home; for that would in no respect do away the necessity of "gatherings" when Paul came. This could be prevented only by their putting their contributions into some public common store, where they would be ready for the apostle on his arrival - in other words, into the public common treasury of the church. The contribution was for the poor of the church. It would be made most fittingly, only when the members of the church were generally assembled to commemorate, by the observance of the supper, the love of that common Lord, who, though rich, for their sakes became poor. It could be made most conveniently, only at those times and on those occasions when they were most generally together; i. e. at their seasons of public worship. It could be made regularly, only at the regular and established seasons of such Worship. It was to be made, as the passage shows, on the first day of every week. How, then, can we avoid the conclusion, that this, above all other days, was the regular and established day for public religious worship? Why the injunction—an injunction extending to all the churches to make the collection on this rather than some other day of the week, except that this, in distinction from all others, was the regular religious day of the churches, and therefore the day when they would be most generally and regularly assembled, and be able most conveniently to make it?

Place, now, these testimonies together; and do they not prove, beyond dispute, (1.) that the early Christians were in the habit of meeting for religious instruction and worship, the celebration of the Lord's supper, and the collection of charity on the first day of the week?

>

and, (2.) that this was not an occasional occurrence, but the regular, universal, and distinctive custom of the churches? Examine the witnesses. So far as the Scripture testimony is concerned, it is plain that the custom obtained, as a regular and established one, in Jerusalem, in Troas, among all the churches of Galatia, and in Corinth. As to the other testimony, the writers lived in various and remote countries Barnabas and Justin, in Palestine; Pliny, (while proconsul,) in Bithynia; Tertullian and Cyprian, in Libya; Dionysius, in Greece; those to whom he wrote, in Italy; Irenæus, in Gaul; Ignatius, in Syria, &c. They lived, too, at different periods during the second and third centuries. They all agree in respect to the prevalence of the custom in their country and time. This settles the fact of its universality. They agree also that it was peculiar to and distinctive of Christians that it was a new custom, begun and identified with Christianity, and unknown before. Indeed, to such an extent was it the distinctive peculiarity or badge of discipleship, that their persecutors, instead of asking whether they were Christians, determined that point by asking whether they kept the Lord's day! And the answer they received was, "We are Christians, and therefore we cannot but keep it". -as if they had said, "The observance of the day, in honor of our Lord, and our religion are identical; the one is but the badge or public profession of the other, and we can therefore no more omit the one than we can give up the other." The existence, universality, and distinctiveness of the custom in question, during the first three centuries, is, then, beyond dispute. The religious observance of the first day of the week, as

Lord's day, in honor of Jesus Christ, was as universal as the church itself. It was also as distinctive a badge of Christians, as the followers and worshippers of Jehovah-Savior, as the observance of the former Sabbath had been of the Jews, as the servants and worshippers of Jehovah-Creator.

But whence came this new and distinctive custom? By what authority gained it such general and universal prevalence? Not of accident, plainly; nor yet of assumption. For had it been from either of these, there must have been diversity in the custom, not widespread and universal uniformity. The accident or the assumption, whichever it might be, would not have been the same, the world over. The custom began, as we have seen, with Christianity, and spread wherever that did. Whence could it have originated, and by what authority could it have so spread, except from the origin and by the authority which gave being and prevalence to Christianity herself?

If

Besides, it was always the custom of the apostles, particularly of Paul, to expose and correct whatever was wrong in the churches. If he found the Galatians or the Hebrews falling off to Judaism, he at once wrote them an epistle to correct their error. he found the Corinthians glorying in men,-in Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or tolerating an incestuous person in the church, or perverting the Lord's supper, or conducting disorderly in their religious meetings, he at once corrected their errors and rebuked their sins. Now, had the regular religious observance of the first day of the week been a relic of Judaism, or a priestly assumption, or even an accidental custom inconsistent at all with the genius and spirit of Chris

tianity, is it to be believed that he would not as readily have corrected this error, or denounced this sin? But did he do it? So far from it, we find him at Troas actually participating in its observance himself -nay, to all appearance, delaying his journey for several days, that he may have the privilege of doing it! Nor have we a solitary hint from him, here or elsewhere, that there was any thing wrong, Judaistic, or anti-Christian in it. And what is this but apostolic sanction? Moreover, when he writes to the Corinthians, in the very Epistle in which he corrects so many other errors and reproves so many other faults, so far from blaming them for their regular observance of the first day of the week as a day of public religious worship, he directs them, as he had before directed all the churches of Galatia, to do that, in time to come, which they could not do except as they kept up the custom. The whole direction about the regular weekly collection went on the assumption that the custom of the regular weekly meeting was to be permanent. In giving the direction, then, to make a regular weekly collection on the first day of the week, Paul virtually directed them to keep up their regular weekly meeting for public worship, at which the collection was to be made. The ordering of the one was virtually an ordering to persist in the other. And what is this but apostolic appointment? It is clear, then, that the observance of the first day of the week, as their regular and distinctive religious day, was the general and established custom of the primitive churches, and that in this custom they had apostolic sanction and authority, and in these, the sanction and authority of Jesus Christ.

CHAPTER VI.

THE PROOF-TEXTS OF OPPONENTS.

THE favorite proof-texts of the opponents of the Sabbath only confirm the view we have taken. These texts are, Col. ii. 16, 17, "Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbathdays; which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ;" and Rom. xiv. 5, "One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

These passages are quoted as if they had reference primarily and especially to the question of the Sabbath as now agitated. It is assumed that the meaning of the apostle is this "Let no man judge or censure you in regard to the observance of the old Jewish or seventh day Sabbath, or any of the other Jewish feasts or ceremonials; for they are all only a shadow which is fulfilled in Christ, and are therefore now no longer obligatory. And, in respect to the observance of the first, or indeed of any particular day, as Sabbath, one man esteemeth one day, as, for instance, the first, above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, and observe one day, or another, or