"A WEIGHTY AND TIMELY UTTERANCE."
By Editor
Our good friend, the editor of the Herald of Truth (Baptist), has shown zeal in his efforts to uphold the Sunday-Sabbath, which would be commendable if it were in a better cause. He has ransacked the coast from Washington Territory to Southern California to find men who had skill in making assertions appear to be argument, and has had several different men try their hands at building under the Sunday institution a cobweb support which would look strong and beautiful if not examined too closely. It has been of slight importance that these men have differed materially in many of their statements, since they all agreed in one thing, namely, that Sunday is the Sabbath, and this conclusion would serve to satisfy people who are already convinced. It would seem, however, that their efforts have not fully satisfied the editor of the Herald, for of late he has been very earnest in his endeavor to have the State Legislature enact a law compelling all people to keep Sunday. From this it appears that he has not the utmost confidence in the power of the arguments of his correspondents to substantiate the claims of Sunday. The strongest argument for Sunday, namely, the law of the land, has been reserved for the last. We do not wonder that the editor of the Herald thinks it necessary to appeal to something besides theological arguments, when we read the last one that was offered before he began to work for the civil argument. It was written by one Gilbert S. Bailey, D. D., and although the editor said in regard to it, "It is not often that the Herald of Truth carries such a weighty and timely utterance of an honored Baptist, as in this number," we think that on second reading he must have revised his opinion. The article, however, was thought worthy of being put in tract form for extensive circulation, and we notice it, not because it contains anything which the SIGNS has not answered again and again, but chiefly that our readers may understand just what, among California Baptists at least, is considered "a weighty and timely utterance" in behalf of Sunday. After a paragraph of assertions, the Doctor states the following proposition, which he says he will prove:— "The disciples of Christ commenced the religious observance of the first day of the week immediately after the resurrection of Christ, and Christ himself was present with them and gave them his sanction and blessing." This proposition he considers under three heads: 1. The Scripture proof. 2. Proofs from church history. 3. Testimony of the Fathers. The first text which he quotes in proof of his proposition is John 20:19: "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 said unto them, Peace be unto you." On this text the Doctor says: "Four times on this day of his resurrection he appeared to his disciples, and this last time is particularly described." "Jesus imparted to his disciples the Holy Spirit, and gave the highest possible approval of their meeting, and appointed them as embassadors. They were thus endowed with the Holy Spirit to guide their own conduct, and to guide them in teaching others." In harmony with his statement that the disciples began the observance of the first day of the week immediately after the resurrection of Christ, the Doctor evidently means to convey the idea that the disciples were gathered together in a religious meeting in honor of Christ's resurrection. That this assumption has no foundation whatever in fact, may be seen by anyone who will take the trouble to read a few texts of Scripture. We will notice those texts which refer to the day of his resurrection. "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not." Mark 16:9-11. No comment is needed on this, and we will let the sacred historian proceed with his narrative: "After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue; neither believed they them." Verses 12, 13. This appearance to the two disciples who were going into the country is described in detail in Luke 24:13-25. There we learn that as they were walking along the road, Jesus joined them, but they did not recognize him. They had heard the story of the women to whom Jesus had appeared earlier in the day, but did not believe that Jesus was risen. And it was not until they sat down to supper that Jesus made himself known to them. Verses 30, 31. This was at the close of the day. Verse 29. They immediately arose and returned to Jerusalem, a distance of eight miles, and found the eleven gathered together, to whom they told the experience of the day. But as we have already learned from Mark 16:12, 13, the eleven did not believe them. This is made still more evident from Luke's account of the appearing of Christ to the eleven, for he says that when Jesus came into their midst and said, "Peace be unto you," they were terrified. Jesus, noticing their terror, showed them his hands and his feet to convince them that he was a real being and the one whom they had seen crucified. And even then, although the truth was beginning to force itself upon them, "they yet believed not for joy." Here, then, we have some of the particulars concerning the meeting spoken of in John 20:19, and we find that instead of having a meeting to commemorate Christ's resurrection, the disciples did not believe that he had risen. Thus the first text which the Doctor quotes in support of his proposition contradicts it. But this is not all. Mark tells what they were doing there together that evening. After having told how Jesus appeared to the two as they went into the country, and how they had told the eleven but had not been believed, he continues: "Afterward he appeared unto 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. Thus we find that instead of holding a religious meeting on the evening of that first day, they were simply eating supper, and so Christ appeared to them and asked them for something to eat, in order that he might convince them that he was not a phantom but a real being. They had food ready at hand, "and they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of a honey-comb. And he took it, and did eat before them." Luke 24:42, 43. Now if the reader wishes to know how the disciples happened to be together that evening, he may read Acts 1:12, 13, where he will find that they all lived at the same place. From the time of the last Passover until the day of Pentecost the disciples had one dwelling-place. So, then, the idea that when Jesus met with the disciples on the evening of the resurrection they were holding a religious service in honor of his resurrection, is not merely an unwarranted assumption, but is a positive contradiction of the Scriptures. This is a fair specimen of these "weighty and timely utterances" in behalf of the Sunday. The editor of the Herald of Truth says that his paper is not often honored with such a "weighty and timely utterance" on the Sunday question as this of Mr. Bailey's. If that is so, he has cause to congratulate himself. But there is still another point. The Doctor quotes with great confidence the fact that Jesus said to the disciples, "Peace be unto you." He says: "Jesus imparted to his disciples his Holy Spirit and gave the highest possible approval of their meeting, and appointed them as embassadors. They were thus endowed with the Holy Spirit to guide their own conduct and to guide them in teaching others." But what has this to do with the sanctifying of Sunday? He said, "Peace be unto you," and not, "Blessed is this day." He endowed the disciples with the Holy Ghost, but imparted no sacredness to the day. First-day writers are wont to lay great stress on the fact that Jesus blessed his disciples one Sunday evening, as though that imparted any sacredness to the day. If they could show an instance where the day itself was blessed, it would be more to their purpose. Some may, however, think with Dr. Bailey, that by thus breathing on the disciples and imparting to them the Holy Spirit, he "gave the highest possible approval to their meeting;" but when they remember what we have already proved, that their meeting was simply a family gathering around the supper-table, they will hardly think that an every-day affair like that needed a special act of divine approval. If the reader will bear in mind that what Jesus said was to his disciples, and not about a day, they will be saved from jumping at a false conclusion. When Jesus said to his disciples, "Peace be unto you," it was without the slightest thought of specially sanctioning what they were doing, but because they were terrified at his appearance when they supposed that he was dead. John 20:19 would never be quoted as an argument for the sacredness of Sunday if that institution were not in desperate straits. An unprejudiced person who did not know that the Sunday must be maintained at all hazards, would read that text a thousand times and never got the idea that it could be used as an argument for Sunday.