Search

... this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the same mammer also he took the eup, when he had supped, saying, This cup i8 the New Testament in my blood: this do ye, 28 oft a8 ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death, till he come.” 1 Cor. xi, 23-26. Would you commemorate the burizl and resurrec- tion of the Saviour? You need not keep the fint day of the week. The Lord ordaited a very different, and far more appropriate memorial. % Enow ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death} Therefore we are bur- ied 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 like- ness of his death, wo shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.” Rom. vi, 3-5. . “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” Col. ii, 12. It is true that the professed church has changed this ordinance to sprinkling, so that this divine me- morial of our Lord's resurrection is destroyed, And that they may add sin to sin, they lay hold of the Lord's Sabbath, and change it to the first day of the week, thus destroying thesacred memorial of the Crea- tor's rest, that they may have a memorial of Christ's resurrection! “The earth is also defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have trans yressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlast- ing covenant” When will th» professed church cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? Not until E ee - NT Cow 7 “the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.” Isa. xxiv, 5, 6. Secoxp Ressox. The disciples meton the day of our Lord's resurrection to commemorate that event, Aid Lo Quvionr sanctioned this meeting by uniting with them, John xa, 10 If every word of this was truth, iL wowd wat Drove that the Sabbath of the Lord has been changeq, But to show the utter absurdity of this inference, list- en toa few facts, The disciples atthat time did notbe- lieve thut their Lord had been raised from the dead ; but were assembled for the purpose of eating a common meal, and to seclude themselves from the Jews. The words of Mark and of John make this clear. “He appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them, Afterward he appeared unto the eleven, as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief, and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.” Mark xvi, 12-14. John says: “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you” John xx, 19. It is a fact, therefore, that the disciples were not commemorating the resurrection of the Saviour; it is equally evident that they had not the slight- est idea of a change of the Sabbath, At the burial of the Saviour, the women who had followed him to the tomb, returned and prey spices and ointments to embalm him; the Sabbath drew on: --------------------------- 22 guarantee that every word therein contained was di- visely inspired. The tradition of the elders comes to us without a particle of such testimony, Wherefore it follows that the man who fears God will not rejoct that which he knows came froin heaven, for the sake of following that which directly contradicts it, and which by that fact is proved to have come from the great enemy of divine truth. But does the Bible contain the least intimation that what was written near the days of the apostles Is any moze sacred than what was written at a later pericd? Paul told the Thessalonian church that “the mystery of miquity,” or Romish apostasy, had already begun to work. 2 Thess, il. If Paul ‘was correet, it follows that it is far from being safe to adopt as sa- cred trnth a doctrine which is not found in the New Testament, merely because it is said to have come from some who lived near the days of the apostles, Satan was then busily engaged in nunsing in the bo- som of the early church, the viper which should ere long infect with deadly poison a great portion of the professed people of God. Did not Paul warn those with whom he parted at Ephesus, that grievous wolves were to enter among them, and that of themselves men were to arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them? When any doctrine is brought to us from those who lived near the days of the apostles, it is then proper for us to inquire wheth- et this comes from those who spoke the sentiments of the holy apostles, or whether it comes from those grievous wolves who were to follow after them, and speak perverse things, Is there no way by which we can determine this question? Certainly there is an infallible test. The 23 New Testament contains the precise language of Jo- sug Christ and the apostles, Now if the fathers speak according to that worl, they speak the pre- cious truths of God. But if they speak that which makes void the word of truth, it is a very strong evi- dence that they belong to that class which Paul no- tified the church, should arise in their very midst, and speak perverse things, to draw away disciples after them, If the Holy Spirit has given us notice that false teachers were to arise in the very days of the apostles, should it not serve a8 a warning to us that things which purport to come from the successors of the apostles, may, for all that, contain the most deadly poison 4. If it were certain that the early fathers, in their zeal to improve upon the New Testament, changed the fourth commandment, it would ouly prove that they were of the number of grievous wolves that were to arise. But it by no means follows that the mys- tery of iniquity was able thus early to change times and laws. The testimony given from Storrs’ Fourth Sermon, evinces clearly that even the fathers them- selves do not now coms to us with their own words. Their testimony has been corrupted, and many shane- less forgeries are palined off astheir genuine testimony. If the reader ever looked into a Romish controver- sial work, Lio will there find the very fathers, who are so much relied upon to prove the change of the Sabbath, quoted to prove all the heresies of that anti-christian church. It follows, therefore, that one of two things must be true: either the testimony of the early fathers has been shamefully corrupted, or those so-called early fathers were wolves in sheep's clothing, SLR dat nh i --------------------------- Le not believe it had become the Sabbath why should you? And why do you grasp, as evidence that the Sabbath had been changed, asingle instance in which an evening meeting was held on Sunday, while you overlook the fact that it was the cnrtom of this sue Apostle to preach every Sabbath, not enly to the” Juws, but also tothe Gentiles? Acts xiii, 14, 42 44; xvi, 135 xvi, 23 xvid, 4. Paul broke bread on the first day of the week, and then immediately started on his long journey to Je rusalem. So that this, the strongest argument for the first day of the week, furnishes direct proof that Sun- day is not the Sabbath. Sixvn Reasox. Pan! commanded the church at Corinth to take up a public collection on the first day of the week: therefore it follows that this must have been their day of public worship, and consequently is the Christian Sablath, 1 Cor. xvi, 2. We answer, it is a remarkable fact that Paul en- joins exactly the reverse of a public collection. He does not say, Place your alms in the public treasury, on the first day of the week; but he says,“ Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store.” J. W. Morton in his # Vindication of the true Sab- bath,” pages 51, 52, snys:— «The Apostle simply orders, that each one of the Corinthian brethren should lay up at home some por- tion of lis weekly gains on the fimt day of the week. The whole question turns upon the meaning of the expression, ‘by him? and 1 marvel greatly how you can imagine, that it means ‘in the collection box of the congregation! Greenfield, in his Lexicon, trane- lates the Greek term, “hy one's self, 4. caf home.’ 13 Two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that of Castel- Yio, render it, ‘apud sg) with one's self, at home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacer, ‘chez 20k at Lis own house, at home. The German of Luther, * bed sich selbst) by himself, at ome. The Dutch, ‘hy hemselven, same as the Gorman, Tho Italian of Diodati, * appresso di se) in his own presence, ut home. The Spanish of Felipa Heio, ¢ en 8 casa, in his own house. The Portu- cues of Ferreira, © para issn, with himself, The Swedish, ‘nar sig stelf) near himself 1 know not how much this list of authorities might be swelled, {or 1 have not examined one translation that differs from those quoted above.” Phe text, therefore, docs not prove that the Corin- thin church was assembled for publie worship on that day; but, on the contrary, it does prove that each must be at his own home, where he could examine his worldly affair and lay by himeell in efore 0s God had prospered him. If each one should thus from week to week collect of his earnings, when the Apostte should come, their bounty would be ready, and each would be able to present to him what they hal gathered. Bo that if the first-day Sabbath has ao better foundation than the inference drawn from ¢his text, it truly reste upon sliding sand. SevEsTH REAsox. John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, which was the fist day of the week Rev, 1, 10. - » This is the kind of reasoning which the advoeates of Sunday are invariably obliged to adopt. But we ask, What right have they fo assume the very point which they ought to prove! This text, it is true, furnishes direc, proof that there is a day in the gos- --------------------------- o 4 vance of the first day of the week, which we will kere notice, Firs Reason. Redemptionis grester than crea tion; therefore we onght to keep the day of Christ's resurtection, instead of the ancient Sabbath of the Lord. Where has God said this? BSunday-keepers aro compelled to admit that he never did say it. What right, then, has any man to make such an assertion, and then to base the change of the Sabbath upon it? But suppose redemption is greater than creation, who knows that we vnght to keep the first day of the week on that account? God never required men to keep any day as the memorial of redemption. But if it were duty to observe one day of the week for this reason, mest certainly the crucifixion-day pre- sents the strongest claims, It is not said that wo have redemption through Christ's resnrrection; but it 18 ead that we have redemption through the shed- ding of his blood. “And they sung a néw song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kin- dred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” Hew. v, 9. “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sing, according to the riches of his grace,” Eph. i, 7; Col. i, 14; Heb. ix, 12,15. Then redemption is through the death of the Lord Jesus; consequently, the day on which he shed his recious blood to redeem us, and said “ It is finished,” John xix, 30,] is the day that should be kept asthe memorial of redemption, if any should be observed for that purpose. Nor can it be plead that the resurrection-day is the most remarkable day in the history of redempticn, Tt needs but a word to prove that in this respect it is far exceeded by the day of the crucifixion. Which is the most remarkablo event, the act of Jehovah in giving his beloved and only Son to die for a race of rebels, or the act of that Father in raising that belov- ed Son from the dead? There is only one answer that ean be given: it was not remarkable that God should raise his Son from the dead: but the act of the Fath- er in giving his Son to die for sinners, was a spectacle of redeeming love on which the Universe might gaze and adore the wondrous love of God to all eternity. Who can wonder that the sun was veiled jn darkness, andl that all nature trembled at the sight! The eru- cifixion-day, therefore, has far greater claims than the day of the resurrection. God has not enjoined the observance of either; and is it not a fearful act to make void the commandments of God by that wis- dom which is folly in his sight. 1 Cor. J, 19, 20. But if we would commemorate redemption, there is 110 necessity of robbing the Lord's Rest-day of its holiness in order to do it. When truth takes from us our error, it always Las something better to take their place. So the false memorial of redemption being taken out of the way, the Word presents in its stend those which are true. God has provided us with memorials, bearing his own signature; and these we may observe with the blessing of Heaven. Would you commemorate the death of our Lord? You need not keep the day of his crucifixion. The Bible tells you how to do it. “For I have received of the Lord, that which alko I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks he brake it, and said, Take eat; --------------------------- SEVENTIL PART OF TIME THEOKY Shown to be False by the Following from J. W. Mortow's Vindication of the True Sabbath. Tue only object, direct or indirect, of this [the fourth] commandment, is ¥ the day.” What are wea commanded to remember? The day.” What are we required to keep holy? “The day.” What did the Lord bless and hallow? “The dag.” In what are wo forbidden to work? In “the day.” Now let us inquire — 1. What day? Not the day of Adam's fal: nor the day Noah went into the ark; nor the day of the overthrow of Sodom ; nor the day of the Exodus; nor the day of the Provocation; nor the day of the removal of the ark; nor the day of Christ's birth: nor the day of his crucifixion; nor the day of his resurrection; nor the day of his ascension; nor the day of judgment. It may be, and certainly is prop- or, that we should remember all these: but we ar not told to do so in this commandment. Neither is it some one day of the week, but no one in particu- lar; for how could we remember “he day,” that is no day in particular i—how could we keep holy “the day” that has not been specified I—and how could we say that God had blessed and hallowed © the day,” that was no one day more than another? What day, then! God says, Remember fhe Sabbath-day, or the day of the Sabbath; Keep holy the day of the Sabbath; The Lord blessed and hallowed the day of the Subbath. He also says, The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; iu ¢¢ thou shalt not do any work. This day, therefore, is “the sav- enth day,” or “ the day of the Sabbath.” 2. What Sabbath? Not “a Sabbath,” or any Sabbath that man may invent, or that God may here- after keep; for that would be “some Sabbath” but no one in particular. Not some institution yet un- determined, that God may require man to observe weekly; for the command is not, “ Remember the Sabbath institution,” but, * Remember the day of the Sabbath;” not, © Keep holy the Sabbath institution,” but, Keep holy the day of the Sabbath.” The Lord did not bless and hallow “the Sabbath institution,” but “the day of the Sabbath.” We are not forbid- den to do work in “the Sabbath institution” but in “the seventh day. In fact, the phrase, “the Sab- bath,” in this commandment, means neither more nor less than “the rest” It is uot here the name of any institution at all, though it is often thus used in oth- er parts of the Bible. ~ Hence, this Sabbath is 4 the Sabbath or rest of the Lord thy God.” 3. Which day of the week is “the day of the Sabbath?” No other than that day on which the Lord rested; for the command refers to God's Sab- bath, On which day of the week did he rest? “And lhe rested on the seventh day” Gen. ij, 2. Therefore, “ the day of the Sabbath” is the same day of the week on which God rested from the work of creation; and as he rested on the seventh day of the first week, and on no other, the seventh and no other day of every week must be the only « day of the Sabbath.” Let it be particularly observed, that God does not --------------------------- In substituting the vague and indefinite expres. sion, “one day in seven,” for the definite and unequiv- ocal terms, “ the Sabbath-day,” and “ the seventh day,” you have as truly taken “away from the words of the prophecy of this book,” as if you had blotted the fourth commandment from the Decalogue ; while your leading object has been to make way for the in- troduction of a new command that, for aught the Seriptures teach, it never entered into the heart of the Almighty to put into his law. 2. God never blessed “one day in seven,” with- out blessing a particular day. He either blessed some definite object, or nothing. You may say, in- deed, without falsehood, that God blessed “one day in seven” but if you mean that this act of blessing did not terminate on any particular day, you ought to know, that yon are asserting what is naturally 1m- possible. As well might you say of a band of rob- bers, that they had killed “one man in seven,” while in reality they had killed no man in particular. No, brethren, yourselves know very well, that God had not blessed and sanctified any day but the seventh of the seven, prior to the giving of the written law. You know, that if God blessed any day of the week at all, it waa a definite day, distinet, from all the oth- er days of the week. But this commandment says, that “the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day.” There- fore the Sabbath-day must be a particular day of the week, Therefore “the Sabbath-day” is not “ome day in seven,” or an indefinite seventh part of time. Therefore it is not “one day in seven” that we ar required to remember, and keep holy, and in which we aro forbidden to do any work; but “ the seventh day” of the week, which was then, is now, and will 81 be till the end of time, “the day of the Sabbath” of the Lord our God. 3. No day of the week but the seventh was ever called “the day of the Sabbath,” either by God or man, till lmg since the death of the last inspired writer. Search both Testaments through and through, and you will find no other day called “fhe Sabbath,” or even “« Sabbatl,” except the ceremo- nial Sabbaths, with which, of course, we have noth- ing to do in this controversy. And long after the close of the canon of inspiration, the seventh day, and no other, was still called “the Sabbath” If you can prove that any one man, among the millions of Adam's children, from the beginning of the world till the rise of Antichrist, ever called the first day of the week “the Sabbath you will shed a light upon this controversy, for which a host of able wri- ters have searched in vain. But, farther; the fist day of the week was not observed by any of the children of men, as a Sa?- bath, for hundred years after the birth of Christ. Do you ask proof! I refer you to Theo- dore de Beza, who plainly saya so. If you are not satisfied with the witness, will you have the good- ness to prove the affirmative of the proposition f I infer, therefore, that * the day of the Sabbath” or “the Sabbath-day,” is the proper name of the seventh day of the week, as much so as “the day of Saturn;” and that to attach this Proper name row to some other day of the week, and to affirm that God meant that other day, a8 much as he did the seventh, when he wrote the law on tables of stone, is #8 unreasonable as it is impious. If you say, that when God speaks of % the Sabbath. ...