Читать книгу The Constitutional Amendment: or, The Sunday, the Sabbath, the Change, and Restitution - Wolcott H. Littlejohn - Страница 9

Table of Contents

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.