CiTHLOGUE OF Cji^ the gHci>Wk> ^sociatuyn, 98at c—■ PERIODICALS. The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. A 16-page Kellgious Family Newspaper, devoted to a discussion of the Prophecies, Signs of the Times, Second Coming of Christ, Harmony of the Law and the Gospel, What we must Do to be Saved, and other Bible questions. $2.00 a year. Good Health. A monthly journal of hygiene devoted to Physicaf, Mental, and Moral Culture. $1.00 a year. The Youth’s Instructor. A 4-pagc illustrated weekly for the Sabbuth-Scliool and the family. 75 cts. a year. The Sabbath Sentinel, A live 4-page monthly quarto, devoted exclusively to the vindication of the Sabbath of the Bible. 25 cts. a year, The Bible-Reading Gazette, a 24-page octavo monthly, devoted wholly to Blblc-Readings. .About 15 careftilly prepared lessons in each number. $1.00 a year. Sandhedens Tidende A 16-page Danish semimonthly, devoted to expositions of Prophecy, the Signs of the Times, and Practical Religion. $1.00 a year, Sana ingens Harold, a 16-page Swedish semimonthly, magazine form, of the same character as the Sandhedens Tidende. $1,00 a year, Stimme der Wahrheit. An 8-page German semi-monthly devoted to the same topics as the Sandhedens' Tidende and the Signs of the Time9. $1.00 a year. (£7* The above are published at Battle Creek, tAfich. Terms always in advance. The Signs of the Times. A 16-page weekly Religion^ Paper, devoted to the dissemination of light upon the same great themes treated in the Review. Published In Oakland, Cal. $2.00 a year. Present Truth, A 16-page monthly, issued at Great Grimsby, England, at 2s. 6d. (60 cts.) a year. This is a stirring periodical, with a large circulation. Tidernes Tegn, A Danlsh-Norweglan monthly of the same size and character as the Tidende. Published in Christiana, Norway. 70 cts. a year. Sundhedsbladet. A 16-page Danish-Norwegiau health and temperance monthly. Published iu Christiana, Norway. 70ots. a year. Helso-og Sjukvard. A Swedish monthly health journal of the same sizo and character as Sundhedsbladet. Published in Christiana, Norway. 70 cts. a year. les Signes desTemps, A monthly religious journal in French. Published in Rale, Suisse. $1.15 a year. Herold der Wahrheit. An 8-page German monthly. Published at Bale, Suisse. 60 ots. a year, L’ultimo Hessaggio. An 8-page Italian quarterly. Published atBalo, Suisse. 25 ofo a year, Adcvarulu Present. An 8-pago Roumanian quarterly. Published at Bale, Suisse. 25 cts. a year. Pmmwus oni cJ’Ce'JXX'fb fyu&tidwpcf (Swcfi, 9Kiofv. — BOUND BOOKS. Complete History of the Sabbath, and the First Day of the Week. By Eld. J.N. Andrews. A mine orinformatlon on this all-important question. Treats the subject from a Biblical and Historical standpoint. 628 pp. $1,25 Thoughts on Daniel. Critical and Practical. By RldTl'. Smith. An exposition of the book of Daniel, verse by verse. 416 pp. $1,25 Thoughts on the Revelation. By Eld. u. Smith. This work presents every verse in the book of Revelation with such remarks as serve to illustrate or explain the meaning of the text. 420 pp. $1,26 Life Sketches of Elder James and Urs. E. G. White, The early lives and Cbristiauexpcri-ence of both aro given in this volume. Their subsequent history is so connected with the cause, that this book gives an outline of the rise and progress of our people and this cause. Has two flue steel portraits. This is the last work written by Elder White before his death. 416 pp. $1,25 The Sanctuary and the 2300 Days of Dan. 8:14. By Eld. U. Smith. This work explains the past Advent movement, and makes plain the present position of those who wait for the Lord. 352 pp. $1.00 Condensed edition, paper covers, 224 pp. 80 ots. Synopsis of tie Present Truth, a work which gives an epitome of the faith of the S. D. Adventists. It treats upon every essential point of their faith. Uri.ih Smith, author. (Revised edition) 336 pp. $1,00 The Nature and Destiny of Han, By Eld. V. Smith. This work treats on the great questions of the condition of man in death, and his destiny beyond the resurrection. (New, revised edition) 416 pp, $1,50 The same in two pamphlets: The State or the Dead, 50 cts., and Dw’iny of the Wicked. 25 cts, The Spirit of Propheoy J or» the Great Controversy between Christ and his angels, and Satan and his ungcl9, in four volumes. By Mrs. E. G. White. These volumes cover the time from the fall of Satan to the destruction of sin anu sinners at the close of the one thousand years of Rev. 20. Each, 400 pp. Vol. I. Old Testament Facts to Christ. $1,00 Vol. 11. Life and Ministry of Christ. 1.00 Vol. III. The Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, with the Lives of his Apoades, 1,00 Vol. IV. (In preparation.) 1,00 The Coming Confliot: °r> the United States to become a Persecuting Power. By Eld. W. H. Lit-tlqjohn. The Sabbath question rally discussed. A careful exegesis of Revelatlou 13, showing that the United States is soon to enter upon a career of religious persecution, for which the Sabbath question is to be made the pretext. 428 pp. $1.00 Spiritual Songs, a book of hymns and tones. 53Trhymns, 147 tunes. 416 pp. $1,00 Morocco, gilt, 1,60 Life of \7m. Hiller, With portrait. This book gives interesting sketches of the Christian life and public labors of this pioneer in the Advent movement in this country. 416 pp. $1,00 Life Of Elder Joseph Bates, relating his experience of twenty-five years on ship-board, with incidents of his rise from cabin-boy up to master and owner. The closing chapters relate td his la- THE SUNDAY SEVENTH-DAY THEORY. AN EXAMINATION ---OF--- THE TEACHINGS Mede, Jennings, Akers, and Fuller. By Eld. J. N. Andkews. BATTLE CREEK, MICH.: BEVBNTHtDAY ADVENTIST PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION. PACIFIC PRESS, OAKLAND, CAL. 1884. SUNDAY NOT THE TRUE SEVENTH DAY. “They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The Lord saith; and the Lord hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word.” Eze. 13:6. The chapter from which this text is taken is a prophetic reference to the last days of human probation. Thus verse 5 brings to view the work necessary to be done in order that the people of God may stand in the battle in the day of the Lord; which battle occurs under the sixth vial. Rev. 16:12-16; Jer. 25:30-33. And when God denounces his judgments upon those who refuse to do the work committed to their trust, but who do, instead thereof, a work of their own devising, he declares that the great hailstones shall fall upon them in his fierce anger. Verses 10-14. This is to be fulfilled under the seventh vial. Rev. 16:17-21. This chapter consists principally of an awful denunciation of wrath upon unfaithful teachers. The hedge by which God designs to protect his people in the battle of the great day, having gaps made therein, these teachers should have gone up into these breaches, and made them up. Instead of doing this, they build up a wall to suit themselves, which God says shall be broken down by this fall of the great hailstones. The prophet brings to view the same hedge, and the gaps made therein in chap. 22 : 30. Thus he says :— “ And I sought for a man amons: them, that 4 SUNDAY NOT THE should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found none.” But from verse 26 it appears that these gaps have been made in the hedge by false teachers’ doing away the law of God; and in particular by their act of hiding their eyes from his Sabbatlu And when God sought for one man among them to make up the gap, he found none. Instead thereof, these persons build up a wall to suit themselves; and God says of their wall that it shall be broken down by the plague of the great hailstones. How this shall be, is sufficiently explained by Isaiah, when he predicts the same great storm of hail:— Isa. 28:17: “Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet; and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.” In a former discourse it has been shown that the Man of Sin has thought to change the Sabbath of the fourth commandment#* Also that the Protestant church, separating itself from the church of Rome 350 years ago, brought away with it the Sunday of “ Pope and Pagan,” instead of the Sabbath of the great Creator. Thus has a breach been made in the hedge which God has placed about his people. But as we approach the battle of the great day of God Almighty, the third angel (Rev. 14) is sent forth for the purpose of restoring the precepts of God’s law which antichrist has broken down. And it is indeed very remarkable that when attention is called to this breach in the hedge, the teachers of the present day are determined to build ♦Sermons on tin; Sabbath and Law, No. 30. TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 5 up a wall of their own, rather than to repair the hedge which God himself has set up. When their attention is called to the fact that they are trampling the rest-day of the Lord beneath their feet, the most frequent answer to this is, that the Creator has put away the day which he hallowed in Eden, and that he has chosen in its place the day on which he raised his Son from the dead. But as the Scriptures do not make any such statement, it is not difficult to expose the weakness of this assertion. This, however, does not end the matter. The same persons take another position, and next assert that no one can tell wThat day is the true seventh day. When, however, this position is wrested from them, they next plant themselves on the ground that any day of the seven will answer, as God requires, not the seventh day, but the seventh part of time. As this ground is untenable, when they are driven from it, they next maintain that the seventh day is a Jewish institution, and that we are at liberty to observe or disregard it, just as wre ourselves elect. And they endeavor to strengthen this position by asserting that if we observe the Sabbath, wre shall fall from grace. When the untruthfulness of this doctrine has been shown, and the selfcontradictory nature of the argument in its behalf has been made apparent, then it is that these persons suddenly discover that the seventh day which God hallowed in Eden is of perpetual obligation, and binding upon all men everywhere; but that this same seventh day comes on the first day of the w*eek, or Sunday. Perhaps the most elaborate effort that has ever been made to establish and defend this last position is that of Rev. Peter Akers, D. D., President of 6 SUNDAY NOT THE M’Ken dree College. Certainly no persons have so fully “ made others to hope that they would confirm the word,” as has Dr. Akers in his earnest effort to prove that Sunday is the veritable seventh day, hallowed by God in Eden. This, Dr. A. has endeavored to maintain in a work of 411 pages, published in 1855, entitled, “ Introduction to Biblical Chronology.” He uses much learning to sustain his theory. A smaller work by Rev. E. Q. Fuller, entitled* “ The Two Sabbaths,” in which the theory of Dr. Akers is given in a modified form, has also been published by the same house which issued Akers’s Chronology, viz., the Methodist Book Concern of Cincinnati. More than one hundred years since, David Jennings, D. D., of England, in his “ Jewish Antiquities,” endeavored to prove that our first day of the week, or Sunday, is identical with the day of the Creator’s rest, though the theory by which he sustained it was very unlike that of Dr. Akers. And a century before Dr. Jennings, the learned Joseph Mede put forth the idea that the original Sabbath was taken from Israel (though he knew not what day of our week that answered to), and that Saturday was given them in its stead. His theory in support of this, however, was essentially unlike that of Dr. Jennings. As Mr. Fuller presents the latest and most generally-accepted modification of the theory that Sunday is the original Sabbath, we give a synopsis of his position, and note the points in which he differs from those who have preceded him. THE THEORIES OF FULLER AND AKERS STATED. The seventh day sanctified in Eden was that day which we call Sunday. The observance of TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 7 Sunday has therefore been sacredly binding upon all men from creation to the present time, with the exception of the Jewish people, who were exempted from its obligation from the day that they departed out of Egypt till the day that Christ was crucified. This exemption was effected by setting the sabbatic institution back one day when they left Egypt; so that whereas the original Sabbath came upon the sixteenth day of Abib, the month in which they left Egypt, it was at that point of time set back to the day next preceding; and that day, the seventh day of the week as reckoned by Adam, but the sixth day of the week as reckoned by God, was thenceforward observed as the Sabbath; while Sunday, the true Sabbath, and the real seventh day as reckoned by God, though the first day of the week as men kept the reckoning, was never after regarded as the Sabbath, until, at the crucifixion of Christ, the Jewish Sabbath was abrogated, and the first day of the week at the resurrection of Christ resumed its rightful place as the Sabbath of the Lord. This theory rests upon the following propositions :— 1. Time is reckoned from Adam’s first day; for all the days of the creation week which preceded that day belong not to time, but to eternity.* 2. The seventh day from creation, on which God rested, was Adam’s first day of existence.t ♦Thus Mr. Fuller states this doctrine: “Chronology does not commence with the ‘beginning’ of creation, but with the completion of it. Time is reckoned in the Scriptures from tin* creation of Adam. . . . Before him was eternity, not time.”— The Two Sabbaths, p. 29. “The Sabbath is explicitly named in this language as instituted on the seventh day of creation, the first day of time.”— Id., p. 16. t Dr. Akers states this point thus: “ This was the seventh from the 8 8UNDAY NOT THE 3. Hence it was that Adam began his week with the last day of the Creator’s week.* * 4. And thus the Sabbath of the Lord came upon the first day of the week to Adam and his posterity, as they reckoned the week.f 5. But God gave to Israel a new Sabbath the very day that he led them out of Egypt. For whereas the next day after that event was the regular weekly Sabbath from creation, God ordained that Israel should keep the day of their flight as their Sabbath-day that week, and that same day of the week ever afterward till the crucifixion. J 6. During the period from the departure out of Egypt to the crucifixion, there were, therefore, two conflicting Sabbath laws; one binding upon the Gentiles, and requiring them to keep the very day of God’s rest, which they did in their heathen Sunday; the other requiring the Jews to keep that day of the week on which they left first, in the count of God’s works for man; but it was the first day in his created history.'’—Biblical Chronology, p. ill. And Mr. Fuller says: “Adam was created last of ail the divine handiwork, at the very close, we may suppose, of the sixth day. The next, the seventh from the beginning of creation, must have been the first of his existence.”—The Two Sabbaths, p. 29. * Here is Mr. Fuller’s statement of this doctrine: “This ‘seventh’ day of God's work, which he ‘blessed’ and ‘sanctified,’ upon which Adam first appeared before his Maker ‘ very good,’ must have been the first day of the week and of the year, because, being the first day in the history of man, it was strictly the first day of time.”—The Two Sabbaths, pp. 29, 30. t Mr. Fuller thus dates the first-day Sabbath: “ 1. That a perpetual Sabbath was instituted at the creation of the world. 2. That the original Sabbath was on the first day of the week.”— The Two Sabbath's, p. 10. “Neither the weekly period nor the first-day Sabbath has ever been lost.”—/d., p. 12. “The first day of the week, the patriarchal Sabbath.”—Id., p. 37. $Dr. Akers thus asserts the change of the Sabbath in Egypt: “ This day. the day on which they rested from bondage, was constituted the Sabbath of the Israelites; and the next day, the sixteenth of Abib, which had from the beginning been the seventh day, was constituted the first in the new order of weeks.”—Bibli al Chronology, p. 32. ‘I undertake to prove that the aforesaid fifteenth day of the old TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 9 Egypt, which was the day before the true Sabbath of the Lord.* 7. But when Christ died, the Jewish Sabbath was abolished, leaving in full force the original Sabbath of the Lord which had ever been observed by the Gentiles.f 8. And thus, Sunday, though called “first day of the week,” is that very seventh day on which God rested, and is now binding upon all mankind as the Sabbath of the Lord.J This chain of propositions presents Dr. Akers’s seventh month, called Abib, or Nisan, in the Jewish calendar, was, by divine appointment, established to be the day on which the weekly Sabbath of the Jews should recur annually, till the resurrection of Christ from the dead."— Id., pp. 98, 99. * Mr. Fuller thus distinguishes this universal first-day Sabbath from that seventh-day Sabbath which God gave to Israel; “What is here to be understood by the terms, the two Sabbaths, is, first, that the Sabbath hallowed at the creation of the world is a perpetual institution, the weekly observance of which was from the beginning, and will be, till the ending of time, binding upon the entire race of man, excepting the Jews during the period of their national history; that it is the present, Christian Sabbath; and, second, that the Jewish Sabbath was an extraordinary, a temporary institution, pertaining alone to the Mosaic economy, originating in, and ending with it."—The Two Sabbaths\ ]). 9. “The original Sabbatic law has ever been, and does now remain, in full force to all people but the Jews, who were exempted from its weekly observance from the exodus to the crucifixion.’'—Id., p. 10. “This institution [the first-day Sabbath], so wonderfully preserved throughout all the religions, languages, and ages of the world, must from the first have been a prominent religious observance and universally known; ordained of God at the beginning of time."—/tf., p. 58 t Mr. F. and Dr. A. thus assert the abolition of that Sabbath which the Hebrews observed and its supersedure by the Sunday of the heathen:— “The Jewish Sabbath was abrogated with the Jewish economy. . . . When Judaism was abrogated, the original Sabbath remained to the Christian Church."—The Two Sabbaths, p. 10. “When the Lord’s day, the Christian Sabbath, was first made known to our idolatrous ancestors, they were found on that day paying adoration to the sun. And from them we received our Sunday, Monday, or Moonday, etc. Thus has idolatry itself been made to contribute to the claims of the Christian Sabbath to be synchronical with the original Sabbath of the Lord.”—Biblical Chronology, p. 110. t Here are Dr. Akers's words: “ "We count Sunday the first day of the week, etc., in compliance with the order established for the Jews at the exodus, when the Sabbath was changed; but down to that time, what we now, following the Jews, call the first day of the week, was the seventh day."—B'blical Chronology, p. 139. 10 SUNDAY NOT THE theory as modified by Rev. E. Q. Fuller in his u Two Sabbaths.” In some points, Mr. F. and Dr. A. differ. Thus Mr. F. makes God’s seventh day to be Adam’s first day of the week. But Dr. A. teaches that Adam reckoned God’s rest-day as the seventh day of the week. Yet both assert that God’s seventh day was Sunday, and that it was the first day of Adam’s life. Both agree in the alleged change of the Sabbath at the time of the exodus of Israel. That is, they assert that it was then changed from Sunday, the day of God’s rest, to Saturday, the day of their departure from Egypt. According to Mr. F., the first six days of Gen. 1 were not counted in the reckoning of the first week. So that Adam and his posterity constructed the week by joining the last day of one of the Creator’s weeks to the first six days of another of his weeks, thus making a week which began with God’s seventh day, and ended with his sixth. And this same week continued in use after God gave Israel a new Sabbath; for from that time they observed the day with which their week closed, instead of the day on which it began. We do not say they observed the seventh day of their week instead of the first day of it, lest these terms should mislead the reader; for their week, according to Mr. Fuller, began with the real seventh day, and ended with the true sixth day. Such is the kind of week which we now have, if indeed Sunday is the true seventh day from creation. It is worthy of notice that that week which witnessed the alleged change of the Sabbath in Egypt, did, according to the theory of Mr. F., have two Sabbaths in it! That is, it began with God’s seventh day, which they were still under obligation ta TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 11 observe, and ended with his sixth day, which that very day became their Sabbath. And ever after this point, the sixth day, or Saturday, was kept by Israel as the seventh day ; and Sunday, the true seventh day, was called the first day. of the week. And so when the Jewish Sabbath, L e.y Saturday, ceased to be obligatory, and the original Sabbath, L e., Sunday, alone remained in force, that day had thoroughly acquired the title of first day of the week, being called thus by all men from Adam to Christ. But according to Dr. Akers, it seems that Adam reckoned the first week of time from the first day of creation ; so that his weeks began and ended just as did those of the Creator. But when the exodus from Egypt took place, God gave Israel a new Sabbath by setting the institution back from Sunday, the day of his rest, to Saturday, the day of their departure from Egypt. And as he thus-gave them a new Sabbath, so did he also give them a new week to fit this new Sabbath. For Dr. A. asserts that God gave the Hebrews at this time just such a week as Mr. F. asserts he gave to Adam ; viz., a week made up of the last, or seventh, day of one week, and the first aix days of another week. Mr. Fuller’s theory has this advantage over that of Dr. Akers, that he sets out at the commencement of Adam’s history with a kind of week to which he is able to adhere even to the end of time ; while Dr. A. sets out with weeks, the first of which allows the reckoning of all the days of the creation week, but which he has to change at the exodus to such as Mr. F. started with; and having once changed the kind of weeks in order to bring in what he terms the Jewish Sabbath, he 12 SUNDAY NOT THE is obliged to adhere to this kind of week after his so-called Jewish Sabbath has, as he teaches, been nailed to the cross. But, whereas Mr. Fulier has a w’eek at the exodus with two Sabbaths in it, Dr. Akers makes the same week to consist of only six days ! There is here an ugly crook in each of these theories, and the reader can decide for himself which to choose, as they are equally true. But Dr. Akers, having cut off the seventh day from the first week of this new order, that he may make the sixth day of that week into what he calls the Jewish Sabbath, next takes the seventh day, thus severed from the mutilated week, and joins it to the first six days of the following week. He is obliged to continue this work of mutilation ever afterward; for his succession of weeks is thenceforward maintained by joining the seventh day of the true week to the first six days of the next one ; and he has also to change the numbering of the days; so that he makes the true seventh day into the first day of the Jewish week, and makes a new seventh day out of the sixth day of that week. He does not indeed stop to explain how, in that first Jeivish week which had but six , where, on their murmuring for want of provisions, the Lord that night sent them quails ; and the next morning, which was the sixteenth day, it rained manna, and so for six days successively ; on the seventh, which was the twenty-second, it rained none, and that day they were commanded to keep for their Sabbath; and if this had been the Sabbath in course, according to the paradisaical com- Sutation, the fifteenth must have been so too, and would have been onbtless kept as a Sabbath, and not have been any part of it spent in marching from Elim to Siu.M—Jewish Antiquities, p. 320, 321, book 3, chap. 3. But T)f. Akers denies the very foundation of Dr. Jennings's theory by ass rting that the Jews marched from Elim to Sin on Monday. Thus h .■ says: “The Jews did not manifest a familiar acquaintance with tiioir Sabbath in the early part of their history. They came into the wilderness of Sin on the fifteenth day of the second month after departing out of tiie land of Egypt. This day, in numbering fifty days from the second day of unleavened bread, was required to be Monday, the second day of the Jewish week."— Biblical Chronology, p. 118. While Jennings and Akers thus contradict each other in attempting to prove Sunday the true seventh day, a competent witness, Dr. E. 0. Haven, President of the University of Michigan, bears the following testimony respecting their theories: “There are some who maintain that it can be chronologically demonstrated that, on account of some confusion in time of disaster, revolution, and ignorance, the Jews are themselves mistaken, and that the genuine Sabbath is our Sunday, wrongly called ‘the first day of the week.’ There is no good reason, however, for denying that the Jewish Sabbath is the true seventh day, reckoning from the Creation of man, and that the Christian Sunday is the first day of the Hebrew week, or of the genuine week."— The Pillars of Truth, p. 39. 16 SUNDAY NOT THE Sabbath mentioned in this chapter; as the sixth day here brought to view was certainly the sixth day of the week, and therefore not necessarily the sixth day of the fall of the manna. It was not necessary that the first fall of the manna should be upon the first day of the week. And therefore, even if Dr. A. could positively prove (which he cannot) that the fifteenth day of the second month was Monday, he has even then determined nothing certain as to the beginning of the fall of the manna. And, in like manner, Dr. J. has no clear, well-ascertained fact on which to base the inference that constitutes the substance of his theory. It is remarkable that these two doctors deny the ground of the other’s position, though each one endeavors to prove Sunday the true seventh day. But, whereas Dr. J. attempts to establish this change at the fall of the manna, Dr. A. denies the very foundation on which it rests, and places this change one month earlier. But Dr. Jennings, who has evidently studied the book of Exodus very intently, to find some place for the change of the Sabbath, deliberately passes over the point selected by Dr. A., in Ex. 12, and sets it one month later. Thus he says: “ As to the institution of the Jewish Sabbath, the first account we have of it is in Ex. 16.”—Jeivish Antiquities, p. 320. And the only reference that he makes to the exodus from Egypt is that it is possible that this Sabbath-day was the day of the week on which Pharaoh was drowned in the Red Sea.”—Id., p. 321. Dr. J.’s principal reason for denying that the Sabbath of the Hebrews was identical with the paradisaical Sabbath has been considered, and the fact that Dr. A. sets it wholly aside has been shown from his own language. But if Dr. A. and Mr. F. TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 17 had imitated the modest statement of Dr. J. relative to Sunday as the true seventh day, it would much better accord with the doubtful deductions which, in so positive a manner, they offer to us. But Dr. J. only makes it “ a very probable conjecture ” that Sunday was the true seventh day. Thus he frankly acknowledges his theory to be based on probabilities, to say the most that can be said, and that it does not rest upon certainties.* One remaukable fact pertaining to Dr. Jennings’s theory should here be noticed: He holds that Sunday is the Sabbath which was observed in paradise, and that it was binding, as such, till superseded at the fall of the manna by Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. He also holds that the Saturday next preceding the one marked by the cessation of the manna, Israel marched from Elim to Sin; which assertion he uses as a clear proof that it was* not then the Sabbath. He further holds that the manna began to fall the next day after that march. So, according to Dr. Jennings, the manna began to fall upon the morning of Sunday, the true Sabbath of the Lord, as observed from creation down to that time; which original Sabbath was not superseded by the Jewish Sabbath, or Saturday, till six days after this, at the first cessation of the manna. And Dr. Jennings’s theory requires him to believe that the people went out and' gathered ♦Here are Ilia words: “For if, as we shall presently make appear to be probable, the Jewish Sabbath was appointed to be kept the day before the patriarchal Sabbath, then the first day of the week, or the Christian Sabbath, is the seventh day, computed from the beginning of time, and the same with the Sabbath instituted and observed by the patriarchs, in commemoration of the work of creation ."—Jewish Antiquities, p. 320. “It is a very probable conjecture, that the day which the heathens in general consecrated to the worship and honor of their chief god, the sun, which, according to our computation, was the first day of the week, was the ancient paradisaical Sabbath.”—7(7, p. 322. 2 18 SUNDAY NOT THE manna for the first time on Sunday morning, though it was the Sabbath which God hallowed in Eden, and which had been observed down to that point; and though the act of gathering manna upon that day was one that directly violated the Sabbath, as this chapter plainly teaches (Ex. 16 :4-30), yet the people did this without one expression of surprise that God should send them bread to be gathered upon his holy Sabbath ! And observe this remarkable fact, that whereas they had just spent six days in labor, ending, according to Dr. J., with this march on Saturday, from Elim to Sin, now they begin a second six days’ labor on the morning of Sunday, which was the Lord’s Sabbath-day, which continues till the day on which the manna was withheld. In other words, twelve days elapsed between the ancient Sabbath of the Lord and the newly-ordained Sabbath of the Jews! And during this period, but six days before the Jewish Sabbath, or Saturday, had superseded Sunday, the Sabbath of the Lord, the people spontaneously, and with the divine sanction, violate the true Sabbath by gathering their first manna on that day. So that, whereas Dr. Akers changes the Sabbath by having one week consist of only six days; and whereas Mr. F. changes the Sabbath by having one week that has two Sabbaths in it, Dr. Jennings changes the Sabbath by having one week constituted of thirteen days! And he has the manna begin to fall on God’s seventh day, which is the seventh day of this thirteen-day week! And as if it were not enough to teach that God’s Sabbath was by divine authority removed, to give place to the Sabbath of the Jews, he teaches that it was violated six days before the TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 19 Jewish Sabbath came into existence; and all this was effected by the wonderful miracle of the manna! Dr. Jennings’s alleged change of the Sabbath rests upon the supposed employment of Saturday as a day for marching one week before the first Sabbath marked by the cessation of the manna. But to carry out his theory, he has the manna begin to fall on Sunday, which he calls the true seventh day, and the original Sabbath, and has the people gather it that day, though the new Sabbath was not - instituted for five days after that time! God sent the manna to prove the people, whether they would walk in his law, or not. Ex. 16:4. And according to Dr. Jennings, the very first day of the manna was the original Sabbath ! And so, in the providence of God, they were called to do that which his law forbade! FULLER^ THEORY EXAMINED. Leaving Dr. J., let us now consider the position of Mr. Fuller. Mr. F. holds that Sunday was Adam’s first day of the week, and Saturday was his seventh. He also holds that Adam kept Sunday for the Sabbath. This order continued till the exodus of Israel from Egypt, when, by divine direction, the children of Israel changed, not the order of the week, but only the day of the Sabbath, adopting Saturday, the seventh day of the week, in the place of Sunday, the first day of the week. He proves this assertion by referring the reader to the work of Dr. Akers, who claims to have made an exact count of the days from creation to the exodus. But it is remarkable that Dr. A., in this exact 20 SUNDAY NOT THE count of the days, reckons the first six days of the creation week, which Mr. F. asserts ought not to be reckoned. Also, that he sets out with Monday as the first day of the week, and Sunday as the seventh; and when the exodus takes place, he has one week with only six days in it, in order that he may have the sixth day, or Saturday, thenceforward reckoned as the seventh day, and Sunday, the seventh day, to be, ever after, the first day of the week. Dr. .A.’s week, thus changed, corresponds exactly to the week which Mr. F. asserts was used by Adam. Mr. Fuller’s book, the u Two Sabbaths,” rests, almost wholly, upon the exact computation of days from creation, which is given in Dr. Akers’s Chronology. But if Dr. A.’s calculation is good for anything, it establishes his own reckoning of the week, and disproves and sets aside Mr. F.’s order of the week, on which his theory rests. Now it is particularly dishonest in Mr. F. to make the use which he does of Dr. A.’s calculation. Mr. F.’s argument rests upon the truthfulness of Dr. A.’s reckoning of the week from creation. And Dr. A.’s reckoning is wholly directed to show that Sunday is the seventh day of the week, as reckoned by Adam, which Mr. F. denies, asserting it to be the first day of that week. Dr. A. professes to be able to count the time from Adam to the exodus so exactly that he can positively prove that Sunday was the seventh day of that entire series of weeks. But when he comes to the exodus, in order to show that the Sabbath observed by Israel was not the ancient Sabbath of the Lord, he changes the reckoning of the week, and thus makes a week that begins with God’s seventh day and ends with his sixth! and which TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 21 thus exactly corresponds with Mr. F.’s week. And thereupon Mr. F. seizes this result thus obtained, and gives his readers to understand that Akers’s Chronology proves that this kind of week had been observed without change from the beginning ; * whereas, Dr. A. avows just the reverse! And Mr. F. rests his theory of a change from Sunday, the first day, to Saturday, the seventh, at the exodus, on this misstatement of Akers’s calculation! How reliable that calculation is, we shall soon consider. Between Mr. F. and Dr. A., the whole truth respecting the original Sabbath is confessed; yet each connects with that part of the truth which he confesses, sufficient error to completely drown it. And each sees the errors of the other, and denies them. Thus, Mr. Fuller states that the original week began with Sunday and ended with Saturday; which week, he teaches, has come down to us. This is a very important truth. But he drowns it in an ocean of error, by saying, (1.) That the first six days of Genesis were not admitted into the original week; (2.) That God’s rest-day was the first day of man’s week; (3.) That the week thus began with God’s seventh day and *Here is Mr. Fullers statement which he proves by Dr. A.’s “Biblical Chronology,” though it expressly contradicts his point: “The sixth and seventh days of the week, mentioned in Ex. 16, when the manna was first given, synchronize with the same days of the original week, thus showing that this period had been carefully preserved from the beginning. (Bib. Chron., pp. 98-121.) ''—The Two Sabbaths, pp. 32, 33. To this statement we would not object were rt no* that he makes the original week begin with the seventh day and end with the sixth! and of course the week in Ex. 16, which synchronizes with it, is reckoned in the same way. But when he proves this by using Akers's “Biblical Chronology,” which directly contradicts what Mr. F. says, it is an unpardonable departure from rectitude. We have no doubt that God's weeks, ordained in the beginning, remain unchanged till the present time; but weeks beginning with God’s seventh day and ending with his sixth are “weak and beggarly elements ” which never were changed because God never suffered them to e.wst! 22 SUNDAY NOT THE ended with his sixth. Thus Mr. F. states two very important truths, and hides them under three strange errors. But Dr. Akers is just the counterpart of Mr. F. He says: The week began with the first day of creation, and thus the Sabbath came upon the seventh day of Adam’s week. And so God’s seventh day and Adam’s seventh day were one and the same. But he covers up these precious truths with Jan error equally as pernicious as those of Mr. Fuller. Thus he teaches: The first day of the week was Monday, and the seventh day Sunday. Between the two, however, the whole truth is confessed, and all the errors of both are denied. Thus the truth is acknowledged:— 1. The original week began with the first day of creation, and ended with the rest-day of the Creator. Adam’s week corresponded to this.— AJcers. 2. Adam’s weeks began with Sunday, and ended with Saturday.—Fuller. 3. This week has come down to us unchanged in its reckoning.—Fuller. 4. The seventh day of Adam’s week is still sacredly binding upon all mankind.—Akers. Thus Mr. Fuller corrects the error of Dr. Akers that Sunday is the seventh day of the original week; and Dr. Akers shows no countenance to Fuller’s idea that the first six days of Genesis were not counted in the first week; nor to the idea that the first week began with the rest-day of the Lord. According to Dr. Akers, we should observe the seventh day of that week which God gave Adam; which day, according to Fuller, is TRUE SEVENTH HAT. 23 Saturday, and which week, according to the same writer, has come down to us unchanged. Mr. F. is an outspoken first-day man. Dr. A., on the contrary, is a most decided seventh-day man. Both, however, are earnest champions of Sunday as the true Sabbath. Mr. F. vindicates it on the ground that it is the genuine first day of the week ; Dr. A. maintains it because it is the only day that has any right to the designation of seventh day of the week. What is remarkable, Dr. A. vindicates his Sunday-seventh day by an exact count of the days; and Mr. F., who cites this reckoning as reliable, uses it to establish his own theory, that Sunday is the first day of the week, and not the seventh. When the same set of figures can be made to sustain two diverse positions, we may justly suspect some error in the use of the figures, or some slight of hand and cunning craftiness in the matter somewhere. Let us see how Mr. F. establishes his first day of the week. We shall find it a costly operation on his part; yet it is easy to understand why he enters into it. It is to avoid the difficulties of Dr. Akers’s theory. If the rest-day of the Lord was actually upon the first day of the week, then he can avoid Dr. A.’s dilemma of having a week at the exodus with only six days in it, as has Dr. A.; and also when he reaches the New Testament, he^finds his favorite day bearing the right name,—first day of the week,—whereas Dr. A. has the ugly fact of finding his genuine seventh day on which Christ arose from the dead, called by inspiration “ first day of the week.” Andwhereas Dr. A. at the Exodus has to change not only the day of the Sabbath, but also the reckoning of the week itself, Mr. F. only has occasion to change 24 SUNDAY NOT THE the clay of the Sabbath, and is able to leave the week unchanged. Yet it is to be noticed as a singular feature of this Sunday-seventh-day theory, that, whereas Dr. A. and Mr. F. both assert that the Sabbath was changed on the day of the exodus, Dr. A. asserts that it was changed from the seventh day of the week to the sixth day, and Mr. F. asserts that it was changed from the first day to the seventh! Yet each of these gentlemen, by the change which he alleges, establishes the sanctity of Sunday on a firm basis! Mr. F. does not wholly steer clear of difficulty in his theory of God’s rest-day on the first day of the week. His week from Adam to Moses begins with a Sabbath for its first day. And when he changes the Sabbath at the exodus from first day to seventh, it compels him to put two Sabbaths into one week ! That is, the last week in Egypt, which began with a first-day Sabbath, had its seventh day also made into a Sabbath by the act of setting the Sabbath back from Sunday to Saturday ! So here was a very highly-flavored week, with a Sabbath for its first day and a Sabbath for its last, with five working days between! But on the whole, Mr. F. has fewer difficulties, after the first start, than has Dr. A. As both of them mean to come out in the New Testament first-day men, it is evident that that process of reasoning which can make God’s rest-day, in the beginning come upon the first day of the original week, will steer dear of a number of very serious difficulties that the Sunday-seventh day has to encounter. But let us see what it costs Mr. F. to get started. His grand idea is this: The first day of the original week was the day on which the TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 25 Creator rested, and which he blessed and sanctified for time to come in memory of that rest. How does he establish this remarkable declaration ?—By the statement of three palpable untruths, as follows:— 1. That the six days of creation belonged to eternity, and were not counted as the first six days of time. 2. That Adam’s first day of existence was the Creator’s rest-day. 3. That Adam counted the day of the Creator’s rest the first day of the week. These are very remarkable declarations to be made by a student of the Bible. Let us weigh them well. 1. Mr. Fuller makes the first of these statements for the alleged reason that time began with Adam’s first day. Let us admit the proof. Now what follows ?—Simply this : As Adam must have been created quite early on the sixth day, as will presently be proved, it follows that the division between time and eternity, on Mr. F.’s own showing, does not lie between the sixth day and the seventh, but between the fifth day and the sixth. But it is really no proof at all, being simply coined out of his own vain imagination, and never in any way sanctioned by the words of inspiration. The first chapter of Genesis contains a record which commences with what the Holy Spirit calls “the beginning.” Of what is this the beginning? Of eternity? Mr. F. will not assert it, though he places this beginning in eternity; i. e., he asserts that the events of the six days of creation belong, not to time, but to eternity. Perhaps Mr. F. will say that “the beginning ” is simply the beginning of our world’s history. But is it 20 SUNDAY NOT THE not true that God caused Moses to count time from that very point ? What if Adam could not of his own knowledge count the number of days which preceded his existence ? Could not Moses do it by the Spirit of inspiration ? And cannot we do it now by Moses’ help ? But observe, Mr. F. has the last six days oi the eternity of the past numbered, measured, and recorded. Then he teaches that time begins where those six days end. But is not eternity, as distinguished from time, unmeasured duration ? And is not time, as distinguished from eternity, that part of duration which is measured by the Bible ? And if these definitions be accepted as just, is it not manifest that “the beginning,” of which Moses speaks, is the commencement of measured duration; i. c., the beginning of time, the point which marked it, being the creative word that gave existence to the heavens and the earth ? Mr. F. says that the six days of Gen. 1 are the last six days of the eternity of the past; we say that they are the first six days of time. Which is right ? If the remarks already made have failed to settle the question, let the reader give attention to the following point, which cannot be evaded : Mr. F. acknowledges the rest-day of the Creator to belong to time; but he denies this of the days which God employed in the work of creation. But observe that the day of God’s rest is called the seventh day. Gen. 2 :1-3. This shows that the rest-day of the Lord belongs to a series which commenced with what Moses calls “ THE BEGINNING.” Mr. F. must therefore admit that the six days belong to time, or else assert that the seventh day belongs to eternity. As he cannot ascribe the seventh day to eternity, he TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 27 must acknowledge the six days of creation to be the first six days of time. The first of the three propositions on which Mr. F. bases his assertion that God’s rest-day was the first day of the week, is, therefore, proved to be false. Now let us examine the second of the three. 2. He says that the day on which God rested was the first day of Adam’s existence. But, for this to be true, Adam must have been created on the seventh day of the week; or, if such a thing be conceivable, he was created on the very line which divides the seventh from the sixth. But neither of these conclusions is truthful. Adam was created on the sixth day of the week, and at a period in the day when very much of it remained unexpired. That he was created on the sixth day, is plainly taught in Gen. 1: 26-31. After the creation of Adam, the Lord God took the man, and put him in the garden of Eden, intrusting it to him to be dressed and kept. Then he stated to him the conditions of his probation. Gen. 2 :15-17. And after this, the Lord God brought to him every beast of the field and every fowl of the air, “to see what he would call them.” “ And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field.” Gen. 2 :19, 20. This must have required several hours of time. When Adam had thus viewed “every living creature,” and given to each its proper name, he found not one that was fitted to be his own helper. So it is added that “ for Adam there was not found an helpmeet for him.” Verse 20. Next we are told that God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept. While he thus slept, God took one of his ribs, and of that rib 28 SUNDAY NOT THE formed Eve. Then he brought her to Adam, who at once gave her a name, and recognized her as the helper whom he had failed to find in all the creatures that ho had viewed and named. Verse 23. And God gave her to Adam for a wife. We are informed in Gen. 1: 28; 2:24; Matt. 19:4, 5. The marriage of Adam and Eve is placed, by Gen. 1:28-31, on the sixth day of the week, the day of their creation. And Gen. 5:1, 2, plainly teaches that the creation of Eve was upon the same day with that of Adam, and intimates unequivocally that their marriage occurred on that very day. After all this, God announced the food of man and beast; and when everything was completed, “ God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good. And the evening AND THE MORNING WERE THE SIXTH DAY.” Gen. 1: 28-31. Let us enumerate the several events which followed the creation of Adam on the sixth day of the week:— (1.) God placed him in Eden to dress and keep it, which implies that he gave him instruction on the subject. (2.) He stated to him the conditions of his probation. (3.) “ All cattle,” “ every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air,” were brought to Adam for names. (4.) Then God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, while he created Eve. (5.) Next, Adam and Eve were united in marriage. (6.) Then God announced to man the gift of his food. (7.) Lastly, God saw that everything he had TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 29 made was very good, and the sixth day of creation closed. ■ To these facts should be added the announcement which follows their accomplishment: u Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” Gen. 2:1-3. What shall we say to the statement of Mr. Fuller that the day on which God rested was the first day of Adam’s life ? Shall we not pronounce it a most inexcusable falsehood? Did Adam take a wife the day before his own existence commenced ? Did God cause the animals to pass in succession before Adam that he might give them names suited to their several organizations, and yet no Adam exist till the following day ? Did God place Adam upon probation, and threaten him with death in case he sinned, and Adam himself have no existence till the ensuing day ? And what about intrusting him with the garden before there was any Adam to intrust with it ? Will Mr. F. deny that these things required time ? Dare he assert that they took place on the day of the Creator’s rest ? But whatever answer he may return to these questions, we have the plain testimony of Gen. 1: 26-31, which shows that the events of chap. 2 : 7-25, transpired upon the sixth day of creation. We have now examined the second proposition on which Mr. F. bases his assertion that God rested from his labor on the first day of the week. The reader will agree with us that this second proposi- 30 SUNDAY NOT THE tion is of the same character as the first, an inexcusably false statement. Mr. F.’s third proposition furnishes the remaining proof on which he relies to show that the Creator rested upon the first day of the original week. Here it is:— 3. That Adam reckoned the day of the Creator's rest the first day of the week. But how does Mr. F. know this statement to be true ? The Bible says nothing of the kind. Indeed, the real ground of this assertion is found in the two propositions already discussed. For if, as Mr. F. asserts, the six days of creation belong to eternity, then the Creator’s rest-day was the first day of time; and if time began with Adam’s existence, and his existence began with the seventh day, then we may well conclude that Adam reckoned God’s rest-day as the first day of the week. But these two propositions are absolutely false. For the first week of time, asthas been fully shown, was made out of the six days of creation, and the rest-day of the Creator; whence it follows that that rest-day is rightly termed in the Bible “ the seventh day.” Gen. 2:2, 3. And that Adam’s existence began quite early on the sixth day has been clearly proved. It is certain, therefore, that Adam could not reckon the rest-day of the Lord as the first day of the week on the ground that it was the first day of time, when the record shows it to have been the seventh day; and it is equally certain that he could not reckon it the first day of the week as being the first day of his own existence when it was not his first day, but his second. To say, therefore, that God’s rest-day was the first day of time, is to say that Adam was created in eternity. To say that the week began with Adam’s first day, is to assert that it began with TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 31 the sixth day of creation. And to assert that God rested upon the first day of the week on the authority of the three propositions already examined, is to handle the word of God deceitfully. The theory of Mr. Fuller, that God’s Sabbath is the first day of the original week, is therefore not founded in truth, and only exists in consequence of his corrupting the word of God to justify his own violation of the fourth commandment. Several minor points should be mentioned before we turn from Mr. F. to Dr. Akers. 1. When God appointed the seventh day to a holy use, for sanctify signifies to set apart to a holy use, Adam and Eve must have been addressed, for they were the ones to obey the appointment. But the day thus appointed by God was the seventh day (Gen. 2:2, 3), which name, it is certain, was that used by God in the appointment, and he must have used the term to those who understood it as he did, or. it would have misled them. 2. The appointment of the seventh day for the Sabbath (Gen. 2 : 1-3), necessarily established weeks, and made the Sabbath to be the last day of the seven, six days of labor coming first. And the week thus created, and the Sabbath thus appointed, were respectively a model of the Creator’s week, and a memorial of his sacred, rest. But Mr. F. alleges that the six days of creation do not form a part of the first week of time. He also asserts that the first day of time was given to Adam for the Sabbath. What was there, then, to show when another Sabbath would come ? If it be said that it would come in one week, who on Mr. F.’s ground could prove the existence of weeks at that time? for Mr. F. destroys the 32 SUNDAY NOT THE Lord’s week by disconnecting the six days of Gen. 1 and the seventh day of Gen. 2, giving those to eternity and this to time. And he nullifies the appointment of weeks in Gen. 2:1-3, where the setting apart of the seventh day as the Sabbath really divides time into periods of seven days; for in the face of the plain statement of this text, that it was the seventh day, Mr. F. asserts that it was the first day thus set apart. Now this being the case, as he has destroyed God’s original week, and as he destroys also the week which is created by the appointment of the seventh day, by substituting first-day for seventh, it is fair to ask him how often this first-day comes. If he answers that it comes weekly, we ask him how he proves the existence of weeks after he has destroyed the week which God observed, and has also destroyed the weeks ordained by him in appointing the seventh day to a holy use. If it be said that Adam constructed a week in imitation of God’s week, we ask how this can be when the very existence of God’s week is denied ? God had a period of six days only, a very poor model for a week. Or, if we give him seven days> we do it by joining the last six days of the eternity of the past with the first day of time; a most marvelous week indeed! But if we grant the existence of such a week as that, how poor an imitation of it did Adam construct! For whereas God has a week which ends with a Sabbath, Mr. F. has a week which begins with one! Nay, this is not all. Adam does not wait for God’s week to close, but he seizes the last day of God’s week, and makes it the first day of his first week! So that God’s rest-day formed a part of God’s week and a part of man’s ! But it is folly to talk of TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 33 such weeks. They have no more existence in the divine plan than has the first-day Sabbath which they were framed to bolster up. As Mr. F.’s theory destroys the institution of the week at the very place where God set it up, we ask him again to tell when his first-day Sabbath would come the second time. He calls the Creator’s rest-day the first day of time; we have proved it to be the last. He calls it the first day of Adam’s life ; we have proved it to be the second. To establish a first-day Sabbath in Eden, it is necessary to assume each of these falsehoods to be a truth ; and it is also necessary to destroy the institution of the week in order to set up this costly pretender to Sabbatic honors. But when it has been thus made sacred in the estimation of men, who can tell how often the day would come ? As first day of time, it could never return; as first day of Adam18 life, he could never again behold it; as first day of the week, it could never return, for the week is destroyed in the very effort to make the rest-day of God its first day. And there is one other reason why the day can never oome the second time in any one of these capacities. It is this: It never yet -came thus the first time. 3. One thing more in Mr. F. must be noticed before we leave him for Dr. Akers. He asserts the change of the Sabbath in Egypt, inasmuch as Israel, at the fall of the manna, kept the seventh day (Ex. 16), whereas, at creation, God ordained the first day. But what a sentiment is this ! The Scriptures just as explicitly represent God as setting apart the seventh day in the beginning (Gen. 2: 2, 3), as they represent Israel, at the fell of the manna, observing the seventh day as a sacred rest. And the manner in which Mr. F. has attempted 3 34 SUNDAY NOT THE to transform the seventh day of Gen. 2 : 2, 3 into first day, has been proved to be inexcusable and wicked. dr. akers’s theory examined. Mr. Fuller’s idea that God’s rest-day constituted the paradisiacal first day of the week having been shown to be a most pernicious and costly error, let us next see how well Dr. Akers will succeed in proving that Sunday, which Mr. Fuller asserts is the day of God’s rest, is really the seventh day of the original week. How does Mr. Akers prove that Saturday, which the Jews have ever kept as the seventh day, is not such, and that Sunday, which they have always counted the first day of the week, is really the true seventh day ? Dr. Akers goes down to Egypt for help. Indeed, Egypt is the place of resort for all this class of expositors. There, or in the adjacent and equally significant, wilderness of Sin, four classes of Sunday advocates find evidence that the Sabbath was changed, though each uses arguments in proof that conflict with those of all the rest, and though three different times and places are assigned for the occurrence of this event which seems to them so very desirable and important. The Jews now observe Saturday as the Sabbath of the Lord, and as the seventh day of the original week. It is an indisputable fact that the Hebrew people have never lost the identical day which they observed at the fall of the manna. Saturday is therefore the day which the sixteenth of Exodus calls the Sabbath. Hence it becomes necessary to show that on the day of unleavened bread in Egypt, or at the crossing of the Red Sea, or at the fall of the manna, no matter which, if TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 35 only one of these points can be made certain, the true Sabbath was taken from Israel, and a temporary one given to that people in exchange! How remarkable is this statement! God took away his Sabbath, and in place of it gave his own chosen people a shadowy Sabbath, designed to last only from the exodus till the crucifixion ! That is to say, he gave Israel a Sabbath of small account, but took from them his own hallowed rest-day! He forbade their labor on a ceremonial Sabbath, but gave them permission to do all manner of work upon that day which he had consecrated to a holy use in memory of the creation of the heavens and the earth! For his own chosen people he turned his own rest-day into a day of common business, and elevated a common working day to be their Sabbath! The Gentiles around retained the ancient Sabbath; but God’s chosen people had it taken from them, and a day, which had been nothing but a common working day up to that time, given them to take its place! “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision ? ” Paul answered this question by saying : “ Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” Rom. 3 :1, 2. But if we can believe Dr. Akers, one of the “advantages” consisted in having the Sabbath of the Lord taken from them, and a ceremonial Sabbath given them in its stead! But why does Dr. A. feel so great an interest in wresting from the hands of Israel the rest-day of the Lord, and in proving that they kept the day next before it ?—Simply that Sunday, which comes next after the day kept by ancient Israel, m^y be shown to have a foundation in the Script- SUNDAY NOT THE ures. And it is to be observed that those who change the Sabbath at or near the exodus, give themselves no trouble to prove its second change at the resurrection of Christ. For if the Jews did not have the true seventh day, but did have for a Sabbath the day that next preceded that real seventh day, then the New Testament first day of the week is actually that seventh day which God hallowed in Eden, and the keeping of Sunday is the observance of the ancient Sabbath of the Lord! But how does Dr. Akers prove that at the exodus Israel gave up the paradisiacal Sabbath, and adopted in its stead the day next preceding it? He does not assert that thi^ change is expressly stated in the Bible. But he proceeds to count the exact number of days from creation to the sixteenth day of the month Abib of that year that Israel left Egypt. Having done this, he finds that this sixteenth day of Abib was the seventh day of the week in regular succession from that seventh day on which God rested in the beginning. But the day before this, viz., the fifteenth day of the month, by divine direction, the children of Israel went forth out of Egypt, taking “ their dough before it was leavened, their kneading-troughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders.” Ex. 12: 34. And they journeyed that day from Rameses to Succoth. Ex. 12 : 37; Num. 33:3-5. But Dr. Akers asserts that this day on which they marched from Rameses to Succoth (carrying on their shoulders their dough and their kneading-troughs bound up in their clothes), viz., the 15th day of Abib, was the first Sabbath of the new order. So that the day of their departure out of Egypt being thus observed as the Sabbath by di- TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 37 vine direction, the next day, which was the true seventh day in regular succession from the day of the Creator’s rest, was thenceforward reckoned the first day of the week ; and the previous day, the sixth day of the week, being established as the seventh day, was ever afterward observed as such by Israel. Whence it is that the Jews have Saturday, the true sixth day of the week, for their Sabbath; while Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, is God’s hallowed rest-day, the true seventh day of the week. Thus the children of Israel first took up their peculiar Sabbath, which was the sixth day of the week as they had previously reckoned it, on the fifteenth day of the first month, being the very day that they left Egypt, and God. so ordered the year that ever afterward the fifteenth day of the first month did recur upon the Jewish Sabbath, or Saturday. And the day which follows it, being our Sunday, or Christian Sabbath, is the seventh day of the week from creation down. But how does Dr. A. so exactly count the weeks from Genesis 1 to Exodus 12, that he can tell to a day how much time elapsed from the rest-day of the Creator in Eden to the first day of unleavened bread in Egypt ? How does he establish with certainty even the number of years, to say nothing of the exact number of days ? 1. He does not do this by using the chronology of the Hebrew Scriptures ; for he discards this as utterly unreliable. 2. But, in the place of the Hebrew chronology, he adopts that of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament made at Alexandria in Egypt, some two or three centuries before Christ. 3. Nevertheless he confesses the Septuagint to 38 SUNDAY NOT THE have various errors in its numbers. Thus he says: “ The Septuagint numbers, like the dates of other copies of the inspired testimony, have been subject, more or less, to alterations ; and, therefore, they may sometimes need correction”—Biblical Chronology, p. 16. 4. This is a most important confession. Dr. A. undertakes to tell the age of the world to a day at the time of the exodus. To do this he discards the numbers in the Hebrew Scriptures, and adopts those of the Septuagint, and at the same time confesses that the Septuagint sometimes needs correction itself. How about establishing the age of the world to a day by a standard that needs itself to be corrected before it will even give the number of years correctly ? 5. It is worthy of observation that of the nineteen periods which make up the chronology of the world from creation to the exodus, all but five are different in the Septuagint from the same numbers in the Hebrew Scriptures. And it is further to be noticed that the Septuagint makes twenty periods instead of nineteen, by inserting the name of Cainan between that of Arphaxad and that of Salah (Gen. 11:12); and it ascribes to him the period of 130 years! Moreover, the space from the creation to the exodus, which the Hebrew Scriptures make to be 2513 years, the Septuagint makes to be 3899, a difference of 1385 years! Certainly a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which, from creation to the exodus, differs from the original in its reckoning of chronological dates to the extent of 1386 years, ought to have great evidence of correctness before it supersedes that original. 6. But while Dr. Akers, in determining the age of the world to a day, adopts as his standard the TRUE SEVENTH BAY. 39 Septuagint version of the Scriptures, he gives evidence that he sees the need of correcting this standard. For the Septuagint chronology makes Methuselah survive the flood some fourteen years! Compare Gen. 7:7; 8 :18; 1 Pet. 3:20. He remedies this remarkable error by following those copies of the Septuagint which, in the case of Me-thmelah conform to the numbers of the Hebrew Scriptures. But surely these things are quite sufficient to evince that whoever claims to give the age of the world to a day, even from Adam to Moses, puts forth a very unreasonable pretension, particularly when he attempts to establish that claim by setting aside the numbers of the Hebrew text, and adopting in their stead those of the Septuagint, though constrained to acknowledge that the Septuagint has been subject to alterations, and that it therefore needs some corrections! But Dr. Akers has unbounded confidence in determining the exact age of the world, even to a day. Thus he affirms that the world was 7400 years old on Wednesday, Sept. 26, 1855. (Biblical Chronology, p. 8.) He fixes the resurrection of Christ on Sunday, March 28, a. d. 28, in the year of the world 5573. During this time, he says there were just 2,035,369 days.—Biblical Chronology, p. 31. The age of the world at the commencement of the Christian era is given by Dr. Akers to a day. Thus he says:— “ A. M. stands for the year of the world. This era began, according to the chronology here adopted, 5545 years, 3 months, and 19 days before the common era of Christianity.’*—Biblical Chronology, p. 41. Dr. Akers thus claims to give exact results, even 40 SUNDAY NOT THE to a day, covering the entire period, not merely from the creation to the exodus, but even to the resurrection of Christ, and also thence to the present time. He frames a system of chronology unlike that of any other writer on the subject. He sets aside the Hebrew original, and takes the Sep-tuagint translation, which he acknowledges sometimes needs correcting, and which differs from the Hebrew text in the space from the creation to the exodus to the amount of 1886 years. And in the entire period from the creatipn to the Christian era, it differs 1426 years ! Dr. Akers does, therefore, assert the Hebrew records to be utterly unreliable, at least for a great portion of this space! And he corrects them by the Septuagint, which he acknowledges sometimes needs itself to be corrected! But he is not inadequate to the task! The Hebrew numbers he corrects by the Septuagint, and the Septuagint by such authorities as he decides to be correct where the Septuagint is in error! But that which seems to be the most extraordinary feature of the case is this: Dr. Akers can reckon the whole time from creation to the present time so accurately that he can tell the present age of the world to a day! And he can so exactly count the time from the first Sabbath in Eden to the first day of unleavened bread in Egypt, that he is absolutely certain that that day was the original Sabbath! And he is able to continue this exact reckoning to the day of Christ’s resurrection, which, by Dr. Akers’s count, is the two million, thirty-five thousand, three hundred sixty-ninth (2,085,869th) day from creation! Now if this sum be divided by seven, the number of days in a week, it will give just two hundred and ninety thousand, seven hundred and sixty-seven (290,767) TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 41 weeks as the result; thus showing that the day of the resurrection of Christ was the seventh day of the week from the creation of the world! * But the reader will ask what we are to do with the fact that the day which Dr. Akers has thus proved by exact count from creation to be the seventh day of the week, is by four inspired writers called “ first day of the week.” Matt. 28 :1; Mark 16:1, 2, 9; Luke 2-3:56; 24:1; John 20:1, 19. This is the very question which Dr. Akers has written his large book to answer. His ‘reckoning of the exact number of days, he is confident, is absolutely right. So that must stand, and Sunday is the seventh day of the week from the creation of the world! But were not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John inspired men ? And do not they call this day “ first day of the week ” ? What if they do? Shall that prove that Dr. Akers is incorrect in his reckoning even to the extent of just one day ?—No, indeed! The thing is impossible! But the four evangelists say that this day was “the first day of the week,” and three of them state distinctly that the Sabbath was the day previous. How, then, can Dr. A. boldly assert that the day called first day of the week in the New Testa- *Dr. Akers says: “The day of the resurrection of Christ has been chosen as a fixed point in chronology. The testimony—which shall be adduced in its proper place—requires for this event, Sunday, the twenty-eighth of March, a. d. 28; thut is a. j. p. 4741: and the same day of the week, the sixteenth of Abib, or Nisan, a. m. 5673. If from Sunday, the said sixteenth of Abib inclusive, the weeks be reversed through the said years of the world, to the first Sabbath of Genesis, there will be found just 290,767; and the number of days to the first day of Genesis inclusive, will be 2,035,369. And if the same number of days be reversed from Sunday, the said twenty-eighth of March, a. j. p. 4741, the last one will be Monday, the fifteenth of September, requiring the first Sabbath in Julian time, on Sunday, the twenty-first of said month. (See the first year of the cycle.) This is one way in which the first Sabbath of the Bible is proved to correspond to our Sunday.”—Biblical Chronoloay. \v\ 31, 32. 42 SUNDAY NOT THE ment is tne true seventh day, and the real Sabbath of the Lord ? He does not assert that the four evangelists told a downright falsehood. He does not even mean to insinuate that they were uninspired men. But he does mean to stand to his exact count of the days from creation, whereby he has proved to his own satisfaction that Sunday is the seventh day. There must be some way, therefore, discovered to reconcile the evangelists with this accurate count of the days, or they will be convicted of a very grave error! One thing which makes Dr. Akers very certain that he is right in this count of the days from creation, is the fact that reversing, as he terms it, the weeks for this whole period, he finds the first day of time to have been Monday, and, of course, the first seventh day would in that case be Sunday. But that all may place a proper estimate upon this reversing process, it is only necessary to remark that Dr. A. constructs a system of chronology which assumes that Monday was the first day of the week, and which is everywhere reckoned in accordance with that idea. '"Now a reversing of his weeks, Z. e., a reckoning of them backward to the day from which he first started, will indeed show that starting point to have been Monday, but will not prove that that was the day on which God created the heavens and the earth. And it is remarkable that Dr. Akers not only claims to establish Sunday as the seventh day by his own peculiar system of chronology, which makes the world to have been created Sept. 15, and to have been 3899 years old at the exodus, but he also takes the Rabbinical era of the world, which makes the age of the world 2114 at the exodus, instead of 3899, as represented by his chronology ; TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 43 and by this system he also shows that Sunday was the original seventh day. He holds, indeed, that the Rabbinical system of reckoning time by lunar months was wrong; but he says, “ There is nothing more certain in chronology, than, according to the established number and measure of Rabbinical years in common use, that the first day in the whole series began on Monday, the 7th of October, A. J. p. 953. Let the days, both of Julian and Rabbinical years, be counted from that beginning, till 771,945 are told; and the last one in the Julian line will be the said Saturday, the 27th of March, a. j. p. 3067; and in the Rabbinical line it will be the said 15th of Abib, Rab. A. M. 2114, making just 110,277 weeks and 6 days, thereby demonstrating, according to their own calendar, that Sunday, the 16th of said Abib, corresponded to the original Sabbath.”—Biblical Chronology, pp. 32, 33. But Dr. Akers gives us too much proof. It is certain that if Dr. A. is right in fixing the creation upon Sept. 15, then the Rabbins are wrong, who fix it upon Oct. 7. For though we leave out of the account the immense difference of the two chronologies from creation to the exodus, one making it 3899 years, and the other only 2114, and confine ourselves solely to the day on which each asserts the creation to have taken place, we shall have the most convincing proof that this, system of counting days from the creation, which can show Sunday to be the seventh day of the week, is certainly unreliable and deceptive. Only look at the case. If creation was upon Sept. 15, then Oct. 7 was not the day of creation. Twenty-two days intervene between these two dates. But if the world was created B. c. 5545, on the fifteenth day of Septem- 44 SUNDAY NOT THE her, as exactly defined in Dr. Akers’s book, or, if it was created Oct. 7, some 1785 yeat*s later, as the Rabbinical era indicates, it is all alike to Dr. A. In either case he can prove positively that Sunday is the true seventh day. It is not at all likely that either of these years, or either of the precise points in the year, is the exact date of the creation. But if we grant one of them to be the true date, we must hold the other to be false. Yet Dr. Akers can prove that Sunday is the true seventh day, no matter which of these conflicting eras we adopt. One of them is certainly false. And neither can be proved to be right. But if we grant one of them to be right, and thereby declare the other to be false,* which follows as a matter of necessity, then we have the singular spectacle of a venerable Doctor of Divinity counting the exact number of days from creation from a false starting point, and thereby proving Sunday the true seventh day! and at the same time counting the exact number of days from another starting point, which may also be a false date, and proving from this date also that the original seventh day was Sunday ! What shall we say to these things ? Is not ev->ery word established by the mouth of two or three witnesses ? Has not Dr. A. produced two witnesses (as good at least as the two produced when Christ was upon trial) to prove that Sunday is the true seventh day ? And how will the four evangelists be able to meet these witnesses of such undoubted veracity ? But if Sunday can be shown to be the seventh day from a starting point which is false, what evidence have we that Dr. Akers’s wonderful exactness in counting amounts to anything ? He starts TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 45 with Monday in each case as the first day of the week, and comes out at the close of his computation with Sunday as the seventh day, and, indeed, with Sunday as the Sabbath every week through the whole period. And when, to use his own expression, he reverses those weeks, i. e., reckons the time backward to his starting point, he finds Sunday to be the seventh day each time, and finds the first day of the entire series to be Monday. Is not this sufficient proof that he is right ? Rather, what does it amount to, after all ? He reverses a series which his own ingenuity has constructed. And unquestionably, in tracing back weeks of his own construction, he will come out just as he started. But he has this grand difficulty to overcome: that when he reaches the resurrection, which event stands at the very termination of his chain, he finds Sunday, as himself acknowledges, called by the four evangelists “first day of the week.” At the commencement of his chain he claims Sunday as the “seventh day;” he keeps the reckoning exact to a day, and at the end of his chain, behold the Scriptures mark the day as “ first day of the week.” And instead of allowing their testimony to stand, and confessing that he must have started wrong when he fixed Monday as the day of creation, Dr. A. is sure that the day called “ first day of the week ” by the evangelists is the true “ seventh day ” after all; and he is nothing daunted by the fact that at the close of his long chain of reckoning, the day which he asserts was the veritable “ seventh day ” on which God rested, is by inspiration called “first day of the week.” And yet what a surprising spectacle this presents ! Dr. Akers, having reckoned back to the beginning, and forward from the beginning, and 46 SUNDAY NOT THE the one reckoning happily agreeing exactly with the other, he is so convinced of its truthfulness that he confidently asserts that the “seventh day” nentioned at the beginning of his long reckoning is Sunday, notwithstanding four inspired men who write at the very close of the chain, do, as he confesses, call this very day the “first day of the week ”! His confidence in his reckoning is greatly confirmed by the fact that he can take the Rabbinical computation of time, and show from that that the creation was upon Monday, and the first Sabbath upon Sunday ; so that whether the creation of the world was Sept. 15 or Oct. 7, it makes no difference, as an exact count of the days from either date makes Sunday to be the original Sabbath ! This is worse than Mr. Fuller’s act of proving that the original Sabbath was upon the first day of the week, by the use of Dr. Akers’s figures which make Sunday to be the seventh day. For the two can be in a certain sense reconciled by the following statement:— Mr. Fuller’s weeks begin one day earlier than do those of Dr. Akers. But Dr. Akers has one more week than has Mr. F., who refuses to count the first six days of Gen. 1. But when Dr. A. proves Sunday to be the true seventh day with equal facility, whether the creation occurred Sept. 15 or Oct. 7, it is not very easy to set limits to his skill in this kind of computation. But it is proper that we should now consider that feature of Dr. Akers’s theory by which he reconciles his computation of the weeks with the fact that the evangelists call Sunday the first day. As already stated, the doctor’s theory is framed to TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 47 meet this very difficulty. Indeed, tha part of it which we are about to state is something absolutely indispensable to the vindication of that which we have been considering. His doctrine may be stated in two propositions : 1. That the sixteenth of Abib is the seventh day of the original week, as proved by the exact count of days which we have been examining; 2. God commanded the Hebrews at the exodus to hallow the fifteenth of Abib as their weekly Sabbath. And thus Dr. Akers reconciles the truthfulness of his theory and the veracity of the evangelists. Dr. Akers’s attempt to count the exact number of days from creation to the sixteenth of Abib at the exodus, and his Biblical argument to show that God gave Israel a new Sabbath* by ordaining the fifteenth day of the month, or sixth day of the previously-existing week, for that purpose, are two propositions neither of which amounts to anything for his purpose unless he can prove the other. For if he cannot prove by his counting of days that the sixteenth of Abib was the original Sabbath from the creation of the world, then his subsequent argument to prove that the fifteenth of Abib was so regulated as to come each year upon the seventh day of the Jewish week, even if it be sustained, does not prove that the seventh day of this Jewish week was not identical with the seventh day reckoned from creation. And again, if he fails to prove that the fifteenth day of Abib must necessarily come upon the seventh day of the Jewish week, even though we could find conclusive evidence that .he had reckoned time so exactly as to be certain that the sixteenth day of Abib was the seventh day from creation, we should then have no evidence that the seventh 48 SUNDAY NOT THE day of the Jewish week was not the seventh day from creation. The establishment of one of the propositions amounts to nothing unless he can establish the other. Let us see what Pr. Akers is attempting to accomplish. It can be stated in one sentence: He is laboring to prove that God took away the paradisiacal Sabbath from the Hebrews, and that he gave them a ceremonial Sabbath in its place. And what makes him anxious to do this ?—Simply that he may show that the so-called Christian Sabbath is the day ordained by God in Eden. If he can do this, then he vindicates the prevailing first-day observance. If he fails to do it, then that observance has no foundation in divine authority. What must Dr. Akers establish in order to prove his alleged change of the Sabbath in Egypt ? 1. That God gave up his ancient Sabbath to desecration by his chosen people for the whole period of their separate existence ! 2. That God gave Israel a new week by joining the seventh day of the true week to the first six of another of his weeks; which kind of week has come down to us, with God's seventh day for its first day! 3. That the first of this new order of weeks in Egypt had only six days in it! 4. That God then made a new Sabbath out of the sixth day of the week ! 5. That he then made the sixth day of the week into the seventh! (See quotations from Akers, on page 13 of this work.) 6. That the Sabbath which God caused Israel to observe from Moses to Christ was only a ceremonial institution, though he took the true one from them! TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 49 7. That the first of these new weekly Sabbaths was observed by the children of Israel in marching from Rameses to Succoth, with their unleavened dough in their kneading-troughs bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders! But how does Dr. Akers establish this change of the Sabbath from Sunday, the seventh day, to Saturday, the sixth ? 1. By the statement that a new calendar was given to the Hebrews, whereby the seventh month of the old year, as reckoned from creation, became the first month of the new Jewish year. And such a change taking place in the reckoning of the year by divine authority, indicates that a similar change in the reckoning of the week is not unlikely. But to this it should be answered: (1.) God did not discontinue the ancient year beginning with Tisri, or October, and marking the years from creation. He established what is distinguished as the sacred year, which was reckoned from Abib, or April, the seventh month of the ancient or civil year. That the year, beginning and ending in the fall, was not discontinued by the establishment of the sacred year, which began and ended in the spring, is plain from Ex. 23:16; Lev. 25:1-9; Deut. 31:10.* (2.) Thus instead of one kind of year beginning an the fall and reckoned from creation, they had thenceforward two, in that a year was also given them beginning in the spring, and designed to establish and to preserve the reckoning of the years * Even Dr. Akers confesses this fact as follows: “ Ex. 12 : 2 proves that uP new beginning of the year was then given to the Israelites. They retained, however, the old year, beginning with Tisri, for all civil purposes.”—Biblical Chronology, p. 29. 4 50 SUNDAY NOT THE of their national history. These two years are distinguished by the terms civil and sacred ; and one began with the seventh month of the other. (3.) To establish this new year, they did not have to mutilate, or disarrange, or discontinue, the existing civil year, as Dr. Akers makes them do in the case of the week. (4.) The establishment of the sacred year was by the plainest direction from God, and did not have to be inferred by Israel, nor does it need to be inferred by ourselves; which is more than can be said of his alleged change of the Sabbath. There is nothing, therefore, in the new calendar of the year that affords the slightest pretext for asserting that God changed the Sabbath and rearranged the week. 2. Dr. Akers’s second proof that the Sabbath was changed from the sixteenth day of the first month to the fifteenth, is found in this, that whereas the sixteenth of the first month was the true seventh day, God then established the fifteenth day of the month to be the Sabbath of the Hebrews, so shaping the year that that day should always come on Saturday. But how does he prove all this ? Certainly, not by any direct statement of the Bible, as in the establishment of a second kind of year. If such a declaration were found in the Bible, we should at once accept it as closing the controversy. But the Bible does not state any such thing. It is simply an assertion of Dr. Akers’s, which rests upon his ability to prove the two points already named: (1.) That the original Sabbath came upon the sixteenth day of Abib; (2.) That God ordained the day of exodus, Abib 15, to be the Jewish Sabbath. Observe tfiese two points carefully. The whole argument of Dr. TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 51 Akers rests upon their truthfulness. And what is not to be forgotten, if he proves the truth of one of them, it does not establish the change of the Sabbath in Egypt unless he can also prove the truth of the other. This being too plain to be denied, it follows that a failure to sustain the assertion that the original Sabbath came upon Abib 16, makes his second proposition, viz., that the Jewish Sabbath came upon Abib 15, even if it could be proved, of no account, so far as establishing a change of the Sabbath in Egypt. The truth of his first proposition must be maintained, or the whole argument for a change of the Sabbath at the exodus falls to the ground. And now what is the evidence by which he proves his first proposition ? Simply, he counts the days from creation to the exodus; and though he does not agree with the Hebrew chronology into 1386 years, and though he does not agree with any other writer that we have examined who uses the Septuagint chronology, and though he confesses that the Septuagint numbers have been sometimes altered, and need correcting (of which, by the way, we have a notable instance in their making Methuselah survive the flood fourteen years !), yet he is able to give the exact age of the world even to a day ! So that by this exact count he proves that the day kept by the Hebrews came one day too soon to be the original seventh day! But the reader will say, perhaps, that Dr. Akers uses the deductions of astronomical science to prove that Sunday is the true seventh day; and certainly we ought to respect the science of astronomy. To this, it is sufficient to reply that Dr. Akers has not established his reckoning upon any such basis of astronomical calculation as to command the respect 52 SUNDAY NOT THE of the scientific world. His book was published in 1855; but we have no evidence that the scientific men of this age accept it as established by any substantial facts in astronomy. Indeed, the president of the University of Michigan, like Dr. Akers, a Methodist clergyman, writing in 1866, pronounces the whole effort a complete failure! See page 16 of this work. And yet every one of these scientific men are in sympathy with the first-day Sabbath so far as they have any religious interests. But even astronomy must have data from which to reckon, or upon which to base its calculations, or it is utterly powerless to establish chronological points. The testimony of all history shows Sunday to be the first day, and Saturday the seventh. How, then, can astronomy prove that the first day of Genesis was Monday, and the seventh day Sunday ? Can that science determine the exact age of the world, and so enable us to count the days from the creation to the resurrection of Christ ? No astronomer claims to do this. How, then, does Dr. A. prove that the seventh day of the week observed at the exodus is not the seventh day of Gen. 2: 2, 8 ? How he establishes this will certainly interest the curious reader. His u fixed point in chronology ” is the Sunday of Christ’s resurrection. From this he reckons back to the day of God’s rest in Gen. 2: 2, 3, and finds it to be just 290,767 weeks to a day! thus proving, to his mind, that the seventh day of Gen. 2 :2, 3, is the first day of Matt. 28:1. But this is not all. Having reckoned back from Christ’s resurrection to God’s rest-day in Eden, and by that reckoning made it clear to his own mind that God’s rest was upon Sunday, he sets out from his new basis, the rest-day of God upon Sunday, and reckons forward to the exodus, and by that TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 53 second count of days he determines that God’s rest-day came that year upon Abib 16. This is a roundabout journey. It begins with Christ’s resurrection, and counts the days backward to the creation week; and thence, forward to the day of the exodus. Now, all Dr. A.’s theory falls to the ground, unless he can do this so exactly as not to err to the extent of one day ! Thus, according to his table on page 35 of his Chronology, if he has erred one year in the age of the world at the exodus, then, on his own showing, the original Sabbath came that year upon Abib 15, the very day which he labors to prove was the weekly Sabbath of the Jews. But the rest-day of God, in Gen. 2: 2, 3, Dr. A. proves to be Sunday by counting the days exactly from the day of Christ’s resurrection back to it; and having thus proved God’s seventh day to be Sunday, he takes that as a new basis, and counts forward to the exodus, making that to be Saturday, the day before the original Sabbath, or Sunday. No other man but Dr. A. ever claimed to do such wonderful feats of reckoning; or if there were evef found such another, his computation was not the same as Dr. Akers’s. If Dr. Akers, in this extraordinary computation, errs to the extent of one day, he fails to show that Abib 16 was the original Sabbath. But, on the other hand, if he could prove it beyond all doubt, he has not even then established the change of the Sabbath at the exodus, till he has shown that God bade Israel relinquish the seventh day which came that year, as Dr. A. says, on Abib 16, and take the sixth day of the week which came on the fifteenth. And to say that Dr. A., by his system of counting, has proved God’s rest-day to be Sunday, and that he has proved, by the same means, that 54 SUNDAY NOT THE the Hebrews kept a Sabbath that came one day before the Sabbath of the Lord, is to insult the good sense of the reader, and to do despite to the English language. But Dr. Akers, having proved to his own satisfaction, by the process indicated above, that God’s Sabbath at the exodus came upon the sixteenth of Abib, undertakes to prove that God then made the fifteenth of that month into a Sabbath for Israel; which two things, taken in connection, show that the sabbath was changed from the seventh day to the sixth at that time. How does Dr. A. prove that Abib 15 was the Jewish Sabbath ? It should be stated that, according to Dr. A., God made the day of the exodus, Abib 15, being the sixth day of the week, to be the Sabbath of the Jews, and that same day of the week was ever afterward observed as their Sabbath. And he so constituted the year that the fifteenth of Abib came every year upon that day. Now both parts of this proposition are simply false. Neither of them is stated by the sacred writers, and both involve great absurdities. Dr. Akers’s proof that God established the fifteenth of Abib to be the first Sabbath in the series of weekly Sabbaths observed by the Hebrews, is found in the statements of the law respecting the first-fruits of barley harvest, and in an explanation of Lev. 23, which endeavors so to shape the months that the Jewish weekly Sabbath, as he calls the seventh day, shall fill them in turn, and come again on the fifteenth of Abib, in the next sacred year. His proof, drawn from the offering of the first-fruits of barley harvest, may be presented thus:— (1.) The law required the first-fruits of barley TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 55 harvest to be offered to God on the morrow after the Sabbath. Lev.* 23:9-11. (2.) Josephus says that they were offered on the sixteenth of the first month.—Antiquities, book 3, chapter 10. (3.) Joshua, in his record of the Passover and feast of unleavened bread (chap. 5 :10, 11), shows that the first-fruits were offered on the sixteenth of the first month; and therefore the Sabbath, after which the law required them to be offered, was the fifteenth. (4.) A further proof that the fifteenth of the first month was the Sabbath, is found in that our Lord being crucified on the fourteenth of Abib, the day of the Passover, the following day was the Sabbath. John 19:31. These are the chief points used by Dr. A. to prove that the fifteenth of Abib was the Jewish weekly Sabbath. Let us see if they do prove that point:— (1.) That the first-fruits were to be offered on the morrow after a weekly Sabbath, is very evident. Lev. 23:15, 16. (2.) That this Sabbath was fixed to the fifteenth of the first month, is nowhere stated in the Bible. (3.) It is true that Josephus says that the first-fruits were offered on the sixteenth of the first month; but this does not help Dr. Akers at all, inasmuch as in the same paragraph he states that the month was a lunar month, L e„ one governed by the appearance of the moon, which would make it impossible to have the weekly Sabbath come upon its fifteenth day only occasionally. As Dr. A. denies that the months were governed by the moon, it is manifest that in citing Josephus, he quotes a 56 SUNDAY NOT THE witness whose testimony does not help him, and which he himself impeaches. • (4.) As to Dr. Akers’s argument from Josh. 5: 10, 11, it is an entire failure. The text says that they kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month, and that on the morrow after the Pass-over they ate the old corn of the land. Observe the following facts: (a) The Passover was upon the fourteenth day. (b) The unleavened bread and parched corn were eaten the morrow after the Pass-over, i. e., on the fifteenth day of the month, and not upon the sixteenth, hs Dr. A. maintains. (c) That this was certainly on the fifteenth, and could not be crowded over to the sixteenth, is proved by the fact that the law required them to eat unleavened bread on the fifteenth day, the very thing which they are here said to have done. Lev. 23 : 6. (d) A second positive proof that the morrow after the Passover is the fifteenth of Abib, and not the sixteenth, is found in Num. 33:3: “ And they departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the Passover the children of Israel went out with a high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians.” (e) But mark another point: The children of Israel did not on this occasion use the first-fruits. The Bible is so express as to plaoe it beyond all dispute. It says twice that what they ate was the old corn of the land. And so Dr. Akers entirely fails both as to the time of this act, and the act itself. (5.) That the Saviour was crucified on the day of the Passover, and that the fifteenth of the first month did that year come upon the Sabbath, we think to be true. All we deny is, that the fifteenth day of the month always oomes that day, which idea is absolutely essential to Dr. Akers’s theory. TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 57 (6.) The feast of Pentecost came upon the fiftieth day after the offering of the first-fruits. The first-fruits were offered on the morrow after the Sabbath. But this only fixed the day of the week on which that offering should be made, and did not fix the precise day in the first month when that Sabbath should come. And the letter of the law governing the time was simply that the ripening of the barley harvest should mark the commencement of the period. “ Begin to number the seven weeks/’ says Moses, “ from such time as thou beginnest to put the sickle to the corn.” Deut. 16:9. See also Lev. 23:10-16. The forwardness or backward-* ness of the season must therefore affect the time when they should select the week, on the first day of which they should present the first-fruits to God. And it is remarkable that, whereas there are three feasts ordained in the law of Moses, and whereas the first and the third are fixed to definite points in the first and seventh months respectively (Lev. 23: 5, 6, 34), the precise points at which the feast of Pentecost should come is not thus marked, but is leftlo be determined by the ripening of the harvest. Lev. 23; Deut. 16. What Dr. Akers has adduced from the law respecting the first-fruits of barley harvest, to prove that Abib 15 was appointed to be the day of the weekly Sabbath, is therefore destitute of any foundation in truth. Let us now examine Lev. 23, to discover his further argument by which he endeavors to show that his alleged Jewish weekly Sabbath,* reckoned from Abib 15, answers to the annual sab- *The readel1 will please bear in mind that we use the term “ Jewish weekly Sabbath ” in order to state the argument of Dr. Akers correctly, and not because we admit it to be different from the Sabbath of the Lord. 58 SUNDAY NOT THE baths of that chapter, and that the year was there so arranged as to bring the fifteenth of Abib every time upon the Jewish weekly Sabbath. In the twenty-third chapter of Leviticus are seven annual sabbaths, i. e., seven sabbaths which came at seven specified points in the year, and could not come any oftener than once in the year. The first of these was the fifteenth of Abib, the first month. Verse 7. The second of these was the twenty-first day of that month. Verse 8. The third was the fiftieth day from the first-fruits of barley harvest. Verse 21. The fourth was the first day of the sev-. enth month. Verses 24, 25. The fifth of these was the tenth day of the seventh month. Verses 27-32. The sixth was the fifteenth of the seventh month. Verse 39. And the seventh annual sabbath was the twenty-second day of that month. Verse 39. We have tested the argument of Dr. Akers to prove that the first of these sabbaths, viz., the fifteenth of Abib, was no other than the Jewish weekly Sabbath, and have seen that his argument in support of this is an entire failure. But Dr. A. does his best to trace the weekly Sabbath of the Jews, which he claims was the sixth day of the original week, through this entire list of sabbaths. He has failed to identify Abib 15 with the weekly Sabbath, and the next one of these annual sabbaths is fixed at such a point that he does not even attempt to identify it with the weekly Sabbath. Indeed, he passes it in silence, not so much as noticing its existence. The feast of unleavened bread was for seven days, commencing with Abib 15. It lasted seven days. Its first day and its seventh were to be days of ab- TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 59 stinence from labor. But they were not identified with the weekly Sabbath, for they began on a certain day of the month, without regard to the day of the week, and they were only five days apart. Thus the weekly Sabbath corresponds with neither of these. And the weekly Sabbath does not correspond with the third annual sabbath, because that was fixed upon the morrow after the seventh of a series of weekly Sabbaths. Dr. Akers does not attempt to identify the weekly Sabbath with that sabbath which the law said should come the morrow after it. Lev. 23:15-21. So we have now found three annual sabbaths, one of which never can correspond to the weekly Sabbath; and only in a series of years is it that either of the other two could come "upon the seventh day of the week, and never but one of them in the same year. But when we reach the seventh month, Dr. A. makes an earnest effort to identify the weekly Sabbath, observed by the Hebrews, with the several annual sabbaths which came in that month. As he claims 30 days to each month, a weekly Sabbath reckoned from Abib 15 would come on the third day of the seventh month. But the law distinctly states that the first day of the month should be a sabbath. Verse 24. So Dr. Akers lengthens the six months two days; or rather, he says, as the last month of the Jewish civil year, it once had thirty-five days, and he shortens it three days, so that it has thenceforth but thirty-two. And the month thus changed, as Dr. A. reckons it, is made to end on the sixth day of the week, so that the seventh month, beginning with an annual sabbath, has that sabbath come on the day of the weekly Sabbath, as Dr. A. reckons it from Abib 15. 60 SUNDAY NOT THE It is with such violent efforts that Dr. A. succeeds in identifying one of his weekly Sabbaths, reckoned from Abib 15, witii one of the subsequent annual sabbaths of Lev. 23. But the next sabbath of this series comes nine days later, and obstinately refuses to be identified with his weekly Sabbath. So Dr. A. finds an excuse, in that the people were to afflict their souls on this tenth day of the month, for declaring that it was not a sabbath,* though the law declares it to be one in the most emphatic manner. See Lev. 23:27-32. Five days later than this was another annual sabbath ; and one week from that was another, i. e., the fifteenth and the twenty-second* days of the seventh month were sabbaths. But Dr. A., having pulled down the tenth day of the seventh month from the rank of the annual sabbaths, establishes out of his own heart a weekly Sabbath on the eighth day of the seventh month, instead of the tenth day ordained of God for an annual sabbath. With this change, made by violent wresting of the ceremonial law, he is able to identify his weekly Sabbath, from Abib 15, with the series of annual sabbaths in the seventh month, viz., the first, the fifteenth, and the twenty-second. But to do this he destroys one Sabbath expressly established by God, and establishes another out of his own heart. Were it true that these were weekly Sabbaths, it would not be the case that the first two of them are only five days apart! That the third comes on the morrow after the Sabbath! That the next two are ten days apart! And that the next one comes in five days! These were simply annual * Dr. A. says of the tenth day of the seventh month : “ This was not to be a sabbath” (Bib. Chron. p. 107); whereas Lev. 23 :88 says, “It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest.” TRUE 8EYENTH DAY. 61 sabbaths, and were different in their nature from the Sabbath of the Lord. And indeed, had they been simply weekly Sabbaths, there would have been no need of enjoining them as days of the months, for in their turn they would all have been observed. It is manifest that this effort to reckon the year in such a manner that it shall end with the sixth day of the week, so that the new year, Abib 1, and the first day of unleavened bread, Abib 15, might always come on the day of the weekly Sabbath, is something which has no other support than is found in the ingenuity of its author. That these sabbaths of Lev. 23 come sometimes upon the weekly Sabbath is freely admitted. That they did not regularly come thus has been fully proved. Dr. Akers brings forward one fact as a strong proof that the first day of the first month, and consequently the fifteenth day of that month also, was the weekly Sabbath. It is this; That Moses, according to Exodus 40, set up the tabernacle, and set in it the table and the show-bread on the first day of the first month. But the law (Lev. 24 : 5— 9) commanded the priests to set forth the show-bread every Sabbath. Therefore when Moses set, up the tabernacle, and set forth the show-bread on Abib 1, that day must have been the Sabbath. 1. But this ceremonial precept touching the setting forth of the show-bread on the Sabbath was; not given till some time after Moses set up the tabernacle. So it furnishes no proof to sustain Dr.. A. Compare Ex. 40 and Lev. 24. 2. It was a strict law, which we find in Lev. 16,. that the high priest should enter the holiest only on the tenth day of the seventh month. But before this precept was given, it appears that Aaron en- 62 SUNDAY NOT THE tered that place at all times. Lev. 16:1, 2. This shows that, arguing from a precept of the ceremonial law before it has an existence, as does Dr. A., is very certain to lead to wrong conclusions. 3. The evidence that the tabernacle was set up on the Sabbath, therefore, amounts to nothing. And, indeed, when God had plenty of time for the work, it was in the highest degree improbable that he would cause so extensive a labor to be performed upon the Sabbath. Even if it could be proved, it would only show that the Sabbath did constitute the first day of that one year, and not that it did always begin the year. But it is not proved that it did even this one year; and hence the proof to be derived from it, that the fifteenth of Abib was always a Sabbath, amounts to nothing at all. In closing the examination of Dr. Akers’s argument in support of his theory, several faGts should be adduced which show that his establishment of the weekly Sabbath upon the fifteenth of Abib is absolutely without any foundation in truth. 1. The fifteenth of Abib in Egypt was wholly unlike the weekly Sabbath of the Lord. Just after midnight, Israel was thrust out, and taking what they could carry upon their -shoulders, tljey thus started in the night; and that whole people, amounting to some three millions in all, marched from Rameses to Succoth, driving with them their flocks and their herds ! Ex. 12 : 29-39. 2. Surely if this was the foundation of a new order of Sabbaths to be observed by the Hebrews, it was laid in a manner utterly unlike that of the Sabbath of the Lord. Gen. 2 :1-3, 3. But if the following day, viz., Abib 16, was the true Sabbath of the Lord, as Dr. A. professes to be able to show by exact count that it was, did TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 63 it not come in a good time ? and must it not have been very acceptable to that people ? Must it not have surprised them very much to have Moses say to them (provided that he did), that though that was the ancient Sabbath, they need not keep it, as their flight out of Egypt the previous day was all the Sabbath-keeping they needed for that week ! 4. Did God sanctify this day for a weekly Sabbath ? If so, where is the record of the fact ? Did he take from them his ancient Sabbath ? If so, what did he say on the point to Israel? If we have no record that he said anything of the kind, who knows that he did ? 5. Did God then remove the sanctity from the true seventh day, his original Sabbath ? If not, did not Israel, for the whole period from the exodus till Christ’s resurrection, desecrate the sanctified rest-day of the Lord, provided Dr. Akers’s theory is true ? But if he did take away the sanotity of the ancient Sabbath at the exodus, did not the day need to be sanctified over again at the resurrection of Christ ? 6. It is very true that God bade, Israel remember the day on which they left Egypt. But was it to be commemorated weekly or annually ? One test will determine. Did God say, “ Remember the sixth day of the week, for in that day you were brought forth out of Egypt?” Or did he bid them * remember the fifteenth day ot the first month, for on that day they were brought forth out of Egypt. If he said the first, it established a weekly celebration. If he said the last, it established simply an annual celebration. Does not every Bible student know that he did not then command the observance of a weekly, but of an annual, day of commemoration ? 64 SUNDAY NOT THE How often can the fifteenth day of the first month come ? 7. But they had one week in Egypt with only six days in it! And its sixth day was uqade into the Sabbath by their fleeing upon it! And they kept the day so effectually by thus fleeing, that they had no occasion to observe the following day, which was the Sabbath of the Lord! 8. But what about this sixth-day keeping ? Dr. Akers says, God then gave them the sixth day for the Sabbath. Did he then bid them to observe the the sixth day as the Sabbath after the model of that Egyptian week ? Oh ! no; he made the sixth day into the seventh, as we are told by Dr. Akers! 9. But how could even the Almighty do this, seeing that he has no power to utter a falsehood ? 10. And how does Dr. Akers know that he did thus exchange the Sabbath from the seventh day to the sixth ? And what testimony does he find that God first gave Israel a week of six days, and then improved upon it by giving them a week which began on his own seventh day and ended on his sixth ? 11. The reader need not be told that Dr. A. does this by counting. He counts from the resurrection of Christ, back to the rest-day of the Creator in Eden, and thus makes out that “ the first day ” in the one case is “ the seventh day ” in the other. Then he counts from the Lards rest-day forward to the exodus; and if he counts rightly, then Abib 16 was the true Sabbath. And if he can, in addition to, and independent of, all this, prove that Abib 15 was made into a weekly Sabbath at that time, then all this change of the Sabbath, and all this change of the week, follow as. a matter of course. But if Dr. A. has made the mis- TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 65 take of just one day in this immense count, then all these wonderful changes are creations of his own fancy. And were his counting correct, it goes for nothing, inasmuch as Abib 15 was not the weekly Sabbath. 12. The fifteenth of Abib was of the same rank with the other annual sabbaths of Lev. 23, with the exception of the tenth day of the seventh month, which was more sacred than the rest. It came once a year, and not once a week, like the Sabbath of the Lord. And whereas no servile work was to be performed on Abib 15, no work at all was to be done on the seventh day. Lev. 23 : 3, 6-8. 13. Finally, the preparation of food was expressly allowed on the fifteenth of Abib, the first day of unleavened bread (Ex. 12 :15, 16; Lev. 23: 6-8), but was expressly forbidden upon the day of the weekly Sabbath. Ex. 16 : 23. This of itself is a clear proof that the fifteenth of Abib was not made to recur regularly on the day of the weekly Sabbath. We have thus shown that Dr. Akers has no valid reasons to prove that the first day of unleavened bread was the seventh day of the week ; and we have proved by positive evidence that such cannot possibly be the case. Dr. Akers has two fundamental arguments: 1. He asserts that he can count the time, to a day, from Christ’s resurrection back to God’s rest-day in paradise, and then forward to Abib 16 in Egypt, which day was also God’s rest-day. 2. And he alleges that he can ^rove that Israel, by divine direction, observed Abib 15, and not Abib 16. Wherefore it follows that the Sabbath was then set back one day. 5 66 SUNDAY NOT THE But when Dr. Akers asserts that the first day of the week of Matt. 28 :1 is the same as the seventh day of Gen. 2 : 2, 8, because the time comes out in even weeks, counted from one to the other, the very fact that the day at one end of the reckoning is not the same as at the other, shows that, unless he can prove a change of the week between these two points, his reckoning is false. For either Matthew or Moses gives a wrong name to the day; as one, at the end of the chain, calls it “ first day of the week,” and the other, at the other extremity, calls it “ seventh day.” Hence he attempts to remove the contradiction, and to sustain his reckoning, by changing the weeks in Egypt. But we have proved that the weeks were not changed in Egypt. And having proved this, we have thereby shown that his count, which starts at Matt. 28:1 with the day as first day of the week, and ends with it as the seventh (Gen. 2 : 2, 3), is certainly an effort to prove an absolute falsehood ! The change of the weeks in Egypt, and the count of the days by Dr. A., are both an entire mistake, and wholly unworthy the confidence of the reader. Dr. Akers’s act of counting the days from the resurrection of Christ back to the day of the Creator’s rest, is all mere talk, for the pretension is preposterous. But this amounts to nothing unless he can show that there was one week somewhere between the two points that had only six days in it, for it is thus only that he can bring the New-Testament “ first-day ” to be identical with the paradisiacal “seventh-day.” But, unfortunately, the only way to prove this week of six days (of which the Bible says nothing) is by means of this alleged exact count. And even this count is of no TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 67 consequence, unless it be shown that the day kept by the Hebrews was one day earlier than the true seventh day, an attempt which has already been shown to be an entire failure. HISTORY OF THIS THEORY. The history of this Sunday-seventh-day, or Sun-day-seventh-day-first-day theory, is very remarkable. The man who first gave this theory to the world, so far as we are informed, was the distinguished Joseph Mede, who died in 1638. Dr. Jennings thus states his theory :— “ The learned Mr. Mede, endeavors to prove the seventh day of the Jewish week, which was appointed for the Sabbath, to be the day on which God overthrew Pharaoh in the Red Sea, and thereby completed the deliverance of his people from the Egyptian servitude. And, whereas a seventh day had before been kept, in memory of the creation (but to what day of the Jewish week that answered, we cannot certainly say), now God commanded them to observe for the future this day of their deliverance, which was the seventh day of their week, in commemoration, of his having given them rest from their hard labor and servitude in Egpyt.”— Jewish Antiquities, book 3, chap. 3, pp. 329, 330. This theory of Mr. Mede’s asserts the change of the Sabbath from God’s seventh day to the seventh day of the Jewish week. But to what day of the Jewish week God’s seventh day corresponded, he did not know; so that it would seem hard to prove by any evidence of Mr. Mede’s that it was certainly changed at all. But Mr. M. endeavors to prove that Pharaoh was overthrown in 68 SUNDAY NOT THE the Red Sea on the seventh day of the Jewish week; which day God required the Jewish people to keep, in memory of that event. Thus the Sabbath was changed at the passage of the Red Sea; hut what day it was changed from, Mr. M. did not know. This was the greatest light which Mr. M. could shed upon the change of the Sabbath in Egypt. But though it was seen that the Sabbath could not have been changed at that point, yet the very idea that it was changed at the commencement of the Jewish dispensation, was so serviceable in helping to prove that it was changed again at its close, that it could not be given up. But though the idea of this change was too valuable to the friends of the first-day Sabbath to be relinquished, yet it was plainly seen that it could not have been changed at the point fixed by Mr. Mede; or that if it was, nobody could find any record of it. So it came to pass after more than a hundred years, that Dr. Jennings took up the grand idea of changing the Sabbath from the paradisiacal rest-day to the so-called Jewish Sabbath. This itself, in his estimation, was very precious; but Mr. Mede was mistaken in the precise time and place. It was not changed at the passage of the Red Sea, but at the fall of the manna. Dr. Jennings could see clearly that the Sabbath must have been changed when given to Israel (it was so desirable); but he also saw that there was nothing to sustain the change where Mr. Mede had fixed it. So Dr. J. decided that the fall of the manna was the very point where this change was effected. And he taught that the fall of the manna was made to bear testimony in behalf of TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 69 the new Jewish Sabbath, and against the ancient Sabbath of the Lord. The Jews never changed the day after this, it is certain; so if he can change it here, it will be easy to change it again at the resurrection ; and if he cannot prove it to have been changed at this time, or hereabout, then the Jews have now the true seventh day. Thus the case stood for another hundred years or more, when Dr. Akers took the case in hand. It was a precious idea that God had given to Israel the sixth day of the week as the Sabbath, and that he had taken from them the true seventh day of the week, our Sunday. But though Dr. Jennings had fixed the time and place of this auspicious change, as being at the fall of the manna, and not at the Red Sea, as asserted by Mr. Mede, yet Dr. A. could see that Jennings did not have it right. There was nothing to his argument fixing it at the fall of the manna, in Ex. 16. Dr. A., by counting the days in the manner which we have seen, satisfied himself that the change took place on the day of unleavened bread in Egypt. So he publishes to the world, in 1855, the grand fact that at the exodus, God changed the Sabbath from Abib 16 to Abib 15, i. e., from the seventh day of the week to the sixth! For, according to Dr. A., God took from his peoplo his own hallowed rest-day, and gave them a ceremonial Sabbath made out of the sixth day! But the matter is not yet settled. Some ten years after Dr. Akers’s book was published, the Rev. E. Q. Fuller tried his hand at this great undertaking. Dr. Akers has fixed the time and place all right, but he does not rightly state the change. The Sabbath was not changed from the seventh day to the sixth, as Dr. A. asserts. No, indeed! It 70 SUNDAY NOT THE was changed from the first day of the week to the seventh! And instead of there being one week in Egypt with only six days in it, Mr. F. declares that that week had two Sabbaths in it, viz., its first day and its seventh! Thus Mr. Mede, early in the seventeenth century, announced a wonderful fact. It was this: that the Hebrew people did not have the original Sabbath, or rather, it was taken from them, and the Saturday Sabbath was given them in its place at the passage of the Red Sea. That is a grand idea! responds, in substance, Dr. Jennings a hundred years later; you are right as to the change of the Sabbath, at the commencement of the Jewish dispensation, but mistaken in the time and place of its occurrence, and in the arguments you adduce to prove it. It did not occur at the crossing of the Red Sea, but at a later point, at the falling of the manna. Not so, virtually responds Dr. Akers, something more than a hundred years later. Though your zeal for the great truth, that the Hebrew people had the ancient seventh-day Sabbath taken from them, and a new Sabbath made for them out of the sixth day of the week, is very praiseworthy, yet you are even farther from the truth as to the time and place of the change than was Mr. Mede, and your arguments to prove the change are not sound. It was not changed at the fall of the manna, but on the day that Israel started out of Egypt. And I ascertain the fact of the change by counting the exact number of days from the creation to the exodus. But Mr. Fuller now rises, and in brief responds to Dr. Akers after this manner: I am much indebted to you for the count of the days you have made from the creation to the exodus. You show TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 71 Sunday to be the original Sabbath to my full satisfaction. But when you state that God changed the Sabbath at the exodus from the seventh day to the sixth, you make a bad mistake. Not so. It was changed from the first day of the week to the seventh ! And I prove it by your own figures, in which you count the days from creation! One grand error is held in common by all these theologians, which is that God took away from his people his own Sabbath, and gave them in its stead a ceremonial Sabbath. But while they are all interested to prove this assertion, one of them says that this change was at the Red Sea; the second says it was at the fall of the manna; the third says it was effected at the exodus by changing from the seventh day to the sixth; while the fourth says that it was changed at that point from the first day -to the seventh! Thus they all agree that the Jews did not have the Sabbath of the Lord, but they entirely disagree in proving it. Their case is like that of the false witnesses who all testified that Jesus was not the Christ, but did not at all agree in the nature of the proof! IMPORTANT ILLUSTRATIONS. We now call the reader’s attention to the remarkable changes which each of these writers makes in the reckoning of the week. We present the week of Mr. Fuller at three grand epochs; viz., at the creation, the exodus, and the resurrection of Christ. We also present the week, as reckoned by Dr. Akers, at each of these three points. As Dr. Jennings uses precisely the same week as Dr. Akers, 72 SUNDAY NOT THE except at the fall of the manna, we simply give Dr. J.’s week at that point. We invite especial attention to these illustrations of the several theories in question. Do not hastily glance over them. If the Sunday-seventh-day theory is worthy of being studied at all, these diagrams are important; for they enable you to fix the several features of the theory very distinctly in your mind. TRUE SEVENTH DAV. 73 Fuller’s Weeks at Creation. The reader will observe that his first week of time is framed on the theory that the six diys of creation belong to eternity, and that Gods seventh day is the first day of time, the first day of the wreek, and the first day of Adam’s life—four remarkable falsehoods. Observe that Mr. F. has here one period, we cannot justly call it a week, which has only six days in it. This feature has to appear once in each of the several theories. Observe next— Here are two of his weeks at the exodus. The first one has two Sabbaths in it, being that week in which the Sabbath was changed from Sunday back to Saturday. The second week is simply the 74 SUNDAY NOT THE ordinary week of the Jews, thenceforward having its Sabbath upon the seventh day instead of on the first day as it had had down to that time, according to Mr. F. Next we give— Fuller’s Weeks at Christ’s Resurrection. Observe, two Sabbaths come together! One week ends with a Sabbath, and the following week begins with one! If he says, Not so, for the Jewish Sabbath was abolished at the cross, then we give an illustration of this view :— Fuller’s Weeks at Christ’s Resurrection. Observe, this time we have a week which has no Sabbath in it. As he had a week in Egypt which had two Sabbaths in it, he has a right to give us one this time with no Sabbath at all. On an average, we hold our own on Sabbaths at Mr. Fuller’s hand; so we must try to stand it. Now we illustrate— TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 75 Akers's Weeks at Creation. 1 FIRST WEEK. Sab. SECOND WEEK. Sab. PA DO 1 | 2 | 8 | 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 | 2 | ? | 4 1 5 | 6 | 7 | Mon. Toes. Wed. Tbnr. Fri. Sat. Sun. Mon. Tues. Wed. Thur. Fri. Sat. Bun. With Dr. Akers’s division of time from eternity, we perfectly agree; the only error being the serious falsehood of calling the first day of the week Monday. And Dr. A. does this, although he acknowledges that the New-Testament first-day of the week is Sunday. How he brings this around will appear in the diagram of— Akers’s Weeks at the Exodus. Last week of the old series, s New week, beginning with the last day containing only six days. •s M 1 6 of the old week. 1 1 1 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 5 | 7 I 1 I 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 1 ■« I Mon. Tues. Wed. Tbur. Fri. Sat. Sun. Mon. Tues. Wed. Tljur. Fri. Sat. Sab. 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 1 7 l NEW WEEK. 55 is The first of these weeks has only six days in it, though its last day is made into the so-called Jewish Sabbath! But this sixth-day period is as essential to Dr. A. as to Mr. F. Observe that at the Exodus Dr. A. changes, not only the Sabbath, but, unlike Mr. F., even the week also. Sunday now, by means of this six-day week, becomes the first day. Next we give Dr. Akers’s weeks at Christ’s resurrection, though they are precisely identical with those of Mr. F. at that point. But we do it to show that, having changed his reckoning of the week at the exodus, in order to change the Sabbath from Sunday to Saturday, now when he 76 SUNDAY NOT THE changes the Sabbath back from Saturday to Sunday, his week refuses to change. It seems strange that it changed so easily in Egypt. Akers’s Weeks at Christ’s Resurrection. The reader will observe that the upper line in this diagram shows the days of the New-Testa-ment week, as reckoned by Dr. Akers. So that if Tie is correct in the reckoning, our present week begins with the seventh day of the original week, and ends with the sixth ! But if the evangelists are correct in the numbering of the week, then his order of the days in the week is false. These illustrations must suffice for the theories of Mr. F. and Dr. A. As the theory of Dr. Jennings is precisely that of Dr. Akers, except with reference to the place where he changes the Sabbath the first time, we simply illustrate— Jennings’s Weeks at the Fall of the Manna. TWELVE DAYS WITHOUT A SABBATH. 1 1 1 2 | 3 I 4 | 5 1 6 r 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 Sab. 6 1 Mon. Tuea. Wed. Thur. Fri. Sat. Suu. Mon. Tues. Wed. Thur. Frl. Bat. Last week of the old aeries, containing only aix dajs. g New kind of weeks, beginning g with the 7th daj, and end* ! £ ing with the 6th. ao *3 a fl .r i H 2 m TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 77 Though we give Dr. Jennings only one illustration, he contributes his full share toward interesting and edifying the reader. Here is a period of thirteen days from one Sabbath to another! But the reader will observe the indispensable period of six days neatly hidden under the ample robe of this thirteen-day week 1 That is to say, here is a week and six days with only one Sabbath for the whole period! And here is a theory, which, to prevent a journey on the Sabbath (which did not occur on that day), has the children of Israel gather manna for the first time on the paradisiacal Sabbath ! Dr. J. here robs us of one Sabbath-day in the count, and never makes up for it like Mr. F., by giving us a week with two Sabbaths in it! And let it be observed that, whereas Dr. Jennings uses a week from the fall of the manna to this time, which begins with God’s seventh day and ends with his sixth, Dr. Akers adopts such a week on the day of the exodus, while Mr. F., by assigning the six days of Gen. 1 to eternity, has such a week as this from the beginning! Thus it is evident that while each one of these able writers is anxious to prove that Israel had another Sabbath besides the Sabbath of the Lord, they do not agree how they came by it, nor when it was given ! The truth is, they are all wrong; and the reason why they do not agree as to the time and manner of the change is because no change of the kind was ever made ! Each sees the weakness of the arguments used by his predecessors, and each attempts to place a firm foundation under the Sunday-seventh day, though to do it, he must remove that which those before him have laid. 78 SUNDAY NOT THE WICKEDNESS OF THESE THEORIES. But we have no disposition to dwell upon the peculiarly ridiculous character of the work which these men have wrought. There is another aspect of the case that demands our attention; and in the light of that, all other things pretaining to it are, comparatively speaking, of small account. What we now call attention to, is the inherent and palpable wickedness of this work, more especially as exhibited in the effort of Dr. Akers and Mr. Fuller. The testimony of the Bible, which we are about to present, directly and unequivocally establishes the fact that God did command the Hebrew people to observe his own hallowed rest-day. But with this plain testimony before them, these professed ministers of Christ deliberately affirm that God took from the Hebrews his own holy rest-day, and gave them, in its stead, the day next preceding it. The responsibility of such teaching is not to be estimated. It is time that such teachers should examine their right hands. See Isa. 44: 20. To justify the severity of this language, which certainly proceeds from no ill-will toward those* who have done this great wrong, we adduce some of the plainest statements of the book of God. 1. Here are the words of the grand Sabbath law: “ Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor tliv son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 79 the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it." Ex. 20:8-11. And now observe the following facts: — (1.) We have here no occasion to argue that the law of God speaks to all mankind (Rom. 3: 19), and that it does therefore speak to the Hebrews. We know that whether others are concerned or not, it was, when spoken, addressed personally to the Hebrews, and that it was committed to them in ten oracles. Rom. 3:1, 2; Acts 7: 38; Ex. 20. (2.) When the fourth commandment enjoins the remembering of the Sabbath-day to keep it holy, it is, as all Bible students know, the same as saying in plain English, “ Remember the rest-day to keep it holy for Sabbath in Hebrew, and rest in English, are the same. (3.) This precept plainly states whose rest-day it is that should be remembered; viz., the rest-day of the Lord of hosts, which is the seventh day. (4.) It also states the reason for the existence of this rest-day, and for the obligation of its observance ; viz., that God rested on this day, from the work of creation, and that he did from this cause bless and hallow the day. It is therefore perfectly manifest, («a.) That this precept does plainly and explicitly require the observance of the Creator’s rest-day; (6.) That it was spoken directly to the Hebrew people, and was certainly obligatory upon them, whether it was upon any other persons or not. How inexcusable, therefore, is the conduct of those theologians who assert that God commanded the Hebrew people to keep the sixth day of the week ! and that in proof of this they should declare that, having counted the age of the world to a day, they have ascertained that the day which the He- 80 SUNDAY NOT THE brews observed was one day too early in the week to be the Sabbath of the Lord ! Would they ever thus charge God with folly, were it not that they hope to relieve themselves thereby from the absurdity of keeping as a Sabbath the day after the Sabbath of the Lord ? If the responsibility of enjoining and of observing the day before the true Sabbath can be fastened upon the Lawgiver and upon the Hebrews, then the people of the present day can relieve themselves from the folly of keeping the day after the Lord’s Sabbath, and can prove that they are actually observing his seventh day in their first day of the week ! And so learned ministers dare to meet the express language of the fourth commandment, and claim to prove, by a count of the days from ere- * ation, that the seventh day observed by the Hebrews was not the Lord’s seventh day, but his sixth ! And, moreover, that “ the first day ” of the four evangelists is not the Lord’s first day, but his seventh! 2. But let us compare the fourth commandment with the record in Genesis second. The one is the grand Sabbath law, the other is the record of the origin of the Sabbath. Gen. 2:2, 3: “And on the seventh day, God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 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.” Ex. 20:10, 11: “ But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it, thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 81 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore, the Lord blessed the Sab' bath-day, and hallowed it.” The words “hallowed ” (Ex. 20 :11) and “sane tified ” (Gen. 2:3) are both translated from the same Hebrew word, and each signifies to set apart, or appoint, to a holy use. Now it is plain, (1.) That Gen. 2: 3 does set apart to a holy use the day of the Creator’s rest. (2.) It is also certain that the fourth commandment repeats the very words of the institution of the Sabbath, and that it enjoins the observance of the day thus instituted. So that in the fourth commandment, even though we except the rest of mankind, God did require the Hebrew people to keep the very day hallowed in Eden. Yet by immense labor expended in attempting the exact count of days from Christ back to Adam, and from Adam forward to Moses, Dr. Akers satisfies himself and many others, that the Hebrews, in attempting to keep the seventh day, were obliged to take up with the sixth under a false name! and that those who are keeping the first day of the week are really keeping the true seventh day in disguise! So that the Hebrews failed to keep the seventh day, though they used their best endeavors to keep it! And the professed people of God, in these days, keep it without even intending to do it! Surely it is easier to obey God now than it was then ! 3. But it is time to nail the wicked falsehood that the Hebrews kept the sixth day instead of the seventh; for it furnishes a plausible excuse for breaking the fourth commandment under pretense of keeping it in the observance of the first day of the week. We state the fact, therefore, in plain 6 82 SUNDAY NOT v THE terms, and will prove it by the express language of the Bible, that the Hebrews did keep the seventh day, and did not keep the sixth! We have shown that the rest-day of the Lord, commanded in Ex. 20, is the very seventh day set apart to a holy use in Gen. 2 : 2, 3. Now we will prove, (1.) That that people knew, beyond all dispute, what day this seventh day was ; (2.) That they kept the very day pointed out by Him who commanded that his rest-day be observed; (3.) That the language explicitly states that they did not keep the sixth day. The reader is well aware that, some weeks before God spoke the ten commandments, he began to feed the Hebrews by bread from heaven. Ex. 16. This bread fell during six days, and did not fall on the seventh, and this course of things continued for forty years. Now it is perfectly certain that when God, in the fourth commandment, re* quired men to keep the . seventh day, on which he had rested, and that when, in his providence, he showed by the miracle of the manna which day the seventh day was, the seventh day of the one was identical with the seventh day of the other, unless God can contradict himself. And we do read that the seventh day pointed out by the manna was “ the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.” Verse 23. And Israel did rest on the seventh day, but did on the sixth day gather and cook their manna for the Sabbath. Verses 5, 22, 23. What, then, shall we say of those who undertake to prove that Israel kept the sixth day, and not the seventh, for the Sabbath ? Which is more reliable, their counting of time, or God’s designation TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 83 of the numbers of the days ? Is it not a dreadful crime to falsify God’s word ? 4. God gave Israel his Sabbath, to be a sign between them and himself Ex. 31; Eze. 20. All other nations had forgotten the true God, and were worshipers of false gods of every kind. That Israel might keep in their mefnory the Creator, who is the only true God, he gave them his Sabbath, which he hallowed when he made the heaven and the earth. The observance of the Creator’s rest-day designated the Hebrews as the worshipers of the only true God. Those who attempt to prove by counting, and from various inferences, that God gave Israel the sixth day, and not the seventh, assert that the Sabbath could not have been a sign to Israel unless God gave them a different day from that which he ordained in the beginning. And yet when God gave them this sign, he made its entire significance to consist in their keeping his rest-day; because that he had created the heaven and the earth in six days, and rested on the seventh. Ex. 31:17. And this is, therefore, a decisive proof that the Hebrews did observe the day of the Creator’s rest, and not one of the six days of his labor. 5. When God came down upon Mount Sinai, he is said (Neh 9:14) to have made known his Sabbath, i. e.t his rest-day. This cannot be spoken in an absolute sense, for they were already keeping it. It must imply that he made it known more perfectly, even as he made himself known in Egypt. Eze. 20 : 5. But how far from the truth is this language, if, instead of giving them his holy rest-day, he gave them the day before it, as proved by the count of Dr. Akers and Mr. F. To say, as does Dr. Akers, that he had just before given them another Sabbath, and authorized them to 84 SUNDAY NOT THE tread his own Sabbath under their feet, is a most inexcusable perversion of the truth! 6. What God requires of the Jews and Gentiles alike, is to keep his holy day. Isa. 58:18. Who shall have the presumption to say that he authorized the Jews to disregard it and to keep another ? 7. When the Saviour spoke of the design of the Sabbath, he said it was made for man. Mark 2 : 27, 28. God made it out of the seventh day. Gen. 2:2, 3. In the fourth commandment, he bade Israel (and indeed all mankind) observe that very day. But though the Jews are men, and though they were amenable to the fourth commandment, yet Messrs. Akers, Fuller, and others, say that God gave Israel at the exodus a different Sabbath, and authorized them to violate his own rest- • day, even from that time till the resurrection of Christ! And, what is worthy of notice, our Lord had this second-rate Sabbath to keep, instead of the genuine! But this theory is proved to be false, even by the very fact that it was concerning this same so-called Jewish Sabbath, that our Lord was speaking, when he said it was made for man. They had, beyond all dispute, therefore, the original Sabbath ; for theirs was the one of which Christ spoke. 8. Finally, with one grand fact which cannot be counted down, nor counted out, we close this argument. The holy women who followed the Saviour to his burial, having made preparation to embalm his body, laid the spices aside at the approach of the Sabbath, and rested the Sabbath-day, according to the commandment. Luke 23: 56. It is certain, (1.) That they kept the very day observed by Christ and his apostles, and by the Jewish people; (2.) That they kept the very day ordained in the commandment (Ex. 20: 8-11); (3.) That that .day was the rest-day of God set apart at creation. Gen. 2: TRUE SEVENTH DAY. 85 2, 3; Mark 2: 27, 28. And now mark the decisive fact: the next day after the rest-day of the Lord was the first day of the week! Luke 24:1; Mark 16 ; 1, 2. No wisdom of man can make the day of the Creator’s rest, which the fourth commandment enjoins, identical with the first day of the week, which comes the next day after that rest-day is past! How much wiser in God’s sight the observance of the Sabbath of the Lord (for that is the institution enforced by the commandment of God), than is the mighty effort to move heaven and earth to show that the first day of the week is, itself, the hallowed rest-day of the great Creator! The text at the head of this discourse may weld be cited at its conclusion :— Eze. 13:6: “ They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The Lord saith; and the Lord hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word.” Are not these words true of these teachers? Reader, are you one* of those that have been made “ to hope that they would confirm the word” ? These men are not making up the breach in the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the Lord. They are not anxious to restore that which has been broken down in God’s law. They have a very different work to perform; for their business is to build up a wall of their own, and to daub it with untempered mortar. The day of God is coming; and when its great hailstones shall fall, this wall will be broken down, and every refuge of lies shall, with it, be swept away. Would you stand in the battle of the great day ? Then you must make the truth of God your shelter, and this you can only do by obeying it. AE>V ENT RELYfEW AND SADDATM MEDALS, A LARGE, SIXTEEN-PAGE RELIGIOUS FAMILY PAPER, ISSUED WEEKLY BY THE Seventh-day Adventi;t Publishing Association, IS DEVOTED TO AN Earnest Investigation of All Bible Questions, Particularly Those Which are of Special Interest at the Present Day. It aims to present intelligently and candidly those doctrines which constitute the “Present Truth” for our time (2 Peter 1:12)—truths of paramount interest and importance, some of which are not taught in any periodicals in the land except those issued by Seventh-day Adventists. The fulfillment of prophecy, the second personal coming of Christ as an , event now near at hand, the United States as a subject of prophecy, the three messages of Revelation 14, particularly the symbols and warnings they contain, immortality through Christ alone, a change of heart through the operation of the Holy Spirit, the observance of the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment, the divinity and mediatorial work of Christ, and the development of a holy character by obedience to the perfect and holy law of God as embodied in the decalogue, are among its prominent themes. It contains no advertisements of quack medicines or other patent and worthless nostrums, but devotes its entire space (except one page given to its own works and kindred publications) \o fresh reading matter every week. Men of piety and education, earnest workers in the field of religious reform, contribute regularly to its columns. <3T It is Carefully Edited, Neatly Printed, and is in all respects a First-Class Pater. Its publication was commenced in 1850, and it entered upon its sixtieth volume, January 2, 1883. A Corresponding Editor in Oakland, Cal, and another in Bale, Switzerland, Will insure to the readers of the Review information concerning everything of interest connected with the progress of the cause at those points; while correspondence from England, Norway, Italy, Canada, and all parts of our country, will present a faithful record of the progress of the cause throughout the entire field. The departments permanently maintained will be,— The Editorial, Our Contributor*, The Home, Progress of the Cause, Our Tract Societies, Special Mention, Notes of News, Editorial Items, The Sabbath-school, Appointments, and Publishers? Department; while the occasional will be, as good matter may be secured for them, The Sermon, Historical, The Commentary, and Educational,—all interspersed with a Choice Selection bf Poetry. $2.00 per Year. $1.00 for Six Months. To those who wish it on trial, 50 cts. for three months. Address, REVIEW & HERALD, Battle Creek, Mieh. Pfneidjnift bcr Periag^artikel. Review & Herald SerlaggfjauS gifct folgertbe $8ud>er unb ©cf)riften in beutfcf)er ©pradje IjetauS:— Suiter unb Srofdjiireu Die Scr. ©tauten im filmic ber $ro-t^ejeiung. 225 ©eiten. ©djon gebun* ben 7b dtd. Dad ffiefen bed ©abbatbd unb unfere SJerpjlicbtung gegen ibn nafeit. 8 ©eiten. Dad ©d)iri». Site. Xitenbe, SMarg. 1234, iubb. 1.10 " " " 1,0.1, " 1.25 " 1,2, icct©inb, 2.00 " 3,4 i ret ©inb, 2.0J " '■ - 8. ferrte Jpalpbcl C5 " " " 8, flnten " 75 ©aimer eg Pocfange. 360 ©iber, 1.00 yrofetien* Slanb, 9lo. 1, 25 Xe £efliac$ 2lrc, 20 Pic eg Uforfranfeltgbcb, 20 Xct ncc Xeftamentea ©abbat, 15 Xe Ugubeiigei ©traf, 15 flrifti anbet jtomme, 4 rifti Pibelfer, 4 Xe to Xroner, 4 Xen noercarenbe ©anbbcb, 4 .£rem feranbrete ©abbaten, 3 .kerrena ©abbat, 2 £encieninaer til ©friften, 2 Xen rige SJtanb eg Pagarue, 2 Poren eg Coaugclict, 2 Wi- Sit oanbre berfra c. f. c. Xen rente Cngeia ©ubffab Xet tiifenbaarigeSRige, ©egge ©iter af ©abbatafp., Xommtn, Jpelligbemmen, Xe to Pose, Xe to Tagter, ©car paa UnbfJplbningcr o. f. c., Atunne ci fcrftaa? fir Cnben n«r$ Cr iDtenneffet ubebeligt? Xe Xebea ©ecu, ©cnberena ©fjaebne, (#uba Poc, Crtet Crigbcb, iOO ©ibelfafta om ©abbataip., Xaabeno ©etpbning, Gfluba ©car, lit ctgtigt ©cergimaal, Xet bimmelife >JW»:ef Ocrbubcit ©rur.b, $0.02 2 .2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 l l 1 i L i 1? 17 ,,£aanbbog for £iemtnct" cr cn for atlc ©amfunbeflaefer meget corrbi* fulb ©og, ter ombanbler ©uitobebocleic. gpce og Xicrt. alminbelige ©ogbom* me* ©ebanbifng, Atpflbcb. Uloffeotilfalbe, ©abning, iJlablaoning, SRecepter rg r.ctttge ©inf o. f. c. ©ogen cr illnftreret ntcb fem f)eljlbige og i ftarorr trclte Xaclcr famt flere tcrtbelufeabe Xrjrfait. 3>rta $1.0J. „.$rifhid, fiipctft Cci fra bet table t l brt gienoprettebe ^arabia" cr SRac* net vaa ct fortrinligt ©raalftsf, ber arbiloer P.Renneifejlatgteiti Jpiftorie i gorbin* belfe met greifena ^lan fra ben ferfte Ccertraoelfe t:l alie Itnga (Sjenoprettelfe. Cn fmuft ubftcret fterffaringabog. ber tillige inbebelbcr e.i gribenbe ©eff ri* eelfe af .tfrifti Pibelfer, mebfetger bcert ©iHete*