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.

STATESMAN’S REPLY.
ARTICLE SEVEN.
TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.

Besides the inspired records of the Scriptures, there have come down to us the writings of men who were contemporaneous with some of the apostles, and the writings of others who lived in the immediately succeeding generations. We shall quote from the writings of those who lived during the two centuries following the close of the canon of inspiration. These writers give evidence enough that they were not inspired, as were the penmen of the Divine Word. But it will be borne in mind that we appeal to them here simply as witnesses to a matter of fact. Many of their opinions and interpretations of Scripture may not be worthy of acceptance; but their testimony to the existence of the Lord’s day, an admitted fact, cannot be disputed. As there has been a great deal of loose citation from the early fathers on this question, we have been at considerable pains to translate carefully from the original in every case, and accompany each quotation with minute and accurate reference.

The first writer from whom we shall quote is Ignatius. This father stood at the head of the church at Antioch at the close of the first century and the beginning of the second. After occupying that position for many years, he was condemned to death, as a Christian, by Trajan, transported in chains to Rome, and there thrown to lions in the Coliseum for the amusement of the populace, probably in the year 107. On his way to Rome, he wrote seven epistles to various churches. Eusebius and Jerome arrange these writings as follows (1) To the Ephesians; (2) to the Magnesians; (3) to the Trallians; (4) to the Romans; (5) to the Philadelphians; (6) to the Smyrneans; (7) to Polycarp, bishop, or presbyter, of Smyrna. These seven epistles, in connection with a number of others confessedly spurious, have come down to us in two Greek copies, a longer and a shorter. A Syriac version of three epistles has recently been found. Without entering into the controversy concerning these Ignatian Epistles, we give the conclusion reached by Dr. Schaff, which is very generally accepted: “The question lies between the shorter Greek copy and the Syriac version. The preponderance of testimony is for the former, in which the letters are no loose patch-work, but were produced, each under its one impulse, were well known to Eusebius, probably even to Polycarp, and agree also with the Armenian version of the fifth century.” (History of the Christian Church, vol. i. p. 466.) It is admitted, even by those who do not accept the Greek copy as genuine, that it is the work of the close of the second century, or a little later. In any event, then, it is important testimony. In the epistles to the Magnesians occurs the following language: “Be not deceived with false doctrines, nor old, unprofitable fables. For, if we still live in accordance with Judaism, we confess that we have not received grace. For even the most holy prophets lived according to Jesus Christ.... If, then, they who were brought up in ancient things arrived at a newness of hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath, but living according to the Lord’s life, ... how can we live without him?... Since we have been made his disciples, let us learn to live according to Christianity.”[[9]]—Ad Magnes. capp. 8, 9; Coteler’s Edition, vol. ii. pp. 19, 20. Amsterdam, 1724.