Chapter II: Part 2

Doubtless the reader is not a little surprised, provided he has never given his attention to the subject before, at discovering the meagerness, so far as numbers at least are concerned, of the passages alluded to above. Nevertheless, let us take the data, thus furnished, and from them endeavor to derive all the information which they can legitimately be made to afford. At first glance, it will be discovered that six of the passages of Scripture under consideration relate to one and the same day, which was that of the resurrection. Written as they were from five to sixty-two years this side of that occurrence, and penned by men who were profoundly interested in everything which was calculated to throw light upon matters of duty and doctrine, we would naturally expect that they would seize these most favorable opportunities for instructing those whom they were endeavoring to enlighten in regard to the time of, and circumstances connected with, the change of the Sabbath. Let us observe, therefore, how they discharge this most important responsibility. It will not be urged by any that John 20:1, and Mark 16:9, furnish anything which in any way strengthens the Sunday argument. The statements which they contain are merely to the effect that Mary Magdalene was the one to whom Christ first presented himself, and that she visited the tomb very early in the morning. Neither will it be insisted that the declaration found in Matt. 28:1, and Mark 16:1, 2, and Luke 23:56, and 24:1, afford any positive testimony for the sanctity of the first day of the week. On the contrary, we think that every candid person will concede that the bearing which they have upon the subject is rather against, than favorable to, the case which our friends are so anxious to make out. To illustrate: In Matt. 28:1, we read that “in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulcher.” Again, in Mark 16:1, 2, the same general fact is stated, with the simple variation that, instead of the expression, “in the end of the Sabbath,” are substituted the words, “when the Sabbath was passed,” while in Luke 23:56, and 24:1, it is declared that these things transpired on the first day of the week, the context carefully setting forth the fact that the women had “rested upon the Sabbath, according to the commandment,” and that it being past, they came to the sepulcher, bringing with them the spices which they had prepared.

Now, putting all these things together, what have we learned? Manifestly, the following facts: First; when the events transpired which are set forth in these scriptures, there was a Sabbath; since it is stated, by way of locating them in point of time, that the Sabbath had ended before the affairs spoken of were transacted. Secondly; that the Sabbath, to which reference was made, was the seventh day of the week, since it preceded the first, and was that of the commandment. Thirdly; that, if the first day of the week was a Sabbath, as is now claimed, the women were ignorant of it, since it is clear that they did not go to the tomb on the seventh day to embalm the body, because of its being holy time; whereas, upon the first day of the week their scruples were gone, and they came to the sepulcher, bearing their spices with them, to accomplish a work which they would not have regarded as legitimate on the Sabbath. Fourthly; that the seventh day was not only the Sabbath at the time mentioned, but also that, according to the convictions of the historians, it was the Sabbath at the time of their writing—since they apply to it the definite article “_the_;” whereas, if there had been a change of Sabbaths, it would have been natural to distinguish between them in the use of explanatory words and phrases, such as are now applied, as, for instance, “the Jewish Sabbath,” “the Christian Sabbath,” &c., &c. Fifthly; that, while Matthew, Mark, and Luke do, in every instance cited above, honor the seventh day of the week in the most scrupulous manner, by applying to it the Bible title of the Sabbath, they do, nevertheless, make mention of the day of the resurrection in each case, in the same connection, in the use of its secular name, “the first day of the week.” A slight which is utterly inexplicable, provided the latter had really put on a sacred character; since, that being true, it was much more important that its new claims should be recognized and inculcated by those who could speak with authority, than it was that they should perpetuate the distinction of a day whose honors had become obsolete. Having now examined five of the six texts under consideration, there remains but one more to occupy our attention. This reads as follows: “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.” John 20:19. Here, again, we are struck with the manifest disposition on the part of John, in common with the other evangelists, to avoid the application of any sacred title to the first day of the week. Twice, in this chapter, he makes mention of that which is now regarded as the “Queen of days,” but in both instances, he avoids, as if with studied care, attaching to it any denomination by which its superiority over other days should be indicated. How perfectly in keeping, for instance, it would have been with the facts as they are now claimed to have existed—as well as with the interests and desires of millions who have since lived—had he in the text before us so varied the phraseology of the first clause that it would read as follows: “And the same day at evening, being the _Christian Sabbath_, when the disciples were assembled,” &c. This, however, he did not do, and we inquire of the reader, right here, concerning his _motive_ in omitting that which now appears to us so desirable, and which would have been perfectly legitimate were the views of our friends correct. Did he intentionally omit an important fact? Was it left out because of an oversight on his part? Or, would it be safer to conclude that perhaps, after all, the difficulty lies, not with the apostle, or with the Holy Spirit, which dictated his language, but with the theory, which seems to be out of joint with his utterances?

Nevertheless, as it is still urged that, in the absence of a positive declaration, this, the only remaining text, does furnish abundant evidence of the sacred regard in which the day of the resurrection was held—since it gives an account of a religious meeting held upon it, manifestly for the purpose of recognizing its heavenly character—let us examine more critically into the nature of the claims which are based upon its record. That those with whom we differ should be tenacious in their efforts to rest their cause very largely upon the account found in John 20:19, is not at all surprising. It is the only chance, as we have seen, which is left them of basing their argument upon a passage of Scripture which relates to the day of the resurrection. So far as 1 Cor. 16:2, and Acts 20:7, are concerned, it will not be disputed by any that their testimony is merely collateral evidence. If Sunday has become the Sabbath, it was by virtue of transactions which occurred immediately in connection with the rising of Christ. In other words, it was on the third day after the crucifixion that Christ, if at all, began to impress upon the minds of his disciples the Sabbatic character which had already attached to, and was henceforth to continue in, the day which saw him a conqueror over death and the grave.

Nay, more; if the change occurred at all, it must have dated from the very moment that the angel descended, the guard was stricken down, and the Son of God, glorified, came forth. This being the case, from that time forward it would naturally be the effort of Christ to produce in the minds of his followers the conviction of this most momentous fact. Every action of his would necessarily be—if not directly for the purpose of imprinting the peculiar sacredness of the hours upon those by whom he was surrounded—at least of a character such as to impart no sanction either to a deliberate, or even an unintentional disregard, on the part of any, of their hallowed nature. Hence, our friends, seizing upon the fact that he met with them while assembled together in the after part of the day, have endeavored to clothe the incident with great interest, and have largely elaborated their arguments to show that this was not an accidental occurrence, but rather partook of the nature of a religious meeting, Christ himself honoring these instinctive efforts on the part of the disciples to act in harmony with the spirit of the hour, by his own personal presence.

Before we sanction this view of the subject, however, let us give our attention for a moment to the manner in which the previous portion of the day, then closing, had up to that point been spent. Certain it is, that Jesus had not, during its declining hours, been suddenly moved by a newly created impulse for the accomplishment of an object which had been just as desirable for twelve hours as it was at that moment. Sunday sanctity had already become a fixed fact, and its knowledge as essential to the well-being of the disciples in the morning, as at the evening. We naturally conclude, therefore, that the very first opportunity for its disclosure would have been the one which Christ would embrace. This was afforded in his conversation with Mary. But, while there is no evidence that it was imparted, it is at least presumable that she was left entirely ignorant of it.

The second occasion was presented in that of the journey of the two disciples from Jerusalem to Emmaus, a distance of seven and a half miles. Jesus walked with them and talked with them by the way, reasoned with them about the resurrection, made as though he would have gone farther, discovered himself to them in the breaking of bread, and disappeared, leaving them to retrace the seven and a half miles to the city, with no word of caution against it on his part. Nay, more; his marked approval of the propriety of the act might properly have been inferred from the fact that he himself accompanied them in the first instance, in the garb of a wayfaring man; at the same time acting the part of one who was so far convinced of the rectitude of his own and of their action, that he was ready to continue his journey until night should render it impracticable. (Luke 24:28.) Following these men now, as they retrace their steps to the city from which they had departed, and to which they were now returning—manifestly all unconscious that they were trespassing upon time which had been rescued from that which might properly be devoted to secular pursuits—let us observe them, as they mingle once more with their former companions in grief. How does it happen that they are congregated at this precise point of time? Is it because they have at last discovered the fact that it has been made in the special sense a proper day for religious assemblies? If so, whence have they derived their conviction? Certainly not from Mary, or the two disciples just returning from Emmaus. Assuredly, also, not from Christ himself.

But, again, is it not really from an induction on their own part, by which they have themselves discovered the fitness of making the day of resurrection also that of worship? Listen a moment. Hear their excited remarks as, at this juncture, they are joined by the two. Do you catch these words, “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon”? (Luke 24:34.) Does not this establish the fact of their confidence in the previous report? Unfortunately, the historian adds, “Neither believed they them.” Here they are, then, manifestly still doubting the very fact which some have thought they were convened to celebrate.

But, again, what is the _place_ of their convocation? Unquestionably, neither the temple nor the synagogue. The record states that where they were assembled, “the doors were closed for fear of the Jews.” Evidently, they were in some place of retirement and comparative safety, hiding away from the fury of a people who, in their madness and cruel hate, had crucified even the Lord of glory. We ask again, Where were they? Let Mark explain. Certainly he is competent to the task. When describing the very transaction we are considering, he says: “Afterward he appeared to the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.” Mark 16:14. Here, then, is the clue to the whole matter. It was not a religious meeting, because they were in a frame of mind to be censured, rather than applauded, because of unbelief. It was merely the body of the apostles, gathered in their own quarters for the purpose of partaking of an evening meal, where they were in the habit of eating, and drinking, and sleeping—and where, at this time, they kept particularly close, because of the perils which surrounded them on every hand. That this is true, is further sustained by two additional considerations.

First; it was a place where Christ expected to find meat, and where he requested such for his own use, and was supplied from their bounty with broiled fish and an honeycomb, which, the record states, “he took and did eat before them.” (Luke 24:41-43.)

Secondly; that they were in possession of just such a rendezvous, is clearly stated in John 20:10, where, speaking of Peter and John when going from the sepulcher, it says, “They went away unto their own home.” A few days later, Luke declares (Acts 1:13,) that when they came in from the ascension, they “went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas; Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.”

Thus, by a natural and easy combination of the facts brought to view by the inspired penman, the whole matter has been reduced to a simple transaction, such as might have been repeated many times during the forty days, and such as—in and of itself—fails to disclose any evidence that the occurrences narrated, either necessarily or presumptively, afford the slightest justification for the supposition that Christ himself either designed, or that the apostles might legitimately conclude that he intended, by joining them under these familiar circumstances, to authorize one of the mightiest innovations upon the practice of ages which the world has ever seen.

ARTICLE V.

Nor is this matter at all relieved by the statement found in John 20:26, that after eight days, Thomas being present, he appeared unto them a second time under similar circumstances. For even should we grant that this was on the next Sunday evening—a matter in which there is, at least, room for a difference of opinion—the subject is merely complicated the more, so far as the view of our friends is concerned, since here a second opportunity, and that a most excellent one, for calling the attention of the disciples to the new character which a once secular day had assumed, was entirely neglected. In this also, as in the first instance, the conversation was of a nature to show that the object of the interview was to give additional evidence (because of the presence of Thomas) of the re-animation of the body of Christ, without any reference to its effect upon the character of the day upon which it occurred. But such silence, under _such_ circumstances, in regard to so important a matter, is in itself conclusive evidence that the change claimed had not really taken place. Furthermore, it will not be urged that more than two out of the five first-days which occurred between the resurrection and the ascension were days of assembly. Had they been—as it had been decided, according to the view of those urging the transition, that the Sunday should not be hallowed by positive declaration, but simply inaugurated by quiet precedent, then the presumption is, that this precedent, instead of being left upon the insufficient support of two Sabbaths out of five, would have been carefully placed upon the whole number. Nor would the precaution have ended here. In a matter vital in its nature, certain it is that the honest seeker after truth would not be left to grope his way through a metaphysical labyrinth of philosophic speculation in regard to the effect of certain transactions upon the character of the time upon which they occurred; or the bearing of certain meetings of Christ and the apostles upon the question as to whether Sunday had assumed a sacred character, when at the same time his perplexity was rendered insupportable by the fact, that the historian states, that like meetings occurred on days for which no one will claim any particular honor.

Take, for instance, the meeting of Jesus with the apostles at the sea of Galilee (John 21), while they were engaged in a fishing excursion. Assuredly, this did not take place on Sunday; else, according to the view of our friends, they would not have been engaged in such an employment. Just what day it was, no one is able to decide; but all agree that its character was in no way affected by the profoundly interesting interview which occurred upon it between the Master and his disciples. If it were, then there is at least one holy day in the week which we cannot place in the calendar, since no one can decide whether it was the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth.

If, however, you would have a still more forcible illustration of the fact that religious meetings, were they never so solemn, can in nowise alter the nature of the hours on which they occur, let me call your attention to the day of the ascension (Acts 1). Here is an occasion of transcendent glory. If the statements in the sacred narrative of events, which transpired during its hours, could only be predicated of either one or the other of the first-day meetings of Christ with his disciples, it would at least be with an increased show of reason that they could be woven into the tissue of a Sabbatic argument. Here are found many of the elements essential to the idea of religions services, of which the instances in question are so remarkably destitute.

In the first place, those who followed our Lord to the place of meeting were intelligent believers in the fact of his resurrection.

In the second place, the assembly was not confined to a mere handful of individuals, seeking for retiracy within an upper room where they were in the habit of eating, drinking, and sleeping; but it transpired in the open air, where Jesus was in the habit of meeting with his followers.

In the third place, the congregation was made up of persons whom the Holy Spirit had thus brought together for the purpose of becoming the honored witnesses of the resurrection and ascension of Christ.

In the fourth place, it was graced by the visible forms of holy angels in glistering white, who participated in the services.

In the fifth place, Jesus himself addressed them at length, lifted up his hands to heaven, and brought down its benediction upon them, and in the sight of the assembled multitude, steadily and majestically rising above them, he floated upward, until a cloud received him out of their sight.

In the sixth place, it is said, in so many words, that the “_people worshiped_ him there.”

Now, suppose, for the sake of the argument, that some modern sect should endeavor to transform our unpretending Thursday, which was really the day of the ascension, since it was the fortieth after the resurrection, into one of peculiar dignity, claiming, in defense of their position, the example of Christ, and urging that the course which he pursued could only be satisfactorily explained on the ground that he was laying the foundation for its future Sabbatic observance, how would our friends meet them in such an emergency? Deny the facts, they could not, for the record is ample. There would, therefore, be but one alternative left.

If transactions of this character are of a nature such that they _necessarily_ exalt the days upon which they occur to the rank of holy days, then Thursday is one, and should be treated as such. No line of argument, however ingenious, could evade this conclusion, so long as the premises in question were adhered to. Planting himself squarely upon them, with the consent of modern Christendom, the advocate of the newly discovered holy day, finding the record perfectly free from embarrassments in the nature of transactions which would appear to be incompatible with the notion that everything which Christ and his apostles did was in harmony with his view, if possessed of that skill and ability which has marked the efforts of some modern theologians in such discussions, could weave a web of inference and conjecture almost interminable in its length.

All the facts connected with the meeting could be expanded, and turned over and over, and exhibited from innumerable stand-points, so as to yield the largest amount of evidence possible. Having dwelt at large upon everything which was said and done at Bethany, he might return with the solemn procession to the great city. Having done this, he would not fail to call our attention to the fact that they did not conduct themselves in a manner such as men might have been expected to do under the circumstances on a common day, but that, on the contrary, impressed with the sacredness of the hours which had witnessed the glorious ascension of the Son of God, they immediately repaired to a place of assembly, manifestly for the purpose of continued worship. Again, scrutinizing with polemic eye every syllable of the history, in order to extract from it all the hidden testimony which it might contain, his attention would be arrested by these words, “A Sabbath day’s journey.” Immediately, he inquires, Why employ such an expression as this—one which occurs nowhere else in the sacred volume? Certainly it cannot be the result of accident. The Holy Spirit must have designed to signify _something_ by such a use of the term in the connection under consideration. A Sabbath day’s journey! What importance could be attached to the fact that the particular point from which Christ ascended was no more than a Sabbath day’s journey from Jerusalem? The expression is not sufficiently definite to designate the precise spot, and must, therefore, have been employed to express some other idea. What was it? Undeniably, it was introduced into this connection because of the _nature_ of the _time_ on which the journey occurred. It was a _Sabbath day_, and, as such, it was important that succeeding generations should not be left to infer from the account given, that it was a matter of indifference to the Lord how far travel should be carried on such an occasion; but, on the contrary, that he was jealous on this point, and that the expression in question was employed to show that the procession of Christ’s followers, and Christ, himself, bowed reverently to the national regulation respecting the distance to which it was proper for one to depart from his home during the continuance of holy time.

But this line of argument, though plausible in itself, and superior in fact to that which is many times used to support the tottering fabric of first-day observance, would not, we fancy, persuade an intelligent public to introduce a new Sabbath into their calendar. The verdict which even those with whom we differ would be compelled to render would be that which both reason and piety would dictate; namely, that the fatal defect in the logic was the want of a thus saith the Lord.

Passing now from the first six of the eight texts which relate to the first day of the week, let us give to 1 Cor. 16:2, and Acts 20:7, a consideration of sufficient length only to enable us to assign to them the proper place which they should occupy in this controversy. While it will be observed that they present the only mention of the first day of the week after leaving the gospels, and while it is remembered that they are separated from the occurrences there narrated by the space of twenty-six years, it is a remarkable fact that the first of them, if not in itself clearly against the conception of Sunday sanctity, at least, affords no strength for the argument in its favor. It reads as follows: “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 Cor. 16:2.

Now, bear in mind that the inference here is, that the gatherings spoken of were to be made in the assemblies of the Corinthians, the presumption following that, as they must have been in the habit of convening on the first day of the week, the apostle took advantage of this fact in order to secure the desired collections for the saints at Jerusalem. You will observe, consequently, that the postulate, or assumed point in the discussion, is that the Corinthians were at the church, or place of meeting, when the “laying by,” which was ordered above, took place. If, therefore, this be not true, the whole logical superstructure which rests upon it necessarily falls to the ground.

Let us inquire after the facts. Does the apostle say, Let every one of you lay by himself at the church? or, does he command that his pro-rata donation should be placed in the contribution box of the assembly? We answer: There is not a word to this effect. Nor is this all; the very idea of the text is diametrically opposed to this notion. Before the contrary can be shown to be true, it will be necessary to demonstrate that which is absurd in itself; namely, the proposition that what an individual has voluntarily placed beyond his own reach and control by putting it in a common fund, can, at the same time, be said to be “laid by him in store.”

Furthermore, Mr. J. W. Morton, a gentleman who has given the subject mature reflection and careful investigation, by a comparison of the different versions and the original, has demonstrated the fact that, if properly translated, the idea of the passage is simply that, for the purpose of uniformity of action, and to prevent confusion from secular matters when the apostle himself should arrive, each person should lay by himself _at home_ the amount of his charities according to his ability. We give the following from his pen: “The whole question turns upon the meaning of the expression, ‘by him;’ and I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it means, ‘in the collection box of the congregation.’ Greenfield, in his lexicon, translates the Greek term, ‘by one’s self; _i. e._, at home.’ Two Latin versions—the Vulgate, and that of Castellio—render it, ‘_apud se_,’ with one’s self, at home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacy, ‘_chez soi_,’ at his own house, at home. The German of Luther, ‘_bei sich selbst_,’ by himself, at home. The Dutch, ‘by hemselven;’ same as German. The Italian of Diodati, ‘_appressio di se_,’ in his own presence, at home. The Spanish of Felipe Scio, ‘_en su casa_,’ in his own house. The Portuguese of Ferrara, ‘_para isso_,’ with himself. The Swedish, ‘_nær sig sielf_,’ near himself. I know not how much this list of authorities might be swelled, for I have not examined one translation that differs from those quoted above.”—_Vindication of the True Sabbath_, p. 61.

The simple fact is, therefore, that while the text in question yields no proof that Sunday was then regarded as a day of convocation, it was one which might he encumbered with matters which would necessarily call attention to the pecuniary affairs of individual Christians, and so avoid the necessity of their giving thought to such things when Paul himself should arrive; thereby preventing delay on his part, and leaving them free to devote their whole time to the consideration of religious themes. Thus much for 1 Cor. 16:2.

ARTICLE VI.

Advancing now to the remaining scripture, which is found in Acts 20:7, we append its words as follows: “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.” By reading that which immediately follows the above, we shall learn the following facts: First, that here is indeed a record of a religious meeting upon the first day of the week (verse 7). Second, that it was held in that portion of the day when the darkness prevailed, since it was necessary to employ many lights (verse 8). Third, that Paul preached unto them, and that, while he was speaking, Eutychus fell to the ground; and Paul, having restored him to life, returned to his labor (verses 7-11). Fourth, that he broke bread, or administered the Lord’s supper (verse 11). Fifth, that he preached until break of day (verse 11). Sixth, that Luke, and the other disciples, preceding him, sailed the vessel to Assos (verse 13). Seventh, that Paul, having preached all night, until the dawning of the day, crossed the country on foot, stepped aboard of the vessel, and went on his journey toward Jerusalem (verses 13, 14). Now let it be borne in mind, that Troas was a city on the west coast of Asia, located at the base of a peninsula, on the opposite side of which lay the city of Assos; distant about nineteen and a half miles in direct line from the former place. Let it also be remembered that the promontory in question, projecting as it did into the sea for some miles, made it necessary for a vessel, passing from Troas to Assos, to traverse a much greater distance, and to consume more time than one would be compelled to do in passing from one of these points to the other by the overland route. This explains the reason why Paul, who was exceedingly anxious to spend all the time he could with the brethren, consented to perform the journey on foot; thus being enabled to spend several additional hours with them, while Luke and his associates were toiling to bring the boat around the headland to the place of the apostle’s final embarkation.

Returning now to the consideration of the meeting in question, it becomes important to know just when it was entered upon. Did it answer to what we would call a Sunday-evening meeting? If so, then Paul resumed his journey on Monday morning. But, before we give an affirmative response to this question, would it not be well to inquire in relation to the system for computing time which ought to be followed in this case? We moderns have generally adopted that of the Romans. With it, beginning the day, as it does, at midnight, we would naturally answer the interrogatory above in the affirmative. Should we do this, however, we should unquestionably fall into a grievous error. The days of the Bible commenced invariably with the setting of the sun.

That this is so, the following quotation from the American Tract Society’s Bible Dictionary is sufficient to demonstrate: “The civil day is that, the beginning and end of which are determined by the custom of any nation. The Hebrews began their day in the evening (Lev. 23:32); the Babylonians at sunrise, and we begin at midnight.” Art. Day, p. 114.

Reasoning, therefore, upon this hypothesis, the bearing of the text is immediately reversed. As the meeting was held in that portion of the first day of the week in which it was necessary that lamps should be lighted, it follows that it commenced with the setting of the sun on Saturday evening, and continued until daylight on what we call Sunday morning. It is consequently clear that we have at last found one first day in the Scriptures, the first half of which was observed in a manner compatible with the idea of its being regarded as a Sabbath. But, as a Sabbath day is twenty-four, and not merely twelve, hours long, it is indispensable that those who seek to avail themselves of the record before us, should be able to establish the point that there is nothing in it which would go to show that the remaining portion of the day was devoted to purposes, and employed in a manner, irreconcilable with the hypothesis of its sanctity. Can they do this? Let us see. Would it be legitimate for believers at the present time to traverse on foot a distance of nineteen and a half miles between the rising and the setting of the sun, on the first day of the week, in order to pursue a journey toward a point of destination hundreds of miles in the distance? Would it be admissible for others, prosecuting the same journey, to weigh anchor and hoist sail in a friendly port, and coast along the shore for a much greater distance?

Who, among the friends of Sunday observance at the present time, would venture to answer these questions in the affirmative, without putting on the record some qualifying or explanatory clause? We hazard the assertion that few of them, conscientious as we believe many of them are, would be willing, by such a response, to place themselves on the category of those who, to say the least, may have very lax views in regard to what may be done upon holy time. And yet this is precisely the situation in which Luke has left Paul, himself, and his associates, before the generations of Christians who were to follow them.

We ask, therefore, again, Can it be true that the great apostle to the Gentiles, standing as a representative man in the great work of transferring the religious world from the observance of the seventh, to that of the first, day of the week, and this not by positive precept, but, as it is claimed, simply by precedent and example, should have allowed himself to throw that example, as in the case before us, against the very work which he was seeking to accomplish? In other words, is not the obvious import of the text such that the average reader, with no favorite theory to make out, and a mind unbiased by the effect of education and early training, would naturally come to the conclusion that Paul and the disciples with him, and those from whom he parted at Troas, looked upon the day of that departure as but a common one?

We believe that if any other meaning can be drawn from the history before us, it will be reached through constraint, and not through the easy process of obvious reason. It is useless to talk about inability to control the vessel, and the urgent necessity of occupying every hour in order to reach Jerusalem in time for the feast. So far as the first of these points is concerned, if it were well taken, is it not to be presumed that, for the vindication of the course pursued, and for the benefit of posterity, it would have found a place in the sacred record? And as to the matter of limited time, the question of twelve hours longer or shorter, was immaterial in a journey of the length of the one under consideration. Besides, upon following the account as given, we have from Luke himself that, before they reached their destination, they stopped at Tyre for seven days (chap. 21:4), and at Cesarea, many days (chap. 21:10), and yet had ample time to accomplish their object in reaching Jerusalem before the feast.

We say again, therefore, that these considerations, in the absence of any allusions to them in the context, are simply gratuitous, or, at least, are far-fetched. The narrative still remains. The great fact that Paul and his followers did travel upon the first day of the week is made conspicuous, and the only legitimate conclusion to be drawn therefrom is that which alone harmonizes with the consistency of Paul’s life and that of his brethren, as well as the wisdom and beneficence of the great God, namely: That he did so because of his conviction that it was a day which might properly be devoted to labor and travel. With this understanding, the story is relieved of all embarrassment, and becomes a simple and highly interesting account of a meeting convened on the first day of the week, because of the approaching departure of a beloved brother and apostle, and rendered also worthy of record by the miracle which was performed upon Eutychus. But with such a decision, our labor is ended, and with it the whole theory in regard to the Sabbatic character of Sunday is exploded; for, not only does the scripture which we have been investigating fail to yield the doctrine which it was supposed to contain, but, on the contrary, it presents Paul as standing emphatically against it. This being true, it belongs to a faith which he never proclaimed, and which, consequently, was associated in his mind with that which should not be received, though it were “preached by an angel from Heaven.”

Nevertheless, that we may not appear to have overlooked the two remaining texts, which are generally quoted as affording additional proof of the distinguished regard in which the first day of the week was held, we turn our attention for a moment to Acts 2:1, and Rev. 1:10.

As it regards the first of these scriptures, the claim is, that the outpouring of the Spirit occurred with reference to a divine disposition to honor the day of the resurrection. To this we reply, first, that if this were so, it is a remarkable fact that there is nothing in the connection to show it. The name of the day, even, is not so much as mentioned. The inspired annalist, were this supposition true, would most assuredly have given prominence to an idea which, it is claimed, was the governing one in the mind of the Spirit, in order to enable succeeding generations to extract from the facts narrated the true moral which they were intended to convey. But mark his words. Is the declaration, “When the first day of the week was fully come”? If so, we might say that this day was foremost in his own mind, and in that of the Spirit.

But such was not his language. On the contrary, his statement is, “When the day of Pentecost was fully come.” Hence, it was the day of Pentecost, or the great Jewish feast, which is here made to stand out conspicuously upon the sacred page. If, therefore, we are to decide that the transaction in question was intended to hallow any particular twenty-four hours, undeniably they were those within which the Pentecost fell. But those did not occur regularly upon the first day of the week, nor was the institution one of weekly recurrence. It was annual in its return, transpiring one year upon the first, and perhaps the next year upon the second, and so on, through every day of the week. To reason, consequently, that, because it happened to take place at this time upon Sunday, the fact is necessarily significant of a change in the character of the day, is altogether inconclusive.

That were a cheap logic indeed, which would argue that the Pentecost, which was mentioned expressly, and the return of which was waited for with patience, was in no-wise affected, illustrated, or perpetuated, by the outpouring of the Spirit upon it, whereas, a septenary division of time—not thought worthy of mention by its peculiar title—was thenceforth rendered glorious. Stand together, however, they cannot; for, if it were the Pentecost which was to be handed down in this way to those who should come after, then it would, of necessity, be celebrated annually, and not each week; but, if it were the first day of the week which alone was made the object of divine favor, then why wait until the arrival of the great annual Sabbath at the end of the fifty days? Why was not some other first day taken—say one of the six which had already occurred between the resurrection and that time—in this manner avoiding the possibility of confusion as to which event was thus honored?

Should it be replied that the Spirit could not be poured out until the great antitype of the fifty-day feast had been met in Heaven, we answer: Then it was _this_ event, and not the resurrection, which furnishes the occasion for the remarkable demonstrations which were manifested before the people. We repeat again, therefore, that from whatever stand-point we look at the text, it is the _Pentecost_, and not the first day of the week, to which, if to anything, it attaches special importance. This is further demonstrated by the fact that it is to this hour a matter of grave discussion between theologians whether the day of Pentecost, at the time under consideration, did really fall upon the first day of the week or upon some other. Leaving to them, therefore, the delicate and arduous task of adjusting questions of this nature—which are neither important in themselves, nor easy of decision—we hasten to glance at Rev. 1:10. It reads as follows: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet.”

Here is something which certainly has a bearing upon the subject. The language employed is of thrilling interest. Says the apostle, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” This being uttered about A. D. 95, determines the point that God has a day in this dispensation, and also proves that he has but one; since the language would be very indefinite were there two or more days of such a nature. But by what system of reasoning is the conclusion reached that this must of necessity be the first day of the week? Assuredly, it can only be by inference. If it can first be proved that the day of the resurrection has, by divine authority, been anywhere styled the “Lord’s day,” then the point is unquestionably gained. When those words were penned, more than sixty years had passed since it is claimed that Sunday had been clothed with divine honor. The whole canon of the New Testament, save the gospel of John, had been written within that time. Ample opportunity had been afforded for the work of placing upon record the sacred appellation which was to be given to that period of time, which, having been separated from everything of a secular nature, had been elevated to the dignity of a holy rest. But had this ever occurred? The facts are briefly these: The first day of the week, as we have seen, being mentioned eight times in the New Testament, is always spoken of as plain first day of the week; John himself, writing his gospel after the appearance of the Apocalypse, everywhere applies to it this unpretending title. Whenever the term Sabbath is used, on the other hand—as we have seen that it is fifty-six times in the New Testament—it is applied, with one exception, to the Sabbath of the commandment, or the seventh day of the week.

In view of these facts, take a common man, without bias or predilection, one, if you please, who has never heard of the controversy in question, place in his hands the Bible without note or comment, let him read the following texts which confessedly refer to the seventh day of the week, and we think the verdict which he would render would be decidedly in favor of the venerable Sabbath of the Lord; of which it is true, as it is of no other day, that he has again and again claimed it as his own. The italics are our own. “If thou turn away thy foot from the _Sabbath_, from doing thy pleasure on _my holy day_; and call the Sabbath a delight, the _holy of the Lord_, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord.” Isa. 58:13, 14.

“But the seventh day is the _Sabbath of the Lord thy God_: in it thou shalt not do any work:” “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 Sabbath day, and hallowed it_.” Ex. 20:10, 11.

“And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Mark 2:27, 28.

If such a decision be a just one, however, where are we in the matter under examination? What has become of the modern Sabbath reform for which we have been seeking justification in the word of God? First, we sought to place it upon the commandment; this, we found to be out of the question. Second, we investigated the claim of an amended law; that, we discovered to be entirely without authority, and against even the conviction and practice of the very men who urged it. Third, we turn, as a last resort, to the precedents of Bible history; these, we found, so far as they affect the question at all, to be overwhelmingly against a movement which, while it claims to be in the interest of the God of Heaven, is confronted by the following astounding facts: First, the day whose observance it seeks to enforce by statute law is one, the keeping of which, God has never commanded. Second, Christ has never commanded it. Third, no inspired man has ever commanded it. Fourth, God himself never rested upon it. Fifth, Christ never rested upon it. Sixth, there is no record that either prophets or apostles ever rested upon it. Seventh, it is one upon which God himself worked. Eighth, it is one which, during his lifetime, Christ always treated as a day of labor. Ninth, it is one upon which, after his resurrection, he countenanced, by his own personal example, travel upon the highway. Tenth, it is one upon which the two disciples, in going to and returning from Emmaus, traveled a distance of fifteen miles. Eleventh, it was on that day that Paul walked from Troas to Assos, a distance of nineteen and one-half miles. Twelfth, it was on that day that Luke and his associates passed from one to the other of these places by a longer route, working their vessel round the promontory.

That all these things could be true, and yet our friends be right in the supposition that they are engaged in a work which commands the approval of Heaven, is too absurd to require further discussion. A movement pushed forward in the face of these facts may succeed, so far as political success and legal enactment are concerned, but when the logic for its Scriptural character is scrutinized as closely as it will be before it shall plant its banners upon the capitol of the nation, all conscientious convictions in regard to its heavenly birth will give place to an inspiration, the source of whose strength will be found in the superiority of party drill, and the overwhelming power of mere numbers. Who shall say that the God of Heaven has not permitted it to come to the surface for the very purpose of calling the attention of honest men and women, as it only could be done by the debate which will arise in controversy, to the scantiness of that Sunday wardrobe by which, as with it our friends attempt to clothe a favorite institution, we are so forcibly reminded of the bed and covering spoken of by the prophet Isaiah: The first of which was “too short to stretch one’s self upon,” and the last, “too narrow to wrap one’s self within?” So sure as investigation is provoked upon this subject, so certain is it that, sooner or later, thinking men and women will discover—as we have already done in this article—that there is indeed a crying demand for a Sabbath reform. Not one, however, which rests merely upon the power of Congressional enactment, and Presidential sanction, but one which shall find its authority in the highest of all laws, and which shall have the approval of the King of kings and Lord of lords.

ARTICLE VII.

The conflict is finally open. The spirit of inquiry has lifted itself in the nation; and all eyes will be turned toward the Bible, as really the only source from which can be derived authority for a Sabbath reform which shall be worthy of the name.

Commencing with its opening pages, they will trace the Sabbatic narrative until they have been able to verify the following summary of history and doctrine:—

1. The Sabbath, as the last day of the week, originated in Eden, and was given to Adam, as the federal head of the race, while he yet retained his primal innocence. Proof: “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. 2:2, 3.

2. That, though the history of the period, stretching from the creation to the exodus, is extremely brief, it is manifest, even from that period, that the good of those ages had not lost sight of it; since the children of Israel were acquainted with its existence thirty days before reaching Mount Sinai. “And He said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, Tomorrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord; bake that which ye will bake to-day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.” Ex. 16:23. “Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none.” Ex. 16:26.

3. That God, unwilling to commit the interest of so important an institution to the keeping of tradition, framed a command for its perpetuity, which he spoke with his own voice and wrote with his own finger, placing it in the bosom of the great moral law of the ten precepts: “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 thy 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 the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Ex. 20:8-11.