ones.[17]

“_Ques._ What are the days which the church commands to be kept holy?”

“_Ans._ 1. The Sundays, or our Lord’s day, which we observe by apostolical tradition instead of the Sabbath. 2. The feasts of our Lord’s nativity, or Christmas day; his circumcision, or New Year’s day; the Epiphany, or twelfth day; Easter day, or the day of our Lord’s resurrection, with the Monday following,” &c.

“_Ques._ What was the reason why the weekly Sabbath was changed from the Saturday to the Sunday?”

“_Ans._ Because our Lord fully accomplished the work of our redemption by rising from the dead on Sunday and by sending down the Holy Ghost on Sunday; as therefore the work of our redemption was a greater work than that of our creation, the primitive _church_ thought the day in which this work was completely finished was more worthy her religious observation than that in which God rested from creation, and should be properly called the Lord’s day.”

“_Ques._ But has the church power to make any alterations in the commandments of God?”

“_Ans._ The commandments of God, as far as they contain his eternal law, are unalterable and indispensable, but as to whatever was only ceremonial they cease to oblige, since the Mosaic law was abrogated by Christ’s death; hence, as far as the commandment obliges us to set aside some part of our time for the worship and service of our Creator, it is an unalterable and unchangeable precept of the eternal law in which the church cannot dispense. But, forasmuch as it prescribes the seventh day in particular for this purpose, it is no more than a ceremonial precept of the old law which obligeth not Christians, and therefore, instead of the seventh day and other festivals appointed by the old law, the _church_ has prescribed the Sundays and holidays to be set apart for God’s worship, and these we are now obliged to keep in consequence of God’s commandment, instead of the ancient Sabbath.”

“_Ques._ What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday preferable to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday?”

“_Ans._ We have for it the authority of the Catholic church and apostolic tradition.”

“_Ques._ Does the Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?”

“_Ans._ The Scripture commands us to hear the church (Matt. 18:17, Luke 10:16), and to hold fast the traditions of the apostles. 2 Thess. 2:15. But the Scriptures do not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath. John speaks of the Lord’s day (Rev. 1:10); but he does not tell us what day of the week this was, much less does he tell us that this day was to take the place of the Sabbath ordained in the commandment; ... so that truly the best authority we have for this, is the testimony and ordinance of the church. And, therefore, those who pretend to be so religious of the Sunday, whilst they take no notice of the festivals ordained by the same church authority, show that they act by humor, and not by reason and religion, since Sundays and holy days all stand upon the same foundation, viz., the ordinance of the church.”—_Cath. Christian Instructed_, pp. 209-211.

“_Ques._ Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?”

“_Ans._ Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her—she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scripture authority.”—_Doctrinal Catechism._

“_Ques._ If keeping the Sunday be a church precept, why is it numbered in the decalogue, which are the commandments of God and the law of nature?”

“_Ans._ Because the substance, or chief part of it, namely, that the day be set apart for the service of God, is of divine right and of the law of nature; though the determining this particular day, Sunday, rather than Saturday, be a church ordinance and precept.”—_Abridgment of Chris. Doc._, pp. 57, 59.

Thus much for the connection of the papacy with the change of the Sabbath. The reader, repudiating the claim for apostolical tradition, which is of no value with Protestants, and rejecting as fallacious the assumed antiquity of the Roman Catholic church, will discover that there still remains the bold assumption of the ability on the part of that church to change the Sabbath, and also of the historic fact that it has done so. Mr. Gilfillan, while, of course, from his standpoint rejecting the notion that the pope has either in reality changed, or even possessed the ability to change, the divinely appointed day of rest, frankly acknowledges that he arrogates to himself the power so to do, in the following language:—

“Rome, professing to retain, has yet corrupted every doctrine, institution, and law of Jesus Christ, recognizing for example, the mediator between God and man, but associating with him many other intercessors; avowing adherence to the Scripture, but the Scripture as supplemented and made void by the writings and traditions of men; and, in short, without discarding the Lord’s day, adding a number of encumbering holidays, giving them in many instances an honor equal and even superior to God’s own day, and claiming for the ‘Vicar of Christ’ lordship even of the Sabbath.”—_The Sabbath_, p. 457.

Into the details respecting the fasts; the decrees of councils; the bulls of popes: the myths concerning the calamities which have befallen those laboring on the Sunday; the forgery of an epistle in its interests, which it was claimed fell from Heaven; and the astounding miracles with which the hierarchy has accomplished the prodigious task of making the transfer, we are not permitted to enter here, nor will it be required that we should do so. Any person acquainted with the arts usually employed at Rome will readily perceive the methods which she has called to her assistance. All that a reasonable man could possibly ask is found in the transition from one day to another, in the fact that the law of God was to be tampered with by a persecuting power which was to continue its oppressions of the saints of God for twelve hundred and sixty years, and in the further consideration that no persecuting power except that of Rome has ever continued for that length of time.

Concerning the decree of Constantine, the only place which we assign to it in the controversy between the friends of the Lord’s Sabbath and its rival, is that which it holds because of its having made the transition easy. The first day of the week being the one generally observed by the heathen and by this decree enforced by statute, had in its favor the practice and sympathy of the masses of men. This law, though passed by a heathen, and in the interest of the heathen religion, was, as would naturally have been the case, of great service to those who subsequently favored the change of day, since it gave to their effort not only the color, but also the material advantage, of legality; by it, men, under certain circumstances, were compelled to celebrate the day of the sun even though they had previously regarded that of the Lord. This, of course, was burdensome, and worked greatly to the advantage of the heathen festival.

One of two views must be taken of the statute of Constantine: If it were Christian, then it proves that Sunday observance, at the time of its passage, was exceedingly lax, since by its terms only men in the cities and towns were prohibited from laboring upon it, while those in the country were by it allowed and encouraged to carry on the vocations of the farm. If, on the other hand, it were heathen in its origin, then the suggestion that it recognizes the venerableness of the day of the sun, even at so early a period as that of its promulgation, is entirely without force, since it thereby becomes manifest that it received this dignifying appellation, not because it had long been venerated by the disciples of our Lord, but because from time immemorial it had been honored by the heathen—a doubtful compliment to the Christian Sabbath.

Footnote 15:

For the extracts given in this connection, the reader is referred to “Sabbath and Sunday,” by A. H. Lewis, and to “The History of the Sabbath,” by J. N. Andrews.

Footnote 16:

The commandments as given above are supposed to be repeated by the individual Romanist in response to the injunction, “Say the ten commandments of God.”

Footnote 17:

The following citations will be found in a small tract published at the “_Review_ and _Herald_” Office, entitled, “Who Changed the Sabbath?”

STATESMAN’S REPLY. ARTICLE TEN. THE PRINCIPLE AS TO TIME IN SABBATH OBSERVANCE.

Our readers will recollect that the chief difference between the second and the third theories of the Christian Sabbath, as we stated them in our last issue, is in reference to the question of time. Seventh-day Sabbatarians, on the one hand, maintain that the last one of the seven days of the week is _the_ sacred day, and that the observance of this very day is absolutely essential to the proper observance of the Sabbath of the Lord, and the keeping of the fourth commandment. On the other hand, we set forth what we believe to be the true theory of the Christian Sabbath, according to which the essential idea of the law of the Sabbath is the consecration to God of an appointed proportion of time—one day in seven, and not the essential holiness of any particular day.

We have already seen that the interpretation of the fourth commandment which insists on the essential holiness of the last day of the week would convict the risen Lord, and his inspired apostles, and the whole church of Christ, even in its purest days, of the violation of that precept of the divine law. But let us now examine a few practical points in connection with this second theory.

1. If the seventh day of the week is to be rigidly adhered to, as the law of the fourth commandment, it must be the seventh from the creation, in regular weekly succession. Will any seventh-day Sabbatarian venture to affirm that, through all the changes of our race, through all the breaks of history, through the bondage in Egypt, and the repeated captivities of God’s ancient people, to say nothing of the miracles in connection with Joshua’s victory, and Hezekiah’s sickness, unbroken succession of the weekly divisions of time has been maintained? Does the last day of our week answer, in an exact numbering of days, to the seventh day on which God rested after completing the work of creation? The interpretation which we are now considering demands this conformity to the fourth commandment in its letter. He would be a bold man indeed, who would affirm that his seventh day in this nineteenth century is the exact day which his own view of the law of the Sabbath would require him to keep holy. Our present first day may correspond to the original seventh day. Who knows?

2. But admit that these essentially holy twenty-four hours, at the close of each week, may be marked without doubt, how can all Christians in different parts of the world keep them? How can men in different longitudes and latitudes so mark off the week as to have it end with this intrinsically holy portion of time? The difference in local time in different parts of the earth is a fact familiar to every school-boy. The circumference of the earth, for the convenience of calculation, is divided into three hundred and sixty degrees. As the sun appears to make a circuit round the earth every time the earth rotates on its axis, that is, every twenty-four hours, the apparent motion of the sun from east to west will be fifteen degrees each hour. Let it be noon of the seventh day at any given point in our land, and it will be sunset ninety degrees east, and sunrise ninety degrees west. At what point of the earth’s surface shall men claim the right to have the seventh or holy day begin with their sunset or their midnight, and demand that all others east and west shall measure their holy day from so many hours before or after their own midnight or sunset, as their portion may require?

Or, again, in extreme northern and southern latitudes, where perpetual day and constant night alternate with the annual revolution of the earth, how shall the seventh day be marked? How shall this essentially holy day of twenty-four hours be known? As God, in his infinite wisdom, has seen fit to make our earth, and ordain the laws of its diurnal revolution on its axis, and its annual orbit round the sun, it is simply impossible for the inhabitants of the world to keep holy the same identical period of time. The interpretation of the law of the Sabbath at which we are looking is in conflict, therefore, with the laws of the solar system.

3. Our seventh-day friend, perhaps, retreats to his last refuge. There is no portion of absolute time essentially holy. That was never meant. Very well, then, what is meant? Why, that each one in his own longitude or latitude should observe the seventh day as it is measured by his own local time. We apprehend that, in some latitudes, the seventh day, measured by local time, running through some thousands of hours, would be a weariness to the strictest even of seventh-day Sabbatarians. But we will leave these extreme cases. They must keep holy the appointed proportion—one-seventh of their time. That must be the law of the Sabbath to them. But in the belt of the earth nearer the equator, local time, measured by the natural division of days, must be followed.

Now, let it be said, we have no desire to treat a serious subject lightly. But our friends insist on an interpretation of the fourth commandment which can hardly be treated seriously. We can scarcely blame Dr. Geo. Junkin for employing this shaft of ridicule. He says, substantially, suppose all our seventh-day Sabbatarians (and their number is not an insuperable objection to the experiment), having labored six days, according to the commandment, come to the night of Friday. By an excusable artifice, sponges, saturated with a powerful anæsthetic agent, are held to their noses, and they are laid up, in perfect unconsciousness, for a whole day beyond the close of their usual time of sleep. They awake, supposing it to be the seventh day of the week, as to them, so conscious intelligent beings, and subjects of law, it certainly would be to all intents and purposes. But in fact, by the actual measurement of time, it is the first day of the week. Might there not be in this way a practical solution of the whole difficulty?

But the actual rising and the setting of the sun may be insisted on whether our seventh-day advocates are conscious or not. Suppose, then, that one of them takes the now rather popular trip of a tour round the world. Going west at the rate of, say thirty degrees a week, starting from New York, he would lengthen each of his days from sunrise to sunrise—supposing the sun to rise at six o’clock, local time, all along the belt of his course—a little over seventeen minutes; and thus, keeping his own count of time, and observing every seventh solar day, on his return to New York at the end of twelve weeks, his seventh-day Sabbath would really be the first day of the week. Though he might not be _mentally_ converted to the first-day theory of the Christian Sabbath, he would at least be _physically_ converted, and would either be compelled to accept the change, or make a week of six solar days to harmonize in Sabbath observance with his seventh-day brethren at home, or take to his journeying again, and complete the circuit of the earth in the opposite direction, in order to maintain unbroken the succession of weeks of seven days each, and have his Sabbath fall on the one and only day which will suit his interpretation of the fourth commandment.

If, instead of going by the west, our traveler should go by the east, journeying at the same rate of thirty degrees each week, he would diminish the length of each of his days a little over seventeen minutes, and on arriving once more at New York, at the end of twelve even weeks by the time of that city, but twelve weeks and one day by his own time, his seventh-day Sabbath would fall on the sixth day of the week, and we would have a new order of Sabbatarians.

The reason of the diversity is obvious. The trip around the world, according to the supposed rate of travel, would occupy just twelve weeks, or eighty-four days of twenty-four hours each, measured by local time at New York. The total number of hours, reckoning each day twenty-four even hours, would be 2,016. The traveler, proceeding westward at the rate of thirty degrees a week, would add to each day’s length just seventeen and one-seventh minutes—making each day from sunrise to sunrise, reckoning this always at six o’clock, local time, twenty-four hours, seventeen and one-seventeenth minutes long. He would, therefore, in the whole number of hours of his trip, 2,016, see the sun rise only eighty-three instead of eighty-four times. Going east, he would shorten each day’s length, reducing it from sunrise to sunrise, to twenty-three hours and forty-two and six-seventh minutes. In this case, the whole number of hours, 2,016, would divide up into eighty-five solar days. To one remaining at New York, there would be eighty-four solar days; to the one going west around the world, the same absolute time would be summed up in eighty-three solar days; and to the one going east, it would extend itself to eighty-five solar days. Thus at the close of every trip round the world, the Christian traveler or sailor must readjust the reckoning of his days, in order to observe the Lord’s day with his brethren at home. When our Constitution shall have been amended, and a true Christian regard shall be shown to all citizens, if our seventh-day friends feel grievously oppressed by the Sabbath laws, which will then be no dead letter, we shall do our utmost to have the national government provide a number of comfortable vessels, and give our friends a gratuitous trip round the world. We shall take care that the officers are instructed not to sail by the east; for our seventh-day Sabbatarians would then go away only to come home and be sixth-day Sabbatarians. Due care will be taken to have them proceed in the right direction, and to induce them on their return to stay at home, and government’s oppression of them by Sabbath laws will then forevermore have ceased.

In all seriousness, we ask, How can a thoughtful man, in view of the fact of the earth’s revolution round the sun, and its effect on the measurement of time, hold to the second theory of the Christian Sabbath? We have a matter of fact to record just here. In 1790, nine mutineers from the English vessel, the Bounty, along with six men and twelve women from Tahiti, landed on what is known as Pitcairn’s island in the Pacific Ocean. John Adams, one of the mutineers, after the violent death of the other men, was converted by reading a copy of the Bible, and became a true Christian. Keeping his own count of the days, he observed the weekly Sabbath, with the community which was growing up, and which he was at great pains to instruct in the Christian religion. Some time after, an English vessel visited the islands, keeping their count of the days. The officers and crew of this vessel landed at the island on Saturday, but, to their astonishment, found a Christian community keeping the Christian Sabbath. The original settlers and the visitors had gone to the island in different directions. Did the sailors, who kept one day, not observe the Sabbath? Or did the islanders, who kept another day, violate the fourth precept of the decalogue?

Two colonies of seventh-day advocates might leave the same port, one going east and the other west, and might locate on islands on the same parallel of longitude, but on different parallels of latitude. Each, keeping its own record of time, would be found, on settling in their permanent home, to be observing a different day as the weekly Sabbath. Would either colony admit that it was in the wrong? If they were to live apart, each might properly observe its own day; if together, would it matter which day might be observed?

Thus the principle as to time in Sabbath observance insists, not on the essential holiness of any twenty-four hours in themselves, but on the dedication to God of one day in seven, one seventh of the time as nearly as that proportion can be measured by the most convenient means available. This, the third theory does, while it accepts all the facts of history. With one more article, in favor of the third theory of the Christian Sabbath, we shall close this whole discussion.

A REJOINDER. “THE PRINCIPLE AS TO TIME IN SABBATH OBSERVANCE.”

Were it not true that we had long since ceased to be surprised at anything which an individual could say when opposing the claims of the Lord’s Sabbath, after having received the light concerning them, our astonishment at the position taken by the gentleman of the _Statesman_, in the foregoing article, would have no bounds.

To one who has followed him thus far in an elaborate argument, running through a series of nine communications, all for the purpose of establishing, from both Scripture and history, the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, and the obligation under which all men are now placed to observe the latter instead of the former, it will be extremely difficult to explain, on grounds honorable to himself, this sudden repudiation of all which he has said in the past, while endeavoring to defend the newly found theory of the observance of one day in seven, to the exclusion of any definite day whatever.

In his second article, he says, “We are concerned here and now simply with the transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week.” In the third article, when speaking of apostolic times, he remarks again, “It was also seen that while the observance of the seventh day was not continued, another day of the week, the first, took its place as the stated day for religious assemblies and services.” Farther on, he writes again, as follows: “On the last seventh day on which the disciples rested, according to the commandment, the Lord himself is lying in the tomb. The glory of the seventh day dies out with the fading light of that day, throughout the whole of which the grave claimed the body of the Redeemer. But the glory of the Sabbath of the Lord survives. It receives fresh luster from the added glories of the Lord of the Sabbath. ‘The Stone which the builders refused has become the head of the corner.’ It is very early in the morning, the first day of the week. Again, ‘God said, Let there be light; and there was light’ The Sun of Righteousness has risen with healing in his wings. This is the day which the Lord has made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. The first day of the week has become the Lord’s day.”

But we must cease from our quotations, for them is no limit to expressions synonymous with the above. Not only so, but were additional proof necessary, by more ample extracts, it could be made to appear that the whole theory of his defense, as already declared, has rested entirely upon the change of the day from the seventh, which was observed till the death of Christ, to the first, which was honored especially by our Lord, by his personal appearance to the disciples on the first and second Sundays following the resurrection, and by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, with the especial view of teaching the disciples that it had become holy time; also, that they, grasping the moral of the lesson imparted by example, if not by positive precept, inculcated the doctrine of the change, and made it binding upon all.

If we are right in this, and the reader who has followed the debate thus far will unhesitatingly admit that such are the facts, then, of course, the gentleman is arrayed against himself in a manner most distasteful, no doubt, to his personal feelings, as well as disastrous to his polished logic; for to the mind of the merest school-boy it must be apparent that a change of Sabbath from one day of the week to another, involves the definiteness of the day thus honored; _i. e._, if the first day of the week is now the Christian Sabbath because of the nature of events which transpired upon it in particular, then, of course, it occupies that position to the exclusion of all other days; but this utterly demolishes the seventh-part-of-time theory, which the gentleman has adopted, the very essence of which is, that there is now no superiority in days, and the individual is left free to choose any one which may best accord with his tastes or subserve his interests.

Here, then, we come to a dead halt. Which shall we believe, the nine articles of the gentleman, or the tenth, which is in direct conflict with their teachings? Should we go by the bulk of the testimony, then we must decide that there is a definite day, according to the conviction of our opponent. But if he still holds to that doctrine, then that which he has said against the seventh-day Sabbath, on the ground that the earth is round, and, therefore, that the Edenic Sabbath could not be kept in all portions of it, is deprived of all its force. For, assuredly, if he believes that God now requires all men to honor the first day of the week, the world over, then he must admit that it is possible for them to do so.

But if it is possible for men both to find and to celebrate the first day of the week, on a round world, then, beyond all dispute, the same process which will enable them to do this, will also qualify them to locate and to observe the seventh-day Sabbath. For it is just as certain as mathematical demonstration can make it, that in a week consisting of seven days, having found the first of the number, in order to discover the last, you have but to take the one which preceded the known day, or, if you please, count forward six days from the one already established, and you have the last day of the Week to which it belongs.

So, too, with every objection urged in the communication. The one in regard to the difficulties which would be experienced in an attempt to keep the Sabbath of the commandment at the poles, is just as fatal to the first day as it is to the seventh. All this talk, also, in regard to the impossibility of preserving a correct count, and of the lengthening and shortening of the days, as the traveler passes from the east to the west, if it has any force at all, or even the semblance of force, must be met and answered equally by the observers of the so-called Christian Sabbath, with those of the Sabbath of the Lord. This being true, we might pause right here, and roll the burden onto the opposition. Having raised the dust which is blinding the eyes of the ignorant, yet conscientious, it would be but substantial justice for Sabbatarians to fall back and say to them, Take the field, gentlemen, and wrest from the hand of the infidel and the atheist the weapons with which you have armed them to be employed against you in the very work in which you are engaged; for, be it remembered that the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light, and they will readily perceive the advantage which they have gained by such doctrines and difficulties as those to which the gentleman has called their attention.

This, however, we shall not do, but shall ourselves, in due time, strike at the very root of the error, in the interest of a definite and universal day of holy rest. Before entering upon this work, nevertheless, there is a matter which concerns Sabbatarians most deeply, to which attention should be directed.

The gentleman and his friends are pressing upon the nation the necessity of the Constitutional Amendment—contrary to his former declaration, in which he said there was no necessary connection between the Sabbath and the amendment. He now justifies our strictures upon the disingenuousness of his argument, by deliberately stating, in the article before us, with an air of triumphant exultation, that, the amendment once secured, the Sabbath laws in this country will then cease to be a dead letter. By this, he means, of course, that they will be carried into operation. But what are those Sabbath laws? They are laws enforcing the first day of the week, in nearly every State in the Union.

Now, we believe that what the gentleman says will be fulfilled; but right here is the proper place to offer a solemn protest. Will the gentleman fine and imprison my brethren and myself for disregarding the first day of the week, after having conscientiously kept the seventh? If so, we ask for the logic by which such a course could be justified, on the ground that the seventh-part-of-time theory is correct? Now, mark it, the object of the amendment is to make the Bible the fountain of national law. All the enactments of the Congress and all the decisions of the judiciary are to be in harmony with it. If, therefore, Sabbath laws are passed, they must be such as the Scriptures would warrant; for the Sabbath, be it remembered, which this movement seeks to enforce, is the one which the Bible teaches.

But, according to the last theory, the day which God now requires to be observed is not any one in particular, but simply one in seven, the individual being left to make the selection of the one which he prefers thus to honor. Now, therefore, it is submitted that if God has given to man this prerogative of choice, then be has done so because this course was the one which commended itself to infinite wisdom, and no person or set of persons has a right to come between the creature and the Creator, depriving the former of rights which the latter has guaranteed to him. If the Bible Sabbath is indeed an indefinite one, we say to these gentlemen, Hands off; in the name of religion and the Bible you shall not perform a work which twill do violence to a large class of conscientious citizens, and which, according to your own argument, is contrary to the doctrine of the Christian Sabbath, as laid down in the word of God. Be consistent with yourselves and your views of Scripture.

If, indeed, you are sincere in believing that Sabbatarians violate no divine law in the keeping of the seventh day, then we say to you in the name of charity, Why not allow them, so long as they are Christian men and women, and obedient citizens, to carry out their convictions of duty, without compelling them, by the appliances of persecuting legislation, to keep the particular first-day Sabbath which indeed you have chosen for yourselves, but for which you have now ceased to claim any special divine honor? To form them, either to disregard their own convictions of duty, or to keep two days holy, would lie an act of despotism but one remove from that terrible bigotry which, in the Inquisition, resorted to the rack and the thumbscrew; not, indeed, to make men better Christians or better citizens, but to coerce them into the acceptance of institutions for which there was no divine authority.

But we must pans to the consideration of other points. To the objection that the seventh day may have been lost since creation, and that he is a bold man who would affirm his ability to locate it now, it may be replied that, while Sabbatarians claim for themselves no unusual amount of courage, they do insist that it is an easy matter to demonstrate the succession of weeks, and the proper place of the original seventh day in the septenary cycle at the present time. The way in which this may be done is as follows: At the creation of the world, God blessed and sanctified the seventh day, because that on it he had rested. At the exodus from Egypt, he gave to the people a written law, enforcing the Sabbatic observance of the day on which he had originally ceased from his labors. On the sixth, Moses said to the people, “To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.” For forty years subsequent to this, God marked out this day from the others by causing that no manna should fall upon it whatever, whereas it fell upon every other one of the seven.

Thus we have the authority of God himself, who assuredly could not mistake, that the people of Israel, in the outset, had committed to them the original seventh day, since God not only gave them a Sabbath, but also, according to the reason of the commandment, the Sabbath of the Lord. Descending the line of history to the days of Christ, we find him declaring that he had kept his Father’s commandments (John 15:10). But one of these commandments was that relating to the Sabbath; in order, therefore, to the proper observance of it, Christ must have been able to decide which day in the week it was. That this was the case, none will dispute. Thus the day is located in his time satisfactorily, since he kept the same one which the Jews regarded, and which preceded the day of his resurrection. From that time to this, we have the general agreement of Jews, Christians, and heathen, in regard to the precise place in the week of both the first and the seventh day. Surely, this is all which could be demanded in order to reach reasonable certainty.

The difficulty which the gentleman finds in harmonizing the will of God, as expressed in the law of nature and that of a definite Sabbath for the people living near the poles, is apparently possessed of some force. It is, however, not peculiar to him. These barren wastes of ice and snow, though far removed from our civilization, are apparently destined to figure as largely in the spiritual world as they do in that of scientific research; not only on the Sabbath question, but also in that of baptism, it has a part to act. Think, says the advocate of sprinkling, as a shudder runs through his whole system, think of an immersion administered in the regions of eternal ice. Then having suitably impressed his auditors with the physical difficulties in the way of Bible baptism, he concludes that God never could have ordained immersion as the only method, since it is impracticable in the extreme north, and God surely would have commanded a form of ordinance which could be carried out in all parts of the world.

In harmony with this line of deduction is the difficulty stated by our friend. Chiming in with the theory that the laws of nature and the law of God must run harmoniously together, it is shown that at the poles the days and nights are six months long; and, therefore, that a twenty-four hour Sabbath, definitely located upon the last day of the week, is out of the questions. The conclusion drawn is that, as the theory of the seventh-day Sabbatarians is in conflict with the ordinance of nature in these portions of the globe, it must be contrary to the original design of God.

But pause a moment; suppose we should grant that in the region in question there are men who cannot keep the seventh-day Sabbath as originally ordained, does that prove of necessity that it ought not to be hallowed in those portions of the world where there is no difficulty in the way of its observance? We think not. To illustrate: Were a man to pass his life in a coal mine, hundreds of feet beneath the surface, laboring continually, and never seeing the sun at all, would he, therefore, be exempted from the definite Sabbath? You answer, No. But why is this reply returned? Manifestly, because the difficulty is not with God and Isis laws, or the sun, but with the individual who has voluntarily placed himself under abnormal circumstances. In other words, he has located himself where the God of nature never designed that he should, and, in so doing, he has himself created a difficulty which he himself can remove.

So, too, with the Northman. If he finds it impossible to keep a Sabbath which is most perfectly adapted to the wants of mankind, it is simply because he has placed himself in a region which God has doctored waste and uninhabitable as emphatically as can be done by nature speaking through the language of eternal ice and snow, and the disappearance for six months in a year of that great luminary whose light and heat are so indispensable to the comfort and advancement of the race. But, if this is true, then the argument from the conflict between the law of the God of nature and that of revelation, concerning a definite day of rest, loses all of its force; for the whole trouble arises, not from any want of adaptation on the part of such a rest to the circumstances of those who are where God would have them located, but from a disregard, in the first place, on the part of the nations in question, of the manifest law of prohibition to the settlement of regions which were designed to remain unoccupied.

Their relief can be found in one of two directions: They can, in the interest of their own progress, retrace their steps to localities where the more advanced portion of the race feel the genial influence of a diurnal sun; or, should they insist upon remaining in the bleak regions of their choice, it is possible for them, according to the accounts of travelers, to mark by the variations of the twilight, even in their six months’ night, the boundaries of the Sabbath and the week days as they come and go to those residing in more temperate regions.

It is now time to grapple with the theory that it is impossible for those traveling around the world and those living in different portions of it to keep one and the same day. The first thing to be settled is the matter of what is meant by the expression, “the same day.” Upon this point, the gentleman has wasted many words. We have never insisted upon the identical hours. All that we demand is that the mine day should be observed throughout the habitable globe, _i. e._, each individual should celebrate in his own particular locality the seventh day of the week as it comes to him in its passage round the earth—to use the language of common parlance.

Whether this can be done or not is a question which involves the wisdom of God; for, granting that he gave the fourth commandment as a Sabbath law, and the regulations concerning the Sabbath, as found in the books of Moses, there is no room for dispute that he understood the statute to enforce the keeping of a definite day, and not merely one-seventh part of time, In the sixteenth chapter of Exodus, where the Sabbath is first introduced, is found an excellent opportunity to test this matter. He there marks out the day which he had hallowed as the one which followed the sixth, and the only one on which no manna fell. For forty years, also, this practice of separating the day of his rest by a weekly miracle from all others was continued. But why should he have done this if there was no choice, and if the keeping of the seventh part of time was all that was necessary? Nay, more, why did he make it absolutely impossible for a man to celebrate any other day but the seventh day of the week? That he did so, we can prove in a few words.

We will suppose that a person entertaining the sentiments of the gentleman should have attempted to carry them out in the forty years during which God led the people in the wilderness; also, that his first experiment was that of Sunday rest. In this he would have failed utterly. Do you ask, How? I answer that God had decreed that no manna should fall on the seventh day (Ex. 16:26), and that the manna which was to be eaten on the Sabbath should be gathered on the day before (Ex. 16:5). It would therefore have been impossible for the individual in question to provide food for his Sunday rest. But, disgusted with this kind of Sabbath-keeping, suppose he should have tried, in order, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, the result would not have varied materially. On Sunday, there was an utter absence of all food; on the other days, that which had been previously gathered, instead of being fit for use, would have been found corrupted and changed into loathsome worms, since God had told the people that only the manna which was gathered on the sixth day should be kept until the day following; and some of them, having made the experiment of disobeying in the particular in question, found the result as cited above (Ex. 16:19, 20). On the other hand, should the same individual have decided finally to consecrate the seventh day of the week, he would have found no difficulty whatever. Gathering his double portion of the manna on the sixth day, by a miracle of God it would have been preserved pure and wholesome through the last day of the week.

But how can this be accounted for on the hypothesis that no particular day was chosen by the Lord? If, indeed, he had adopted the indefinite plan, and had left the people to choose for themselves, it is certain that he did this because it was the best method. But if it were the best method, and if it were in accordance with his view of the statute, then, assuredly, he would not have stultified himself and mocked the people by first granting them a privilege and then, by his providence, preventing them from carrying it out.

Should it be suggested that this law was confined to the land of Palestine and to the Jews in its operation, I answer; first, that at the time spoken of the people were in Arabia, not in Judea, and that even should that be granted, which is not true, viz., that the fourth commandment related simply to the Hebrews, this does not affect the question at all, for no one will insist that Jews were only obliged by it when in Judea. Wherever they might be, they were required to keep the Sabbath, whether in bondage in Assyria, or traversing the known world in quest of gain. From Spain to India, from Scythia to Africa, this law was designed to apply and did apply for hundreds of years before it will be even claimed that it was abolished. This being true, it is established beyond question that God himself imposed upon men, traversing the whole of the eastern continent, a uniform day of worship.

Do you inquire when they commenced it? I answer, At sunset, agreeably to the direction in Lev. 23:32. Did they go eastward to the Pacific, or westward to the Atlantic, they were required to commence their rest at that hour. Was it impossible for them to do so? He that says so charges God with folly. Were they capable of carrying out the requirement? Then, at least on the eastern continent, the definite day was a practicable thing. God knew how his people would be scattered; he gave them the institution of the Sabbath, adapted to whatever circumstances they might be placed in; he marked out that Sabbath from the rest of the week, and in the outset settled beyond controversy the question that it was not movable in its nature. Therefore, he who would accept the theory which we have been considering and repudiate the one which we indorse, must do it in the face of God’s explanatory providence, in the teeth of his written law, and against the practice of his people, Israel, who for centuries have had no difficulty in finding the Sabbath in every latitude.

So much for the law and its history, making clear, as it does, that our opponents do not understand the possibilities of the case as God looks upon them. We will now proceed to the consideration of the difficulties which they discover in the realization of our theory.

It is claimed that, in going around the world eastward, a day is gained; and in going around westward, a day is lost, to the traveler. From these premises it is argued that a definite day cannot be kept. Has it ever occurred to the gentleman that his own theory would be somewhat disturbed by the same trip? Mark it, it is exactly one-seventh part of time which is to be kept. It will hardly be urged that all the old watches in the land are reliable enough to be trusted in a journey of this length, and, besides, suppose we had lived in a period when such time-pieces were not known, then what? Oh! says the objector, we would have gone by the sun. Then you agree with us, after all, that the sun presents the most available method of marking the day; but remember, now, that you are on your journey round the earth, westward; you travel six days, each one considerably lengthened out by the fact that you are going with the sun; you stop and rest on the seventh day, which you call the Sabbath. Unfortunately, however, as you have been lying still, it is considerably shorter than your six days of work; by this means you have cheated the Lord out of one-seventh of the whole time which all of the six days had in excess over the one on which you rested. Traveling eastward, the opposite would be true, and your days of rest would be longer than your days of labor, and would not, therefore, represent one-seventh part of time.

Again, we might show by argument the complete anarchy into which the community would be thrown by the realization of this doctrine, that each man for himself is at liberty to fix upon his weekly Sabbath. Nothing would be easier to prove than that it would seriously obstruct your courts of justice; that it would render stated worship impossible; in fine, that it would bring confusion into every walk in life.

Do you reply that you will obviate the difficulty by legislative enactment, and that you will make this whole nation, from New York to San Francisco, regard the Sunday for the sake of uniformity and good order? I answer; first, have you then improved upon God’s great plan? Did he not know that a definite day would be the best, and would he not have been likely to give it to us? Secondly, then you admit that it is, after all, possible to keep one and the same day across the whole of this continent; for were this not true it would be idle for you to attempt to produce uniformity by legislation. But putting this concession of yours in regard to the western, alongside of God’s enforcement of a definite day for centuries, on the whole of the eastern, continent, the circuit of the globe is made, and the possibility of keeping a definite Sabbath on both hemispheres is established.

Before me lies the draft of an electrical clock, which is styled, “The clock of all nations.” The design is an ingenious one, and serves to show at a glance the difference in time between prominent cities in all parts of the globe. For this purpose, a central dial is drafted, representing the meridian of New York. The hands on this dial indicate the precise hour of noon. Around this central figure are arranged twenty additional dials, on each one of which is marked by the hands the time of day as it will exist in the cities named, commencing on the east of New York with Pekin, and terminating to the west of it with San Francisco. By it, you perceive at a glance the precise variation of time in the different longitudes to which these cities belong.

For example, while the clock of New York indicates twelve, noon, the one in Pekin indicates twenty minutes before one in the morning; the one in Rome, fifteen minutes to six P. M.; the one in London, five minutes of five P. M.; and so on until you reach New York, where it is twelve M. Then passing westward of that point, where the time is, of course, slower, the dial for Chicago marks seven minutes past eleven A. M.; that of St. Louis, five minutes of eleven A. M.; that in San Francisco, fifteen minutes before nine A. M. By this means, the variation between Pekin and San Francisco is shown to be about sixteen hours, or nearly two-thirds of one whole day. By the same method, the reader will at once discern that it is possible to locate the commencement of the day at any one of these points in its passage around the world.

In order to do this, let it be supposed that the day begins when it did in Bible times, with the setting of the sun. It is, if you please, Sunday at Pekin, and those who keep that day commence to celebrate it at sunset. Now, if we would ascertain just when the citizens of Rome would enter upon a like service, it is only necessary to determine how long it would take the sunset to travel the distance separating these two cities. By consulting the draft in question, we find that the time at Rome is six hours and fifty-five minutes slower than that at Pekin. This being the case, the sunset would reach them, and they would enter upon the first day of the week just six hours and fifty-five minutes after those dwelling on the meridian of Pekin have done so.

So we might go through the whole list. As the world revolves upon its axis, it would bring London to the same point where the people of Rome saw the sun sink in the west and entered upon the Sunday, just fifty minutes subsequent to that event. The citizens of New York would begin their Sunday, also, with the sunset, four hours and fifty-five minutes after those of London did so; and those of Chicago, fifty-five minutes later than those of New York; and those of San Francisco, two hours and twenty minutes subsequent to those of Chicago. All, however, would be hallowing the same day, though not, for a portion of the time, the same hours.[18] Each, in his own proper locality, would commence to keep the day when it reached him, and continue to keep it until by a complete revolution of the earth he is brought around to the commencement of another day, as indicated by another decline of the sun. This is as God would have it.

In the passage from Egypt to Palestine there was a variation of some minutes; but there was no change in the time of commencing the Sabbath. From even to even shall you keep your Sabbaths, was the divine edict, and his people, in going eastward or westward, obeyed this injunction. In doing so they needed no time-piece; nor would the traveler at the present time. In every habitable region, according to God’s plan, the great luminary of heaven visibly marks the boundaries of sacred time. The day began in the east, and travels to the west. A complete revolution of the earth brings it, with its complement of light and darkness, to the home of every man, no matter as to the meridian of longitude in which he lives. It is the same day, in the Bible sense, as that kept by the Christian thousands of miles to the east of him, though it may not begin at exactly the same moment.

Practically, this question has no real significance whatever. Though it may puzzle the brain of one who has not before him the facts, it has been settled forever in a most remarkable manner by the usage of mankind. The fact is beyond cavil that, from the extreme eastern boundary of the eastern continent to the extreme western verge of the western continent, there is such a perfect agreement upon this point that each day of the week, commencing on the western shore of the Pacific, continues its course across Asia, Europe, and America, until it arrives at the eastern shore of the same sea. So true is this that, were there a line of churches surmounted with bells, in hearing distance of each other, they could ring in the commencement of any day; say at Yokohama in Japan, and its march could be made known along the whole line from that place to San Francisco by a like practice in each of the churches, without a solitary break until the last bell on the Pacific coast had announced its arrival there. Whether it be admitted that it can be done or not, it is a fact that the Christians from China to California do observe the same Sabbath or Sunday all along the line between the two points.

Should it be replied that, although there is a uniform reckoning of the days to those passing from San Francisco eastward to China, or from China westward to San Francisco, that, nevertheless, should they cross the Pacific Ocean from San Francisco westward to China, or from China eastward to San Francisco, it would be necessary for them in the first case to add a day, and in the last, to drop one, in order to make their time harmonize with that of the people in these two countries, the reply is, that this is very true. It does not, however, prove that there is no definite day which can be kept alike by the inhabitants of the two continents; for in order to the keeping of the same day on a round world there must somewhere be a day-line, in other words, there must be a point where the day begins. In crossing that line the same result would ensue as that claimed in the passage from California to China _via_ the Pacific, _i. e._, a day must be either dropped or added in the reckoning of the individual making the transit.

We have already seen that God’s plan was to measure the days by the setting of the sun. This being the case, the fourth day, on which the sun was made, commenced at the precise point where at the time of its creation it would have appeared to a person to the east of it as sinking out of sight in the west. The day commencing at that point passed around the earth until every portion of it had in succession witnessed the setting of the sun on the fifth day. The only difficulty that remains in the case, consequently, is that of deciding where the day-line should be located. As already discovered, the practice of nations has fixed it in the Pacific Ocean. It is not a little remarkable that sailors change their reckoning while crossing that ocean backward or forward, and circumnavigate the globe at will without the slightest confusion. The only instance which has been cited in which any trouble has occurred, or any confusion of date has arisen, is that of Pitcairn’s Island, in which they failed to make the change under consideration.[19] Had they done this, they would have found themselves in harmony with the great mass of men living on the same meridian with their insignificant island.

The only matter of debate which remains is that concerning the proper location of the day-line. Has there or has there not been a mistake made in fixing upon the place where it belongs? Certain it is that the providence of God seems to harmonize with the present arrangement. Man commenced his existence in the east. The progress of empire has been westward. Emigration has carried with it a harmonious system of counting the days, by which they have been recognized as beginning on the eastern, and traveling to the western, continent. Especially is this true of the Christian world.

But, again, is there not, aside from this providential arrangement and from the universal opinion that the day does begin in the east, as well as the fact that scientific men have established the point of changing the reckoning somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, some additional reason for supposing that God would choose this locality for the beginning of the day? We answer, There is. Should the day-line run through any continent or large body of land, it will be readily perceived that it would produce great confusion, since, on the one side of it, though imaginary in its character, individuals would be keeping the seventh day of the week, while on the other, their neighbors in close proximity to them would not yet have made their exit from the sixth.

To avoid this difficulty, therefore, the only remedy which could be found would consist in the employment of some great natural boundary, such as a range of mountains or an expanse of water, by which those on one side of the day-line would be so separated as to prevent the disorder which must arise from constant and uninterrupted intercommunication. That there is any range of mountains stretching northward and southward from pole to pole which would answer the purpose in question, no one will insist. The only resource left, consequently, is that of those vast bodies of water called seas or oceans.

Turning now to the one which is known as the Atlantic Ocean, it is found that the day-line could not be run through it without intercepting some habitable portion of the globe. The only resource which remains is found in the Pacific Ocean, which, as has been seen, has been selected by the mass of mankind as a suitable place in which to make those changes that would be necessary in case the day-line was actually located therein. Happily, an examination of a large globe will prove that a line drawn from Behring’s Straits southward across the latitudes which are available for the homes of mankind will not touch any portions of land whatever, or at least if it strikes any they would be so insignificant in their character that they would not be worthy of mention.

With these remarks, the subject of the day-line is dismissed with the conviction that the necessity of its existence, the fact that it must be found in the Pacific Ocean if anywhere, and the uniform recognition in practice, if not in theory, by all nations, of its location in that sea, unite in furnishing a combination of facts which render assurance justifiable in the mind of one who does not insist upon more testimony than he ought to demand.

There remain now but two matters in the article of the gentleman which need to be disposed of. These are found in the contemptuous sneer at the insignificance of the numbers of Sabbatarians, and the witticisms, if such they may be called, which are indulged in in the employment of the suggestion concerning the use of the sponges saturated with stupefying chemicals and the gratuitous trip around the world, which it is proposed to give them.

To answer these sallies to the satisfaction of some would be impossible, while with others, possessing the power of logical discrimination and knowing that the office of mere wit is most frequently that of diverting the attention from a course of reasoning which it is felt cannot be met, such an effort would be uncalled for. The paucity in numbers is the same old, threadbare objection which every great reform has been compelled to meet since the world began. While the administration of narcotics and the trip round the world would be just as fatal to the exact observer of the seventh part of time as it would to one celebrating a definite day, even though it were admitted that the consequences of such a journey would be as claimed by the writer.

But besides all this, it will be discovered that the basis of the whole transaction, both in the case of the sponge and the vessel, is fraud, deceit, and force. Stupefy a man with narcotics for twenty-four hours; or nail him down under the hatches of a circumnavigating vessel; break the compass; send him round the world; let the whole community conspire to falsify the facts in the case; do not let him know where he has been; falsify the truth regarding the day observed by first-day keepers; and then, forsooth, you have changed the practice, if not convinced the judgment, of a little handful of conscientious, definite Sabbath-day keepers. Wonderful, gentlemen! Wonderful in the extreme! What results for such prodigious efforts! Alas, for truth, when it must pass such an ordeal as this! We blush, but not for ourselves. We would almost be willing to inhale the anæsthetic or run the hazard of the voyage at sea, taking our chances respecting the proper preservation of the Heaven-appointed day of rest, if, by so doing, we might prevent our brethren of the Amendment school, for whose welfare we have the most earnest desire, from making so sorry a show of the low estimate which they place upon the importance of employing in a controversy like this, arguments which appeal only to the Christian’s head and heart, instead of those which appeal to the baser faculties of the mind.

A summary of the ground traveled in this rejoinder would run somewhat as follows:—

1. That in adopting the seventh-part-of-time theory, the gentleman has abandoned the definite first day which he sought to establish in the first nine of his articles.

2. That the seventh-part-of-time theory is just as fatal to the Sunday as it is to the Sabbath.

3. That it overturns the practicability of the proposed Amendment, since it seeks to enforce a definite day, and since, according to it, Sabbatarians have a Bible right to observe the seventh day in the exercise of a divinely given choice of days.

4. That it is possible to establish the identity of the last day of the week at the present time with that upon which God rested at the completion of the emotion; from the providential manner in which God pointed it out in the exodus from Egypt; the fact that Christ and his disciples kept the Sabbath according to the commandment; the general agreement among Jews, Christians, and heathen concerning its place in the week from that time to this.

5. That the objection concerning the conflict between a definite Sabbath and the laws of nature at the poles does not array the God of nature against himself, or our version of his commandment, since the trouble does not imply any want of foresight on the part of the Deity, but rather a disregard of the plainest teachings of both providence and nature on the part of those who have placed themselves where it was never designed that men should locate.

6. That if a definite day is impossible, then the wisdom of God is impeached, since, both by the letter of the commandment and by his providential interpretation of it for forty years, that is the very thing which it inculcates.

7. That a definite day can be kept on the eastern continent, since this had been done for hundreds of years before the change of the law will be even claimed.

8. That a definite day can be observed on the western continent, since this is the very object which the Amendment is designed to secure.

9. That the trip around the world would render it as impossible to keep an exact seventh part of time as it would a definite seventh day.

10. That the seventh-part-of-time theory would introduce into society the direst confusion, defeating even the administration of justice.

11. That, practically, the whole world from the extreme east to the extreme west does keep a definite day.

12. That the loss and gain of time creates no disturbance except in the crossing of the Pacific Ocean.

13. That with a definite day, there must be a day-line.

14. That that day-line is, by the uniform practice of nations, and the providence of God, which renders it impossible that it should exist anywhere else, drawn through the Pacific Ocean.

15. That it only remains for us to do just what we are doing and have been doing for centuries in order to prove by actual demonstration that all the difficulties in the way of a definite Sabbath can be readily disposed of by those who are desirous of keeping the law of God as it reads.

Footnote 18:

By consulting the figures given above, the reader will be able to demonstrate, not only the fact that the inhabitants along the line from Pekin to San Francisco, can hallow the same day, but also that the day which they hallow will be identical in some of its hours. For example: It was shown that the people of Rome commence their day six hours and fifty-five minutes later than do those of Pekin. Deducting these six hours and fifty-five minutes from twenty-four hours we have left seventeen hours and five minutes as the period of time during which the citizens of these two cities would be celebrating the Sabbath in common. Applying the same principle to other cities, we find that London and Pekin would worship together for sixteen hours and fifteen minutes; New York and Pekin, eleven hours and twenty minutes; Chicago and Pekin, ten hours and twenty-five minutes; S. Francisco and Pekin, eight hours and five minutes.

Footnote 19:

The gentleman might have cited the case of Alaska, also, as a parallel to that of Pitcairn’s Island. The inhabitants of this region, like those of the island mentioned, sailed eastward to this continent across the Pacific Ocean, and failed to drop the required day in their reckoning. The result was, that when we purchased that territory, they were found to be keeping Saturday instead of Sunday. We believe, however, that the mistake is now rectified.

STATESMAN’S REPLY. ARTICLE ELEVEN. THE TRUE THEORY OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.

The third theory of the Christian Sabbath, in the order in which we have been considering the different theories, affirms that the Sabbath was instituted at the creation of man, and that it has never been abolished or superseded. This theory further maintains that the essential idea of the law of the Sabbath is not the holiness of any particular portion of time, but the consecration of a specified proportion of time, viz., one day in seven; that, in accordance with this essential idea of the Sabbath, a change of day was admissible; that a change was actually made by divine warrant, on account of, and dating from, the resurrection of Christ; and that the first day of the week, the Lord’s day, is the true Christian Sabbath, having its moral sanction in the fourth commandment.

Enough has already been written in these columns, in disproving the opposing theories, to show that this theory of the Sabbath is the true one. Two things being admitted, there appears to be no escape from this theory. Let it be admitted, first, that God instituted the Sabbath for all mankind, and that its law is of unchanging as well as universal application. This is readily conceded by those with whom we are now in discussion. Then, in the second place, let it be admitted that the inspired apostles, under the guidance of Christ and his Spirit, and with their manifest approbation, ceased to observe the seventh day, and actually observed the first day of the week. This our opponents are very loth to admit. But the testimony given by us at considerable length is simply overwhelming and incontrovertible. The third theory, and it alone, harmonizes the immutable law of the Sabbath with the actual change of day.

In further confirmation of the correctness of this theory, it remains for us, in concluding this discussion, to show that this third theory accords with the fourth commandment, and meets every aspect of the design of the institution of the Sabbath.

The principal feature of the design of the Sabbath is the setting forth of God’s sovereign control, as creator, of man and the time of man, as God’s creature. Called into being by the Creator, and made lord over the irrational and material creation, man was taught that his time was to be used for God’s honor. It was a trust from the Creator; and that man might not forget this, one-seventh of the time in regular recurrence was marked out to be consecrated specially to the Lord of all. This is the very idea in the commemoration of the work of creation. It is to keep alive the knowledge of God as the Creator and Sovereign Ruler of man. To commemorate the creation, is to keep before the mind, week by week, the duty of using our time for the honor of the Author and Upholder of our being.

Nor is the example of God’s resting the seventh day made insignificant by this theory of the Christian Sabbath. “In six days God made the heavens and the earth, and rested the seventh day.” God’s people in different parts of the world do and must begin their work at different times, and yet in each locality they labor six days and rest the seventh. It is the proportion of time which is the law of the commandment, enforced by the divine example; and hence the Christian Sabbath, in the true import of the commandment, is as really the seventh day as the Jewish Sabbath. The Christian labors six days, and not the seventh, according to the divine example and the divine command.

In this way, also, the true theory of the Christian Sabbath meets the design of the institution as it was intended to arrest the current of the outward life and lead up the soul to unseen and eternal verities. And here there is a most important argument for the change of the day for Sabbath observance. It is most reasonable to believe that, if there be any work which more gloriously manifests the perfections of God, and serves better to turn the thoughts of men to things above, than the work of creation, the day which commemorates such a work would be the appropriate time for Sabbath observance.

So far as the essential idea of the Sabbath connects itself with a particular day, the argument is of great weight in favor of a change from the seventh to the first day of the week. The weekly division is the main thing, let the week begin when it may. It may begin on what we now call the third, or fourth, or any other, day. It will matter little. But as the first day, in our enumeration of the days, will always bring to mind the great work of redemption, accomplished by the Saviour, who on the first day of the week rose from the dead, the observance of this day as the Sabbath best answers one of the principal designs of that institution.

And then, how fittingly does the observance of the first day, the day of the Lord’s resurrection, correspond to the design of the Sabbath as a foretaste of the heavenly rest—the _Sabbatismos_ or Sabbath-keeping that remains for the people of God. Rejoicing here on the Christian Sabbath in what our Redeemer has done for us, we look forward with joyful anticipations to the many mansions which he has gone before us to prepare, that we may be “forever with the Lord.”

“Bright shadows of true rest; some shoots of bliss; Heaven once a week; The next world’s gladness prepossessed in this, A day to seek

Eternity in time; the steps by which We climb above all ages; lamps that light Man through his heap of dark days; and the rich And full redemption of the whole week’s flight.

‘The milky way chalked out with suns; a clue That guides through evening hours; and in full story A taste of Heaven on earth; a pledge and cue Of a full feast; and the out-courts of glory.’”

A REJOINDER. “THE TRUE THEORY OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.”

It is a peculiarity of this discussion that we are prevented, in our rejoinders, from anticipating the positions which our opponent has in store for us. Were it possible to proceed upon principles of consistency, in debate, and conclude that he, having adopted such and such views, would continue to maintain them steadily for the future, there would be a sort of satisfaction found in preparing material to be employed hereafter. But we have learned, by actual experience, that in this debate such anticipatory action would be labor lost. For example: In the last reply, which had to do with the seventh-part-of-time theory, we had intended to show that, were it true, and that, were the observance of one day in seven all that is now required, even then Sabbatarians stood upon a footing as safe as that of their opponents, since the observance of the seventh day answered to the keeping of one-seventh part of time, equally with that of the celebration of the first day of the week.

Being prevented by want of space from indulging in these reflections, we laid them over for another week, supposing that they would come in play equally well at this time, Alas! what a mistake! We should have struck when the iron was hot. Unfortunately, we are not now confronting the no-day-in-particular doctrine, as we were then; but it is the “Lord’s day” again, the first day of an indefinite week, “a particular, definite day, enforced by the command and the example of Christ and the apostles,” which once more stands before us. How it is that we have been borne so rapidly over the space which separates these antagonistic positions, the reader will have to decide for himself; for we confess to a perfect want of ability, on our own part, to render him any assistance. Without the slightest attempt at logical deduction, we are first informed that the essential idea in Sabbath observance is not that of the keeping of a particular day, but the consecration of one day in the week, allowing the week to begin wherever it may. This, we are told, would suitably commemorate God’s rest at the creation of the world; and, also, that if, in addition, we make the day of our rest identical with the first day of the week, we can thereby celebrate both creation and redemption. For this very purpose, we are informed, the Sabbath commandment was changed, so as to admit of the introduction of a new day.

But pause a moment. Has the gentleman told us just what change was made? Has he told us what words were stricken out? and how it now reads? The reader has not forgotten that this is the very thing the opposition were challenged to perform. He will perceive that this, also, is the very thing which the gentleman has failed to accomplish, and cannot hereafter do, since the reply under review is the last of his series. If it be said that he has cited us to the fourth commandment, as given in the twentieth of Exodus, as containing the law as it now reads, then he is self-condemned; for he admits that the phraseology of that commandment did enforce a definite day, and that, the last day of the week.

But once more: Passing over the absurdity of claiming a change in the law, where there is no ability to produce the statute as amended, let us go back from Sinai to Eden, along with the gentleman, and see if we cannot find, independent of the commandment, evidence that the creation Sabbath was not a portable institution, to be trundled about at the caprice of any and every individual. Mark it, now, it is granted that what is called the Jewish Sabbath law enforced the keeping of the seventh day, and admitted of no other as a substitute. But whence is this conclusion drawn? Undeniably, from the words, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.”

But where has the gentleman learned that the creation Sabbath was enjoined in the use of language less explicit and limited in its meaning than are the words of the decalogue? If he knows anything about the original decree of Jehovah, and the limitations with which he guarded the Sabbath in the outset, he, like ourselves, is compelled to go to the sacred record for information. If, in going there, he has been able to find anything which would prove that the Edenic Sabbath was less fixed in its character than that of Sinai, then he has made some progress. The only scripture which will throw any light upon the subject will be found in Gen. 2:1-3.

Unhappily for the gentleman, however, it is fatal to his conception that the original Sabbath varied in any way from that of the Jews—so-called. In the account of its institution, the language employed is almost precisely the same with that subsequently traced upon the tables of stone. It is there declared that God sanctified (_i. e._, set apart to a holy use) the _seventh day_. The reason for this action is the fact that he had rested upon it. Now, it will be observed that it was the “_seventh day_” that God blessed and sanctified, and no other. It is submitted, therefore, as the gentleman concedes, that the same expression (_i. e._, the seventh day), when employed in the commandment given to Moses, did locate the Sabbath institution immovably upon the last day of the week, until the law was changed; that the same language, when employed originally, must have produced the same result; in other words, if the command to keep the seventh day, as given on Mount Sinai, held the people strictly to the observance of the last day of the week, so, too, Jehovah, in the beginning, restricted the whole race to a Sabbath which was, equally with the other, the seventh, and, therefore, the last day of the week.

In order to avoid this conclusion, it will be required that, by some means, he should be able to show that the same terms which were employed by God, at one time, have a different meaning from that attached to them, as employed by him at another time. Not only so, the Sabbath in Genesis, like that in Exodus, is further limited and defined by two additional facts. First, it was the day on which God rested; secondly, it was the day which he blessed because He had rested upon it. Therefore, before any other day could be substituted for it, these two things must be true of it, as matter of history. This, however, can never be the case, as it regards any day of the week, save the last; consequently, he who celebrates any other is not celebrating the one which God imposed in the beginning. So much for the definiteness of the Sabbath which was given to Adam.

Should it be replied that what has been remarked is correct, and that it is not argued that any one was at liberty to keep any other day than the seventh of the week, until Christ changed the law, and thereby authorized them so to do, we reply, Very good; that brings us back again to the original proposition, which is, Did he make such a change? If he did, then it is just as important that we should have clear and conclusive evidence that such an alteration was made by him, as it is that we should have the abundant testimony which we now possess that a definite Sabbath was originally given to mankind.

All this speculation in regard to what might have been done with perfect consistency under a given state of facts is worse than idle. What we demand is this—What _has been_ done? Instead of concluding that Christ did a certain thing because it would have been right so to do, first show us, by actual Scripture quotation, that he really performed the work in question, and the consistency of his action will take care of itself. A theology which has no broader, firmer basis than individual conception of the propriety of certain occurrences which may never have taken place at all, is not worth the paper on which it is drawn out. This, nevertheless, is the very material with which we are dealing.

Eleven articles, ostensibly written to afford divine authority for the change of days, are concluded; and, from beginning to end, there is not found in them a “Thus saith the Lord” for the transfer. Again and again it is inferred that such and such transactions meant so-and-so. Again and again it is concluded that such and such things are admissible, not because of any scriptural warrant, but because they seem good in the eyes of those with whose practice they best conform. The reason why this is so, the reader will readily perceive. It is found, not in the fact that the learned gentleman who represents the opposition is insensible to the superiority of positive Bible statements over individual surmise, but in the necessity under which he is placed, to employ the only material which he has at hand. Meeting him, therefore, where he is, let us prove the unreliability of such deductions as he is indulging in by actual test. The points which he is attempting to establish are these: 1. The original idea of the Sabbath can be met by the observance of the first day of the week, as well as by that of the last. 2. That the commemoration of Christ’s resurrection can only be suitably carried out by hallowing the first day of every week.

Now, as to the first of these propositions, it will only be safe to decide that it is correct after giving it mature reflection. We have already seen that God’s original plan for preserving the memory of creation week was that of setting apart the last day of each subsequent week for the imitation, on our part, of his rest thereon. To say, therefore, that it would have answered just as well to allow the individual to take any other day—say the first day of the week—for this purpose, is to argue that God acted without cause in making the selection which he did and enforcing it for four thousand years. If the question were one of indifference, why did he not leave the day unfixed? Why not allow them then to commemorate his rest on the first day, as the gentleman would have done now, arguing that the ends of the original Sabbath would, in this way, be fully met. Certain it is that no good reason can be assigned why it would now be more proper to commemorate the rest of Jehovah by a variable Sabbath than it has been heretofore. This being true, the gentleman’s logic is found to be unsound, or else the action of the Deity was inconsiderate.

Turning, now, to the second proposition, the reader will be instantly struck with its unqualified antagonism to the first point which is sought to be made out.

Remember, now, that the gentleman is arguing stoutly for first-day sanctity. He is not so particular when the week begins, but it must have just seven days, and the first of them must be devoted to the commemoration of the Lord’s resurrection, Should you ask him why he is thus particular in the selection of the first day of the week, he would reply, “Why, that is the day on which the Lord arose, and it is his resurrection, as the crowning act in the work of redemption, which we seek to honor.” But, reader, would it not occur to you, immediately, that this is a repudiation of all which he has said concerning the Edenic Sabbath? Nosy, mark it; what God demands, is, that we should honor the seventh day of the week, as the one which he rested upon, blessed, and sanctified. If, therefore, the rest, the blessing, and the sanctification of that day can be suitably remembered by the observance of another day differing from it, then the assumption that an event is most impressively handed down by the dedication, for this purpose, of the very day on which it transpired, is unsound.

But if this assumption be unsound, then all of the gentleman’s talk in regard to the necessity for a change of days, in order to the suitable commemoration of the resurrection of Christ and the completion of the work of redemption, is without force. For, assuredly, if he is right in supposing that God’s rest in Eden, on the seventh day, can he commemorated as well on the first day as on the seventh, then the same principle will hold good in regard to the events which transpired on the first day of the week, _i. e._, they can be kept in remembrance by the hallowing of the seventh day as well as by that of the first. But this being true, his argument for the necessity of the change of Sabbaths is gone, and his philosophy of the change proved to be unsound. The only purpose which it has served in this controversy has been the revelation of that which is really the conviction of its author, as it is that of men generally, that there is no time in which great transactions can be so suitably commemorated as that of the day on which they took place. When the nation wishes to celebrate the anniversary of its independence, it sets apart for this purpose the fourth of July, which answers exactly to the day of the month on which the Declaration of Independence was made. Substitute for this another day, and you have marred the impressiveness of the occasion.

So, too, with God’s rest on creation week; it must be so celebrated that all the associations connected with it will be calculated to lead the mind back to its origin and object. Turn it around, as the gentleman proposes to do, _i. e._, substitute the first day of the week in the place of the last, and you have precisely reversed God’s order. You have put the rest-day first, and cause the six laboring days to follow; whereas, God, knowing that rest was only needed _after_ labor, worked six days and then rested the seventh, not because he was weary, but because he desired to put on the record for us an example to be strictly followed. The gentleman, however, without the slightest warrant, has, with a rash hand, laid hold of the divine procedure, and now says that the order pursued was not necessary to the inculcation of the great lessons which God designed to impart.

To this, I reply, 1. That God’s actions are never superfluous. 2. That, if we err at all, it is safer to err on the side of the divine example. 3. That if the idea of God’s working six days is in any way connected with a proper Sabbath rest, then it is indispensable that the Sabbath should follow, and not precede, the working portion of the week. 4. That if the rest of God, merely, is the object which we should keep before our minds by a proper regard for the Sabbatic institution, the gentleman has himself shown, by the logic which he has employed, that the only suitable period for the keeping of that rest is found in that portion of the week on which God ceased from his labors.

The remark of the gentleman that the work of redemption furnishes a subject worthy of being remembered by observance with Sabbatic honor of the day on which it was completed, is worthy of passing notice. The idea which he advances is one which is quite prevalent, and employed with great satisfaction by clergymen generally, when controverting the claims of God’s ancient rest-day. The strength of the position lies in the fact that it distinguishes between redemption and creation, assuming, perhaps correctly, that the latter is more exalted than the former. Having won the assent of the mind to this proposition, the reader is quietly carried over to conclusions much less obvious than the first. Almost unconsciously he is led to decide, with his instructor, that, since redemption is a greater work than creation, it ought, therefore, to be honored by a day of rest.

Now we shall not enter into this matter largely, but we simply suggest that either this decision is the result of human, or else it is the product of divine, wisdom. If it is human wisdom, then its teachings should be followed with extreme caution. If it is divine wisdom, then they can be obeyed with the most implicit confidence. Just at this point, therefore, it is all-important that the test be applied. Has Jehovah ever said that the commemoration of creation week had become less desirable on account of the possible redemption of a fallen race, by the death of his Son? The most careful reader of the Bible has failed to find any such language; in fine, the intimation that such is really the fact is rather a reflection upon the Deity himself, since, from it, it might be inferred that the glory of his work had been dimmed by the fall of the race.

But, again, if the Lord has not said that he would not have the memory of creation cherished still, has he ever said that he would have the work of redemption signalized by a weekly rest? Once more the student of the Scriptures unhesitatingly answers in the negative; but if God has failed to make this declaration, who shall presume to put words in his mouth, and read the thoughts of his mind, as those having authority so to do? The man who will undertake to do it is venturing upon ground which lies hard by that of blasphemy. God never neglects to say that which ought to be said; he never calls upon any man to go beyond his commandments, for in them, says Solomon (Eccl. 12:13), is found the whole duty of man.

Furthermore, were we to reason upon this matter at all, every consideration would lead us to the conclusion that the inference of our opponents is not correct. In the first place, redemption is not yet fully completed in the case of any individual. In the second place, the Scripture says we have (are to have) redemption through his _blood_ (Col. 1:14). But his blood, it is generally supposed, was shed upon Friday, and, therefore, it is not impossible that the hallowing of that day would more suitably commemorate redemption than that of any other day. In the third place, it was proved at length in a former article, that if creation was suitably commemorated by a day of rest, redemption, which is an event entirely opposite in its character, would naturally be celebrated by some institution of an entirely different nature. In other words, the Sabbath inculcates cessation from labor by the indulgence of inaction, while all the events connected with the resurrection of Christ rendered inactivity impossible.

But finally, we are not left, in a matter of this significance, to the unreliable decisions of the human mind. Not only is it true that God has never appointed a day of septenary inactivity, as the Heaven-chosen memorial of the resurrection of the divine Son of God; but it is also true that God himself, in the exercise of a wisdom which will hardly be impugned by finite beings, has selected an institution entirely different from that under consideration for the illustration of that phase of the work of redemption which was seen in the resurrection of Christ.

Says the great apostle to the Gentiles: “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.” Rom. 6:4, 5. “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also we are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” Col. 2:12.

Baptism, that is, Bible baptism, or the immersion of the individual beneath the water, most forcibly commemorates the death of our Lord. As the administrator lowers the body of the passive subject beneath the yielding wave, by the very necessity of the case, breathing is, for the time, suspended, and the person, as nearly as may be while in life, as he lies motionless in the hands of the individual to whom he has committed himself in the exercise of an act of faith, shadows forth the death and burial of his Lord in a most impressive manner. As he rises, also, from that position, and, proceeding to the shore, unites once more with the throng of living beings who surround him, he most forcibly illustrates the coming back again of our Lord from death and the grave to a life of infinite activity and glory.

All, therefore, which is necessary in order to the remembering, by outward expression, of that most glorious event, which gave back to the disciples, from the nations of the dead, the body of the beloved Master, is that we go forward in the fulfillment of an ordinance which has been provided for that purpose, and which sets forth the events which are thought worthy of a memento in a manner as superior to that in which it could be done by mere inaction, as God’s conception of what would be suitable under such circumstances is higher than that of man. The wonder is that any one should have lost sight of the original design of an institution which is remarkably expressive of the purpose for which it was created. In fact, had not the same power which has changed the Sabbath also tampered with the ordinance of baptism by changing the original form into one less expressive of its historic associations, we believe that the view which is now passing under consideration never could have suggested itself to any mind.

But, reader, it is now time that our labor should be drawn to a close. In the providence of God, we have walked together over the territory devoted to the great and important Sabbath question. With pleasure, we are about to lay down our pen for the last time, and submit the whole matter to you for the pronouncing of the final verdict of your individual judgment. As we do so, it is with feelings of most profound gratitude to God for a truth which, while there is underlying it a cross so heavy that it cannot be lifted by human strength unaided, is, nevertheless, so plain that its mere statement is its most complete demonstration. Were it not true that society is at present so organized that the keeping of the seventh day involves social, political, and pecuniary sacrifice, much greater than he is aware of who has not considered the matter, we would not hesitate to say that a complete and speedy revolution could be wrought upon this subject in a brief space of time. Never, in the history of any reformation which has heretofore occurred, were men covered with a more complete panoply of defense, and armed with more destructive weapons of offense, than are God’s commandment-keeping people at the present period. The only mystery connected with the subject is, that, being as plain as it is, the fact of the change should not have attracted universal attention before.

Traversing again the ground over which we have come with the gentleman who has managed the opposition in this debate, the poverty of his resources is most striking. In all that he has said, he has proved nothing which has in any way relieved his case, nor can his failure be attributed to any lack of capacity on his part. In the handling of the material with which he has had to do, he has displayed not a little ingenuity. The arguments which he has employed and the positions which he has taken are those of the orthodox ministry generally at the present time. His failure is entirely attributable to the natural weakness of the position which he has sought to defend. His was indeed a hard task. He felt the moral necessity of a Sabbath, as a Christian man; and, finding the religious world keeping the first day of the week, he sought to defend this practice from the Bible stand-point. But, alas for his cause! The more he has appealed to this source, the more certain has it become that the Bible, and the usages of Christendom in this matter, can never he harmonized. In its pages we find the most ample authority for a day of rest, but none for the one which is generally honored as such. The record in brief stands as follows:—

1. There is a Sabbath.

2. That Sabbath is the seventh, and not the first, day of the week, for the following reasons:—

(1.) In the beginning God rested on the seventh day, thereby laying the foundation for its Sabbatic honor (Gen. 2:3); whereas, he never rested upon the first day.

(2.) He blessed the seventh day; whereas, he never blessed the first day.

(3.) He sanctified the seventh day, or devoted it to a religious use; whereas, he never sanctified the first day.

(4.) The day of his rest, his blessing, and his sanctification, he commanded to be kept holy, in a law of perpetual obligation; whereas, he never commanded the observance of the first day.

(5.) The Lord Jesus Christ recognized the obligation of the seventh day by a life-long custom of observing it (Luke 4:16); whereas, the Lord Jesus Christ never rested upon the first day of the week; but always treated it as a secular day.

(6.) He also recognized its perpetuity forty years after his death, when speaking of events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, by instructing his disciples to pray that their flight might not occur thereon (Matt. 24:20); whereas, he never spoke of the first day as one to be honored in the future, nor, indeed, so far as we know, did he ever take it upon his lips at all.

(7.) It is the day which the holy women kept, according to the commandment, after the crucifixion of our Lord (Luke 23:66); whereas, there is no account that any good man has ever rested upon the first day out of regard for its sanctity.

(8.) It is the day on which Paul, as his manner was, taught in the synagogue (Acts 17:2); whereas, Paul never made the first day of the week, habitually, one of public teaching, a thing which he would have been sure to do had he looked upon it as sacred to the Lord.

(9.) Being mentioned fifty-six times in the New Testament, it is in all these instances called the Sabbath; whereas, the first day is mentioned eight times in the New Testament, and in every case it is called, simply, the first day of the week.

(10.) In the year of our Lord 95, it is spoken of by John as the Lord’s day (Rev. 1:10); whereas, the first day is in no case mentioned in the use of a sacred title.

(11.) It is mentioned not only as the Sabbath, but it is also spoken of as the next Sabbath, and every Sabbath, thus proving that it had no rival (Acts 13:4; 15:21); whereas, the day before the first, and the sixth day after it, being spoken of as the Sabbath, it (_i. e._, the first day) is classed with the other days of the week.

(12.) In the Acts of the Apostles, and, in fine, in the whole canon of the New Testament, there is not a single transaction which is related as having occurred upon the seventh day in the least incompatible with the notion that it continued to be regarded as holy time, while the law which enforces its observance is inculcated in the clearest and most emphatic terms (Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:31; Jas. 2:8-12); whereas, the first day was one on which Christ indulged in travel on the highway in company with others, after his resurrection, without informing them of its character or rebuking them for sin. It is also a day on which two of the disciples walked the distance of fifteen miles on one occasion, while on another, Paul performed the journey of nineteen and one-half miles on foot, while Luke and seven companions worked the vessel around the headland for a much greater distance (Luke 24:13, 29; Acts 20:1-13.)

In view of the above, the whole question of obligation may be summed up in the following words: Shall we keep a day which God has commanded, which Christ inculcated, and which holy men regarded from the opening until the close of the canon of Scripture? or shall we disregard that, putting in its place one which neither God, nor Christ, nor a holy angel, nor an inspired man, ever, anywhere, under any circumstances, enjoined, and which, in addition, God and Christ, and holy men and women, are everywhere in the sacred word brought to view as treating in a manner such as they would only treat a day of secular character?

In fine, it is simply the same old test applied once more to human action, which has in all ages been the measure of moral character, _i. e._, Shall we obey God? or shall we not? Shall we gratify our own inclination and have our own way by pertinaciously persisting in a course of action for which we have no Scripture warrant? or shall we take the Bible in one hand and, accepting its doctrines as the words of life, follow them to their legitimate consequences in our daily walk? Says John, “This is the love of God, that ye keep his commandments.” Says James, “Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”

Sublime sentiments, indeed! In them is expressed the moving, controlling principle of every Christian heart. Oh! that all men in the ages of the past had held to the noble purpose of taking God at his word, believing that he meant just what he said, and walking out with a noble courage upon their confidence in his wisdom to legislate, and his right to command. Had they done so; had they been willing to be taught instead of going uninstructed; had they submitted to be led instead of insisting upon independent action, how much misery would have been spared our kind. Take, for example, the case of Eve—God exempted one tree in the garden from the rest, saying, “Thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Unhappily, the mother of all living ventured to deviate from the command of God in what appeared to her an unimportant particular, and, as the result, a race was plunged into the terrible consequences of rebellion.

It would seem as if this should have been enough to teach all, that it is only safe to do just what God requires in small, as well as great, things. Alas! however, this has not been the case. Nadab and Abihu, with the example of Eve before them, contrary to the directions of the Lord, ventured to substitute natural fire for the hallowed fire of the altar. To them, there was no apparent difference; but in a moment the curse of God fell upon them and they were borne lifeless, and without the honors of an ordinary funeral service, away from the camp of Israel. Uzzah, despising the commandment of the Lord, by which the Levites alone were to touch the ark, in an unguarded moment, reached out his hand to steady it, and God made a breach upon him in the presence of the people. Uzzah fell lifeless before the ark which contained the same law which is under consideration. It was not the ark that sanctified the law; but, rather, the law that sanctified the ark.

If, therefore, God was so jealous of that which was merely the vehicle of the ten words spoken by his voice and written by his finger, how must he feel in regard to those words themselves? In them, is found the embodiment of the whole duty of man. With them, God now tests, as he has always tested, the characters of men. “Know ye not,” says Paul, “his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?”

True, it may be, that we can transgress that law at the present time without suffering the _visible_ displeasure of God, as did those whom, in the past, he set forth as examples of his wrath. But let us not deceive ourselves on this account; God is no respecter of persons. Moral character is what he admires, exact obedience is what he demands. In his providence, at the present time, it is our fortune to live in an epoch when great light is shining upon the long dishonored and mutilated Sabbath commandment. A worldly church, having departed from the simplicity of gospel teaching and gospel method for the propagation of truth, has called to her aid the elements of force and the appliances of law. Closing their eyes to light, ample in itself for all the purposes of duty and doctrine, they have entered upon a crusade, determining to venture the experiment, so oft repeated, of enforcing, as doctrines, the commandments of men.

The end of this matter God knows, and has pointed out in his word. With outward success they may meet; but it will be at the terrible cost of that vital godliness which is alone found where the arm of God is made the arm of our strength. For those who, in the past, have ignorantly broken the law of Jehovah, God has ample forgiveness; but for those who, in the face of God’s providential dealings, and in diametrical opposition to the plain teachings of his word, to which their attention is being called, shall still persist, not only in disobedience, but, also, in acts of oppression against those who prefer the narrow and rugged path of Bible fidelity, there can be nothing in reserve but the terrible displeasure of him whose right it is to command.

Reader, whoever you may be, and whatever may have been your past convictions and life, we turn to you in a final appeal. As you revere God, as you love Christ and his precious word, we exhort you in this matter to seek wisdom from the only true source. Be not discouraged by the disparity in numbers, neither tremble before the hosts which may frown upon you in the coming contest. “The Lord, he is God.” Under the shadow of his wing we can safely abide. No nobler destiny was ever vouchsafed to the obedient among the children of men, than is prepared for those who shall prove their fealty to the God of Heaven by a noble testimony to their love for him, by the keeping of his holy Sabbath, under circumstances, in the near future, which shall indeed try the souls of men.

May God grant that both reader and writer, nay more, also our opponent in this discussion—toward whom we entertain none but the kindliest feelings—also, all, everywhere, who are indeed the children of the living God and the brethren of our blessed Lord, may come to see eye to eye in this matter, so that, finally, we shall be brought safely through the perils of this last great conflict, which the true church is to endure, and stand victorious over all our enemies upon the Mount Zion of our God, there to sing the song of a deliverance complete and eternal, in a world where, from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all flesh shall come to worship before the Lord. (Isa. 66:23.)

INDEX OF POINTS DISCUSSED.

PART FIRST:

ELD. LITTLEJOHN’S ARTICLES IN THE STATESMAN.

ARTICLE ONE. Tendency toward Sabbath Discussion, 5 Various Views concerning Reform, 6 Inquiry as to Proper Action, 13

ARTICLE TWO. Religious View of Sabbath Reform, 16 Sabbath Commandment, 19 Has this Law been Changed? 22

ARTICLE THREE. Reasons for Sunday Observance Examined, 28 The Resurrection, 30 Example of Christ, 32

ARTICLE FOUR. Texts on First Day of the Week, 36 They do Not Prove its Sacredness, 39 The Meeting of John 20:19, Considered, 42

ARTICLE FIVE. John 20:26, Examined, 48 Act of Worship does Not Consecrate the Day, 50 1 Cor. 16:2, Examined, 54

ARTICLE SIX. Acts 20:7, Examined, 57 Acts 2:1, Considered, 63 Pentecost Not First Day, but Fiftieth Day, 64 Rev. 1:10, Examined, 66 Proposed Amendment of the Constitution Not in Harmony with Bible Truth, 68

ARTICLE SEVEN. Bible View of the Sabbath, 71 The Law Changed by the Catholic Power, 76 Position of Seventh-day Adventists, 79 Proposed Amendment Dangerous to our Liberties, 83

PART SECOND:

REPLIES AND REJOINDERS.

REPLY ONE. Seventh-day Sabbatarianism and the Christian Amendment, 87 Supposed Action of Missionaries, 89 The Proposed Amendment Expresses only Fundamental Principles, 91

FIRST REJOINDER. Amendment Not Related merely to Principles, but to Sunday in Particular, 96 Supposition of Missionary Action Examined, 103

REPLY TWO. The Seventh Day Not Observed by the Early Christian Church, 107 Examination of New-Testament Proofs, 108

SECOND REJOINDER. Our Common Ground, 116 The Seventh Day, only, the Sabbath in the New Testament, 119 No Effort Has been Made to Place Sunday upon Precept, 124 Consideration of Col. 2:14-17, 125 Rom. 14:5, Examined, 129 Survey of the Ground Passed Over, 131

REPLY THREE. Testimony of the Gospels for the First-day Sabbath, 133 Resurrection of Christ, 134 John 20, 136

THIRD REJOINDER. No Evidence of First-day Sacredness, 140 The Gospels do Not Call First Day the Sabbath, 150

REPLY FOUR. Argument for the First-day Sabbath from the Gift of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, 154 Authors Differing Concerning the Day of the week, 155 Argument for the First Day, 156

FOURTH REJOINDER. Value of Testimony—First-day Keepers Witnessing that Pentecost Fell on the Sabbath, 163 No Reason Stated, nor Commandment Found, for First-day Sabbath, 172

REPLY FIVE. First-day Sabbath at Troas, 177 The Reckoning of Time Considered, 179

FIFTH REJOINDER. No Custom Found in Acts 20, 183 Argument for Change of Time Considered, 191 Evidence of Acts 20 Favorable to the Sabbath, 201

REPLY SIX. Testimony of Paul and John to the First-day Sabbath, 202 Examination of 1 Cor. 16:2, 203 Of Rev. 1:10, 205

SIXTH REJOINDER. 1 Cor. 16:2, 207 —Testimony of J. W. Morton, 207 —Concession of Albert Barnes, 209 —Paul’s Plan of Systematic Beneficence, 211 —Devotion at Home, 214 Rev. 1:10, 219 —The Sabbath is the Lord’s Day, 220 —Christ Lord of the Sabbath, 221 —No Proof Given that First Day is the Lord’s Day, 222

REPLY SEVEN. Testimony of the Early Fathers to the First-day Sabbath, 225 Testimony of Ignatius, 225 Errors of Dr. Dwight, etc., Corrected, 227 Barnabas and Justin Martyr, 228 Dionysius, 229 Pliny, 230

SEVENTH REJOINDER. Value of Traditional Testimony, 231 Ignatius, 235 Barnabas, 239 Justin Martyr, 243 What Justin Martyr Believed, 246 Dionysius, Melito, Pliny, 250 Deficiency of Testimony for First-day as a Sabbath, 253

REPLY EIGHT. Patristic Testimony to the First-day Sabbath, 254 Irenæus, 254 Errors of Dr. Dwight and Others in Quoting this Father, 256 Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, 257

EIGHTH REJOINDER. The Apostasy, 261 Testimony of Irenæus, 262 Of Tertullian, 267 Of Origen, 273 Of Cyprian, 276 Summary View of the Case, 277

REPLY NINE. Theories of the Christian Sabbath, 280 Claim of an Unwarranted Change of the Sabbath Considered, 284

NINTH REJOINDER. No Advance Ground Taken, 287 Harmony of Sabbath Law and Sacred History, 289 Roman Apostasy and Change of Sabbath, 293 Seventh-day Sabbath in the Early Church, 296 Testimony of Romanists, 304

REPLY TEN. The Principle as to Time in Sabbath Observance, 313 One Day in Seven, not the Seventh Day, Required, 313 Difficulties of Keeping Definite Day, 314

TENTH REJOINDER. Inconsistency of the _Statesman’s_ Positions, 321 No-Definite-Day Argument Fatal to First Day, and to any Sabbath, 325 Inconsistency of his Position on Necessity of Legislation, 326 Difficulties of Sabbath-Keeping Considered, 329 Absurdity of the Theory of an Indefinite Day, 333 Definite Time Around the World, 339 Summary, 348

REPLY ELEVEN. The True Theory of the Christian Sabbath, 351 First Day of the Week the True Christian Sabbath, 351 A Memorial of Redemption, 353

ELEVENTH REJOINDER. Inconsistency of the Replies, 355 No Amendment of Sabbath Law Produced, 356 A Gospel Memorial of the Resurrection, 367 Sabbath Keeping Involves Sacrifice, 369 Summary of Evidence for the Sabbath, 371 The Commandment, or Tradition? 374 Conclusion, 377

CATALOGUE

Of Books, Pamphlets, Tracts, &c., Issued by the Seventh-Day Adventist Publishing Association, Battle Creek, Mich.

HYMNS AND TUNES; 320 pages of hymns, 96 pages of music; in plain morocco, $1.00.

A COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. By J. N. Andrews. $1.00.

THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY, Vols. 1 & 2. By Ellen G. White, Each $1.00.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: Or The Sunday, The Sabbath, The Change, and The Restitution. A Discussion between W. H. Littlejohn and the Editor of the _Christian Statesman_. Bound, $1.00. Paper, 40 cts. First Part, 10 cts.

THOUGHTS ON THE REVELATION, critical and practical. By U. Smith. 328 pp., $1.00.

THOUGHTS ON THE BOOK OF DANIEL, critical and practical. By U. Smith. Bound, $1.00; condensed edition, paper, 35 cts.

THE NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN. By U. Smith. 384 pp., bound, $1.00, paper, 40 cts.

LIFE INCIDENTS, in connection with the great Advent movement. By Eld. James White. 373 pp., $1.00.

AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF ELD. JOSEPH BATES, with portrait of the author. 318 pp., $1.00.

HOW TO LIVE: comprising a series of articles on Health, and how to preserve it, with various recipes for cooking healthful food, &c. 400 pp., $1.00.

SABBATH READINGS; or Moral and Religious Reading for Youth and Children. 400 pp., 60 cts.; in five pamphlets, 50 cts.

APPEAL TO YOUTH; Address at the Funeral of Henry N. White; also a brief narrative of his life, &c. 96 pp., muslin, 40 cts.; paper covers, 10 cts.

THE GAME OF LIFE, with notes. Three illustrations 5x6 inches each, representing Satan playing with man for his soul. In board, 50 cts., in paper, 30 cts.

THE UNITED STATES IN PROPHECY. By U. Smith. Bound. 40 cts.; paper, 20 cts.

HYMNS AND SPIRITUAL SONGS for Camp-meetings and other Religious Gatherings. Compiled by Eld. James White. 196 pp. Bound, 50 cts., paper, 25 cts.

REFUTATION OF THE AGE TO COME. By J. H. Waggoner. Price 20 cts.

PROGRESSIVE BIBLE LESSONS FOR CHILDREN; for Sabbath Schools and Families. G. H. Bell. Bound, 35 cts., paper, 25 cts.

THE ADVENT KEEPSAKE; comprising a text of Scripture for each day of the year, on the subjects of the Second Advent, the Resurrection, &c. Plain muslin, 25 cts.; gilt. 40 cts.

A SOLEMN APPEAL relative to Solitary Vice, and the Abuses and Excesses of the Marriage Relation. Edited by Eld. James White. Muslin, 50 cts.; paper, 30 cts.

AN APPEAL to the Working Men and Women, in the Ranks of Seventh-day Adventists. By James White. 172 pp., bound, 40 cts.; paper covers, 25 cts.

SERMONS ON THE SABBATH AND LAW; embracing an outline of the Biblical and Secular History of the Sabbath for 6000 years. By J. N. Andrews. 25 cts.

THE STATE OF THE DEAD. By U. Smith. 224 pp., 25 cts.

HISTORY of the Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul. By D. M. Canright. 25 cts.

DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION, between Elds. Lane and Barnaby. 25 cts.

THE ATONEMENT; an Examination of a Remedial System in the light of Nature and Revelation. By J. H. Waggoner. 20 cts.

OUR FAITH AND HOPE, Nos. 1 & 2—Sermons on the Advent, &c. By James White. Each 20 cts.

THE NATURE AND TENDENCY OF MODERN SPIRITUALISM. By J. H. Waggoner. 20 cts.

THE BIBLE FROM HEAVEN; or, a dissertation on the Evidences of Christianity. 20 cts.

DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION, between Elds. Grant and Cornell. 20 cts.

REVIEW OF OBJECTIONS TO THE VISIONS. U. Smith, 20 cts.

COMPLETE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS, concerning the Sabbath and First Day of the Week. By J. N. Andrews. 15 cts.

THE DESTINY OF THE WICKED. By U. Smith. 15 cts.

THE MINISTRATION OF ANGELS; and the Origin, History, and Destiny of Satan. By D. M. Canright. 15 cts.

THE MESSAGES OF REV. 14, particularly the Third Angel’s Message and Two-Horned Beast. By J. N. Andrews. 15 cts.

THE RESURRECTION OF THE UNJUST; a Vindication of the Doctrine. By J. H. Waggoner. 15 cts.

THE SANCTUARY AND TWENTY-THREE HUNDRED DAYS. By J. N. Andrews. 10 cts.

THE SAINTS’ INHERITANCE, or, The Earth made New. By J. N. Loughborough. 10 cts.

THE SEVENTH PART OF TIME; a sermon on the Sabbath Question. By W. H. Littlejohn. 10 cts.

REVIEW OF GILFILLAN, and other authors, on the Sabbath. By T. B. Brown. 10 cts.

THE SEVEN TRUMPETS; an Exposition of Rev. 8 and 9. 10 cts.

THE DATE OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS OF DAN. 9 established. By J. N. Andrews. 10 cts.

THE TRUTH FOUND; the Nature and Obligation of the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment. By J. H. Waggoner. 10 cts.

VINDICATION OF THE TRUE SABBATH. By J. W. Morton. 10 cts.

SUNDAY SEVENTH-DAY EXAMINED. A Refutation of the Teachings of Mede, Jennings, Akers, and Fuller. By J. N. Andrews. 10 cts.

MATTHEW TWENTY-FOUR; a full Exposition of the chapter. By James White. 10 cts.

THE POSITION AND WORK OF THE TRUE PEOPLE OF GOD under the Third Angel’s Message. By W. H. Littlejohn. 10 cts.

AN APPEAL TO THE BAPTISTS, from the Seventh-day Baptists, for the Restoration of the Bible Sabbath. 10 cts.

MILTON ON THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 5 cts.

FOUR-CENT TRACTS: The Two Covenants—The Law and the Gospel—The Seventh Part of Time—Who Changed the Sabbath—Celestial Railroad—Samuel and the Witch of Endor—The Ten Commandments not Abolished—Address to the Baptists.

THREE-CENT TRACTS: The Kingdom—Scripture References—Much in Little—The End of the Wicked—Infidel Cavils Considered—Spiritualism a Satanic Delusion—The Lost Time Question.

TWO-CENT TRACTS: The Sufferings of Christ—Seven Reasons for Sunday-Keeping Examined—Sabbath by Elihu—The Rich Man and Lazarus—The Second Advent—Definite Seventh Day—Argument on Sabbaton—Clerical Slander—Departing and Being with Christ—Fundamental Principles of S. D. Adventists—The Millennium.

ONE-CENT TRACTS: Appeal on Immortality—Brief Thoughts on Immortality—Thoughts for the Candid—Sign of the Day of God—The Two Laws—Geology and the Bible—The Perfection of the Ten Commandments—The Coming of the Lord—Without Excuse.

CHARTS: THE PROPHETIC, AND LAW OF GOD, CHARTS, painted and mounted, such as are used by our preachers, each $1.50. The two charts, on cloth, unpainted, by mail, with key, without rollers, $2.50.

=The Way of Life.= This is an Allegorical Picture, showing the way of Life and Salvation through Jesus Christ from Paradise Lost to Paradise Restored. By Eld. M. G. Kellogg. The size of this instructive and beautiful picture is 19x24 inches. Price, post-paid, $1.00.

Works in Other Languages.

The Association also publishes the _Advent Tidende_, Danish monthly, at $1.00 per year, and works on some of the above-named subjects in the German, French, Danish, and Holland languages.

Any of the foregoing works will be sent by mail to any part of the United States, post-paid, on receipt of the prices above stated. A Full Catalogue of our various Publications will be furnished GRATIS, on application.

Address, REVIEW & HERALD, BATTLE CREEK, MICH.

PERIODICALS.

THE ADVENT REVIEW & HERALD OF THE SABBATH, weekly. This sheet is an earnest exponent of the Prophecies, and treats largely upon the Signs of the Times, Second Advent of Christ, Harmony of the Law and the Gospel, the Sabbath of the Lord, and, What we Must do to be Saved. Terms, $2.00 a year in advance.

THE YOUTH’S INSTRUCTOR, monthly. This is a high-toned, practical sheet, devoted to moral and religious instruction, adapted to the wants of youth and children. It is the largest and the best youth’s paper published in America. Terms, 50 cts. a year, in advance.

THE HEALTH REFORMER. This is a live Journal, devoted to an Exposition of the Laws of Human Life, and the application of those laws in the Preservation of Health, and the Treatment of Disease. The _Reformer_ will contain, each issue, thirty-two pages of reading matter, from able earnest pens, devoted to real, practical life, to physical, moral, and mental improvement. Its publishers are determined that it shall be the best Health Journal in the land.

Terms, $1.00 a year, in advance. Address. HEALTH REFORMER, Battle Creek, Mich.

BOOKS FROM OTHER PUBLISHERS.

FUTURE PUNISHMENT, by H. H. Dobney, Baptist minister of England. The Scriptural Doctrine of Future Punishment, with an Appendix, containing the “State of the Dead,” by John Milton, author of “Paradise Lost,” extracted from his “Treatise on Christian Doctrine.”

This is a very able and critical work. It should be read by every one who is interested in the immortality subject. It is also one of the best works upon the subject to put into the hands of candid ministers, and other persons of mind.

Price, post-paid, $1.00.

THE VOICE OF THE CHURCH, on the Coming and Kingdom of the Redeemer; or, a History of the Doctrine of the Reign of Christ on Earth. By D. T. Taylor. A very valuable work, highly indorsed on both sides of the Atlantic.

Price, post-paid, $1.00.

The Great Reformation, by Martin, 5 Vols., $ 7.00 D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation, 5 Vols., 4.50 Scripture Biography, 4.50 Cruden’s Concordance, sheep, 2.00 “ ” muslin, 1.50 Bible Dictionary, sheep, 2.00 “ ” muslin, 1.50 Cole’s Concordance, 1.50 Prince of the House of David, 2.00 Pillar of Fire, 2.00 Throne of David, 2.00 The Court and Camp of David, 1.50 The Old Red House, 1.50 Higher Christian Life, 1.50 Pilgrim’s Progress, large type, 1.25 “ ” small “ .60 Biography of George Whitefield, 1.25 History of English Puritans, 1.25 Story of a Pocket Bible, 1.25 Captain Russell’s Watchword, 1.25 The Upward Path, 1.25 Ellen Dacre, 1.25 The Brother’s Choice, 1.15 Climbing the Mountain, 1.15 The Two Books, 1.15 Awakening of Italy, 1.00 White Foreigners, 1.00 Lady Huntington, 1.00 Young Man’s Counselor, 1.00 Young Lady’s Counselor, 1.00 Paul Venner, 1.00 Among the Alps, 1.00 Poems of Home Life, .80 Edith Somers, .80 Nuts for Boys to Crack, .80 Anecdotes for the Family, .75 Pictorial Narratives, .60 Bertie’s Birthday Present, .60 Songs for Little Ones, .60 Memoir of Dr. Payson, .60 Mirage of Life, .60 Huguenots of France, .50 The Boy Patriot, .50 Springtime of Life, .50 May Coverly, .50 Glen Cabin, .50 The Old, Old Story, cloth, gilt, .50 Poems by Rebekah Smith, .50 Charlotte Elizabeth, .40 Save the Erring, .40 Blanche Gamond, .40 My Brother Ben, .40 Hannah’s Path, .35 Star of Bethlehem, .30 Father’s Letters to a Daughter, .30

A more full Catalogue of books of this nature, for sale at this Office, can be had on application.

HEALTH REFORM PUBLICATIONS.

=Good Health=, and How to Preserve It. A brief treatise on the various hygienic agents and conditions which are essential for the preservation of health. Just the thing for a person who wishes to learn how to avoid disease. Pamphlet, price, post paid, 10 cents.

=Disease and Drugs.= Nature and Cause of Disease and So-called “Action” of Drugs. This is a clear and comprehensive exposition of the nature and true cause of disease, and also exposes the absurdity and falsity of drug medication. Pamphlet. Price, 10 cents.

=The Bath=: Its Use and Application. A full description of the various baths employed in the hygienic treatment of disease, together with the manner of applying them, and the diseases to which they are severally adapted. Pamphlet. Price, post-paid, 15 cents.

=Hydropathic Encyclopedia.= Trall. Price, post-paid, $4.50.

=Uterine Diseases and Displacements.= Trall. Price, post-paid, $3.00.

=Science of Human Life.= By Sylvester Graham, M. D. Price, post-paid, $3.00.

=Domestic Practice.= Johnson. Price, post-paid, $1.75.

=Hand Book of Health=—Physiology and Hygiene. Price, post-paid, 75 cents; paper cover, 40 cents

=Water Cure in Chronic Diseases.= By J. M. Gully, M. D. Price, post-paid, $1.75.

=Cure of Consumption.= Dr. Work. Price, post-paid. 30 cents.

=The Hygienic System.= By R. T. Trall, M. D. Recently published at the Office of the HEALTH REFORMER. It is just the work for the time, and should be read by the million. Price, post-paid, 15 cents.

=The Health and Diseases of Women.= By R. T. Trall, M. D. A work of great value. Price, post-paid, 15 cents.

=Tobacco-Using.= A philosophical exposition of the Effects of Tobacco on the Human System. By R. T. Trall, M. D. Price, post-paid, 15 cents.

=Valuable Pamphlet.= Containing three of the most important of Graham’s twenty-five Lectures on the Science of Human Life—eighth, the Organs and their Uses; thirteenth, Man’s Physical Nature and the Structure of His Teeth; fourteenth, the Dietetic Character of Man. Price, post-paid. 35 cts.

Address, =Health Reformer=, _Battle Creek, Mich._

● Transcriber’s Notes: ○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected. ○ Typographical errors were silently corrected. ○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only when a predominant form was found in this book. ○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_). ○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the sections in which they are referenced.