THE following chapters present the more important Scriptural reasons for our observance of the Lord's Day instead of the seventh day sabbath of the Jews.

      The teaching of Scripture is so clear, and the demonstration so complete, that many will wonder why Seventh Day Adventists adhere so tenaciously to a Jewish institution. It must be remembered that Adventists acknowledge an authority other than the Scripture--the teachings of Mrs. E. G. White. They regard her as a--"prophetess," and her writings as inspired. Of her own words Mrs. White said: "It is God and not an erring mortal that has spoken." This claim the Adventists believe, and thus they have another bible, Mrs. White's Testimonies.

      Chillingworth's famous motto, "The Bible and the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants" is not applicable to Seventh Day Adventists, who would no more question Mrs. White's interpretations than the Roman Catholic would question the authority of the Pope. What Mrs.. Eddy is to Christian Science; what Joseph Smith is to Mormonism, Mrs. E. G. White is to Seventh Day Adventism. These facts need to he borne in mind by those who, would understand these curious developments in the religions life of our day.

      The question of seventh day Sabbath observance becomes important for some people, because of the unwearied persistence of those who preach it as a Christian duty.

      The Seventh Day Adventists assume and teach that the keeping of the Sabbath is "the seal of the living God" (Rev. 7:2). This is how the 144,000 are to sealed ready to be translated when Christ comes. (The New Testament says that Christians are sealed with the Holy Spirit, Eph. 1:13; 4:30).

      It is also assumed--for the Scriptures in no way suggest it--that the observance of the first day of the week as the Lord's day is "the mark of the beast" (Rev. 14:9-12), and that those who have this mark will be lost. The Adventists regard it as their special commission to preach the third angel's message (Rev. 14:9-12). "Here are they who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" they quote; and they assume, with a delightful air of guileless confidence, that the commandments here referred to are the Ten Commandments Since very few Christians observe the seventh day Sabbath, the Adventists have selected this as their peculiar message, and though it is based on poor exegesis and large assumption, they preach it with an insistent zeal worthy of a nobler message.

      The subject comes near to those "foolish and unlearned questions" we are counselled to avoid (2 Tim. 2:23), but because it is advocated in such a way that the faith of some is overthrown, it becomes necessary to give it some consideration. Even the apostle Paul was concerned about those who sought to introduce the observance of Old Testament days into the church (Gal. 4:10, 11). We need not be surprised if the same errors persist to-day.

of the Adventist position is readily seen when the matter is investigated either in the light of common sense or of Scripture,

      Quotations from Mrs. White, the Adventist "prophetess" and other leading writers of that body, show they believe--

      1. That the Lord, who rested on the seventh day following the six days of creation has kept every seventh day since, in common with his faithful people.

      2. That the angels and the redeemed hosts will observe it through all eternity.

      3. That the higher orders of intelligence observe the same day as man (i. e., the Adventists).

      Now consider! When the Sabbath begins in Australia this week--at sunset, 5 p.m., on Friday evening, June 26, 1931--it is only 11 o'clock on Thursday night in San Francisco, and there the Adventists will be doing their Friday toil during many of the hours in which the Melbourne Adventist is celebrating his Sabbath. Now here is an intriguing question: Do the Lord and the angelic hosts keep Sabbath with the Melbourne Adventists, beginning at 5 o'clock on Friday evening, or do they continue their activities during the Australian Sabbath in order to keep Sabbath with the brethren in California?

      Or do the heavenly intelligences keep the Sabbath with Australian Adventists, and continue their Sabbath eighteen hours after the Australian Sabbath is over in order to rest with the people in San Francisco, thus making the heavenly Sabbath at least forty two hours in length?

      Hear a parable. Forty years ago to-day twins were born in Melbourne, and were named John and James. John has lived in Australia all his life, and has never left our shores. James has been around the world, and the consequence is he has lived one day more than John. True, some of James' days have been less than twenty-four hours in length, and James is not older than John, but the sun has risen and set for James once more than it has for John. This is accounted for, as every high school boy knows, by the fact that in going east round the world, it becomes necessary to insert a day somewhere, to make up for the time lost in journeying towards the sun. There was one week when James had a long week of eight days. Now James was an Adventist, and we want to know if James kept every seventh day a Sabbath, according to the law, or kept the Sabbath on one occasion on the eighth day, thus transgressing the law? And did James, when he got to California, keep the Sabbath period with the Adventists there, or with his brethren in Australia? He could not do both, unless he kept two Sabbaths.

      It is worth noticing that when Christians in Australia meet for worship at 11 o'clock on Sunday mornings, the Adventists in San Francisco are still observing their seventh day Sabbath, and if it so happens that the Lord rests with the Californian Sabbatarians, he is, by reason of that fact, resting with us on our Lord's day--the first day of the week.

      If now James and John decided to take a trip round the world, one going east and the other west, and if each, like good Adventists, determined to keep every seventh day, from sunset to sunset, a Sabbath, they would find on arriving in Melbourne again, after circumnavigating the globe, that one was observing Friday, and the other Sunday, and neither of them the Sabbath of their brethren at home.

      On different occasions we have presented these simple facts of physical geography to Adventist pastors in public discussion. On one occasion a pastor sought to escape from the quandary by denying these facts. Another pastor said: "I have crossed and re-crossed the Pacific, and the day line never caused me any trouble." Of course not--he acted sensibly under the situation, and made the necessary adjustments. He had an eight-day week, if going east, and a six-day week, if coming west. But he did not keep every seventh day a Sabbath unto the Lord.

      By international agreement our day is reckoned to begin at the 180th meridian--a line running north and south through the Pacific Ocean. Adventists adopt this reckoning with all the rest of the world.

      But the day did not always begin there. Bible writers knew nothing of the Pacific and the line which runs 180 degrees west from Greenwich, England. It makes a big difference when we start the day somewhere else. Perhaps the day started in Adam's day on the meridian line running through Eden, which is about 50 degrees east from Greenwich. But if we start the day there our Australian Sunday becomes Saturday--the first day becomes the seventh. We recommend our Adventist friends to try to get the world to change its day line--they will thus convert us all at a stroke!

      How childish it all is! We are solemnly assured that the seventh day from creation is known, that it must be observed as a Sabbath, and that failure so to keep it involves one in eternal damnation front the presence of the Lord! One day in seven we may indeed observe, and all Christians do it. But the attempt to make our Saturday in Australia the seventh day in succession from creation, and to demand its observance as the Sabbath day, is at once the abandonment of common sense and a perversion of Scripture, as we shall presently see.

      The seventh day Sabbath was purely a Mosaic institution.

      There is no indication that it was commanded or observed by man until the Mosaic dispensation began.

      There is no command to observe the Sabbath day after the Mosaic dispensation came to an end at the cross, and there is no indication that the apostles and early Christians regarded observance of the Sabbath as a Christian duty.

      Three dispensations are clearly distinguished in the record of God's revelation--the Patriarchal, the Mosaic and the Christian. These dispensations had certain things in common; they also had very definite points of difference and contrast. In each was to be found the altar, the priest and the sacrifice. But the locality of the altar, the personnel of the priesthood, and the kind of sacrifice offered were different in each case. For instance, under the first dispensation the priest was the father of the family, under the second the priest was specially appointed; under the third all Christians are priests, with Christ as our great High Priest.

      What was true of one dispensation, therefore, was not necessarily true of another. A duty that was enjoined in one dispensation may have no application in the others, and we have no right to assume that it has unless the Scriptures authorise us to do so.

      The Sabbath commandment is first given in the beginning of the second or Mosaic dispensation. There is no such command in the first, or patriarchal dispensation, nor any clear indication that it had been given. There is no such command in the third or Christian dispensation, nor any clear indication that such a command was given. There is, on the other hand, clear statement that the Sabbath was abolished at the cross--that is at the end of the dispensation in which it was first enjoined (Col. 2:13-17).

      The story of the Patriarchal dispensation is contained in Genesis. Brief though the record is, the time covered by that story is longer than that covered by all the rest of the Bible. In all that long period of time, from the creation until the beginning of the Mosaic dispensation, there is no evidence that the Sabbath was commanded by God or observed by man. The attempts to establish such evidence are based upon pure assumption.

      There is one passage indeed that could be used to prove the Adventist position, if the interpretation given by the Adventists accorded with the general tenor of Scripture. It is Gen. 2:3, "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." The Adventist quotes this passage and asks us to believe that the Sabbath was commanded in Eden. But the passage does not contain a command. It states that God rested on the seventh day, and because he had rested be blessed and sanctified it. To say that God commanded the Sabbath in Eden is an assumption. The discerning reader will note that the day did not automatically become holy because God rested in it, but that he sanctified it because he had rested in that day. The blessing and the sanctifying of the day were subsequent to his resting--"because he had rested."

      When did God thus sanctify the day? The Adventist assumes that it was at once, in Eden. The Scripture states otherwise. "Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath" (Neh. 9:13). When did God make known his holy Sabbath? When he came down upon Sinai and spoke to the people. "Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. And I gave them my statutes . . . moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths" (Ezek. 20:10-12).

      Where did God give them the Sabbaths? In the wilderness, after they came out of Egypt.

      Now let us glance back at Gen. 2:3. God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because he had rested. How long after he had rested was this done? A week? A month? A year? A thousand years? We would not know from the text itself; but the other texts quoted make it quite clear that God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it after he brought his people out of Egypt, that is, in the beginning of the Mosaic dispensation. Why assume something the Scripture does not say, especially when the assumption contradicts clear statements of Scripture?

      The Adventist makes an attempt to save the situation by asserting that Abraham kept the Sabbath. When you demand the proof, you find it is a mere assumption. The assumed proof is Gen. 26:5, "Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept . . . my commandments." The assumption is that these commandments were the Ten Commandments. But the Ten Commandments were not given until hundreds of years after Abraham. How then could Abraham keep them? Besides the Scripture says the Lord did not make the covenant which contained the Ten Commandments with the fathers, but with those who were with Moses at Sinai (Deut. 5:1-21)

      Let us be clear, then, that in the Patriarchal dispensation there was no command (so far as the record goes), nor any example of the observance of the Sabbath by man, and Scripture statements clearly show that the Sabbath was not given until the beginning of the Mosaic dispensation.

      The first recorded command to keep the Sabbath day is in Ex. 16:23-30. When God gave the people the manna in the wilderness he gave directions for the Sabbath to be observed. A double supply of food was provided on the sixth day. The narrative shows that the people were not accustomed to the Sabbath, but after the new duty had been emphasised, "the people rested on the seventh day" (v. 30).

      The Sabbath commandment was made permanent in the Mosaic economy by its inclusion in the Decalogue (Ex. 20:8-11), and by the details concerning its observance. No work was to be done (Ex. 20:10). No fire could he kindled (Ex. 35:3). They must not bake or boil anything (Ex. 16:22). The penalty of transgressing the Sabbath law was death (Ex. 35:2).

      Throughout the Mosaic dispensation the commandment was more or less faithfully observed. Our Lord, who came to fulfil the law, observed the Sabbath commandment (Luke 4:16), just as he observed the Passover and other requirements of the Jewish law. One of the favorite arguments of the Adventists is that Jesus kept the Sabbath and therefore we ought to keep it. But we should note that Jesus was born and lived under the Jewish law (Gal. 4:4). It was in force till he abolished it at his death. Hence he kept it all.

      The keeping of the Sabbath was only one of many things he did in obedience to the law. He was circumcised (Luke 2:21). He kept the Passover (Luke 22:13-15), and the feast of tabernacles (John 7:2, 10-14). If the Adventists were consistent, they would do these things too, according to the law. Why should they select one thing that Jesus did, according to the law, and neglect the other things? Truly the legs of the lame are not equal, as the proverb hath it!

      The cross of Christ marks the end of the Mosaic dispensation and the beginning of the New. In the Christian dispensation the Sabbath has no place, as subsequent papers will show.

      The observance of the seventh day Sabbath was founded upon the fourth commandment: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Ex. 20:8). For the Adventists, the law derives its importance from the superior nature of the Ten Commandments, which they are pleased to call The Moral Law. This is not a scriptural name for the Ten Commandments which are not entirely moral in their nature, not does the decalogue contain the only moral laws in the Mosaic code.

      We have heard Adventists say that the Ten Commandments enjoin all virtue and condemn all vice--that they constitute a perfect code of law, and must abide forever. Thus Mrs. White, their prophetess (whose statements Adventists regard as revelations of God), said: "No virtue known to the moral world herein fails of approval and commendation, and no vice or crime of which man was ever guilty escapes condemnation."

      In order to establish these assertions, Adventists select certain passages that suit their purpose and apply them to the Ten Commandments. For instance, Psa. 19:7: "The law of the Lord is perfect." That means the Ten Commandments, say our friends. A moments thought will enable any one to see that such an application is an assumption. The Scripture does not limit the passage in that way. To say, "The law of the Lord is perfect" is quite different front saying "The Ten Commandments are a Perfect law." Certainly the law of the Lord is perfect, but that does not justify anyone in making an arbitrary selection of a part of the law and calling it perfect. Another passage which is thus used (or misused) is Ecc. 12:3: "Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man." Any one call see the force and truth of this passage as it occurs here. The Adventists, however, make another assumption, and read it in this way: "Fear God and keep the Ten Commandments, for this is the whole duty of man." Not only is this an unwarranted assumption, but it is not true that the keeping of the Ten Commandments is the whole duty of man. There are many Christian duties which are not expressed in the Decalogue.

      Let us note what the Scriptures actually say about the Ten Commandments. We shall not assume anything now, but note exactly what the Word of God says. The Ten Commandments were spoken by God at Mount Sinai--the rest of the law was spoken through Moses (Ex. 20:1-22). They were the "words of the covenant" (Ex. 34:28). They were written by the finger of God upon tables of stone (Deut. 9:10). These tables were placed in the Ark (Deut. 10:5) and were called "tables of testimony" (Ex. 31:18). They were to be kept as a memorial of the covenant the people had made with Jehovah, and appropriately this witness to the sacredness of the covenant was placed in the ark, which thus became "the ark of the testimony" (Ex. 25:22).

      We have already seen that the Adventists have no scriptural authority for asserting that the Ten Commandments are a perfect law. A little intelligent investigation will show that the attempt to exalt the Decalogue into a supreme, universal and unchangeable law is as unreasonable as it is unscriptural.

      1. The Ten Commandments are not a perfect law, for they do not enjoin all virtue and condemn all sin, despite the extravagant assertions made by Adventists. They do not, for instance, enjoin forgiveness, meekness, longsuffering or benevolence, and they do not condemn pride, selfishness or filthy conversation.

      That the Ten Commandments were defective is shown by the fact that our Lord extended the application of some of these laws, and improved them. Read his comments upon the laws against murder and adultery, and note how immeasurably superior are his enactments, written in the heart to those that were engraven in stones (Matt. 5:21-32).

      As a complete code, the Ten Commandments are lacking in another important respect. They contain very little positive enactment, but are almost entirely prohibitory laws. A man could keep most of the Decalogue simply by avoiding crime.

      2. A study of the Ten Commandments will show that, in comparison with the universal and age-long purpose of the completed revelation of God this code of laws was local and temporal in nature. The people had been in bondage in Egypt, and there they were restrained by the civil laws of that country and the circumstances of their bondage. But now they had been liberated, and they were in the wilderness, a horde of undisciplined people, unused to liberty, without laws for their guidance and control. That stern restrictive legislation would be necessary is evident. Such legislation we have in the Decalogue and the accompanying laws (Ex. 20-24).

      The Commandments were civil regulations, with the death penalty attached. An infringement even of the Sabbath commandment meant death (Ex. 35:2). The preamble to the Decalogue shows that these laws, in the form there found, had reference only to the children of Israel. "I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt" (Ex. 20:2) The Sabbath especially could not have been intended for any other people than the Israelites, for it was a sign between God and themselves throughout their generations (Ex. 31:13)

      If the Sabbath commandment were extended to all people it could never he a sign between God and Israel.

      3. The words of our Lord concerning the greatest commandments in the law make it very clear that the Ten Commandments do not occupy the pre-eminent place assigned them by the Adventists. Our Master said the greatest commandment is, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." The second is, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matt. 22:36-40). On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets--the Ten Commandments included.

      Our Adventists friends, with great seriousness and at much length, explain that these two passages exactly cover the Ten Commandments--that the first great commandment includes the first four of the Decalogue, and the second commandment includes the last six of the Decalogue. Which, of course, is quite true, and is, merely saying in other words what our Lord Jesus said. "On these two commandments hang all the law."

      What the Adventists do not seem to see is that their exposition explains away their teaching concerning the Ten Commandments, on the simple principle that the greater includes the lesser. The Decalogue takes a subordinate position, they themselves being judges.

      4. The Ten Commandments, as part of "The Law"--that is, the whole of the law included in the Mosaic economy--were abolished at the cross. This does not mean that God's great moral requirements have been abolished in any sense at all. The Adventists, faced with the painful exigencies of defending a hopeless cause in discussion, fall upon a statement such as the above with eagerness, and say, "If that be true, we are without law, and may murder or steal or do any other evil thing with impunity." Such a statement at its best is simply foolish; at its worst it is wicked misrepresentation. The great moral laws of God existed before the Ten Commandments were spoken at Sinai, and are still operative, though the Sinaitic law was abolished at the cross. Christ blotted out the handwriting of ordinances which was against us--the Sabbath law included--and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross (Col. 2:13-17).

      God made a covenant with the people of Israel when they came out of Egypt.

      The Ten Commandments were included in the Covenant thus made.

      This Covenant was done away at the cross, and a new covenant was established.

      The Sabbath commandment was part of the old covenant which was done away. It was not re-enacted in the new covenant, and therefore has no binding force for us.

      The word Covenant means (a) A compact or agreement, and (b) The basis of such compact or agreement. Thus the Covenant of the League of Nations is the document constituting the League.

      The covenant (compact, agreement) made by God with Israel is described in Ex. 19:5-8. God said: "If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people," etc. The people replied: "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do."

      The basis of this covenant was the law spoken by the voice of God on Sinai, partly in the hearing of the whole people (the Ten Commandments) and partly to Moses, to be delivered by him to the people (Ex. 20-24). When Moses reported these words to the people they said again: "All the words which the Lord hath said will we do" (Ex. 24:3). Moses then wrote the words in a book, and read them to the people, who said the third time: "All that the Lord hath said will we do and be obedient" (Ex. 24:7). Moses then took blood and sprinkled both the book and all the people, and said: "Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words" (Ex. 24:8; Heb. 9:19, 20).

      The people of Israel did not keep this covenant. God was disappointed with them. His disappointment is expressed in the book of Jeremiah, chap. 31:31-34, "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake . . . But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

      This prophecy was fulfilled in Christ. The writer to the Hebrews (chap. 8:6) says: "But now hath he (Christ) obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." This writer quotes the words of Jeremiah, and adds, "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away" (8:13)

      These passages show very clearly that the Ten Commandments came to an end, as an authoritative law, with the passing of the old covenant. It follows therefore that the Sabbath commandment is no longer binding upon the people of God.

      Seventh Day Adventists are put to desperate straits to counter the plain teaching of these Scriptures. Necessarily so, for to accept it is to surrender their whole position. They "darken counsel by words without knowledge" concerning "a covenant about a covenant," and "more covenants in the Bible than one." They sometimes succeed in confusing the uninformed. What they really do is to attempt a distinction between the words of the compact (Ex. 19:5-8) and the basis of the agreement-- the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20), and they assert that it is the former and not the latter that was done away.

      But it won't do. The covenant that was done away was the Ten Commandments, as the Scriptures very definitely state. Note some passages--fix them in mind to serve as a background when next the Adventist propagandist seeks to confuse the issue about the covenants.

      Deut. 4:13. "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." What was the covenant? The Ten Commandments, which were written upon two tables of stone.

      Ex. 34:27, 28. "He wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments."

      See also Deut. 9:9; 1 Kings 8:9, 21. Could words be clearer? The words of the covenant were the Ten Commandments. And that covenant was done away.

      Again and again in the New Testament occur passages which show that the covenant which was written on tables of stone was brought to an end at the cross. 2 Cor. 3: 3-14 is especially significant: "Our sufficiency is of God; who also hath made us able witnesses of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away, how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation he glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory . . . For if that which is done away is glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." The apostle institutes a number of contrasts between the two covenants. It will help us if we set them side by side.

      Note that the apostle speaks of that which was written and engraven in stones as a ministration of death, glorious indeed, but "done away." The Adventist seeks to avoid the force of this passage by quibbling about the word "ministration." But the sturdy fact remains that whatever the ministration of death was, it was that which was written and engraven in stones (7) glorious though it was, that was "done away" (11).

      But the Jews of Paul's day failed to see it, even as the Adventist fails to see it to-day. "Their minds were hardened: for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remaineth, it not being revealed to them that it is done away in Christ" (14) Am. R V.

      The Ten Commandments, then, as an authoritative law, were done away. Does that mean that we are without Law? By no means; we are under law to Christ (1 Cor. 9:21). But there is this difference, that whereas the old law was a yoke of bondage, the new is a law of liberty (Gal. 5:1). During the great war portions of Africa passed from German to British control. The natives who had been under the German law found themselves released from its obligations, for it was "done away." But it did not follow that they were without law. The event which abolished the old authority established the new, and they were thenceforward under the British flag and subject to British law. Similarly the abrogation of the old covenant did not leave the world without law, but made room for the higher authority of the reign of Christ.

      The Seventh Day Adventists judge and condemn those who do not observe the seventh day Sabbath. The apostle Paul would not agree with their attitude, for he said: "Let no man judge you . . . in respect of . . . the sabbath day" (Col. 2:16)

      This is a clear statement by the apostle, showing that in his judgment the sabbath law was no longer binding, and that the sabbath was abolished. The accompanying verses show us why. Read vv. 13-17. Note that Christ blotted out the handwriting of ordinances which was against us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. The figures of speech here used--"blotting out," "nailing it to the cross"--both signify cancellation. Whatever may be the meaning of the phrase "the handwriting of ordinances," the sabbath law was included, for that is the reason we may no longer be judged with respect to the sabbath day.

      The Adventist affects to be completely horrified at the exposition we here present. He seeks to give the impression we are speaking blasphemy. He is willing to grant that all the rest of the law that came through Moses was blotted out, but not the Ten Commandments! That is to say, commandments which are greater than the Decalogue, as our Lord taught us (Matt. 22:36-40, cf. Deut. 6:5, Lev. 19:18) are included in the "handwriting of ordinances" which was taken away, but not the Ten Commandments! He misrepresents what Paul meant, and what we mean, by the statement that the law was nailed to the cross, pretending that the great moral laws of God could not be in existence, or binding upon us, unless they are in the form in which we find them in the Decalogue.

      "Let no man deceive you with vain words." The apostle expressly mentions the Sabbath as no longer binding upon us, because Christ has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross. This accords with other passages. For instance--

      2 Cor. 3: 7, 11. That which was engraven on stones was "done away." (See Tract No. 4.)

      Rom. 7:1-7. Note carefully the teaching of the apostle here:

      1. These brethren had once been under the law--the law which included the Ten Commandments, one of which is quoted in v. 7.

      2. While that law was in existence they were related to it as a wife to a husband.

      3. As a woman is made free from the law of her husband by his death, so they had been made free from the requirements of the law "that being dead wherein we were held" (v. 6).

      4. They were now married to another, even to Christ (v. 4).

      Two things, then, are clear:

      (a) We are free from the law which contained the Sabbath enactment.

      (b) We are under law to Christ. This second fact is very important, for the Adventist often makes an assertion that trips the unwary, and sometimes deceives the very elect. "If we are free from the law," he says, "we may murder, steal, commit adultery, and every evil thing." No, though free from the law as expressed in the old covenant, we are under law to Christ, who restrains his people front every evil propensity, and leads us in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

      So clear and convincing are these passages that our Adventist friends are forced into extraordinary manoeuvres in the attempt to break their force, especially in regard to Col. 2:13-17, which expressly mentions the Sabbath as a shadow of that which was to come in Christ. "The body is Christ's," says the apostle--we have the substance, and the shadow is gone.

      How does the Adventist meet this teaching? He says the word Sabbath here does not mean the weekly Sabbath. The word occurs sixty times in the New Testament, and in fifty-nine it certainly means the weekly Sabbath, but means something else! And the ground for this astonishing claim? Simply that it does not suit Seventh Day Adventist doctrine to let it mean the weekly Sabbath!

      A comparison of this passage with kindred passages will demonstrate to all unprejudiced minds that Paul does mean the weekly Sabbath. Note that in Col. 2:16 the apostle specifies a number of things from the old law--meats and drinks, holy days, new moons, and sabbath days. This is a list of holy times which is often given in the Old Testament. They are given in detail in Num. 28 and 29. "Seek ye out of the book of the law and read":

      Num. 28:3-8, Daily offerings--meat and drinks.
      Num. 28. 9, 10, Weekly offerings--on the Sabbath
      Num. 28:11-15, Monthly offerings--at the new moons.
      Num. 28:16-29:39, Annual feasts.

      This list of daily, weekly, monthly and annual holy seasons is given again and again in the Scriptures. E.g., 2 Chron. 31:3, "The morning and evening burnt offerings (daily), and the burnt offerings for the Sabbaths (weekly), and for the new moons (monthly), and for the set feasts (yearly). Exactly the same list as in Col. 2:16. Here is another: Ezek. 45:17 "And it shall be the prince's part to give burn; offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings (daily), in the feasts (yearly), and in the new moons (monthly), and in the sabbaths (weekly)." The same list again, and in the same order as in Col. 2:16. See also 1 Chron. 23: 30, 31, 2 Chron. 2:4. Now read again Col. 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink (daily), or in respect of an holy day (yearly), or of the new moon (monthly), or of the Sabbath days (weekly)." Yet the Adventist asserts that this reference is not to the weekly Sabbath!

      "To what then does it refer," you ask, "if not to the weekly Sabbath?" and you are told that there are seven other Sabbaths in the Bible, besides the weekly one. He will read you Lev. 23: 24 as an example: "In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath." That is an annual Sabbath, and there are six other annual Sabbaths, and it is to these that Paul refers in Col. 2:16, you will be told. Upon investigation you find that instead of seven, there are only three other Sabbaths referred to, and upon further investigation you learn that the Revised Version in two of these passages changes the word "Sabbath" to "a solemn rest," the reason being that the word for Sabbath does not occur in the Hebrew text. Thus the seven other Sabbaths have dwindled to one, in point of fact. The day of atonement is called a Sabbath (Lev. 23: 32) and this is the only annual feast which the sacred writers called a Sabbath. Anyway, the annual feasts are referred to in Col. 2:16 in their own right. They are holy days. And the "Sabbath days" are the weekly Sabbaths, and they have been done away.

      One other attempt is made to evade the direct force of this text in Col. 2. The form of the word is plural, the Adventist says, and that shows the reference is to annual sabbaths, and not to the weekly Sabbath. But since there is only one annual feast really called a Sabbath, as we have seen, the argument falls to the ground.

      Besides, the plural and singular forms of the Greek word Sabbath, as the Lexicons show, are used indifferently. Still more interesting is it to note that the word is plural even in the fourth commandment (Ex. 20:8, Deut. 5:12). If you turn up the passages in the Greek Septuagint, you will find the word Sabbath is in the genitive plural--exactly the same form as in Col. 2:16.

      If the plural form in Col. 2:16 proves that Paul did not mean the weekly Sabbath, the same plural form in Ex. 20:8 must prove that God did not mean the weekly Sabbath in the fourth commandment!

      "I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths and all her solemn feasts," said God through his prophet Hosea (Hos. 2:11).

      "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ's," said God through his apostle Paul (Col. 2:16).

      The prophecy is fulfilled; the seventh day Sabbath law has been done away.

      The seventh day sabbath, as we have seen, was purely a Jewish institution. No command was given to men to keep it until the beginning of the Mosaic dispensation, nor is there any record that men kept it until that time. (The reference in Gen. 2:2, 3 is not a command.) Such passages as Ezek. 20:10-12, Neh. 9:13, 14, Deut. 5:15 show clearly when it was that God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it. (See Tract No. 2.)

      The Mosaic dispensation came to an end at the cross, and a new dispensation began. The following facts are important-mark them well:

      1. There is no command in the New Testament to keep the sabbath day.

      2. No blessing is pronounced on any who observed the sabbath day.

      3. No penalty is imposed on those who transgressed the sabbath enactment.

      4. There is no indication that the disciples in their worship as Christians, ever kept the seventh day sabbath.

      5. All the references to the observance of the sabbath day are in connection with the Jewish order of worship. (Luke 4:16; Acts 3:14, 44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4.)

      6. All the references to a day of the week in connection with Christian meetings for worship are to the first day of the week. (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2.)

      Since the work of establishing the gospel was entrusted to men who belonged to the old Mosaic economy, in the midst of the nation of Jews who still adhered to the old faith, we shall expect to find frequent reference to Old Testament institutions in the New Testament. Thus we read of the temple, the passover, circumcision, animal sacrifices, and the sabbath, all of which belonged to the old order, the mention of which in the New Testament is incidental.

      Seventh Day Adventists try to present the apostle Paul as a regular sabbath keeper. They claim that Paul kept no less than 84 sabbaths. It is a most entertaining piece of arithmetic.

      We shall examine every case recorded--not 84 instances, which do not exist except in the fertile brains of the Adventists--but every case in which the sabbath is mentioned in connection with the work of Paul. Let us count the instances: Acts 13:14, 44 (twice), Acts 16:13 (once), Acts 17:2 (thrice), Acts 18:4 (every sabbath). We are not informed in this last instance how many sabbaths they were but it is evident from the context they could have been but few, for the Jews opposed him very soon, and he had to leave their synagogue.

      How then does the Adventist count 84? He does it by joining verses 4 and 11 of Acts 18 together to make them read: "He reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath . . . and he continued there a year and six months." Now there are 78 sabbaths in a year and six months, which number, joined to the half-dozen other instances, totals 84. What the Adventist does not tell is that Paul did not reason in the synagogue for eighteen months. The Jews opposed him and blasphemed, and he had to leave the synagogue, and go into another house, and it was there that he continued a year and six months. And it is not said that in that house he reasoned or preached on the sabbath days. The 84 sabbaths are thus reduced to very few--probably less than a dozen. But even a dozen sabbaths, if it were said that the apostle kept them, would be sufficient to prove that Paul was a sabbath keeper. That, however, is not said--it is merely assumed by the Seventh Day Adventists. Not in one single instance is it stated that Paul observed the sabbath day. Let us note the circumstances in each case.

      1. Acts 13:14, 44. The reader will note that these services were in a Jewish synagogue, not in a Christian place of worship. There was no church in Antioch in Pisidia at the time. The Jews met on their sabbath day in their own synagogue for the purpose of worship, and Paul and his companions attended to preach the gospel "to the Jew first," as he commonly sought to do.

      2. Acts 16:13. This prayer meeting was a service held by some devout women who worshipped God according to the law of the Jews, on the Jewish sabbath. There was no church in Philippi at this time. These people became Christians after this sabbath day meeting. Paul attended the meeting to seek another opportunity of presenting the good news of the gospel, following his practice of preaching "to the Jew first."

      3. Acts 17:2. These "three sabbath days" were spent in "a synagogue of the Jews" (v. 1). There was no church in Thessalonica at the time. Paul attended the Jewish service, on the Jewish day of worship, and sought again the opportunity of preaching the word of life to his countrymen. It does not indicate that Paul observed the sabbath according to the law, for as he himself teaches us, he was no longer under the law. His going into the Jewish synagogue on the sabbath day to preach no more proves that he was a sabbath keeper than my going into a Seventh Day Adventist meeting on their sabbath in order to preach to them (if they would permit it) would prove that I observe the seventh day sabbath.

      4. Acts 18:4. "He reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Note the connection--synagogue, sabbath, Jews. It was not a meeting of Christians--there was no church in Corinth at the time. They soon turned him out, and he had to seek another house in which to preach, and in that house it is not said that he preached on the sabbath.

      In every instance, then, in which the apostle is spoken of as preaching on the sabbath, it was to Jews, in connection with their day of worship. In Acts 20:7 we find him meeting, not with Jews as such, but with disciples, and this is what we read: "Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them." When he comes to preach to Christians, he does so on the first day of the week, for that is their day of meeting. When he went to preach to Jews, he did so upon the sabbath, for that was their day of meeting.

      Has Paul left any record of what he himself thought about the matter? If he has, it will be a valuable contribution to this discussion. And he has.

      The apostle makes but one direct reference to the sabbath day in all his writings, and in that passage he indicates that the sabbath law is not binding in the Christian dispensation. In Col. 2:13-17, which we have already considered at length (see Tract No. 5) he states clearly that the sabbath law, like the meats and drinks and holy days and new moons, are no longer obligatory upon us. In another passage, Rom. 14:5, he says: "One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." That could not have been said if, in his judgment, the seventh day sabbath law was still in force. Thus by explicit statement, and in general principle, the apostle Paul teaches us that we need no longer regard the Jewish law of the sabbath as authoritative. In example he teaches us to meet with disciples on the first day of the week--the Lord's Day--to break bread.

      Our Lord left us an example, that we should follow in his steps (1 Pet. 2:21). His custom was to go to the synagogue on the sabbath day (Luke 4:16). Should not we therefore make it a custom to observe the sabbath day--i. e., the seventh day? No!

      Yet this is a weighty argument to many people. Seventh Day Adventists use it effectively, and it has won many to their cause. It is therefore worthy of our consideration.

      Jesus kept the passover (Luke 22:13-15). Should not we therefore keep the passover? No! No one thinks so, not even Adventists. And why not, if we are to follow the example of Jesus? All sensible people realise that the principle that we follow the example of our Lord Jesus must be applied with discretion. Jesus went to the feast of tabernacles (John 7:2, 10-14). Should not we therefore attend the feast of tabernacles? No! Jesus had no home. Should we therefore be homeless? No! Jesus kept the sabbath? Should we therefore keep the sabbath? No!

      Our Lord was "born under the law" (Gal. 4:4). He lived under the law, and observed it. Hence he kept the sabbath, and all the provisions of the law. A sacrifice was offered at his birth (Luke 2:22-24). He was circumcised (Luke 2:21). He observed the days of unleavened bread (Luke 22:7). And he kept the seventh day sabbath! The Adventists choose one of these many things that Jesus did according to the law, and insist that we should all follow his example. It will be time enough to take the argument seriously when the Adventists, in imitation of the example of Jesus, do all the things which he did in accordance with the law. The apostle Peter said that we should learn to suffer patiently, as Jesus did--in this he left us an example. It is always right for us to ask, in the various circumstances of life, What would Jesus do? Thus we seek to follow him. But the question of following his example in matters that belonged to the Jewish law has to he decided on other grounds.

      Certain words of our Lord are also used by the Adventists in their attempt to establish seventh day sabbath as a Christian institution. We shall examine the passages which are thus chiefly used.

      1. Matt. 5:17, 18. The Adventist asserts that this passage teaches that the law (he assumes it means the ten commandments, though both the law and the prophets are mentioned by Jesus) would continue in force till heaven and earth passed away. That however is not what the Master said. His teaching is that the law (and the prophets) would continue till all was fulfilled--a very different thing. Until they were fulfilled they would no more pass away than would the heavens and the earth. He fulfilled them, as he came to do. When they were fulfilled, they might, so far as the teaching of this passage is concerned, pass away.

      That the law, having been fulfilled in Christ, did pass away, the New Testament clearly teaches (2 Cor. 3:3-14; Col. 2:14-17; Rom. 7:1-8; Gal. 3:23-25). (See Tracts Nos. 4 and 5.)

      Note further that Jesus said the prophets were to he fulfilled by him. The prophets foretold that the old covenant was to be done away (Jer. 31:31-34). This was fulfilled (Heb. 8:6-13). The prophets foretold that the sabbath would cease (Hos. 2:11), and this was fulfilled (Col. 2:16).

      So far from supporting the Adventist position therefore, our Lord's words in Matt. 5:17, 18 show it to be quite untenable. The Adventist will sometimes quote the similar passage in Luke 16:17, "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass than one tittle of the law to fail." Here the words, "until all be fulfilled," are omitted, but the meaning is the same. Not a jot or a tittle, a dot of an "i" or a cross of a "t" failed, till all was fulfilled.

      2. Mark 2:27. "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." The Adventists are fond of this passage, and their exegesis is peculiar. "Man," they say, is a generic term. It means all men, not only the Jew. It includes Adam, for Adam was a man, and the sabbath was made for man. It includes every man who has ever lived!

      Whether any one has ever been convinced by this peculiar logic we cannot say, but the frequency with which they use it indicates that the Adventists think it a good argument. Examine it closely. Here it is:

      The Sabbath was made for man;
      Adam was a man,
      Therefore the sabbath was made for Adam.

      Is it convincing? Let us use this form of argument to prove something else. We read on the foundation of a church building the words, "This building was erected for the glory of God and the good of man." This building then, was erected for Adam, for Adam was a man. Here is the argument:

      This church building was made for man;
      Adam was a man;
      Therefore this church building was made for Adam.

      No such foolish idea was in the mind of Jesus. The lesson he was teaching is a beautiful one. The Pharisees complained that the disciples plucked the ears of corn on the sabbath, and thus broke the law. They had done it to satisfy hunger, and Jesus insisted that in cases of human necessity a law like the sabbath law must give way, for the sabbath was made for man. The Pharisees acted as if man was made for the sabbath.

      It is interesting to note in passing that our Lord said the sabbath was "made." It was not therefore one of those eternal moral principles which exist in the nature of things. What has been made may he abolished.

      3. Matt. 24:20. "Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day." The reference is to the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in the year 70 A. D. Says the Adventist: "Jesus knew the Sabbath law would be in existence in the year 70, which proves that he had no thought of abolishing it at his death in 28 A. D."

      Does the Adventist really want us to believe that Jesus meant that the Sabbath law would still be in force, and that it would not be right to flee from the beleaguered city on the sacred seventh day? Why, we have just learned that the Sabbath was made for man--for man's good. It was right to save life on the Sabbath (Mark 3:4). It was lawful to heal on the sabbath (Matt. 12:10), and to do well on Sabbath days (Matt. 12: 12). And now the Adventist would have us believe that Jesus teaches that it would not be right for his disciples to save their lives by flight from a doomed city on a Sabbath day! To such shifts does a poor cause lead its advocates!

      The simple explanation is that Jesus knew the Jews would reject him-- that was why the city was doomed. He knew that they would in their rejection, adhere to their law, including that relating to the seventh day, instead of coming into the liberty of the gospel. Jerusalem was a walled city, and on the Sabbath the gates were closed (Neh. 13:19). The gates of other cities would he closed too and flight would be extremely difficult. For this reason they were to pray that their flight might not be on the sabbath day.

      Thus it is evident that neither the example nor the teaching of Jesus gives support for the observance, under the gospel, of the seventh day sabbath.

      The disciples of the apostolic age, and the Christians in all the ages since, have observed the first day of the week, and not the seventh day sabbath, as the weekly day of worship and Christian activity.

      The obligation to keep the first day of the week as the Lord's day is not in any way associated with the Sabbath law of the Old Testament.

      The Sabbath commandment is often quoted as the authority for our observance of the Lord's Day. But this use of an Old Covenant law for a New Covenant institution leads to confusion, and is quite unnecessary. The Lord's Day does not need to be associated with the Sabbath law to give it sanctity. It stands in its own right.

      It is to the Christian the perpetual memorial of our Lord's resurrection, as the Sabbath was to the Jew a memorial of the deliverance from Egypt.

      The Sabbath has not been changed. God did not change it. The pope did not change it. The Emperor Constantine did not change it. The sabbath was the seventh day of the week; the Lord's day is the first. The one was a day of rest for the Jews, the other is a day of worship and service for Christians.

      Our Lord himself signalised the first day of the week in such a way as to make it, for his disciples, the "day of all the week the best." Could any one, after an earnest and careful study of the following facts, doubt that the Master intended the first day of the week to have special significance for his disciples?

      On the first day of the week

      1. Jesus rose from the dead (Matt. 28:1; Luke 24:1)
      2. He appeared to various disciples (Matt. 28 etc.)
      3. He appeared again the next Lord's day (John 20:26).
      4. He gave the apostles legislative authority (John 20:23)
      5. He gave them the great commission (Luke 24:36-39 Mark 14:14-16).
      6. The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4; cf. Lev 23:15, 16).
      7. The gospel was first preached (Acts 2:22).
      8. The church was established (Acts 2:47).

      Never was there a greater in the history of the world than that on which Jesus rose from the dead. The Jewish sabbath was despoiled of its joy for the disciples, because it was the day on which Jesus lay in the tomb in which their hopes were also buried. But what a day was that which saw his, resurrection from the grave! No wonder it became the great memorial day of the church. "Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord" (John 20:20).

      The risen Lord's appearances to various disciples on the first day of the week invest that day with special significance. It is, to say the least, a singular thing that none of these appearances was on the sabbath day. On the first day he showed himself alive by many infallible proofs (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19), he opened their mind to understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:45), he breathed on them and said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22)--what sacred associations that day must have had for these disciples!

      When he appeared again the next week, on the first day of the week, the day was confirmed in their minds as a day of special importance (John 20:26). "After eight days again . . . Jesus cometh." In a desperate attempt to break the force of this mighty stream of emphasis on the first day of the week (the sabbath day, be it noted, does not receive any notice at all in connection with these resurrection days) the Seventh Day Adventists often try to assert that "after eight days" means that more than a week had elapsed. However, the scholars among them recognise that this was a common expression denoting the period of a week. Thus Elder Andrews, a Seventh Day Adventist historian, said that every writer before 170 A. D. calls the resurrection day the first day of the week, eighth day, or Sunday (Quoted by Canright). Justin Martyr, for instance, A. D. 140 says: "The first day after the sabbath, remaining first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and (yet) remains the first."

      Intelligent Bible readers will not need any elaborate statement to prove that the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) fell on the first day of the week. The passage cited above--Lev. 23:15, 16--shows that it was fifty days after the sabbath, on "the morrow after the seventh sabbath." On the first day of the week, therefore, the baptism of the Spirit was experienced by the disciples, the gospel was first preached under the commission, the law went forth from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, as the prophets had foretold (Isa. 2:1-5; Micah 4:2), the church was established, and the first converts were won to Christ through the gospel. Of such transcendent importance was this great day in the beginning of the gospel dispensation!

      No wonder is it, therefore, that the first day of the week became known among Christian people as the Lord's Day (Rev. 1:10). Sabbatarians endeavour to apply the name to the sabbath of the Old Testament, because that day was "the sabbath of the Lord" (Ex. 20:10), and Jesus called himself Lord of the sabbath (Mark 2:28). But when Rev. 1:10 was written, the law which enjoined the Jewish sabbath had been abolished sixty years (Col. 2:16; Rom. 14:5; Gal. 4:10). The word "kuriake" translated "Lord" in our text, is an adjective, not a noun, and had we such an adjectival form, the correct rendering would he "the Lordian day." The word is used in but one other passage in the New Testament, 1 Cor. 11:20, where it is applied to another N.T. institution--"the Lordian supper." Ellicott says: "From the Supper it came to be applied to the day on which Christians met for the breaking of bread. The day is still called 'kuriake' in the Levant."

      That it was the custom of the early Christians to meet On the first day of the week for the breaking of bread we learn from Acts 20:7. Paul was on his way to Jerusalem, and for some reason stayed seven days in Troas. He Passed a sabbath day in the place, but if he observed it in any way, the fact is not stated. But "upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread," the apostle met with them. Note the association of words: First day of the week, disciples, to break bread. Compare it with any record of Paul's preaching on the sabbath day, as for instance, Acts 17:1, 2--"Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews, and Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days, etc." Synagogue, Jews, Sabbath! First day of the week, Disciples, Breaking of Bread! The old and the new! The Jewish and the Christian!

      Seventh Day Adventists will object that we read this but once. But if they could find, once only, the statement, "On the sabbath day when the disciples met together to break bread," how that would change the whole outlook for them! They also seek to prove that this event took place on a Saturday evening. The Scripture says it was "the first day of the week."

      The apostle's direction to the church at Corinth "concerning the collection" (I Cor. 16:1, 2) shows that the Lord's day was a day on which the disciples gathered together.

      To lovers of the Lord the first day of the week is consecrated as a memorial of the resurrection; and as it was honored in the New Testament church, we seek to honor it as a day of holy joy in the service of Christ.

      We recently conducted two debates, one in a private home and the other in a public hall, with Seventh Day Adventist pastors. Both men sought to adduce historical evidence concerning the origin of the observance of the first day of the week as the Lord's Day. The first began at 2 Kings 23:5, and cited the reference to sun worship as the source of Sunday observance. The second quoted Dan. 7:25, and claimed that the reference to one who would speak great words against the Most High, and think to change times and laws, was prophetic proof that the pope changed the sabbath. The first traced Sunday observance through paganism and Constantine, who enacted a Sunday keeping law, the second traced it through Romanism and the pope.

      The passages were accepted by the Sabbatarians present as complete proof of the historical positions assumed. Some of them, we felt sure, believed that paganism and the pope were definitely described as the evil sources of the change of the sabbath. A glance at the passages will show that no such references are there, and nothing but the wildest extravagance in exposition could place them there.

      The simple fact is that the sabbath has not been changed. Constantine did not change it; the pope did not change it. The sabbath was a holy day for the Jews, and was enjoined only in their laws. The Lord's day, the first day of the week, was marked for special regard by the Lord himself, and observed by the New Testament church as a day for sacred service, hundreds of years before Constantine was born, or a pope heard of.

      That the pagans worshipped the sun, is of course true, and the name we use means "the day of the sun." But they, worshipped Saturn on Saturday, and the moon on Monday.

      Every day of the week was a memorial of pagan idolatry. Adventists are quite embarrassed when these facts are mentioned--they like to hide them, because such facts show that Sunday was not a day held in any special regard in pagan worship, so that its sacred character could not be inherited by the Christian church from paganism.

      It is also true that the Emperor Constantine enacted a Sunday law. But the law had no reference to a change from the sabbath to Sunday. The Emperor professed Christianity, and issued a number of edicts favorable to it, one of which was a civil law concerning the day which Christians had regarded as the Lord's day from the beginning.

      We have pressed our Sabbatarian friends for historical information concerning the pope's change of the day. If, as they so firmly assert, the pope did this, they should be able to name the pope, give the date, and describe he circumstances under which it was done. The only attempt to meet the challenge that we have heard is that the pope changed the sabbath at the Council of Laodicea. We heard this statement twenty years ago, and we extracted it from an Adventist pastor quite recently. Here then we have the prevailing Seventh Day Adventist position--the pope changed the sabbath at the Council of Laodicea. What are the facts?

      The Council of Laodicea was held not in Rome but in a city in Asia. It was held in 363 A. D. mark the date well. No pope of Rome was present at that council, which was not an ecumenical or general one, but was of a purely local character. Rome was not represented there at all, and this is the council at which the pope is supposed to have changed the sabbath! That council declared, "Christians ought not to Judaise and to rest on the sabbath, but to work in that day, but preferring the Lord's Day, should rest, if possible, as Christians." Although the Lord's Day had been observed by Christians for more than 300 years, the Adventists say it began in 363 A. D., and although no pope of Rome was at the council or represented there, the pope is said to have issued this decree! To such shifts are the advocates of a poor cause reduced!

      If the day was changed in 363 A. D., Christians must have observed the seventh day sabbath until that date.

      But the Apostolical Constitutions, A. D. 250 said: "On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that is, the Lord's Day, assemble yourselves together." Tertullian, 200 A. D., said: "We solemnise the day after Saturday in contradistinction to those who call this day their Sabbath." Clement of Alexandria, writing about 196 A. D., said: "He in fulfilment of the precept, keeps the Lord's Day when he abandons an evil disposition . . . glorifying the Lord's resurrection in himself." Justin Martyr, 140 A. D., said: "On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place" for the Lord's Supper. "The Teaching of the Apostles," in the early part of the second century, has this exhortation: "Every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together and break bread." Luke, in the book of Acts (20:7), says: "On the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread. Paul preached unto them." This was about the year 57 A. D.--300 years before the Council of Laodicea.

      Seventh Day Adventist pastors know that Christians observed the first day of the week as the Lord's Day in New Testament times, and in the second, third and fourth centuries. Yet they assert that the pope changed the day in 363 A. D.

      The same pastors know that there was no pope until long after 363 A. D. In 440 A. D. the bishop of the Roman church was declared to be "the rector of the whole church," but the claim was not then recognised. Fisher, in "The History of the Church," says that it was in the beginning of the sixth century that the title Pope became the exclusive designation of the bishop of Rome. In 533 A. D. the Emperor Justinian bestowed the title, "Lord of the Whole Church," upon the Roman bishop. Yet Adventist pastors assert that the pope changed the sabbath in 363 A. D.

      We have heard Adventists say that the Roman church claims that the pope changed the sabbath. We know of no such claim. The position of the Roman church is set out in the following quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Melbourne Library: "For Christians it (Sunday) began to take the place of the Jewish Sabbath in apostolic times as the day set apart for the public and solemn worship of God. The practice of meeting together on the first day of the week for the celebration of the eucharistic sacrifice is indicated in Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2, In Apocalypse 1:10 it is called the Lord's Day . . . St. Ignatius speaks of Christians as 'no longer observing the sabbath, but living in the observation of the Lord's Day, on which also our Lord rose again.' In the Epistle of Barnabas we read: 'Wherefore also we keep the 8th day (i. e., the first day of the week) with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose from the dead.' . . . These and similar indications show that during the first three centuries practice and tradition had consecrated the Sunday to the public worship of God by the hearing of Mass and resting from work. With the opening of the fourth century positive legislation, both ecclesiastical and civil, began to make these duties more definite."

      This brief resume of important data will show that the whole Sabbatarian argument concerning the pope consists of a perversion of historical facts.

      If failure to keep the sabbath day is to result in eternal damnation, as the Adventists frequently assert, they with us will be lost, for they do not keep the sabbath day.

      There is no command in the New Testament to keep the sabbath day. There are no directions for its observance. The law of Moses was given to the Jews; the gospel message was intended for the Gentiles also. But none of the letters written for Gentile Christians contains any reference to the sabbath, except one which shows it was abolished (Col. 2:16). In the New Testament we have a record of thirty years of gospel work. The good news of Christ bore fruit in all the earth (Col. 1 : 6). The New Testament writers felt it was necessary to instruct the Gentile Christians in every Christian duty. They gave explicit teaching on such subjects as baptism, the Lord's Supper, marriage, appointment of church officers, the management of the church, and the duties of Christians in various social relations. But concerning this all-important question, this matter upon which eternal salvation depends (if the Adventist position is correct) not one word!

      We know from the New Testament that Gentile Christians attended to the various duties that belonged to their profession of faith, but there is no example of a Gentile Christian having kept the sabbath day! If Seventh Day Adventists had been writing the New Testament, what a different book it would have been!

      The omission of any reference to the duty (assuming for the moment that it is a duty) of keeping the sabbath is passing strange. All kinds of likely places occur where a reference to the matter might have been made--had it been in order. For instance, long lists of sins are named by the New Testament writers (Mark 7:20-23, Rom. 1:28-32, Gal. 5:19-21, 2 Tim. 3:1-5). But sabbath-breaking is not once mentioned. If Adventists had been writing the New Testament, would such a serious omission occur?

      Where then shall Gentile Christians ascertain their duty concerning the sabbath? Only in the Old Testament. Certainly our Lord taught that it was lawful to do good on the sabbath, but that does not give any explicit direction about the observance of the day, for it is lawful to do good every day. Certainly also Paul mentioned the sabbath once, but that was to show that its observance was no longer required. If, like the Adventists, you side with the Judaising teachers against Paul, and insist that the sabbath must he observed, you must go to the Old Testament both for your authority and for the manner of observing it.

      When you turn to the Old Testament, you find that the law is of such a nature that it cannot be kept to-day.

      Exod. 20:10, "In it (the sabbath) thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy Daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates."

      Exod. 35:3, "Ye shall kindle no fire through-out your habitation upon the sabbath day."

      Exod. 35:2, "Whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death." In accordance with this law, a man who gathered sticks on the sabbath day was put to death (Num. 15:32-36).

      These passages set forth what the sabbath law was. There are no directions anywhere else. If a man does not keep the sabbath in these terms, he does not keep it at all. There is no virtue in pretending to observe a law of God, if we substitute our own conditions of observance for the divine. But that is what the Adventist does. He reads: "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy," but he entirely ignores all the directions God gave about it, and observes it in a way of his own. God said, "Thou shalt not do any work," and the Adventist often works. God said the stranger within the gates must not work but the Adventist often uses trams and trains on the sabbath, and thus helps to make others work. God said the people must not have their servants work, but many Adventists who have servants require them to do their usual daily duties. God said the people must not kindle a fire throughout their habitations on the sabbath, and in direct disobedience to their law the Adventists light fires in all their habitations on cold sabbath days. God said that the man who worked on the sabbath must be put to death, and the Adventists do not put anyone to death for working on the sabbath.

      Of course they will say they cannot under present conditions. This is quite true, they cannot, and therefore they do not. But this is the best possible evidence that the sabbath law was purely a national law for the Jews, given to them under conditions in which it could easily be observed. The sabbath law is quite impossible under the complicated conditions of modern life throughout the world, and in this fact we can see the wisdom of God in causing the sabbath law to cease when the new dispensation began. "A gospel that was to go to all the world, from the equator to Greenland, from the Jew to the Chinaman, from the millionaire to the coal-digger, and was to fit into all the varied stations, conditions and industries of life--such a gospel had to be left with great freedom and large latitude, free from the minute regulations of a legal system. Such a gospel Paul preached, and we believe the apostle's words, 'Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage' apply against mistaken teaching of these people on the Sabbath question" ("Christian Standard").

      The Adventist would take us back to Sinai, but the Sinaitic law ended at the cross. The Adventist may thank God that the teaching concerning the Sabbath which he affects to give to the world was made void by the gospel, otherwise it would involve him in eternal condemnation. If the Sabbath law is still in force, the Adventist breaks it as regularly as the sabbath comes round, and therefore stands condemned.

      "Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonorest thou God?" (Rom. 2:23).

      But let us hear a kindlier word than the Adventist has to offer. In Heb. 12:18-25 we read "Ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness and darkness and tempest, and the sound of the trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more"--(note particularly that the reference is to the giving of the ten commandments on Sinai)--"but ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem . . . and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant . . . See that ye refuse not him that speaketh!"

      Yes, "hear him'--not Moses (Matt. 17:4, 5), attend to the gospel, not the law. "And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight." And what are they? "This is his commandment, That ye should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment" (1 John 3:22, 23).

      THE following questions were asked by C. R. L. Vawter--they are based on 2 Cor. 3:3-16. (Cf. Exodus 34:27, 28.) Present them to your Seventh Day Adventist friend--they will puzzle him, and embarrass him, but if he is candid, they may lead him into truth.

      1. Was "the ministration of death" (verse 7) written and engraven on stones? Yes or No?

      2. Were the Ten Commandments written and engraven on stones? Yes or No?

      3. Was anything else written and engraven on stones? Yes or No?

      4. Then does this mean the Ten Commandments? Yes or No?

      5. Was that which was written and engraven on stones called "glorious"? Yes or No?

      6. Was that which was glorious to be done away? (Verse 11). Yes or No?

      7. Again, does this mean the Ten Commandments? Yes or No?