"But what authority, then, do they show for changing the Sabbath!
Not a particle of direct testimony, ..... However, they have several inferences which they think make the subject very plain.
Were it certain that this occurred upon the first day of the week, it would be very slight evidence that that day had become the Sabbath; for there is not even an intimation of the kind.
----But who knows that "after eight days" means just a week! ---Certainly it would be nearer the literal construction of the language to conclude that this was upon the ninth day.
--But if after eight days means just a week, it would then bring this appearing of Christ upon the second day of the week. For the week must be reckoned from the evening, at the close of the first day, (John xx, 19,) ..... must have been in the evening which followed the first day, and with which the second day commenced!
Q: But granting that Christ's appearing on this occasion was actually upon the first day of the week, would that appearing make a Sabbath of the day!
The appearing of Christ is sufficient to constitute a day a Sabbath, or it is not. If it is sufficient, then the fishing day on which he next showed Himself to his disciples, and on which He miraculously aided them to take fish, was a Sabbath! John xxi.
But if it was not sufficient to constitute the day of its occurrence a Sabbath, then His appearing to several of his disciples on the first day of the week, and to all of them on the Thursday of his ascension, (Acts i,) did not cause those days to become Sabbaths.
But are there no other and better arguments for the change of the Sabbath than those which have been examined?" J.N. Andrews
