Untitled article by W. H. Littlejohn

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · September 3, 1867

FromAdvent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. XXX, No. 12

THE LAW OF GOD AND THE SABBATH WHICH IT ORDAINS.

By W. H. Littlejohn

BY W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

(Continued.)

Those with whom we differ, as if conscious that this was at least measurably true, have evidently felt unsafe in resting so important a change upon a basis so inadequate, both as to size and solidity. With a zeal which, in a better cause would have been commendable, they have ransacked the Scriptures in the vain hope of finding something which would make their evidence look as though it were cumulative. For this purpose they have labored with desperate energy to establish a Sunday-keeping practice among the churches which the apostles raised up during their ministry. Two texts are usually quoted for this purpose. The first is 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. xvi, 2.

The line of argument usually resorted to in order to make the above furnish the proof which they desire, runs somewhat as follows: 1. The object which Paul had in view, was that of marking out for the Corinthians, a systematic mode of raising money for the poor saints at Jerusalem, whereby the necessity of any delay might be obviated when he should call upon them on his way to the latter place. 2. To attain this end he gave directions that money should be laid aside for that purpose, on each first-day. 3. This was to be done at the church, each individual placing in the contribution box an amount commensurate with his ability to give. 4. Before this could be carried out, it would be necessary that they should be assembled at their place of meeting on each Sunday which intervened between his epistle and his coming.

The foregoing, as it accords perfectly with the wishes and practices of modern orthodoxy, has been almost universally accepted as sound. But let us examine the successive steps by which the conclusion has been reached, and see if nothing has been taken for granted which was not demonstrable. The first and second points present no apparent defect. The fourth derives its strength from the third, and must stand or fall with it. The third is, therefore, the pivot upon which the whole argument turns. If it is really a legitimate deduction from the language of 1 Cor. xvi, 2, then we shall be compelled to admit that there is at least a shadow of authority for supposing that the Corinthians and Galatians were for the time being united in the practice of assembling on the first-day of the week. But read this third point again. Now turn to the text and tell me what there is in it which justifies the statement that this was to be done at the church, or by a collection in the use of the contribution box. The words church, collection, contribution box, are not so much as mentioned. So far from this, the phraseology is such that it at once excludes the idea that they were in the mind of the apostle when he penned it. Reference is not only not made to a church edifice, but it does not even address the body of believers in their collective capacity. He begins; “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him.” The injunction was to each individual, and it could only be fully carried out, when treated as such. That this is so, and that a church collection did not furnish the method which the apostle had in mind, will be evident from the following:

1. If the place and manner had been essential, they would have been mentioned as was the time. 2. As this was not done, and as there were many modes in which, and places where, one could lay by him money in store, each person must have felt at liberty to consult his own convenience in this regard. 3. As collections during church service are not objectionable from a moral point of view—as the delay which they would have occasioned would not have been sufficient to demand a place in so grave a paper as that of an epistle from an apostle to a church, since the time which they would have required could not have exceeded a few moments—it must be that the gatherings which were sought to be avoided, were something entirely different from the ordinary circulation of the contribution box. 4. As the appeal was a personal one, the gatherings referred to were, doubtless, of the same character; i. e. the end to be attained by having them lay by weekly such amounts as they were respectively able to give, was that of obviating the necessity of collecting the desired sum from outstanding matters after Paul reached their city. Because, should it be postponed till this, they would not only be liable to be disappointed in getting what they wished, but the effort required, and the perplexity attendant thereupon, would render it difficult if not impossible for many to so far exclude these affairs from their thoughts as to be able to preserve that frame of mind which would have been so necessary in order that they should receive all of the benefits which were to be derived from the apostle’s preaching and conversation while present with them. 5. No man can be said to have laid by him in store that which he has voluntarily deposited in the contribution box, either for a general or specific purpose; for the very moment that he did this, he parted with all personal title to, and right of control over, the amount thus donated. By his own free act and deed, he had placed it at the disposal of the church corporate, and it could be applied to the purpose for which it was given, even though he should object, and resort to every means to thwart their plans. Whereas, any one who has property laid by him in store, must of necessity be the rightful owner thereof, and as such, have it laid away in some secure and accessible place where he can reach and appropriate it at will. So that, before you can infer from the text quoted, that the Corinthians habitually came together on the first days mentioned above for the purpose of taking up a collection in church for the saints at Jerusalem, you must think them capable of disobeying the explicit directions of Paul, and substituting for that which he had devised, a plan of their own which was diametrically opposed to it. For on the very first time that they were guilty of doing this, they would have been chargeable with setting the wisdom of Paul at naught, by parting forever with the means which he had requested each one to keep safely in possession till he should come.

Webster, in a note, defines the term “in store,” as equivalent to the expressions “in a state of accumulation, hence in a state of readiness.” If now you have no cherished practice which must be sustained from this passage at all hazards, substitute for the words “in store” those which according to the above, are of like import. It will then need no further explication, as its true meaning will be so obvious it cannot be mistaken.

The object which it was designed to secure, was the institution of a systematic benevolence by which, on a stated day, every one was to set apart for the benefit of his suffering brethren, an amount, large or small, according as the Lord had prospered him, much, or little, in his worldly matters. The reason why a particular day was designated was that method should characterize the work; and as the exact time when the apostle would reach them was necessarily somewhat uncertain, that they should not be found altogether unprepared let him come when he would. The necessity of such a provision will be evident when we recollect that those were not the days of steamboats and rail roads, but that the journey from Ephesus to Corinth was necessarily performed in small sail vessels, and that the passage was either long or short accordingly as the winds were favorable or adverse. The selection of the first day for this purpose, instead of attesting its sanctity, should rather suggest that it was possessed of a secular nature. For the amount to be laid aside at each time, being gauged by the actual prosperity of the individual, and not by the funds on hand, it would be required that each man should inquire into the state of his finances and measure his gift thereby. This, in many instances, would be no small task, and would involve such a revision of business matters as would be incompatible with that freedom from care, and that exemption from the effect produced by the consideration of affairs of a pecuniary nature, which should ever characterize the devotions of a sincere worshiper on a day which the Lord had claimed as his own.

(Concluded next week.)