The second text is found in Acts xx, 7: “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.”
Agreeing for the moment with those of the opposition as to the time of this meeting, and that the breaking of bread spoken of was the sacrament, let us see just how much aid and comfort they can legitimately derive from this passage, thus understood. If they get any it must be by proceeding upon the hypothesis that this was a regular, and not an accidental meeting. That they came together to break bread because it was their usage, and that Paul taking advantage of this gathering, preached before departing. How then can this be demonstrated? Certainly not from the context; for it contains nothing to show that they ever had before, or ever did after this, convene for a like purpose. And in the absence of any proof to the contrary, one would naturally conclude from the narrative, and the circumstances related, that the occasion of their coming together was a desire to unite with a beloved brother—perhaps for the last time in this world—in celebrating one of the most solemn ordinances of the Christian church.
How could he who was to depart, and the disciples who were to remain, furnish a stronger pledge of their mutual confidence and sympathy, than by coming around the table of their common Lord, and partaking of those emblems, which, while they reminded them of the sufferings and humiliation of him whose body was
broken and blood spilled for their sake, also pointed forward to the time when he should again unite with them in drinking of the fruit of the vine in a kingdom where Paul would have no more perils by sea and land to encounter, and where parting would be no more.
That the above view presents the real cause for the breaking of bread alluded to, becomes more apparent when we recollect that the early Christians had no fixed day for this purpose, but were governed entirely by their surroundings. That this is so, will be made evident by referring to Acts ii, 46, where it is stated: “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.” Such was the daily practice of the church at Jerusalem; a church whose opinions should have greater weight with us than those of any other, because its roll of membership bore the names of the apostles, and a large number of those who had been the friends and companions of Christ.
This example of the church at Jerusalem places two propositions beyond the possibility of successful assault. The first is, that the place where they should partake of the eucharist was of no importance; for it was their habit to do so from house to house. The second, that the day on which it was administered was not necessarily a holy one; else we must conclude that they regarded every one in the week as such; for by the record, each of the seven was in turn employed in this manner.
But if the above was true in Jerusalem, it was also true in Troas. That is, if the time and place could be varied at will in the one city, it could in the other. In fact, our adversaries have virtually yielded this point; for the very burden of their argument is to prove that the disciples at Troas communed only on the first day of the week. They thereby confess that they were not acting in harmony with those whom Acts ii, 46, represents as doing this daily.
But how can this conflict in the customs of Christians in different places be explained. The answer is clear. This was considered a matter of local control. One which every community of saints might regulate as their preferences or interests should dictate. The moment you have given your assent to this, however, the question assumes an entirely different aspect. The example of one or more bodies of believers loses its power; for if one could pursue a course at variance with that of another, it could change its own. So that even though you could show by satisfactory evidence, a line of precedents extending through a whole year, and indicating a uniform practice in this matter on the part of a single body, you would not have a solitary guarantee that this continued for one week after the time had elapsed covered by them.
This is forcibly illustrated by the text before us. The writer of the Acts represents the church at Jerusalem as in the outset commencing daily; but no one will insist that this was of long duration. Nay, it may be doubted whether a few months did not find them engaged in this no oftener than once a week, and perhaps a few years, once a month, or once in several months.
How feeble, then, is the hold upon life of that faith which rests its weight upon the slender thread of a single instance. A word of explanation, an allusion to an obsolete usage which was either never understood, or which had escaped the mind for the moment, might give the affair an entirely different complexion. For this reason it occurs not unfrequently, that this class of testimony, like the guns of a captured battery, may be turned upon, and be made to carry confusion and dismay into the ranks of the men who had previously regarded it as their stronghold. If we do not mistake, the case in hand is one of this character. Let us see.
That the gospel of Luke, and the Acts of the apostles, were written by the same individual, is rendered highly probable by the following facts:
1. They are both inscribed to Theophilus.
2. The latter alludes to a former treatise of all that Jesus began to do and teach, as having been made by its author.
3. The writer of the Acts was the companion of Paul in his travels. This was true of Luke, since he is spoken197of by name in 1 Timothy iv, 11, and Colossians iv, 14, as being with him.
A careful perusal of these two books, which cover a period of time stretching from the birth of Christ to about A. D. 63, will not, we think, disclose a single departure from the Jewish system of commencing and ending the day with sundown. A system which is so well understood by Bible students, that it will not be necessary to establish it here by Scripture references. We shall content ourselves, therefore with the following quotation which we present simply to show that there is no conflict between those who keep Sunday, and those who observe the Lord’s Sabbath, on this point.
“The day is distinguished into natural, civil, and artificial. The natural day is one revolution of the earth on its axis. 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. The Babylonians at sunrise; and we begin at midnight. The artificial day is the time of the sun’s continuance above the horizon, which is unequal according to different seasons, on account of the obliquity of the equator. The sacred writers generally divide the day into twelve hours. The sixth hour always ends at noon throughout the year; and the twelfth hour is the last hour before sunset. But in summer, all the hours of the day were longer than in winter, while those of the night were shorter.”—Dictionary of the Holy Bible, published by Tract Society, Art. Day.
Now as it is not to be presumed that Luke has, in the text before us, abruptly and unnecessarily departed from that mode of marking the day which he had elsewhere voluntarily adopted, and consistently pursued, it will be safe to infer that in this case, as in all others in his writings, when mention is made of the first day, it is understood as beginning with the sunset which closed the seventh, and ending with the one which introduced the second.
If so, the next information which we need is in reference to which of those hours, thus bounded, were devoted to the meeting held by Paul in Troas. This will be easily gained. It is found in the following words: “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.” Acts xx, 7.
By reading further, you will learn that after the interruption which was occasioned by the accident that befell Eutychus, Paul, when he was come up again and had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while even till break of day, departed. Thus it appears that the whole night was consumed before the various religious exercises were brought to a close. One half, therefore, of the first day of the week was disposed of in this manner. Which half? That half which was covered by darkness; for when the day is begun at sundown, the evening, or darkness, must precede the morning or light.
It becomes important now, before we jump at the conclusion that this meeting establishes the fact that Paul looked upon the day on which it occurred as holy time, that we should ascertain whether the use to which he put its remaining hours can be made to accord with this theory. If not, then it must fall to the ground. What says the record? We answer,
1. It represents Paul as deliberately planning a journey on the first day of the week. Proof: “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 [or morning], and continued his speech until midnight.” Verse 7. This morrow or morning, we have shown to be a part of the same day on which the meeting was held.
2. That he did really carry his purpose into execution, by starting on foot for Assos, according to previous arrangements. Proof: “When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even until 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 Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so had he appointed, minding himself to
go afloat.” Verses 11-13. Assos was distant from Troas, in a direct line about fifteen miles. This journey Paul performed on foot, on Sunday, while his companions with the vessel went to the same place by the more circuitous route which the shape of the coast made it necessary for them to take.
So long as the sanctity of that day is maintained, no satisfactory explanation of this conduct can be given. Certain it is that the apostle, occupying the position before the believing world which he then did, would have hesitated long before doing any thing which could be construed even into an implied consent to the doctrine that traveling under ordinary circumstances was legitimate on the newly-appointed rest-day. How then, shall the entering upon this trip, at this time, be accounted for? The mariner, out upon the broad expanse of the ocean, may pursue his course on the Sabbath, because there is a necessity upon him which he cannot throw off. But the case of Paul assuredly furnishes no apology, of a physical nature, for the course pursued. Located as he was, in the midst of friends, who were only too happy when they could supply his every want, he was most favorably circumstanced for the observance of that day which it is claimed that he taught others to regard as sacred.
Do you suggest that it was the good of the cause, and that he was pressing forward to fill an appointment which had been previously made? We answer, the probabilities are against you.
1. Because Luke, who seems to have kept a journal of passing events, makes no mention of any meeting at this place, and seems to indicate that the journey was resumed as soon as Paul reached them at that point. He says, verse 14, “And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in and came to Mitylene.”
2. Because Paul, having talked all night, and in addition to this, having walked fifteen miles across the country, could have been in no condition either of mind or body for further labor until exhausted nature should have been recuperated by rest and sleep.
No: a moment’s reflection will, we apprehend, furnish a better explanation of this matter. Paul, being anxious to spend all the time with the disciples at Troas, which he could consistently with his other duties, evidently hit upon a plan whereby his stay with them might be protracted somewhat, and yet his arrival at Jerusalem not be delayed for an hour. A glance at an ancient map will show you that Troas and Assos were seaport towns, situated on opposite sides of a peninsula. The land route, which lay across the base of this, was, therefore, much shorter than that which it was necessary for those to take who passed from town to town by water. So that Paul, while his comrades were engaged in the slow and tedious operation of sailing around this headland, might delay his departure for some time after they had started, and still reach the appointed harbor by way of the overland route in season to go on board of the vessel as soon as she should arrive. This being accomplished, and the sails given to the winds once more, he, while obtaining the required repose would be moving forward toward the point of his destination.
But if we are right in this, further argument is unnecessary. No ingenuity will enable those who have appealed to this text to avert the ruin which it brings upon their cause; for it not only refuses to yield an apostolic precedent for the keeping of Sunday, but it furnishes the most indubitable evidence that it was regarded as belonging to that order of days which might properly be devoted to travel; which was never true of the ancient Sabbath, and which could not, consequently, be of a newly-instituted one which had been clothed with all of its original sanctity.
We might pause here and contrast the claims of the Sabbath, with those of its rival, even when viewed in the light of example. For its friends, unlike those of the latter, may not only defy the world to produce from the sacred pages a single instance in which the apostles ignored its authority, but they can also adduce many in which they are represented as solemnizing it in a suitable manner. Turn if you please to Acts xviii, 4, and you may read as follows: “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” Again, Acts xvi, 13: “And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.” Once more, Acts xiii, 42-44: “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas; who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.”
And so we might continue to collate the passages which bear upon this point, until it had been shown that in more than eighty cases, between the death of Christ and the close of the New Testament history, the Sabbath was celebrated in the exercises of religious rites. But this will not be required at our hands. For, there being, as has been shown, a positive precept for the keeping of the seventh day, this is, in itself prima facie evidence that it was strictly observed at all times by those whose lives were ever made to conform to the divine rule, even though mention had not been made of this fact. Look for example to the five hundred years which intervened between Moses and David, and in which there is not a solitary reference to the Sabbath. No thinking man will urge that this furnishes any good reason for believing that the conscientious among the Hebrews were, during the whole of this period, living in palpable disregard of the fourth commandment. On the contrary, silence under such circumstances should rather be received as a token that they both knew their duty, and were obedient to it on the whole. For had it been otherwise, the Divine displeasure must have been expressed in a manner so terrible, that it could not have failed of finding a place in the sacred history.
The opposite is, however, true of Sunday-keeping. Being nowhere enjoined in express terms, its vindication must be sought for in the sentiments of the early disciples, as enunciated in the record of their sayings and doings. Since it is not to be found there, the conclusion is irresistible that it must have had its origin somewhere this side of their age. For a moment’s thought must satisfy any unprejudiced person, that an innovation so radical as that which would be involved in a change of Sabbaths, would have been the never-failing source of discord and feud between the Jews and Christians, and, as such, must have required a large place both in the historic and the doctrinal books of the New Testament.
We might prolong this argument indefinitely by entering into an examination in detail of the many minor objections which are urged against the perpetuity of the law, and the obligation of the Sabbath. But this is unnecessary, since the same formulas of logic which have been employed in the disposition of those which are more weighty, will, if properly applied, furnish a full and satisfactory answer to these also. We deem it proper, therefore, to bring our labors on this subject to a close. As we do so, our feelings are those of mingled hope and fear: hope that under the providence of God, some may discover in what has been said, the dim outlines of a truth so glorious that they will resolve to make it their own at all hazards; fear, lest others, appalled by the magnitude of the cross which this new duty imposes, should hesitate about carrying out their convictions. To such we would say, falter not for your lives. The coming of the Lord is at hand. The three angels of Revelation xiv, who were to herald his advent, have nearly finished their solemn work. The third, and the last of these, is now sounding the gathering call which is to bring out a people from the world, and prepare them for this glorious event.
Would you be one of the number who are thus separated? There are two conditions precedent. Do you ask what they are? Listen to the voice of the angel as it echoes through the land, and you will catch these words: “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. xiv, 12.
Can you make the sacrifice? Are you willing to drink of the cup of which they are to drink, and be baptized with the baptism with which they are to be baptized? If so, happy, are you.