The First Day of the Week Not the

Sabbath of the Lord

Advent and Sabbath Tract, No. 1
By J. N. Andrews
"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. iii,
16, 17. {1855 JNA, FDNS 1.1}
In this text we are assured that every word of the Sacred
Scriptures was given by the Holy Spirit; that every doctrine
which men should believe, is therein revealed; that every
fault is therein reproved; every error is corrected by its
words of truth; and that perfect instruction in all
righteousness is therein given. {1855 JNA, FDNS 1.2}
The design of its Author in providing such a book, was
that the man of God might thereby be made perfect,
thoroughly furnished unto all good works. This is the
treasure which God has given to his church. Nor is this all
that he has done. To those who are willing to obey the
teachings of his word, he has promised the Spirit to guide
them into all truth. {1855 JNA, FDNS 1.3}
To men thus situated, Jehovah thus speaks: "Prove all
things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thess. v, 21. That is,
bring every part of your faith and practice to the test of
God's sure word; ask the Holy
2
Spirit's aid, that your mind may be delivered from
prejudice, and your understanding enlightened in the word
of truth. Then what you find revealed in that word hold fast;
it is of priceless value; but relinquish at once every precept
or doctrine not therein recorded, lest you make the
doctrines of men of equal weight with the commandments
of God. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord. {1855

JNA, FDNS 1.4}

As the first day of the week is now almost universally

observed in the place of the Sabbath of the fourth
commandment, we design in this Tract to examine the
grounds on which this observance rests. Those who are
willing to submit their opinions to the test of scripture and of
reason, are invited to unite with us in the examination of
this subject. For what reason do men prefer the first day of
the week to the ancient Sabbath of the Lord? On what
authority do men continually violate the day which God
sanctified, and commanded mankind to keep holy? Come,
now, and let us reason together. Here is the commandment
which it is said has been changed:- {1855 JNA, FDNS 2.1}
"Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Six days
shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is
the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any
work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant,
nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is
within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and
earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the
seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day,
and hallowed it." Ex. xx, 8-11. {1855 JNA, FDNS 2.2}
That this commandment requires men to remember, and
to keep holy the Rest-day of the Creator, which he hallowed
at the close of the first week of time,
3
none can deny. We now ask for the authority for the
change of this commandment. {1855 JNA, FDNS 2.3}
Papists believe that their church had power to change the
fourth commandment; and, on that authority, alone, they
are perfectly satisfied in observing the first day of the week.
{1855 JNA, FDNS 3.1}

Protestants deny the authority of the church of Rome, and

attempt to vindicate the change of the Sabbath, by an
appeal to the Bible. This is what we wish them to do. We ask
them, therefore, to present a single text in which it is said
that God has changed his Sabbath to the first day of the
week. The advocates of the change have none to offer. If
they cannot present such a text, will they give us one which
testifies that God ever blessed and sanctified the first day of
the week? Its observers admit that they have none to
present. But will they not give us one text in which men are
required to keep the first day holy, as a Sabbath unto the
Lord? They acknowledge that they have none. How then do
they dare to exalt the first day of the week above the
Sabbath of the Lord, which the commandment requires us to
remember, and keep holy? {1855 JNA, FDNS 3.2}
The Bible thoroughly furnishes the man of God unto all
good works. Can Sunday-keeping be a very good work,
when the Bible has never said anything in its favor? Or if it
is a good work, can men be very thoroughly furnished in its
defense, when God has said nothing in its favor? Instead of
being a good work, must it not be a fearful sin against God
to thus pervert the fourth commandment, when once the
mind has been enlightened on the subject? {1855 JNA, FDNS 3.3}
But there are several reasons urged for the observance
4
of the first day of the week, which we will here notice. {1855
JNA, FDNS 3.4}

FIRST REASON. Redemption is greater than creation;

therefore we ought to keep the day of Christ's resurrection,
instead of the ancient Sabbath of the Lord. {1855 JNA, FDNS 4.1}
Where has God said this? Sunday-keepers are 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 ought 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,
most certainly the crucifixion-day presents the strongest
claims. It is not said that we have redemption through
Christ's resurrection; but it is said that we have redemption
through the shedding of his blood. "And they sung a new
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 kindred, and tongue, and
people, and nation." Rev. v, 9. "In whom we have
redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,
according to the riches of his grace." Eph. i, 7; Col. i, 14;
Heb. ix, 12, 15. {1855 JNA, FDNS 4.2}
Then redemption is through the death of the Lord Jesus;
consequently, the day on which he shed his precious blood
to redeem us, and said "It is finished," [John xix, 30,] is the
day that should be kept as the memorial of redemption, if
any should be observed for that purpose. {1855 JNA, FDNS 4.3}
Nor can it be plead that the resurrection-day is the most
remarkable day in the history of redemption.
5
It needs but a word to prove that in this respect it is far
exceeded by the day of the crucifixion. Which is the most
remarkable 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 beloved Son from the dead? There is
only one answer that can be given: it was not remarkable
that God should raise his Son from the dead; but the act of
the Father 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 in darkness, and
that all nature trembled at the sight! The crucifixion-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 wisdom which is folly in his sight. 1 Cor. i, 10,
20. {1855 JNA, FDNS 4.4}
 But if we would commemorate redemption, there is no
necessity of robbing the Lord's Rest-day of its holiness in
order to do it. When truth takes from us our errors, it always
has something better to take their place. So the false
memorial of redemption being taken out of the way, the
Word presents in its stead 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.
{1855 JNA, FDNS 5.1}

"For I have received of the Lord, that which also 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;
6
this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in
remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took
the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New
Testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as 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. {1855 JNA, FDNS 5.2}
Would you commemorate the burial and resurrection of
the Saviour? You need not keep the first day of the week.
The Lord ordained a very different, and far more appropriate
memorial. "Know ye not that so many of us as were
baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried 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 likeness of
his death, we 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. {1855 JNA, FDNS 6.1}
It is true that the professed church has changed this
ordinance to sprinkling, so that this divine memorial 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 the sacred
memorial of the Creator's rest, that they may have a
memorial of Christ's resurrection! "The earth is also defiled
under the inhabitants thereof; because they have
transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the
everlasting covenant." When will the professed church
cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? Not until
7
"the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men
left." Isa. xxiv, 5, 6. {1855 JNA, FDNS 6.2}
SECOND REASON. The disciples met on the day of our
Lord's resurrection to commemorate that event, and the
Saviour sanctioned this meeting by uniting with them. John
xx, 19. {1855 JNA, FDNS 7.1}
If every word of this was truth, it would not prove that the
Sabbath of the Lord has been changed. But to show the
utter absurdity of this inference, listen to a few facts. The
disciples at that time did not believe that 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.
{1855 JNA, FDNS 7.2}

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 slightest idea of a change of
the Sabbath. At the burial of the Saviour, the women who
had followed him to the tomb, returned and prepared spices
and ointments to embalm him; the Sabbath drew on;
8
they rested the Sabbath-day according to the
commandment; and when the Sabbath was past, they came
to the sepulchre upon the first day of the week to embalm
their Lord. Luke xxiii, 55, 56; xxiv, 1. They kept the Sabbath
according to the commandment, and resumed their labor on
the first day of the week. {1855 JNA, FDNS 7.3}
THIRD REASON. After eight days Jesus met with his
disciples again. John xx, 26. This must have been the first
day of the week, which is thereby proved to be the Christian
Sabbath. {1855 JNA, FDNS 8.1}
Were it certain that this occurred upon the first day of the
week, it would not furnish a single particle of proof that that
day had become the Sabbath of the Lord. But who can be
certain that "after eight days" means just a week? It would
be nearer a literal construction of the language to conclude
that this was upon the ninth day. As an illustration, read
Matt. xvii, 1. "And after six days, Jesus taketh Peter, James,
and John," etc. Now turn to Luke ix, 28. "And it came to
pass, about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter,
and John, and James," etc. Then "after six days" is about
eight days in this instance. But if "after eight days" means
just a week, how does this prove that Sunday has taken the
place of the Lord's Sabbath? Rather how does it prove that
Sunday has become the Christian Sabbath, when there is
not a particle of evidence that either Christ or his apostles
ever rested on that day? There is no such term as Christian
Sabbath found in the Bible. The only weekly Sabbath named
in the Bible is called the Sabbath of the Lord. {1855 JNA, FDNS 8.2}
Was the act of Christ in appearing to his disciples
sufficient to constitute the day on which it occurred
9
the Sabbath? If so, why did he next select a fishing day as
the time to manifest himself to them? John xxi. If it is not
sufficient, then the Sunday on which he was first seen of
them, the fishing day on which they next saw him, and the
Thursday on which he was last seen of them, may not be
Sabbaths. It was not very remarkable that Christ should find
his disciples together, in as much as they had one common
abode. Acts i, 13. {1855 JNA, FDNS 8.3}
FOURTH REASON. The Holy Spirit descended upon the
disciples on the day of Pentecost, which was the first day of
the week. Therefore the first day of the week should be
observed instead of the Sabbath of the Lord. Acts ii, 1, 2.
{1855 JNA, FDNS 9.1}

Admitting that the day of Pentecost occurred upon the

first day of the week, it remains to be proved that it thereby
became the Sabbath. But that it was the feast of Pentecost,
and not the first day of the week, that God designed to
honor, the following facts demonstrate. {1855 JNA, FDNS 9.2}
1. While the day of Pentecost is distinctly named, the day
of the week on which it occurred is passed in silence. {1855 JNA,
FDNS 9.3}

2. The disciples had been engaged in earnest prayer for

the space of ten days; for the day of Pentecost was fifty
days from the resurrection of Christ, and forty of those days
he spent with his disciples. Acts i. Forty days from his
resurrection would expire on Thursday, the day of his
ascension. A period of ten days after his ascension on
Thursday, would include two First-days, the last of which
would be the day of Pentecost. If the design of God had
been to honor the first day of the week, why did not the
Holy Ghost descend on the first of those First-days?
 10
Why must the day of Pentecost come before the Holy
Ghost could descend? This answer is obvious. It was not the
design of Heaven to honor the first day of the week, but to
mark the antitype of the feast of Pentecost. Hence the first
day of the week is passed in silence. {1855 JNA, FDNS 9.4}
The slaying of the paschal lamb on the fourteenth day of
the first month, had met its antitype in the death of the
Lamb of God on that day. Ex. xii; John xix; 1 Cor. v, 7. The
offering of the first fruits on the sixteenth day of the first
month, had met its antitype in the resurrection of our Lord
on that day, the first fruits of them that slept. Lev. xxiii; 1
Cor. xv, 20, 23. It remained that the day of Pentecost, fifty
days later, should also meet its antitype. Lev. xxiii, 15-21.
The fulfillment of that type is what the pen of inspiration has
recorded in Acts ii, 1, 2. God has spoken nothing in this
place respecting a change of his Sabbath. Yet grave men,
calling themselves Doctors of Divinity, consider this text one
of their strongest testimonies for their so-called Christian
Sabbath. They might be profited by this advice of the wise
man: "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee,
and thou be found a liar." Prov. xxx, 6. {1855 JNA, FDNS 10.1}
FIFTH REASON. Paul once broke bread upon the first day
of the week at Troas. Hence this day was observed as the
Christian Sabbath. Acts xx, 7. {1855 JNA, FDNS 10.2}
We answer, that at one period the apostolic church at
Jerusalem broke bread every day. Acts ii, 42-46. If a single
instance of breaking bread at Troas upon the first day of the
week, was quite sufficient to constitute it the Sabbath,
would not the continued practice of the apostolic church at
Jerusalem
11
in breaking bread every day, be amply sufficient to make
every day a Sabbath? Moreover, as the act of the Great
Head of the church in breaking bread, must be quite as
important as that of his servant Paul, must not the day of
the crucifixion be pre-eminently the "Christian Sabbath," as
Christ instituted, and performed this ordinance on the
evening with which that day commenced? 1 Cor. xi, 23-26.
{1855 JNA, FDNS 10.3}

But on what day of the week did this act of Paul occur?
For, if it is of sufficient importance to make the day of its
occurrence the future Sabbath of the church, the day is
worth determining. The act of breaking bread was after
midnight; for Paul preached to the disciples until midnight,
then healed Eutychus, and after this attended to breaking
bread. Verses 7-11. If, as time is reckoned at the present
day, the first day of the week terminated at midnight, then
Paul's act of breaking bread took place upon the second day
of the week, or Monday, which should henceforth be
regarded as the Christian Sabbath, if breaking bread on a
day makes it a Sabbath. {1855 JNA, FDNS 11.1}
But if the Bible method of commencing the day, viz., from
six o'clock P.M., was followed, it would appear that the
disciples came together at the close of the Sabbath, for an
evening meeting, as the Apostle was to depart in the
morning. (If it was not an evening meeting, why did they
have many lights there?) Paul preached to them until
midnight, and then broke bread with the disciples early in
the morning of the first day of the week. Did this act
constitute that day the Sabbath? If so, then why did Paul, as
soon as it was light, start on his long journey to Jerusalem?
If Paul believed that Sunday was the Christian Sabbath, why
did he thus openly violate it? If he did
12
not believe it had become the Sabbath why should you?
And why do you grasp, as evidence that the Sabbath had
been changed, a single instance in which an evening
meeting was held on Sunday, while you overlook the fact
that it was the custom of this same Apostle to preach every
Sabbath, not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles? Acts
xiii, 14, 42, 44; xvi, 13; xvii, 2; xviii, 4. {1855 JNA, FDNS 11.2}
 Paul broke bread on the first day of the week, and then
immediately started on his long journey to Jerusalem. So
that this, the strongest argument for the first day of the
week, furnishes direct proof that Sunday is not the Sabbath.
{1855 JNA, FDNS 12.1}

SIXTH REASON. Paul commanded the church at Corinth to

take up a public collection on the first day of the week;
therefore it follows that his must have been their day of
public worship, and consequently is the Christian Sabbath. 1
Cor. xvi, 2. {1855 JNA, FDNS 12.2}
We answer, it is a remarkable fact that Paul enjoins
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." {1855 JNA, FDNS 12.3}
J. W. Morton in his "Vindication of the true Sabbath,"
pages 51, 52, says:- {1855 JNA, FDNS 12.4}
"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.' {1855 JNA, FDNS 12.5}
13
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, 'noer 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." {1855 JNA, FDNS 13.1}
The text, therefore, does not prove that the Corinthian
church was assembled for public 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 affairs, and lay
by himself in store as God had prospered him. If each one
should thus from week to week collect of his earnings, when
the Apostle should come, their bounty would be ready, and
each would be able to present to him what they had
gathered. So that if the first-day Sabbath has no better
foundation than the inference drawn from this text, it truly
rests upon sliding sand. {1855 JNA, FDNS 13.2}
SEVENTH REASON. John was in the Spirit on the Lord's
day, which was the first day of the week. Rev. i, 10. {1855 JNA,
FDNS 13.3}

This is the kind of reasoning which the advocates of

Sunday are invariably obliged to adopt. But we ask, What
right have they to assume the very point which they ought
to prove? This text, it is true, furnishes direct proof that
there is a day in the gospel.
14
dispensation which the Lord claims as his; but is there
one text in the Bible which testifies that the first day of the
week is the Lord's day? There is not one. Has God ever
claimed that day as his? Never. Has God ever claimed any
day as his, and reserved it to himself? He has. "And God
blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it
he had rested from all his work which God created and
made." Gen. ii, 3. "To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath
unto the Lord." Ex. xvi, 23. "The seventh day is the Sabbath
of the Lord thy God." Ex. xx, 10. "If thou turn away thy foot
from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day."
etc. Isa. lviii, 13. "Therefore, the Son of man is Lord also of
the Sabbath." Mark ii, 28. {1855 JNA, FDNS 13.4}
 Then the seventh is the day which God reserved to
himself, when he gave to man the other six; and this day he
calls his holy day. This is the day which the New Testament
declares the Son of man to be Lord of. {1855 JNA, FDNS 14.1}
Is there one testimony in the Scriptures that the Lord of
the Sabbath has put away his holy day, and chosen
another? Not one. Then that day which the Bible designates
as the Lord's day, is none other than the Sabbath of the
fourth commandment. {1855 JNA, FDNS 14.2}
THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED

We have now examined the main pillars on which the

first-day Sabbath rests; and it is perfectly apparent that
there is not a single particle of divine authority for the
observance of that day. Hence, its advocates must observe
the Sabbath of the Lord, or they must resort to the tradition
of the "fathers" for proof of its change. The history of the
change will be given in its place. But we now ask, what
15
right had the elders of the Christian church to change the
fourth commandment, any more that the elders of the
Jewish church had, to change the fifth? {1855 JNA, FDNS 14.3}
The Pharisees pretended that they had a tradition handed
down from Moses, which authorized them to change the fifth
commandment. The Papist and Protestant Doctors of
Divinity pretend that they have a tradition handed down
from Christ and the apostles, authorizing them to change
the fourth. But if Christ rebuked the Pharisees for holding a
damnable heresy, what would he say to the like act on the
part of his own professed followers? Matt. xv, 3-9. {1855 JNA, FDNS
15.1}

The same fathers which changed the fourth

commandment, have also corrupted all the ordinances of
the New Testament, and have established purgatory,
invocation of saints, the worship of the Virgin Mary and
prayers for the dead. {1855 JNA, FDNS 15.2}
The Protestant professes to receive the Bible alone as his
standard of faith and practice. The Papist receives the Bible
and the tradition of the fathers as his rule. The Protestant
cannot prove the change of the Sabbath from his own
standard, (the Bible,) therefore he is obliged to adopt that of
the Papist, viz., the Bible as explained and corrupted by the
fathers. The change of the Sabbath is proved by the Papist
as follows:- {1855 JNA, FDNS 15.3}
 "Ques. What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday,
preferably to the ancient Sabbath which was the Saturday?
{1855 JNA, FDNS 15.4}

"Ans. We have for it the authority of the Catholic Church,

and apostolic tradition. {1855 JNA, FDNS 15.5}
"Q. Does the Scripture any where command the Sunday
to be kept for the Sabbath? {1855 JNA, FDNS 15.6}
16
"A. The Scripture commands us to hear the Church, [Matt.
xviii, 17; Luke x, 16,] and to hold fast the traditions of the
apostles. 2 Thess. ii, 15. But the Scripture does not in
particular mention this change of the Sabbath. John speaks
of the Lord's day; [Rev. i, 10;] but he does not tell us what
day of the week this was, much less does he tell us that this
day was to take the place of the Sabbath ordained in the
commandments. Luke also speaks of the disciples meeting
together to break bread on the first day of the week. Acts
xx, 7. And Paul [1 Cor. xvi, 2] orders that on the first day of
the week the Corinthians should lay by in store what they
designed to bestow in charity on the faithful in Judea; but
neither the one nor the other tells us that this first day of
the week was to be henceforward the day of worship, and
the Christian Sabbath; so that truly, the best authority we
have for this, is the testimony and ordinance of the church.
And therefore, those who pretend to be so religious of the
Sunday, whilst they take no notice of other festivals
ordained by the same church authority, show that they act
by humor, and not by reason and religion; since Sundays
and holy-days all stand upon the same foundation, viz., the
ordinance of the church. {1855 JNA, FDNS 16.1}
"Q. What was the reason why the weekly Sabbath was
changed from the Saturday to the Sunday? {1855 JNA, FDNS 16.2}
"A. Because our Lord fully accomplished the work of our
redemption by rising from the dead on a Sunday, and by
sending down the Holy Ghost on a Sunday; as therefore the
work of our redemption was a greater work that that of our
creation, the primitive church thought the day on which this
work
17
was completely finished, was more worthy her religious
observation than that in which God rested from the creation,
and should be properly called the Lord's day." -- Catholic
Christian Instructed. {1855 JNA, FDNS 16.3}
If further testimony is needed listen to the following:- {1855
JNA, FDNS 17.1}

"Ques. What does God ordain by this commandment? {1855

JNA, FDNS 17.2}

"Ans. He ordains that we sanctify, in a special manner,

this day, on which he rested from the labor of creation. {1855
JNA, FDNS 17.3}

"Q. What is this day of rest? {1855 JNA, FDNS 17.4}

"A. The seventh day of the week, or Saturday, for he
employed six days in creation, and rested on the seventh.
Gen. ii, 2; Heb. iv, 1, etc. {1855 JNA, FDNS 17.5}
"Q. Is it then Saturday we should sanctify, in order to obey
the ordinance of God? {1855 JNA, FDNS 17.6}
"A. During the old law, Saturday was the day sanctified;
but the church instructed by Jesus Christ, and directed by
the Spirit of God, has substituted Sunday for Saturday, so
we now sanctify the first and not the seventh day. Sunday
means, and now is, the day of the Lord. {1855 JNA, FDNS 17.7}
"Q. Had the church power to make such a change? {1855 JNA,
FDNS 17.8}

"A. Certainly; since the Spirit of God is her guide, the

change is inspired by that Holy Spirit. The uniform,
universal, and perpetual tradition of all ages and nations,
attest the antiquity of, and consequently the Divine assent
to, this change: even the bitterest enemies of God's church
admit and adopt it. {1855 JNA, FDNS 17.9}
"Q. Why did the church make this change? {1855 JNA, FDNS 17.10}
"A. Because Christ rose from the dead upon Sunday, and
rested from the great work of redemption; and because, on
this day, the Holy Spirit descended
18
on the apostles and on the church."- Catechism of the
Christian Religion. {1855 JNA, FDNS 17.11}
The testimony shows conclusively that the fourth
commandment, which the New Testament has never
changed, has been corrupted by the Romish church. It was
from Rome, as we may here see, that Protestants learned to
say that the Sabbath was changed because redemption was
greater than creation. Here we will mention some things for
special consideration. {1855 JNA, FDNS 18.1}
1. Those who are now paying religious respect to the first
day of the week, may possibly be led to examine the
reasons for this course, by the following significant fact: The
church of Rome undertakes to prove purgatory by the Bible,
but acknowledges that Sunday-keeping cannot be proved by
it, as she instituted that herself. Those, therefore, who
despise the Lord's Sabbath, and in its stead honor the
sabbath of the Romish church, virtually acknowledge that
the authority of that church is above the authority of God,
and sufficient to change his times and laws. Here is her
statement respecting purgatory:- {1855 JNA, FDNS 18.2}
"Question. But what grounds have you to believe that
there is any such place as a purgatory, or middle state of
souls? {1855 JNA, FDNS 18.3}
"Answer. We have the strongest grounds imaginable from
all kind of arguments, from scripture, from perpetual
tradition, from the authority and declaration of the church of
God, and from reason." - Catholic Christian Instructed, page
146. {1855 JNA, FDNS 18.4}
Hear the Catholic church once more, while she contrasts
purgatory with Sunday-keeping:- {1855 JNA, FDNS 18.5}
"The word of God commandeth the seventh day to be the
Sabbath of our Lord, and to be kept holy: you [Protestants]
without any precept of scripture,
19
 change it to the first day of the week, only authorized by
our traditions. Divers English Puritans oppose against this
point, that the observation of the first day is proved out of
scripture, where it is said the first day of the week. Acts xx,
7;1 Cor. xvi, 2; Rev. i, 10. Have they not spun a fair thread in
quoting these places? If we should produce no better for
purgatory and prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints,
and the like, they might have good cause indeed to laugh us
to scorn; for where is it written that these were Sabbath-
days in which those meetings were kept? Or where is it
ordained they should be always observed? Or, which is the
sum of all, where is it decreed that the observation of the
first day should abrogate or abolish the sanctifying of the
seventh day, which God commanded everlastingly to be
kept holy? Not one of those is expressed in the written word
of God."- An Antidote, or Treatise of Thirty Controversies.
{1855 JNA, FDNS 18.6}

Reader, shall not such facts as the above open your eyes?
Have you any better authority for Sunday-keeping than
Romish tradition? What think you of that prophecy which
foretells that the Pope should speak great words against
God, and think to change times and laws? Dan. vii, 25. That
church who styles her head, "Lord God the Pope," has here
openly testified, that without any authority from Scripture,
she has changed the commandments of God. She also
declares that of her two children, Purgatory and Sunday-
keeping, the former is the most important personage.
Cannot that mother judge impartially between two such
darlings? {1855 JNA, FDNS 19.1}
2. But perhaps the fathers, as they are called, may be
regarded by the reader as the best of authority. We are
aware that not a few, who profess to be Bible
20
Christians, rest their Sunday-observance solely upon such
evidence. We request the attention of such to the following
from Storrs' Six Sermons. It was written in defense of the
author's views of future punishment; but the remarks are of
equal value with respect to the Sabbath question. {1855 JNA, FDNS
19.2}

"It is said, 'The fathers believed in the endless torments of

the wicked.' In reply, I remark, Our Lord and Master has
prohibited my calling any man father. But, if the fathers, as
they are called, did believe that doctrine, they learned it
from the Bible, or they did not. If they learned it there, so
can we. If they did not learn it from the Bible, then their
testimony is of no weight. It may have been an error that
early got into the church, like many others. Mosheim, in his
Church History, tells us, as early as the third century, that
the defenders of Christianity, in their controversies,
'degenerated much from primitive simplicity,' and that the
maxim which asserted the innocence of defending truth by
artifice and falsehood, 'contributed' to this degeneracy. And
he adds:- {1855 JNA, FDNS 20.1}
" 'This disingenuous and vicious method of surprising
their adversaries by artifice, and striking them down, as it
were, by lies and fictions, produced, among other
disagreeable effects a great number of books, which were
falsely attributed to certain great men, in order to give
these spurious productions more credit and weight; for as
the greater part of mankind are less governed by reason
than authority, and prefer in many cases, the decisions of
fallible mortals, to the unerring dictates of the Divine Word,
the disputants of whom we are speaking, thought they could
not serve the truth more effectually than by opposing
illustrious names, and respectable authorities, to the attacks
of its adversaries.' {1855 JNA, FDNS 20.2}
21
"This practice, spoken of by Mosheim, increased as the
darker ages rolled on; and through these dark ages, what
there are of the writings of the 'fathers' have come down to
us. It is a truth, also, that the practice of corrupting the
simplicity of the apostolic doctrine was commenced much
earlier than the third century. Enfield, in his philosophy,
says:- "The first witness of Christianity had scarcely left the
world when' this work began. Some of the 'fathers' seemed
intent upon uniting heathen philosophy with Christianity,
and early commenced the practice of clothing the doctrines
of religion in an allegorical dress." - Fourth Sermon. {1855 JNA,
FDNS 21.1}

Those who make the "fathers" their rule, would do well to

consider the above facts. Every damnable heresy of the
Romish church, she proves by those same fathers. Tradition
is the unfailing resort of Romanists, to prove their dogmas;
indeed, they openly acknowledge that tradition is part of
their rule of faith. Protestants claim that they make the Bible
their only rule of duty; but, whenever their unscriptural
arguments for Sunday-keeping are exposed, they fly for
refuge to the fathers. Thus Protestants defend their heresies
with the same weapons that the Papists employ to defend
theirs. The same fountain head of corruption feeds the
several streams of error that flow through both these
bodies. {1855 JNA, FDNS 21.2}
3. But, says one, do you not think that it would be safe to
believe what those have said who conversed with the
apostles, or at least, conversed with some who had
conversed with them? If such should tell us that the Sabbath
of the Lord was changed, would it not be safe to receive
their testimony? We answer, that the holy Scriptures come
to us with the divine
22
guarantee that every word therein contained was divinely
inspired. The tradition of the elders comes to us without a
particle of such testimony. Wherefore if follows that the man
who fears God will not reject that which he knows came
from 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. {1855 JNA, FDNS 21.3}
 But does the Bible contain the least intimation that what
was written near the days of the apostles is any more
sacred than what was written at a later period? Paul told the
Thessalonian church that "the mystery of iniquity," or
Romish apostasy, had already begun to work. 2 Thess. ii. If
Paul was correct, it follows that it is far from being safe to
adopt as sacred truth 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 nursing in the bosom 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 whether
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.
{1855 JNA, FDNS 22.1}

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 Jesus
Christ and the apostles. Now if the fathers speak according
to that word, they speak the precious truths of God. But if
they speak that which makes void the word of truth, it is a
very strong evidence that they belong to that class which
Paul notified 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 that false
teachers were to arise in the very days of the apostles,
should it not serve as 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. {1855 JNA, FDNS 22.2}
4. If it were certain that the early fathers, in their zeal to
improve upon the New Testament, changed the fourth
commandment, it would only prove that they were of the
number of grievous wolves that were to arise. But it by no
means follows that the mystery of iniquity was able thus
early to change times and laws. The testimony given from
Storrs' Fourth Sermon, evinces clearly that even the fathers
themselves do not now come to us with their own words.
Their testimony has been corrupted, and many shameless
forgeries are palmed off as their genuine testimony. {1855 JNA,
FDNS 23.1}

If the reader ever looked into a Romish controversial

work, he 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 the 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. {1855 JNA, FDNS 23.2}
24
5. If the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles were now on
earth, mingling with the men of this generation, as they
once mingled with a former generation, we ask, Would it be
safe for the men of the third or fourth generation from this
to receive as sacred truth all that the fathers of the present
generation might transmit to them? Is it not self-evident
that unless human nature should undergo a radical change,
the men of the following generations would have handed
down to them as Christ's saying, all the vain and foolish
sentiments that different partizans might wish to maintain?
In the case supposed, we ask, What would be the safety of
the coming generations? There is but one answer, and in
this all will agree. If this were the age in which the New
Testament was written, the safety of the coming generation
would be secured only, by faithfully testing, by that sure
rule, whatever might be handed down to them as gospel
truth from the fathers of the present age. Should they thus
rigidly cleave to inspiration, they would be safe; but if they
added to that sure word all the fables which Satan would
instigate the present fathers to attribute to Christ and the
apostles, what would become of them? {1855 JNA, FDNS 24.1}
If the Advent body itself were to furnish the fathers and
the saints for the future church, Heaven pity the people that
should live hereafter! Reader we entreat you to prize your
Bible. It contains all the will of God, and will make you wise
unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. {1855 JNA, FDNS 24.2}
Those who believe in a change of the Lord's Sabbath
should look at these facts: The Sabbath of the Lord means
the Rest-day of the Lord. Six days the Almighty wrought in
the work of creation, and
25
the seventh day he rested form all his work. The Sabbath
or Rest-day of the Lord, is, therefore, a definite day, which
can no more be changed to one of the days upon which God
wrought, than the resurrection-day can be changed to one
of the days upon which Christ did not rise, or the crucifixion-
day be changed to one of the six days of the week upon
which Christ was not crucified. Hence it is as impossible to
change the Rest-day of the Lord as it is to change the
crucifixion-day or the day of the resurrection. {1855 JNA, FDNS 24.3}
Men of God, to whom the Scriptures have been
committed, can you longer pervert the commandments of
Jehovah and not be guilty of willful transgression? Must it
not be exceeding sinful in the sight of Heaven for you to
change the Sabbath of the Lord for another day, and then to
steal that commandment which guards the holy Sabbath, to
enforce the observance of that new day? When the
hailstones of Jehovah's wrath shall sweep away the refuge
of lies, [Isa. xxviii, 17; Rev. xvi, 21,] how many of the
arguments for Sunday-keeping will be left? The Bible
thoroughly furnishes the man of God to all good works.
Sunday-keeping is not, therefore a good work; for the
Scriptures furnish nothing in its favor. Why should you be
ready of heart to believe what God has never spoken, and
slow of heart to believe his plain testimony? Thus saith the
Lord. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;"
"Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy." J. N. A. {1855 JNA,
FDNS 25.1}
SEVENTH PART OF TIME THEORY

Shown to be False by the Following from J. W. Morton's

Vindication of the True Sabbath. {1855 JNA, FDNS 26.1}
THE only object, direct or indirect, of this [the fourth]
commandment, is "the day." What are we commanded to
remember? "The day." What are we required to keep holy?
"The day." What did the Lord bless and hallow? "The day." In
what are we forbidden to work? In "the day." Now let us
inquire:- {1855 JNA, FDNS 26.2}
1. What day? Not the day of Adam's fall; 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 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
judgement. It may be, and certainly is, proper, that we
should remember all these; but we are not told to do so in
this commandment. Neither is it some one day of the week,
but no one in particular; for how could we remember "the
day," that is no day in particular? -how could we keep holy
"the day" that has not been specified? -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 the Sabbath-day, or the day of the Sabbath;
Keep holy the day of the Sabbath; The Lord blessed and
hallowed the day
27
of the Sabbath. He also says, The seventh day is the
Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any
work. This day, therefore, is "the seventh day," or "the day
of the Sabbath." {1855 JNA, FDNS 26.3}
2. What Sabbath? Not "a Sabbath," or any Sabbath that
man may invent, or that God may hereafter keep; for that
would be "some Sabbath," but no one in particular. Not
some institution yet undetermined, 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 forbidden to do work in
"the Sabbath institution," but in "the seventh day." In fact,
the phrase, "the Sabbath," in this commandment, means
neither more nor less than "the rest." It is not here the name
of any institution at all, through it is often thus used in other
parts of the Bible. Hence, this Sabbath is "the Sabbath or
rest of the Lord thy God." {1855 JNA, FDNS 27.1}
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 Sabbath. On which day of the
week did he rest? "And he rested on the seventh day." Gen.
ii, 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." {1855 JNA, FDNS 27.2}
Let it be particularly observed, that God does not
28
say, Remember the Sabbath, or, Remember the Sabbatic
institution, though this is necessarily implied in the
command; but, Remember "the day of the Sabbath" -the
day on which I have ordained that the Sabbatic institution
be observed. As if he had said, There is little danger,
comparatively, that you will forget the fact of my having
kept Sabbath; nor is it likely that you will altogether neglect
to observe some day of rest from your arduous toils, for you
will be driven to this by the ever returning demands of your
exhausted bodies; but you are, and always will be, in
especial danger of forgetting the proper day of the week for
honoring me in my own institution. Satan, who takes infinite
delight in all kinds of "will-worship," while he hates with a
perfect hatred every act of strict obedience to my law, will
do all he can to persuade you that some other day will do
just as well, or even better. Remember, therefore, the day of
my Sabbath, and keep the same day holy in every week; for
- mark the reason - I have myself rested on the seventh day,
and on that account I have blessed and sanctified that and
no other day of the week, that you may observe it, and keep
it holy, not because it is in itself better than any other day,
but because I have blessed and sanctified it. {1855 JNA, FDNS 27.3}
There is only one day of American Independence; only
one day of the Resurrection of Christ; only one day of the
birth of any one man; and only one day of Judgment. And
why? Because American Independence was declared on but
one day; Christ rose on but one day; the same man cannot
be born on two different days; and God hath appointed only
one day in which he will judge the world. Now, on the same
principle there can be but one "day of the
29
Sabbath: of the Lord our God. If I should say that the day
of Christ's Resurrection is not any particular day of the
week, but only "one day in seven," you would not hesitate
to call me a fool, while my ignorance would excite your
deepest sympathy; but when you say that "the day of the
Sabbath" does not mean that particular day on which the
Lord's Sabbath occurred, but only "one day in seven," you
expect me to receive your assertion as the infallible
teaching of superior wisdom. I cannot, however, so receive
it, for the following reasons:- {1855 JNA, FDNS 28.1}
1. If God had meant "one day in seven," he would have
said so. His first and great design, in writing his law on
tables of stone, was to be understood by his creatures; but,
for more than two thousand years after he gave the law, no
human being ever suspected that "the day of the Sabbath"
meant anything else than the seventh day of the week,
because it was commonly known that that day alone was in
reality "the day of the Sabbath." Indeed, this "one-day-in-
seven" doctrine is known to have been invented within a
few hundred years, with the pious design of accounting for a
change of Sabbath, without the necessity of repealing a
portion of the moral law. It is a matter of great surprise, that
those pious theologians, who first substituted "one day in
seven" for "the day of the Sabbath," did not shudder at the
thought of presuming to mend the language of the Holy
Ghost. "The words of the Lord are pure words; as silver tried
in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Ps. xii, 6.
Brethren, are you prepared to enter into judgment, and
answer for the liberties you have taken with God's word?
{1855 JNA, FDNS 29.1}

30
In substituting the vague and indefinite expression, "one
day in seven," for the definite and unequivocal 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 introduction of a new command that, for aught the
Scriptures teach, it never entered into the heart of the
Almighty to put into his law. {1855 JNA, FDNS 30.1}
2. God never blessed "one day in seven," without blessing
a particular day. He either blessed some definite object, or
nothing. You may say, indeed, 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 you are asserting what is naturally impossible.
As well might you say of a band of robbers, 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
was a definite day, distinct from all the other days of the
week. But this commandment says, that "the Lord blessed
the Sabbath-day." Therefore the Sabbath-day must be a
particular day of the week. Therefore "the Sabbath-day" is
not "one day in seven," or an indefinite seventh part of time.
Therefore it is not "one day in seven" that we are required
to remember, and keep holy, and in which we are forbidden
to do any work; but "the seventh day" of the week, which
was then, is now, and will
31
be till the end of time, "the day of the Sabbath" of the
Lord our God. {1855 JNA, FDNS 30.2}
3. No day of the week but the seventh was ever called
"the day of the Sabbath," either by God or man, till long
since the death of the last inspired writer. Search both
Testaments through and through, and you will find no other
day called "the Sabbath," or even "a Sabbath," except the
ceremonial Sabbaths, with which, of course, we have
nothing 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 writers have
searched in vain. {1855 JNA, FDNS 31.1}
But, farther; the first day of the week was not observed
by any of the children of men, as a Sabbath, for three
hundred years after the birth of Christ. Do you ask proof? I
refer you the Theodore de Beza, who plainly says so. If you
are not satisfied with the witness, will you have the
goodness to prove the affirmative of the proposition? {1855 JNA,
FDNS 31.2}

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 now to some other day of the week, and to
affirm that God meant that other day, as much as he did the
seventh, when he wrote the law on tables of stone, is as
unreasonable as it is impious. {1855 JNA, FDNS 31.3}
If you say, that when God speaks of "the Sabbath-day,"
32
he means "one day in seven, but no day in particular,"
you are as far from the truth as if you said that, when he
speaks of Moses, he does not mean any particular man, but
"some one of the Israelites." Moses was one of the
Israelites, just as the Sabbath-day is one day in seven. But
when God says Moses, he means Moses the son of Amram;
and when he says "the Sabbath-day," he means the seventh
day of the week. You may give different names to the same
object, without interfering with its identity; but to apply the
same name to two different objects, and then to affirm that
these two objects are identically the same, so that what is
predicted of the one must be true of the other, is as through
a navigator should discover an island in the Southern
Ocean, and call it "England," and then affirm that the late
work of Mr. Macaulay, entitled "The History of England," is a
veritable and authentic history of his newly discovered
empire. Which would you wonder at most, the stupidity or
the effrontery of that navigator? {1855 JNA, FDNS 31.4}
I cannot close this chapter without reminding you that, in
attempting to refute the above reasoning, the main thing
you will have to show is, that "the Sabbath-day," or "the day
of the Sabbath," is an indefinite or general expression,
applicable alike to, at least, two different days of the week,
and that it is used indefinitely in this commandment. If it
has been proved, that "the day of the Sabbath" refers, and
can refer, only to the seventh day of the week, then it is
true, and will remain for ever true, that the original Sabbath
law requires the sanctification of no other day. {1855 JNA, FDNS 32.1}