IS SUNDAY THE NEW SABBATH?

 Beebe answered a letter by a deacon Wall concerning Sunday being the new sabbath.  Here is his answer - ed.

We take as our position, that there is by no authority of Christ nor his apostles, express or implied authority in the scriptures, for the substitution of any other day in lieu of the Jewish Sabbath.  We hold, as all our readers are aware that the Sabbaths under the law to Israel were a type of rest that weary and heavy-laden souls find in the gospels, when delivered through the blood and righteousness of Christ from the toilsome labors of the law, and set free from that yoke, (or law) which is easy, and his burden which is light.  The Jewish Sabbaths as well as new moons were figures of good things to come, of which Christ is the body or real substance, hence to give us another day in lieu of that shadow, is to divert our eyes from him who is the body or substance of the types.  If the first day of the week is divinely substituted in lieu of the seventh day Sabbath, then they must take the precise place of the principal, and continue to be a shadow of good things to come; and if in place of its principal, it must be binding on the same people, (the Jews) and to be observed in the same way, (abstaining from servile labor; or in reading Moses in the synagogues) and enforced by the same penalties, (stoning to death offenders, &c.).

None of these, we are sure, brother Wall believes.  It is true he speaks of the first day being set apart for Christian second purposes; but still, in finding a day set apart especially for religious purposes, in the discussion of his second proposition, he leaves the reader to conclude that he holds that day, as substituted in lieu, or in the place of the old Sabbath.

We cannot clearly perceive that the scriptures referred to by our beloved brother, present "a strong proof" that the first day of the week was by any divine authority, set apart, as a day for the stated meeting of the church for devotional purposes.  That there are several instances in which they were together on the first day for worship, breaking of bread &c., is freely admitted; but it is at the same time contended that they were frequently together for the same purposes on all the other days of the week; so that to us, the example of primitive saints, warrants us in giving no preference to one day in the week above another.

The first passages referred to by our brother Wall are John 20.19-26.  In neither of these verses are we informed when those disciples assembled.  In the 19th verse, we are told that they were assembled.  They had probably been there from the time their Lord was crucified, and the doors were shut for fear of the Jews; our Lord visited them on the evening of that day.  If he had designed to set apart that day, to commemorate his resurrection would he not have visited them on that day, and not wanted until the evening, seeing that he arose early in the morning?  And had it been his design thus to hallow that day, would he not have intimated that such was his design when with them in the evening?  The disciples could not have assembled on that day, in that case, in honor of his resurrection; for they knew not, until after they were assembled that he had arisen.

We see nothing in the circumstance of this first meeting of Christ with the disciples after his resurrection to favor the idea that he designed to consecrate, sanctify, or set apart that day of the week or give it any preference above another six; but much to forbid such an inference, seeing that he said nothing to them which could indicate any such design.  In the 26th verse, we are informed that"After eight days again his disciples were within;" (how long they had been within, at this time, we are not told) and Jesus visited them again.  How, or by what rule of reckoning brother Wall can make out that this second meeting, occurred on the first day of the week, or on the evening of the first day of the week, puzzles us very much.  If the first meeting had been early in the morning of the first day, and the second, as it was, on the evening of the eighth day, including the two first days, then the second meeting would have been on the evening of the first day; but such was not the case.  It is therefore very clear that the meeting after eight days from the first occurred on the evening of the second day, which, so far as these two passages are concerned, gives us strong proof that Monday was consecrated especially, as that Sunday was.  We do have not the time nor space now to review all the passages referred to, we will notice but one or two more.

The case of the meeting of the disciples at Troas on the first day does not prove that this was a stated practice; but if it did, it certainly would not prove that their stated meetings of those two places, were held on that day in obedience to any command designating that day above other days, more than the circumstance of other churches meeting for the same purposes on other days would prove that other days were specially set apart by divine command.  If it could be proved that John called the first day of the week "the Lord's day," it would go further to establish this point with us, than anything we have ever found in the Bible; but we have not the most remote idea that he made any allusion to any particular day of the week.

So far from finding that the apostles and primitive church had set apart one particular day of the week for religious purposes, and honored it with the distinctive title of Lord's day, we find the apostle deciding officially that every man shall be fully persuaded on his own mind, whether to regard one day above another, or every ma shall be fully persuaded in his own mind, whether to regard one day above another, or every day alike, and e forbids them to allow any man to judge them in this matter.  That all Christians and Christian churches were and still are required by apostolic authority to assemble themselves together for social devotion and edification, is very certain but it was left to the churches to decide for themselves on what days or nights such meetings should be held, is equally certain.  We hold it therefore to be the duty of every gospel church to appoint stated times for assembling together for worship, and the duty of every gospel church to appoint stated times for assembling together for worship, and the duty of every member, unless providentially prevented to be present.  We find no authority to warrant us to consider a meeting held for worship on the second, third, or any other day less sacred than it would be if held on the first or seventh day.  We, in common with our brethren in these parts, meet steadily for the worship of God, and edification of the saints on the first day of the week, because our churches have so appointed according to apostolic order, and we are bound to obey the church in this matter, and as we esteem every day alike we sacrifice nothing.  It is a delightful privilege thus to assemble, and regard the day unto the Lord, and also in all other occasions when opportunity offers, without regard to the day of the week, or of the new moon.

We have thus frankly, in all good feeling written our views held by our brother; for we are aware that he is not alone in his view of the subject; and his reasons are as good for his decisions, as any we have ever met with from any quarter in defense of the position, that the first day of the week, by any divine authority should be regarded as more sacred than any other day of the week; what we have written we submit to the judgment of our brethren; we will not judge for them, lest we should be judged.  "Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind."  He that regards the day regards it to the Lord; and he that regards it not to the Lord, regards it not.