by daily use in conversation and teaching, and that he wrote in it when he stooped toward the ground, and pardoned the adulterous woman. His mother spoke Hellenistic, and the angel Gabriel Hellenistic, when he came to her and announced the incarnation of the divine Word. This same dialect did the apostles use as their native one when they went forth to publish the law of the gospel. Hence, too, came it that the ancient church so long employed the same language in its liturgy and ritual.

ARTICLE VIII.

ON THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH FROM THE SEVENTH TO THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK BY APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE.

By Rev. R. WEISER, Pastor of the Ev. Lutheran Church of Bedford, Penn.

1. An Address to the Baptists of the United States, from the General Conference of the Seventh-Day Baptists. New-York: 1843.

2. Sabbath Tracts, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, published by the Seventh-Day Baptist Tract Society. New-York: 1843. 3. The Sabbath Vindicator, Nos. 1 and 2. New-York:

1844.

4. Seventh-Day Baptist Anniversaries, or an Account of their Religious Conference for 1843. New-York: 1844. 5. Plain Questions. A Christian Caveat to the Old and

New Sabbatarians (by E. Fisher, Esq., first published in London, 1653), republished by the Sabbath Tract Society. New-York: 1844.

We have placed at the head of our article quite a formidable array of pamphlets. We have done this, in order to show those whose views we may feel it our duty to oppose,

that all the arguments and facts which they have been able to compress into some ten or twelve publications, are fully within our reach. That these publications, be they great or small, good or bad, true or false, are the proper and legitimate awards of honest criticism, none can doubt.

The article that stands at the head of the list, is an elaborate and rather spirited appeal to the Baptists in the United States, charging them with a deliberate and habitual violation. of the fourth commandment, because they do not keep the seventh day holy. Twenty thousand copies have been ordered for gratuitous distribution! Tracts, proclaiming the same serious charges, are given to the winds, and scattered broad-cast over the land. Missionaries are sent forth to proclaim to the deluded and wicked members and ministers of the "First Day" churches, that all are sinning most grievously against the Lord of heaven, because they do not sabbatize cn the seventh day! This, to say the least of it, is a begging of the question. What good can such publications be expected to accomplish? They can only strengthen the hands of infidelity, and remove the restraints of public morality. The great body of the Christian church in this country, of all sects and parties, is now making strong and united efforts to produce a better and more general observance of the Sabbath of the Land, and as they honestly believe, the Sabbath of God. Whilst they are doing all they can to influence mankind to obey the commandments of Jehovah, and especially the fourth command, here we see a body of the professed followers of Jesus Christ putting forth every effort to convince the world that all or nearly all who do now, or have, for the last eighteen. hundred years, professed and honored the name and revered the religion of Jesus Christ, have been in error on this subject. They say the law is, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord;" that neither Jesus Christ nor his apostles ever changed, or had a right to change, the time of keeping the Sabbath; that the keeping of the seventh day is a part of the moral law; that the keeping of the first day is anti-Protestant; that it is one of the signs of the beast; that it hinders the progress of true

Christianity. The men who utter and propagate such sentiments may be honest in their views, but they are unquestionably doing more harm than good. They may think, like Paul, that they are doing God a service, but, like that once infatuated Jew, they are doing all in their power to injure the cause of religion.

From the Minutes of the last Conference of the SeventhDay Baptists, held at Hatfield, New Jersey, Sept. 1843, we learn that they have in their connection 59 churches, 49 ministers (ordained), 20 licentiates, in all 69, and 6,077 members in the United States. The preachers of this sect seem, at this very time, to be making more systematic and vigorous efforts for the dissemination of their peculiar notions, than have perhaps ever been made in any age or country. Dogmatism and unfounded assertions are palmed upon the public as unanswerable arguments. These circumstances seem to require an impartial examination into the merits of the case. We design merely to throw out a few hints in relation to the most important features of this controversy. Hence we shall endeavor to show :

I. That the apostles of Jesus Christ did uniformly in their lifetime celebrate the first day of the week as the Sabbath. If we can show that the apostles did celebrate the first day, and not the seventh, and if we believe that they were divinely inspired, then it must follow that the change was made by the sanction of Jesus Christ, either expressed or implied, unless we adopt the absurd position that the inspired messengers of heaven, whose express business it was (Matth. 28:20) to teach the commandments of Jesus Christ to all nations, could err. If God commanded all men, from the giving of the law downwards, to keep holy the Sabbath, and if the seventh day is the Sabbath, and the apostles did not keep that day holy unto the Lord, (and there is no evidence that they did) then it follows that they (although all orthodox Christians admit their inspiration) lived in the habitual violation of the fourth commandment. This is one of the absurdities into which Sabbatarianism drives us !

The Sabbatarians contend that the fourth commandment, not only in its spirit, but also in its letter, is a part of the moral law, and that it cannot be abrogated, and must therefore be binding on us ; that ἐν μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων does not mean on the first day of the week," but "on one of the sabbaths." Swedenborg also maintains this translation, although a First Day Christian. The main question in this controversy is this, viz., Is the observance of the fourth commandment in all its circumstantial exactitude a part of the moral law, or is it only moral in its spirit, and ceremonial in its letter? Dr. Gill says, "The law of observing the seventh day Sabbath is not of a moral nature, if it were it would be binding upon all mankind, Jews as well as Gentiles, and could not have been dispensed with, nor abolished." In loco. Dr. Gill's distinction is a very nice one, although he gives no proof in its support. The Seventh-day Baptists are not satisfied with mere human opinions, they want proof from God's word. Nor are they satisfied with our translation; they want a fair translation. They shall have it. Let us examine John 20: 19. Ovors οὖν ὀψίας τῇ ἡμέρα ἐκείνῃ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων. Before attempting a fair translation of these words, we shall furnish the reader with a specimen of Sabbatarian philology, from the Sabbath Vindicator, Vol. I., No. 2, August, 1843. Here it is. "From Acts 20: 7, which in our English version reads thus: And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them,' it is inferred, that the first day of the week was the day usually devoted to breaking of bread and preaching. But this translation of the text is not authorized by the literal or intended sense of the original, ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων, to which we object, because its proper and literal signification is, and on one of the sabbaths.' Now to prove that the man who wrote this criticism either did not understand the Greek, or wickedly endeavored to pervert the word of God, we refer to John 20: 1, tỷ đề mặ τῶν σαββάτων, Tov Gaßßárov, "but on one of the sabbaths." Would not this be as good a translation as the other? And yet would it not destroy the very sense of the passage? Does not the Evan

gelist intend to convey the idea that Christ arose on the first day of the week, and not on one of the sabbaths? If the learned philologist who wrote such nonsense will look into any lexicon, he will find that oaßßárov, both in the singular and plural, means, not only a sabbath, and the Sabbath, but also a week or a period of seven days. But then this modern Porson goes on and betrays his ignorance of the Greek still more glaringly: "Thus dè answers to the conjunction, and, & to the (not proposition, but) preposition, in, on, or upon; u is the Greek word for one, in the fem. gen., singular num., dative case, and therefore cannot govern zor oaßßátor, which is in the gen. plural, neuter gen. Hence the necessity of supplying the word uga, a day, with which u agrees; and we should therefore read one of the sabbaths.' " This is certainly a new system of philology! We would merely say, "en passant," if those men who are so vigorously pressing the claims of the seventh day upon our attention, wish to make any impression upon us with philological arguments, they must study the Greek Grammar more carefully. But to proceed with a translation of John 20: 19. The following, we contend, is a literal, and the only correct translation which can be made. "Now being late in the evening, that first day of the week," or perhaps thus, "Now the evening being far spent on that first day of the week." That the disciples had met on this occasion for religious worship is admitted on all hands. That they met for the same purpose on the following first day, or eight days afterwards, is evident from verse 26. That they met on the seventh day cannot be substantiated any where. That they did not meet on the seventh day is very probable from a number of circumstances connected with the sacred narrative. It appears from the narrative that Thomas was absent on the meeting of the first evening; when those who were present saw him, they informed him of what had occurred, and he seems to have been deeply interested in the facts stated; when they came together again, Thomas was there also. Now it seems very evident that there was no meeting on the seventh day, preceding the second meeting, for if there had