Tracts on the Sabbath

by Unknown

YOUR SIXTH PROOF.

1 Corinthians 16:2—"Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come."

Your premises are—1. That the Apostle here commands the Corinthians to make public collections on the first day of the week. 2. That, therefore, public assemblies were accustomed to be held on that day. Whence you infer, that the first day of the week is the Sabbath.

I deny both your premises. The apostle simply orders, that each one of the Corinthian brethren should lay up at home some portion of his weekly gains on the first day of the week. The whole question turns upon the meaning of the expression, "by him;" and I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it means "in the collection box of the congregation." Greenfield, in his Lexicon, translates the Greek term, "by one's self, i. e. at home." Two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that of Castellio, render it, "apud se," with one's self, at home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacy, "chez soi," at his own house, at home. The German of Luther, "bei sich selbst," by himself, at home. The Dutch, "by hemselven," same as the German. The Italian of Diodati "appresso di se," in his own presence, at home. The Spanish of Felipe Scio, "en su casa," in his own house. The Portuguese of Ferreira, "para isso," with himself. The Swedish, "nær sig sielf," near himself. I know not how much this list of authorities might be swelled, for I have not examined one translation that differs from those quoted above. Now, if your premises are false, your inference is not only unnecessary, but wholly inadmissible.

YOUR SEVENTH PROOF.

Revelations 1:10—"I was in the spirit on the Lord's day."

You premise, that the "Lord's day" is the first day of the week. Whence you infer, that the first day of the week is the Sabbath.

You here assume the principal point in dispute, namely, that God has appointed the first day of every week to be kept in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ. Is every Friday the "Lord's day," because he was crucified on Friday? You answer, No. Is every Thursday the "Lord's day," because he ascended on Thursday? You answer, No. So, when you ask, Is every first day of the week the "Lord's day," because he rose on the first day? I answer, No. And is it too much that I should ask you to prove your assumption? I have never yet met with an attempt to prove it.

But, were this even proved, your inference would not be necessary. The first day might be the "Lord's day," and yet not the Sabbath. Would the bare mention of this day by the Apostle John, even if it were certain that he referred to the first day of the week, repeal or alter the fourth commandment? Certainly not. But you ask, What day did he mean? I reply, Most probably he meant the seventh, since we know from several scriptures that this is in fact the Lord's day. See Nehemiah 9:14, and Isaiah 58:13. But you ask again, Why did he not say "the Sabbath," if he meant it? I reply by asking you, Why did he not say "the first day," if he meant it?

Brethren, who can say, that, from any or all of the texts commented upon above, the inference is necessary, that the first day of the week is, and that the seventh is not, holy? But this is precisely what you infer from them. On the sole authority of these passages, together with that one in which Christ says, that he is "Lord of the Sabbath," you have no hesitation in affirming that the first day of the week is the very Sabbath day spoken of in the fourth commandment, and that the seventh day of the week is not now more holy than any other; or, in other words, that the blessing which God put upon it in the beginning, (Gen. 2:21,) has been taken from it, and given to another day. What! because "there remaineth a sabbatism to the people of God," therefore the seventh day must have ceased to be the Sabbath! Because "we will be glad and rejoice" in "the day which the Lord hath made," therefore the seventh day must have ceased to be holy! Because Christ showed himself to his disciples once or twice on the first day of the week, therefore the seventh day cannot be the Sabbath! Because the Pentecostal effusion of the Holy Ghost happened on the first day of the week, as is clearly demonstrated by arithmetical calculation, therefore the seventh day cannot claim to be the Sabbath! Because the disciples met once "to break bread" on the first day of the week, therefore God must have unsanctified the seventh day! Because the Corinthian and Galatian Christians were commanded to "lay by them in store" on the first day of the week, for the relief of the poor saints, therefore the seventh day can be nothing more than a working day! Because John was "in the spirit on the Lord's day," therefore the seventh day cannot be "the Lord's day," as it used to be! Because Jesus Christ is "Lord of the Sabbath," and has the right to change it, or even to annihilate it, (?) therefore the seventh day must have ceased to be a day of rest! O brethren, you dare not say, that any of these inferences flow from the Scriptures as necessary consequences. But if they are not necessary—if there is any way of avoiding them, without doing violence either to the text or context—how can you ask me to believe that the first day is, and that the seventh is not, holy?