The Constitutional Amendment: or, The Sunday, the Sabbath, the Change, and Restitution / A discussion between W. H. Littlejohn, Seventh-day Adventist, and the editor of the Christian Statesman

by Wolcott H. Littlejohn

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.