With no small degree of interest we have perused the article entitled, “Testimony of Paul and John to the First-day Sabbath,” The two texts which it brings forward in defense of the theory of a changed Sabbath, are regarded by the friends of that theory, generally, as among the strongest of its supports. The first of them (1 Cor. 16:1, 2), we had assailed, and adduced a criticism, from the pen of Mr. J. W. Morton, which was of great importance. In it, the very stronghold of the Sunday argument had been fearlessly attacked, and, to our mind, carried beyond all question. The writer whom we quoted presented twelve versions and translations, all of which clearly sustained the position that the expression, “by him,” was equivalent to the term, “at home” If this were true, then beyond all dispute the Sunday argument had been denuded of all its strength, provided it ever had any; for the support of its logic was the assumption that the transaction brought to view in this text was to take place in the respective assemblies of the saints.

It is, therefore, with the most profound satisfaction that—if we rightly apprehend the remarks of our reviewer—we accept his concession of the point that the words, “by him,” do indeed answer to a Greek idiom, of which the original terms are equivalent to the expression, “at home.” This being true, we are agreed that at least a portion of the duty which Paul commanded was to be performed, not at the house of assembly, but at the dwelling of the individual Christian. In other words, he admits that the money which they were to “place or devote” to charitable purposes, was first to be estimated and separated while yet they were in their own houses. Having conceded thus much, he reasons that the money was to be carried to the place of worship, and laid up in store, or deposited among the collections regularly made on the first day of the week. In order to sustain this view, he offers a grammatical criticism to which it cannot be objected that it is not drawn finely enough to meet the taste of the most fastidious. But the writer does not seem to plant himself so squarely upon it as we would naturally expect one would who feels that he is standing upon solid ground.

The force of his logic seems to be drawn from the object which Paul had in view, in ordering beforehand this weekly laying aside of money for the poor saints at Jerusalem. The writer thinks that the evident reference of Paul, in the words, “that there be no gatherings when I come,” is to contributions to be taken up in the congregation when he should have reached the place. If he is wrong in this, he is wrong in all; for no one will dispute that money could^[7] be “laid by in store” at home, as well as in the church, since to lay by in store, is to put in some safe and accessible place.

Right here, then, we inquire, What were the “gatherings” which Paul sought to avoid on his arrival? They could refer to but one of two things; either, first, the collection of moneys in the church; or, secondly, the collecting of them by individuals from those who were indebted to them. That the first was not the sense in which Paul employed the word, we submit is apparent, from the fact that the end to be gained by writing months beforehand, in order to prevent the taking up of a collection in the church, was not commensurate with the dignity which is given to it by so prominent a place in the sacred epistle. So far as the collection itself was concerned, it could have been brought about, unquestionably, within the space of fifteen minutes. The amount of time, therefore, which it would consume, is too insignificant to be worthy of mention.

Again, as it regards the moral complexion of the act, it will not be objected by our reviewer that it was to be avoided from any scruples in that direction, since he believes that such collections were taken up on every first day of the week. On the other hand, taking the second view as being the one which properly expresses the facts, we find that it is in perfect harmony with the circumstances of the case, and consistent with the notion that Paul had a sufficient motive for writing before hand, as he did, concerning the collections. He was about to make a brief visit to Corinth. How long he should remain, he could not tell. While there, he wanted the undivided attention of the people to be given to religious purposes, and also that the money which he expected, should be in readiness, so that no delay might be necessary.

This, however, could not be, since, not knowing the exact time of his arrival, they would not be likely to have it on hand when he should come, unless they laid it by, weekly, at their homes. Should he, therefore, drop in upon them suddenly, they would be thrown into a confusion of mind illy compatible with the purposes of daily worship during his visit, since they would be annoyed and distracted by the necessity of gathering from this direction and that, the amounts of the weekly contribution which they had agreed to make for the benefit of the suffering saints at Jerusalem.

But once more: Having settled the point that the explanation claimed does not satisfactorily account for the mention of the subject in an epistle, while the one which we present meets the requirements of the case in every particular—since it both supplies the money, and furnishes the apostle with a body of Christians ready to listen to the preaching of the word—let us look at the matter from another stand-point.

The plan proposed by Paul could have been arrived at in but one of two ways. Every Christian was expected, either, first, to give a fixed sum, every week, of an amount equal to that which the general valuation of his property would require; or, secondly, he was, as the writer supposes, to pay in a fluctuating amount weekly, that amount to be determined by the gains or losses of the week.

We will suppose, for a moment, that the first theory is correct, and will test the plan in question thereby. While doing so, for convenience’ sake, we will employ the currency of our own time. Here is a Corinthian Christian who is worth, say $10,000. He decides that he will give, for the purposes mentioned, ten dollars per week. He has money in his purse, and nothing to prevent his doing it at any time. Being anxious to obey the injunction of Paul, he proceeds as the writer suggests. On Sunday morning he is at home, knowing just what he must contribute on that day, when he goes to church, having previously decided this point. The amount, as we have seen, is precisely ten dollars. But Paul says he must do something with it “at home,” before going to church. What was he to do with it? The writer says, “to place or devote it.” Well, he takes out his purse; from it he extracts just ten dollars. He holds it in his fingers. Now, what shall he do with it? The writer says he must “place or devote it.” Yes, but we inquire. What does place or devote mean, in such a connection as this? In other words, What shall he do with the money at home? Shall he take it out, and turn it over, and look at it, and put it back into his purse again, and then go to church and place it in the contribution box? We answer that this would be a solemn farce. To say, also, that having taken it out of his purse he must not put it back again, but must place it in some other pocket, and then carry it to church, is simply ridiculous. So far, therefore, as the men were concerned whose property was fixed, and whose contributions were the same, weekly, all that was said by Paul about “devoting or placing” at home was pure nonsense, in the light of the exposition offered.^[8]

Now for the other class, or the men of fluctuating resources. How shall they proceed? Were they to estimate the amount of their weekly gains, and to collect in the sum, on the last day, which they were to give on the first day of the week? If so, then in their cases, as well as in those of the first order, the whole process was a mere sham, an empty and meaningless form. For they also, at their homes, would simply have to take out their money and look at it, and then put it back and go to the church for the purpose of donating it.

But again; as we have seen, that unless the work of deciding how much they ought to give, and separating the amount for that purpose while at home on the first day of the week, was a part of the plan of the apostle, the whole suggestion had in it neither rhyme nor reason, we now turn to the only alternative left our opponent; which is the conclusion that the work indicated by the term, “place or devote at home,” was that of deciding upon, and separating the sum which they could spare to the weekly contribution.

What are the consequences of such a position? We reply, It overturns and utterly uproots the whole theory of Sunday sanctity; for the lesson taught by 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, instead of being favorable to the conception that Paul held to such a theory, shows that he regarded the first day of the week as secular time. Do you ask, How do you reach such a conclusion? I answer, It is inevitable, since the men who were acting under the instruction of Paul could not carry out the work prescribed by him without devoting at least the morning of the first day of the week to worldly business, such as that of figuring up and deciding upon the losses and profits of the preceding week, and, perhaps, collecting from outstanding matters the pro-rata amount necessary for the stated collection at the church.

Should it be objected that our suggestion is open to the criticism that the well-to-do class of Christians could have furnished their means at any time, we answer, Very true; but that, should week after week elapse without the separation, on the part of the wealthy, of the stipulated sum, it might, before the arrival of the apostle, reach figures which it would be difficult even for them to meet without perplexity. And besides, the better, easier, more natural, and we think, spiritually, the more profitable method, even for them, would be found in doing it weekly. We might offer many reasons for this conviction, had we space. Paul was giving a general rule to meet the condition of all classes. The poor comprised the larger portion of these classes, and a principle was laid down, therefore, which, while it was better for the rich than any other, was indispensable, for the purposes in question, to the men of moderate circumstances.

Our interpretation, stated in brief, is simply this: The apostle instructed them on the first day of the week to lay by in store, at home, what they proposed to give to the saints at Jerusalem, hoarding it up until he should visit them, so that at his arrival they might put it into the common treasury; thus avoiding the possibility of being unable, on the one hand, to meet their pledges, and on the other, of being necessitated to have their minds occupied with temporal affairs, during his stay. This conception is free from embarrassments. Even were the gentleman’s translation of the passage correct, it cannot be shown to be unsound. He would read the scripture substantially as follows: “Let every one of you devote at home, treasuring up, that there be no gatherings when I come.” To our mind, there is no tautology, even in the declaration of the apostle thus expressed, which is worthy of mention; for should the term, “treasuring up,” be interpreted to mean the same as placing or devoting at home, it is explanatory, not of the command, but of the purpose of the command. A paraphrase, which is often employed with profit in the writings of Paul, will make it all clear: “Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay aside, or devote to the Lord, an amount commensurate with the prosperity which he has bestowed upon you, treasuring it up, so that there need be no gatherings when I come.”

The only difference between the gentleman and myself, therefore, would be as to the place where it was to be treasured up; he insisting that it was at the church, and we, at the house of the individual Christian. We have shown that his opinion is not only unnecessary, but that it is also absurd, since it divides a transaction which Paul does not divide; and, after admitting that a part of it transpired at the home of the individual, it represents the other part as having taken place at the church; whereas, neither the church, the contribution box, nor the assembly, are so much as mentioned. And besides, it presents Paul in an attitude which certainly does not compliment his sagacity. Mark you, it is “every one of you” that he instructs to “lay by at home.” It must therefore be, not the church collectively, but its individual members who are called upon to treasure up, or lay by in store. Just here we submit that the language employed is literal, and not figurative, and that, this being true, the moment that the saints at Corinth placed their funds in the common treasury, they violated the injunction of the apostle, which was that they should treasure it up, or lay it by in store, individually. By way of enforcing our logic, we inquire of the reader, who has doubtless contributed many times to church collections, Can you look upon money thus bestowed as in any proper sense of the term belonging to you individually? or as still treasured up or laid by in store? We think that your answer will not be equivocal. To lay by in store, as before stated, is to put in some safe and accessible place; but money once donated is not accessible to the individual contributor, since he has no longer any individual property in it.

Here we must terminate our remarks on 1 Cor. 16:1, 2. As we do so, we have disposed of the last Bible text which will be cited in the support of a supposed practice of Sunday-keeping on the part of the early church. Error begets error. Having rejected the obvious teaching of Acts 20:7, that Paul, after holding a meeting on the first day of the week, traveled nineteen and a half miles on foot, and having endeavored to explain away this journey by inferring that it took place on the second day of the week, which is not mentioned in the connection, our opponent comes to the consideration of 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, lugging along in his arms a precedent which God had clearly taught him was not designed to teach the lesson which he sought to extract from it. With this precedent, thus illegitimately obtained, he seeks to explain the language of Paul which we have been considering. By this means, he has been led to indorse error. But we need not recapitulate.

In conclusion on this point, we remark: How admirable is the providence of God! He has instructed us in his word, in regard to duty, by clear precepts, and has never told as to study its requirements simply in the light of human example. How remarkable, therefore, that he should have condescended to so order, by his Spirit, the record which has been made in the case of every precedent brought forward, that the text and context would utterly overthrow every effort of him who should attempt to employ them in the interest of a false doctrine. On the day of the resurrection, as if to show that it was not holy time, two disciples are brought to view as traveling fifteen miles; a portion of the distance in company with their approving Lord, and the remainder of it after he had appeared to, walked and conversed with, them. In Acts 20:7, apparently perceiving the use which might be made of it, he places, in the foreground of the sacred record, the apostle, threading a weary journey on foot from Troas to Assos; and lastly, in 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, he framed the language so that it should inculcate, not the idea that the first day of the week was holy time, but, on the contrary, that it might be devoted to the secular work of casting up accounts and collecting funds.

With the exposition offered of the words, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day,” Rev. 1:10, we shall make short work. What we have previously said on that passage is not sufficiently disturbed to warrant extended remark. Be it remembered, then, that, as said above, the passage proves that God has a day in this dispensation. At this point commences our divergence. We say that the term, “Lord’s day,” refers to the seventh-day Sabbath. The writer says that it refers to the first day of the week. The declaration that Christ paid no attention to the seventh-day Sabbath after his resurrection, needs no reply here, except that he was under no obligation to do so, and there was no good reason why he should, since he regarded it strictly in his lifetime, and enjoined it upon his followers. Perhaps, however, it would be well to add that he at least never did anything after his resurrection which might be construed into a desecration of it; whereas, in the case of the only first-day on which it can be proved that he ever met with his disciples, after his death, be devoted a portion of its hours to travel on the highway.

To the objection of the writer that, if the term, “Lord’s day,” in the case before us, does apply to the seventh-day Sabbath, it is strange that it should have been called in every case but this “the Sabbath,” we reply that, were this true, this would simply prove a choice in titles, and implies no disrespect to the day itself, since the term “Sabbath,” equally with that of “Lord’s day,” was a sacred denomination. Not so, however, if he be right in the supposition that the term, “Lord’s day,” applies to the Sunday; for, if he be correct in this, then indeed we have something which is passing strange. For, in all the New Testament, that which he is pleased to style the “Christian Sabbath,” and to which, according to his theory, belonged the honorable name of “Lord’s day,” is not only so called but once; but, being spoken of nine times by inspired men, it is mentioned eight times out of the nine by them in an utter disregard of its hallowed nature, in the terms employed, since it is referred to by its secular name, first day of the week, in all these instances. The reader will recollect that, in our positive argument, we showed that the term, “Lord’s day,” was a fitting one for the last day of the week, provided the term translated “Lord” was applicable to God, the Father, as well as to Christ, the Son. 1. Because it was the day which he blessed and sanctified in Eden, thus claiming it as his own (Gen. 2:3). 2. Because, in the commandment, he calls it “the Sabbath of the Lord.” 3. Because, in Isa 58:13, 14, he makes mention of it in the use of the terms, “Sabbath,” “my holy day,” “the holy of the Lord,” &c.

In addition, we might cite other honorable and distinguishing terms by which it is pointed out in the Bible as a day which belongs peculiarly to the Lord our God, but these are sufficient.

If it be replied that the word translated “Lord” in Rev. 1:10, is necessarily limited to Christ, we answer: 1. As we have argued formerly, that he said he was Lord of the Sabbath. Mark 2:27, 28. 2. That the following texts show conclusively that the divine Son of God was engaged, equally with the Father, in the creation of this world; and, therefore, that he undoubtedly shared in the rest which furnished the foundation for the Edenic Sabbath, as well as in the act of blessing and sanctifying it, or setting it apart for religious purposes. “All things were made by him [Christ]: and without him was not anything made that was made.” John 1:3. “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.” John 1:10. “... Who [God] created all things by Jesus Christ.” Eph. 3:9. “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth; ... all things were created by him, and for him.” Col. 1:16. “God ... hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” Heb. 1:1, 2. Even though we should grant, therefore, which we do not, that the term translated “Lord,” as above, applies exclusively to the Son of God, we cannot see why the seventh day might not, with all propriety, be called after him, the Lord’s day.

In the concluding remarks on this branch of the subject, it will not be considered out of place for us to remind the reader of the protest which we offered, in the rejoinder to the second article of the gentleman of the Statesman, against his effort to obtain all the benefit which could be derived from his interpretation of Rev. 1:10, before he had struck a single blow, either in the direction of overturning our construction, or establishing, by fair argument, his own. The reason why this protest was offered is now apparent. The gentleman there, by anticipation, assumed that John meant by the term, “Lord’s day,” the first day of the week. He promised that in due time he would make good his assertion. But how has it proved, now that he has reached the very point where he should have fulfilled this engagement? Every one must see that he has utterly failed. Proof was the very thing which was promised, and which was needed, right here. It is the very thing, also, which he has neglected to adduce. All that is said in reference to the theory of Wetstein, may have served to give respectability, in point of length, to the treatment of that which he has regarded a most important scripture in his line of evidence; but it was utterly irrelevant to anything which we had said; for the reader will remember that we emphatically planted ourselves on the position that it was the weekly Sabbath to which allusion is made.

To the restatement of the scriptures employed in vindication of this last opinion, there can be no objection, but we inquire again, Where are the passages, where the deductions from Scripture teachings, by which the gentleman has proved that the Lord’s day is the first day of the week? He has not so much as cited one. He has not made even a respectable effort at argument; but, with a haste which is irreverent, if not indecent, he rushes away from the book of God, as if impelled by the conviction that his view will find no support there, and plunges headlong into the regions of patristic myth and moonshine. At this we are not surprised. It is just what we expected. Sabbatarians are as well acquainted with this device as they are with the emptiness of the so-called Bible argument for the Sunday. It simply serves to strengthen their conviction, so often expressed in these articles, that the stronghold of first-day observance will ever be found in writings which have been manipulated, retrenched, and interpolated, by the church of Rome. For, be it remembered, it is from the authorities to which the gentleman now appeals, that the papacy brings its stoutest testimonials for apostolic succession, papistic supremacy, and the other heresies which blacken the record of its apostasy.

All it is necessary to say to the reader here is, therefore, that he should bear in mind that Sabbatarians are willing to leave the arbitrament of this whole question where it can be determined from the standpoint of Bible evidence. It is the opposition, and not we, who make it necessary, in the investigation of this subject, to go upon forbidden ground. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. If, therefore, first-day sanctity has no warrant in the Bible, which we have seen to be the case, then it is not among those things which are profitable, or which, as Christian doctrines, are necessary to furnish the man of God unto all good works.