252 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



1 Corlnthians xvi. — Romans xiv. — Acts xx. — Colossians ii. 



conderoned the '^observance of dai/s," if Sunday had been 

 Divinely appointed for Christian observance. An exception 

 was imperatively demanded ; and could on no explanation 

 have been omitted. The true offence of the foolish Galatians 

 would have been that they did not " observe" the ri<^ht day : 

 but this was not the charge. "Ye observe dai/s!" — If Sun- 

 days, the observance is reproved! If not Sundays, their ob- 

 servance had not been established ! This text is lucid proof 

 that Sunday was not tlien a " Sabbath." 



4. The injunction contained in 1 Cor. xvi. 2 (a. d. 5G) 

 likewise could not have been given, if "the first day" had 

 been a "stated day" of worldly rest. Equally impossible was 

 it for this day to be specified without some allusion to its sacred 

 character, had such been recognized. This text confirms the 

 evidence that Sunday was not thcn a "Sabbath." 



5. An important link in the chronological chain is found in 

 Rom. xiv. 5 (a. d. 58). If the first day of the week had ever 

 by Divine authority been specially dedicated as "the Lord's 

 day/' it would have been impossible for an "inspired apostle" 

 to give unqualified permission to "esteem every day alikeV^ 

 This text afibrds the most irrefragable demonstration that Sun- 

 day was not tlien a "Sabbath."* 



6. From Acts xx. 7, 11 (a. d. 60), we learn "that Paul had 

 so little rcgard to the first day of the week as to commence his 

 journey on that day;"f an uncquivocal indication that Sunday 

 was not tlien a "Sabbath." 



7. The last text I shall adduce is Col. ii. 16 (a. d. 62), 

 which denies in toto the obligation of either "holy days" or 



* *' If PaaVs language in that chaptcr be tåken without any limita- 

 tion, [!] it strikes equally against the Christians' Lord's day as 

 against the Sabbath of the Decalogue." J, N. B. {p. 19.) My friend 

 seems to suspcct that "the Christians' Lord's day" is not exactly the 

 same thing as "the Sabbath of the Decalogue!" 



f A precedent for this is suggested by the somewhat similar instance 

 recorded in Luhc xxiv. 13. 



