In a letter addressed to the Corinthians, about five years after they had received the gospel, Paul is supposed to contribute a fifth pillar to the first-day temple, as follows: —
“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as; God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” (1 Corinthians 16:1, 2.)
From this text it is argued in behalf of the first-day Sabbath, 1. That this was a public collection;
2. That hence the first day of the week was the day of public worship
home. The Spanish of Felippe Scio, ‘en su casa,’ in his own house.
The Portugese of Ferreira, ‘para isso,’ with himself. The Swedish,
‘naer sig self,’ near himself.”6
Dr. Bloomfield thus comments on the original: “parj eJautw~, ‘by him.’
French, chez lui, ‘at home.’”7
The Douay Bible reads: “Let every one of you put apart with himself.”
Mr. Sawyer translates it. “Let each one of you lay aside by himself.”
Theodore Beza’s Latin version gives it. “Apud se,” i.e., at home. The Syriac reads: “Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at home.”
It is true that an eminent first-day writer, Justin Edwards, D. D., in a labored effort to prove the change of the Sabbath, brings forward this text to show that Sunday was the day of religious worship with the early church. He says: —
“This laying by in store was NOT laying by AT HOME; for that Would not prevent gatherings when he should come.”8
Such is his language as a theologian upon whom has fallen the difficult task of proving the change of the Sabbath by the authority of the Scriptures.
But in his Notes on the New Testament, in which he feels at liberty to speak the truth, he squarely contradicts his own language already quoted, Hear him: —
“Lay by him in store; AT HOME. That there be no gatherings; that their gifts might be ready when the apostle should come.”9
Thus even Dr. Edwards confesses that the idea of a public collection is not found in this scripture. On the contrary, it appears that each individual, in obedience to this precept, would, at the opening of each new week, be found AT HOME laying aside something for the cause of God, according as his worldly affairs would warrant. The change of the Sabbath, as proved by this text, rests wholly upon an idea which Dr. Edwards confesses is not found in it. We have seen that the church at Corinth was a Sabbath- keeping church. It is evident that the change of, the Sabbath could never have been suggested to them by this text.
This is the only scripture in which Paul even mentions the first day of the week. It was written nearly thirty years after the alleged change of the
Sabbath. Yet Paul omits all title of sacredness, simply designating it as the first day of the week, — a name to which it was entitled as one of “the six working days.” (Ezekiel 46:1.) It is also worthy of notice that this is the only precept in the Bible in which the first day is even named; and that this precept says nothing relative to the sacredness of the day to which it, pertains, even the duty which it, enjoins being more appropriate to a secular than to a sacred day.
Soon after writing his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul visited Troas.
In the record of this visit occurs the last instance in which the first day of the week is mentioned in the New Testament: —
“And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days;10 where we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when the
disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the Upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep;
and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third left, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. And they brought the young man alive, and were not a, little comforted.’ And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Asses, there intending to take in Paul; for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot.” (Acts 20:6-13.) This scripture is supposed to furnish a sixth pillar for the first-day temple. The argument may be concisely stated thus: This testimony shows that the first day of the week was appropriated by the apostolic church to meetings for the breaking of bread in honor of Christ’s
resurrection upon that day; from which it is reasonable to conclude that this day had become the Christian Sabbath.
If this proposition could be established as an undoubted truth, the change of the Sabbath would not follow as a necessary conclusion; it would even
then amount only to a plausible conjecture. The following facts will aid us in judging of the truthfulness of this argument for the change of the
Sabbath:
1. This is the only instance of a religious meeting upon the first day of the