It is, we confess, with some degree of embarrassment, that we attempt the answering of the second article from the pen of the editor of the Statesman, in reply to the argument which we presented in the columns of that paper. Our difficulty does not arise from any confusion into which we have been thrown by the superior logic of our opponent; it consists, rather, in knowing just where and how to commence the work.

So far as statements are concerned, they are numerous and repeated again and again, in substance. But we have no disposition, nor have we the space, to take them up singly, in their numerical and repetitious order, for consideration. And, besides, the fallacy of nearly every one of them has been demonstrated in what we have already written. This being the case, we have determined to take the general scope of the criticism, and thus, as briefly as may be, make suggestions which, if carried out, will answer its assumptions, as well as its attempted efforts at deduction.

We remark, then, in the outset, that we are happy to meet the writer upon the common ground of a Sabbath having originated in Eden, and inserted in a law of perpetual obligation on both Jews and Gentiles.

Let the reader keep these mutual concessions continually before his eyes. They are of great significance in this debate. 1. They prove that the Sabbath is not Jewish in its origin, but was given to Adam, as their representative head, for the benefit of the whole race, more than two thousand years before there was a Jew in existence. 2. They also prove that the Sabbath institution was rendered obligatory upon all men by a divine precept, with the phraseology of which we are all acquainted. 3. That that precept is explicit in its declaration that the last and not the first day of the week was the Sabbath. 4. That before any other day can be substituted in the place of the one designated, the Power which originated it must authorize the change.

So much for the important results which necessarily flow from the principles which we hold in common, if indeed we are right in supposing that the writer really means what he actually says; namely, that he holds to the perpetuity of the fourth commandment of the decalogue. We shall see, hereafter, whether or not his statements are to be taken for all which they express.

We advance, now, in our examination of the criticism before us.

What direction, then, does the effort take in the main? It will be granted that the plan of defense adopted is that of attempting to prove that the early church did violate the seventh, and did honor the first, day of the week. But with what success has the effort been attended? We know that it is stated several times that the apostles disregarded what the author is pleased to call the Jewish Sabbath—after he had conceded the principle that that of the commandment was Edenic in its origin—but did he make out his case? So far from it, in every instance where he has found them connected in the record with the Sabbath day, it has ever been in the performance of duties religious in their nature. For should we concede that he is right in supposing that Paul went into the synagogues to teach on the Sabbath day, simply because he would find hearers there, this, assuredly, would not prove that Paul was a Sabbath-breaker.

Let me take the gentleman’s favorite illustration of a missionary in a foreign land, at the present time. Now suppose that his lot were cast in a country where the first day of the week, or the day of the sun, was regarded as holy by the natives, and he should be found on that day regularly teaching them in their places of assembly, would that decide the question that he was necessarily a violator of the first-day Sabbath? You answer immediately in the negative. So, too, in the case of Paul. The fact that it can be shown that it was his custom to teach in the synagogues on the seventh day of the week, if it has no power to prove that he was a conscientious observer of that day, cannot at least be cited as furnishing evidence that he disregarded it. We ask, then, again, Has a scintilla of positive testimony been given that Paul ever broke a single Sabbath of the Lord, as contained in the divine precept? Once more it must be conceded that there has not. But is it not a little singular that in a history of thirty years, where the Sabbath is so often mentioned, not one single action has ever been discovered in the least incompatible with Paul’s veneration of the seventh day? We let the reader answer.

Furthermore, we have from the pen of our opponent himself the frank admission that, in the historic territory over which he has been passing, it has been uniformly true that both Luke and Paul have ever, when speaking of the seventh day, called it “the Sabbath.” Now let the reader remember that this confession is full and sweeping in its character. Then let him ask himself whether it is natural to suppose that men, having repudiated an old Sabbath, and zealous for the establishment of a new one, would be likely to make up the record in question in such a form that the old Sabbath, whenever spoken of, should always be styled “the Sabbath,” and the new one be mentioned merely as the “first day of the week?” In order to impress the fallacy of such an idea, we have but to call attention to the fact that men, at the present time, possessing the same natures and dispositions as formerly, would avoid such a course with the most scrupulous care. Instance the fact that seventh-day observers never allude to the Sunday as the Sabbath, but avoid such a reference under all circumstances; while the devotees of the Sunday, when speaking of the last day of the week, almost uniformly speak of it as the Jewish Sabbath, if Sabbath they will allow themselves to call it at all.

But again. We are told, very candidly, that by the word Sabbath, in Acts 13:44, where it is said that the “next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together” to hear the word of God, is meant the next seventh day succeeding the first seventh day on which Paul addressed the Jews at Antioch. This being true, it is settled beyond dispute that, in the mind of Luke, there was no Sabbath day occurring between the one on which Paul spoke to the people, and the seventh day of the next week when he addressed them the second time; for, if there had been, then it would not have been proper to call the last Sabbath mentioned the “next” one, since another Sabbath would have intervened between the two in question. In other words, according to the view of our friend, the Sunday, which was the next day after the first discourse of Paul, was really the next Sabbath which followed it; whereas, the inspired penman ignores it altogether, and, passing over it with silence, calls the last day of that same week “the Sabbath.”

Again, it is stated in Acts 15:21, that the “Scriptures are read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.” Here, again, it is conceded that the reference is to the seventh day of the week. If this be true, however, then James, as well as Luke, had, in his lexicon of terms, the “Sabbath day” as the one which answered to the seventh day and not to the first; for no one will insist that the Scriptures were read in the synagogues of the Jews regularly on the first day of the week; but James says that they were read there every Sabbath day; therefore, in his mind—as we have already remarked—the first day was not the Sabbath.

Once more: It is stated of Paul that he reasoned in the synagogues every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. Here also it is urged—admitting that the reference is to the seventh day—that Paul went into the synagogue in order to get a hearing. But this he could not do on the first day, since he would have found the synagogue closed, and no audience. Nevertheless, the statement stands unqualified that Paul preached “every Sabbath.” Now if this be true, and the first as well as the seventh day might, according to the view of the historian, be called a Sabbath, then we have him stating that Paul preached in the place in question on both the first and seventh days. On the other hand, if he regarded the first day as alone the Sabbath, then he meant to teach that Paul preached in the synagogue on that day, and that day only. But my opponent will not insist upon either of these positions. The only conclusion that is left us, therefore, is that the Holy Ghost, who inspired Luke in the selection of terms, employed the appellation of Sabbath as applying only to the day which had been sanctified in Eden, and had always been known by that title.

Now let us give our attention for a moment to the objection so strongly urged that in the book of the Acts, and in the epistles, there is no well-authenticated instance in which the apostles held meetings, with Christians exclusively, on the seventh day. The point of the proposition might be thus stated: If the early Christians did hold meetings on the seventh day, the record would have shown it: this it fails to do; therefore, the presumption is that they did not regard it as holy.

This is a sword that cuts both ways, if it cuts at all. We do not wonder that, when our friend laid hold of its hilt, he said, tremblingly, This is a negative weapon; so that, when we should attempt to borrow it of him, we might find the edge, which was designed for his own neck, dulled by his own concession.

But let us proceed. Is it true, so far as the ancient Sabbath of the Lord is concerned, that, unless we can find historic accounts of its observance in the New Testament, we must therefore conclude that it was not regarded? We answer, No; simply because its observance is not alone taught by precedent. It rests upon a positive command of God, incorporated in a law which was brought over into this dispensation, as we have seen, and made obligatory upon Christians. It was not, therefore, necessary that a detailed account of its observance should be placed upon the record, in order to prove that it was regarded by the early church; since the very fact that they acknowledged the law of God, is in itself proof that they sanctified the Sabbath which it ordained. Until, therefore, the gentleman can shake the pillars of that law—as we shall show he has not yet succeeded in doing—it is of itself a guarantee that every seventh day was regarded with solemnity by those who were endeavoring to keep its precepts.

In proof of this, we have but to mention the fact that from Moses to David—a space covering five hundred years—the term Sabbath is not employed once in the sacred history, and yet the gentleman will agree with me that the good men of those ages hallowed it, simply because he agrees with me that they had a precept requiring them to do so.

But, again, we must be allowed to insist that the very silence of which the gentleman complains does indirectly prove, independent of the commandment, that the first generation of Christians were Sabbatarians. What we mean to be understood as saying is, that they at least did not violate the regulations concerning the strict observance of the Sabbath, as enforced among the Jews; for had they done so, a record of thirty years could not have failed to bring to light numerous collisions, which would have been inevitable between Jews and Christians, the one class despising and trampling down the Sabbath of the law, and the other following them with that vulture glance of inquisition, by which—as in the case of our Lord—they were in the habit of watching their antagonists, with a view to condemning them before the law. And, besides, with what show of consistency could Paul have stood up before them, announcing himself as one who had never violated the customs of the fathers (Acts 28:17), if he had been seen weekly transgressing the law of one of the dearest institutions handed down to them from the remotest antiquity?

Thus much for one side of the logic of our opponent. Now let us apply it to the Sunday. As we do so, it will be recollected that there has been no effort made, as yet, to place it upon a positive precept. Its existence, therefore, if such it has at all, must be attributable to precedent. Thus far, such precedent has not been cited, except by way of anticipation. When it comes up, we will consider it in order. In the meantime, let it be remembered that our friend has voluntarily taken a position which will compel him to admit that, unless he can find at least one clear and unquestionable case in which the Sunday was from beginning to end devoutly celebrated, his cause is a hopeless one. Nay, more, to make out his point, every candid mind will demand that, in the absence of positive command, he shall be able to show numerous instances in which the day, whose claims he seeks to vindicate, was intelligently honored; for, be it remembered, that, according to his own declaration, the apostle was traveling from point to point, writing and preaching, and Luke was keeping a diary of his labors, for the purpose of instructing that generation of Christians, as well as this, concerning duty and doctrine. If, therefore, Sunday sanctity came under the head of those doctrines, it was important, overwhelmingly so, that such a fact should be set forth clearly, since an habitual disregard on the part of any, of the new Sabbath, would bring upon them the condemnation of Heaven. Furthermore, the line of demarkation, which the new day would have drawn between the disciples and the Hebrews, would have been so broad, and the discussions upon those points would have been so numerous and so full, while the transition was taking place, that its existence could not have failed to become discernible in the writings of that period.

Here we must change our line of argument, and turn to the consideration of Col. 2:14-17, and of Rom. 14:5. Our opponent intimates that Sabbatarians are in the habit of evading these texts. In this remark, he does us great injustice. The statement is so far from being true that I make no doubt that, within the last twenty years, Seventh-day Adventist preachers alone have, by voice and pen, commented upon them at least a thousand times. But the best method of showing the charge to be untrue will be found in an examination of the texts themselves. The first is as follows: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; ... Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” Col. 2:14, 16, 17. Now be it remembered that he affirms that these scriptures teach the abolition of the creation Sabbath; also, that, while we concede the point that there are here mentioned sabbaths which were abolished at the crucifixion of Christ, we deny that the seventh-day Sabbath was among them, and insist that they were simply the ceremonial sabbaths of the Jews to which reference is made.

In proof of our position, we offer the following considerations: 1. That which was repealed is represented as having been “blotted out.” Now the Scriptures are remarkable for the force and propriety of the illustrations which they employ. But who will say that the terms “blotting out” could properly be applied to writing engraved in stone, as was the Sabbath law in its original copy? 2. That which was blotted out was the “handwriting of ordinances;” but the commandments were the finger-writing of God. 3. That which was blotted out was found among ordinances that were “against us, and contrary to us.” But Jesus says, “The Sabbath was made for man.” Mark 2:27, 28. 4. That which was blotted out and taken out of the way “was nailed to his cross.” But it is inconceivable that such language could be spoken of the tables of stone, since they are not of a nature such that the work spoken of could be readily accomplished, and therefore the figure will not apply to them except when forced. 5. It must be admitted that these things concerning which we are not to allow men to judge us were either all of them shadows of Christ, or that if the others were not, the sabbath days were. If they were all shadows, then the sabbaths undeniably were such; for the expression, “which were a shadow of things to come,” stands immediately connected with the term “sabbath days.”

But this decides the point in controversy; for our friend has already voluntarily declared that the seventh-day Sabbath originated in Eden. This being true, it cannot be regarded as a “shadow” or type of Christ, since it was in being before man had ever fallen, and, consequently, before a Saviour was either needed or promised. It is commemorative in its character, and was calculated to carry the mind back to the creation, to the rest of Jehovah, rather than forward to the crucifixion of his Son. Do you inquire, then, what sabbaths the apostle had in view? We answer: He locates them among “commandments written in ordinances.” In other words, in the Mosaic ceremonies. Now take your Bible and turn to the twenty-third chapter of Leviticus, and you will find that the Jews had three annual feasts—the passover, the Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles—besides the new moons, and the seven annual sabbaths. The sabbaths were as follows, to wit: 1. The first day of unleavened bread. 2. The seventh day of that feast. 3. The day of Pentecost. 4. The first day of the seventh month. 5. The tenth day of that month. 6. The fifteenth day of that month. 7. The twenty-second day of the same. These are the ones, beyond all question, to which reference is here made.^[3] 1. Because they were in the handwriting of Moses, and could be blotted out. 2. Because they were found in handwriting of ordinances. 3. They were among ceremonies that were against us, and contrary to us (Acts 15:10). 4. The law in which they originated might have been nailed to the cross. 5. That law was also one which shadowed forth Christ (Heb, 10:1).

To the second text we shall give but little space. In the presentation of it, our friend attempts to be facetious. Nor are we disposed to find fault with him for this. It is sometimes admissible, even in the discussion of the gravest questions, to indulge in harmless humor. That the effort in question partakes of this character, i. e., that it is harmless, we shall not dispute. At all events, when we read it, it amused rather than offended us. A second thought, however, suggests the possibility that if we were not damaged by the sally, it might have been pernicious, nevertheless, since it is possible for it to react upon its author. Certain it is, that it will damage either him or Paul, because he represents the great apostle as making a special effort, in his general labors, to teach men that they must under all circumstances keep one day holy, and that under some they might be allowed to regard a second also in the same light. But, unfortunately, if this exegesis is correct, and if the language of Rom. 14:5, applies to the weekly Sabbath at all, Paul blundered egregiously in communicating his intentions; since he virtually told them whom he was addressing that, of the days of which he was speaking, they need not keep them at all, or they might, at will. Here follows the text “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”

Now we have heard men Who believed in no Sabbath employ this text again and again to prove that there is now no holy time; we have also heard conscientious first-day observers argue forcibly and conclusively that this text proved no such thing, simply because it referred to days that were connected with meats and drinks, and not to the weekly Sabbath at all. But we confess that the position of our friend is somewhat novel. Nevertheless, we feel sure that the reputation of the great apostle for perspicuity will not suffer by this attempt, and we think that, so far as he is concerned himself, reflection will prevent him from ever seriously urging it. In conclusion on this point, we append a brief comment from the pen of Adam Clarke, whose reputation, and the fact that he was an observer of Sunday, will give him no little authority with our opponent. He says: “Reference is here made to the Jewish institutions, and especially their festivals; such as the passover, pentecost, feast of tabernacles, new moons, jubilee, &c. The converted Jew still thought these of moral obligation; the Gentile Christian, not having been bred up in this way, had no such prejudices.”—Com. in loco.

The only remaining text cited is that of Gal. 4:10. After what has been said, no further comment from us will be required. The reader, desirous of satisfying himself that this text also has no reference to the weekly Sabbath, and of necessity refers either to heathen festivals or Jewish ceremonial days, can read the context, and consult standard authorities, such as Clarke or Barnes.^[4]

Let us now survey the ground over which we have passed. So far as we have gone, what has been done toward proving a practice of first-day observance on the part of the early church? We answer, Nothing, absolutely nothing. The only texts which have been cited for this purpose are 1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10, and Acts 20:7. So far as they are concerned, we have previously shown that the first of them does not in any way affect the question of Sunday observance; that the second relates to the seventh day of the week and not to the first; and that the third proves that Paul traveled nineteen and one-half miles on the Sunday. When our reviewer shall attempt to stir a single stone in the structure of argument which we reared in our former articles on these points, we shall be by his side, to see that he does it fairly. Until then, the intelligent reader need not be told that it is vain for him to try to make capital by quoting them as above.

Thus much for the first day. We inquire next, What has been conceded or proved, which is favorable to the seventh-day Sabbath? 1. That it originated in Eden. 2. That it was enforced by the fourth commandment. 3. That that commandment is still binding. 4. That the effort to show a change in its phraseology from Col. 2:16, Rom. 14:5, and Gal. 4:10, was a complete failure; and therefore that it reads as it did formerly, that “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord.” 5. That there is a Sabbath in this dispensation. 6. That, being enforced by positive command, it stands in need of no precedent. 7. That, while the apostles did many times preach on that day, there is not one instance in which they violated it. 8. That had they desecrated it, the conflicts which would have been thus created, must have found a place in the history of those times. 9. That in the book of Acts it is always called “the Sabbath.” 10. That it was the only Sabbath known to the apostles, since they speak of it not only as “the Sabbath,” but as “the next Sabbath,” and “every Sabbath.”

In concluding, we suggest that we leave our reviewer in a situation which, to a man of his clearness of perception, must be a very unsatisfactory one. Having insisted upon the perpetuity of the fourth commandment, he is compelled to take one of two positions. Either, 1. That it reads the same as it did when it enforced the seventh day; or, 2. That its phraseology has been changed. We confess that we have been unable to decide which of these positions he prefers. Nor is it material here. If he adopts the first, the thoughtful reader will agree with me that it is simply absurd to argue that a statute, while reading the same, means differently from what it did formerly. On the other hand, should he adopt the latter, then we inquire why he has not given it to us as it reads since it has been changed, and thus ended the controversy by gratifying our most reasonable request.