In entering upon an examination of the propositions laid down in the article entitled, “The First-day Sabbath at Troas,” it will be well for us first to inquire into the object which the writer had in view in presenting them for our consideration. In doing so, we shall find that he does not claim that the test or context of Acts 20:7, furnishes any positive precept for Sunday observance. His effort is merely to establish a custom. Suppose, therefore, that we should grant all that he asks, so far as the church of Troas is concerned, would that prove that Christians universally are under obligation to follow a like custom? We think not, unless it can be shown that God has adopted this mode of inculcating religious duty. But this he has never done. If the writer had first established a positive law, then he might, with some show of reason, appeal to custom to show that that law was interpreted as he understands it; but when he reverses the order, and endeavors to prove the law by the custom, then he has reversed God’s great plan, which is that of teaching by explicit statute.

Furthermore, even should a custom be established, the writer must be able to show that such a custom was kept up, not as a matter of convenience or taste, but because of a conviction of religious duty. In other words, it is possible, to say the least, that the church at Troas were in the habit of meeting on the first day of the week, not because they looked upon it as holy time, but for certain utilitarian purposes, best known to themselves. Let us furnish an illustration precisely in point:—

Should some person, eighteen hundred years hence—provided time should last so long—write a history of the present period, as he cast his eye over the literature of our day, he would find that, in all parts of this country, Christians were in the habit of assembling on Wednesday evening, for the purposes of worship. Would he, therefore, be justified in concluding that Wednesday is regarded by us as peculiarly sacred to the Lord? You answer, No, and most properly, for you know that our motives are entirely different from what he would understand them to be. So, too, with Troas. Granted, for the sake of the argument, that, as the writer claims, they were in the habit of assembling on the late Sunday evening; it by no means follows that they did so because they regarded it as devoted to the Lord. Does he say that they partook of the sacrament on that day? Grant that, for the sake of the argument. But does not every student of the Bible know, and is it not the conviction of the world to-day, that the Lord’s supper can be partaken of with as much propriety at one time as at another? Is it not a fact that the time of its institution did not coincide with Sunday? Is it not true that originally they partook of it on all days of the week? (Acts 2:42, 46.) If so, it would manifestly be unsafe to attach any special significance to the fact that, at this time, it was celebrated on the Sunday, So much for the hypothesis of the custom, in question.

Now that we have said what we have with reference to a custom made out, it will be well to inquire in the next place, Has the writer established the usage which he sought to prove? If so, we have failed to discover the process by which it has been done. Has he found an explicit statement that the church at Troas was in the habit of meeting on the first day of the week? Very far from it. Having traced the sacred narrative for twenty-six years—mark it, reader, over one-fourth of a century—he has found a solitary assembly of Christians convened on the first day of the week. But what were the facts in the case? Was this an ordinary occasion? Were they by themselves alone? No; it was a time of unusual interest. The great apostle to the Gentiles was there, paying them a flying visit. He was about to depart on the morrow. It was perhaps the last time they would ever see him. They wanted to partake of the emblems of the Lord’s body from his venerated hand. They wanted to shake that hand in a final farewell, and to plant the kiss of love upon his careworn face. The circumstances, then, were unusual. The same combination of facts might never exist again. There is, therefore, so far as the general view is concerned, nothing which would justify the decision that they had ever convened for like reasons, previously, at the same time of the week, or that they ever would thereafter. The writer evidently felt this, and, with an acuteness of intellectual perception which to the common mind is almost incredible, he has discovered overwhelming support for his theory, where the ordinary reader would have discerned none.

How strange it is that, again and again, we find that the strongholds of Sunday sanctity are located just beyond the boundary where the man of average ability and learning is permitted to go. The Greek, he is told, has a significance which, if lightly expressed, would establish a custom beyond all doubt. Well, we have seen above what the value of a custom is, unless explained. But we ask—and we ask it in the behalf of the millions who have never so much as seen even the Greek alphabet, and yet to whom eternal life is as precious as to the man of letters—can it be possible that God has suspended the terrible realities of Heaven and hell upon the discharge of a duty vailed from their eyes by the obscurity of a language whose mysteries they can never hope to penetrate? For, mark it, this is not one of those points which can be settled without difficulty, even by those familiar with the tongue in question. Were our learning equal to that of the gentleman who has penned the criticism under consideration, we might flatly contradict the statements which he makes; but this would simply serve to produce a dead-lock in the mind of the reader, while he remained as far from a satisfactory solution of the difficulty as ever. The only reply which we shall make, therefore, is as follows:—

The distinction drawn between the present text and the original is either obscure, or it is obvious. If it is obscure, it is unimportant; if obvious, then it could be seen by scholars, and is so important that it would have attracted universal attention and comment by first-day writers and translators. What, therefore, are the facts in the case? Certain it is that, if it exists at all, it escaped the notice of the translators of our common version. That they would have given a rendering as favorable to the first day as the facts would warrant, no man will dispute. The suggestion that the text would bear the translation, “we having come together to break bread,” &c.,^[5] while it does not materially alter the sense, so far as the practice of the church at Troas is concerned, if admissible, renders it highly probable that Luke and his associates were there until the breaking of the bread; a point which we shall use hereafter. In the meantime, we give the following translations in order to show the conviction of their authors, respecting the meaning of the original:—

“And on the first day of the week, when we assembled,” &c.—Syriac.

“On the first day of the week, when we were met together.”—Wesley, N. T., with Notes.

“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples were got together.”—Wakefield.

“And on the first day of the week, the disciples being assembled.”—Whiting.

“And on the first day of the week, we, having come together to break bread.”—Am. Bible Union.

“And on the first day of the week, we being assembled to break bread.”—Sawyer.

“And on the first day of the week, when the disciples met together.”—Doddridge in Campbell and Macknight’s Trans.

“And on the first day of the week, we having assembled.”—Emphatic Diaglott.

We think the reader is now ready to admit that the traces of a custom which relies for its existence upon an original text, rendered as given above by so many different persons, none of whom can be charged with favoring the seventh-day Sabbath, are, to say the least, too faint to be of practical argumentative utility. To our mind, the inference is simply this: Paul, about to depart on his journey to Jerusalem, appointed, for himself and his companions and the disciples at Troas, a final meeting, at which it was announced that the Eucharist would be celebrated. At this meeting, all the parties came together, agreeably to the announcement previously made, and partook of the Lord’s supper. A fitting close of a week of apostolic labor in an Asiatic city.

The next item worthy of our attention is found in the hypothesis, that, during the time Paul was at Troas, the seventh day of the week was passed by without any religious meeting occurring thereupon; and that Paul waited until the arrival of the first day, because that was the one on which the meetings of the church were regularly held. How a writer so intimately acquainted with the character and labors of St. Paul, the individual in question undoubtedly is, could draw the inference which he has, is more than we can fathom. Who, that has read the history of a man whose nervous activity drove him to dispute daily in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9), and to seek every opportunity for the presentation of his gospel to the Jews in their synagogues, and the Greeks in their places of public gathering, could be induced to believe that he could remain for seven long days in the city of Troas without a solitary religious assembly, until the expiration of that time? And yet this is the very decision which we are called upon to indorse. Before we can do this, however, we ask for the proof. The answer is, it must be so, because the record contains no account of the holding of such meetings until the first day of the week.

But is this satisfactory? Do not all the circumstances of the case, as well as the temperament and character of Paul, render certain the act that such meetings were held, even, though it is not stated in so many words? Paul with a Christian church at Troas for one week, and not preach to them! Impossible. To show the writer that the mention of religions meetings in brief history is not necessary in order to prove that they occurred on a given day, or on stated days, let me call his attention to the fact, that, between the day of Pentecost and the meeting at Troas, according, to his own showing, there were at least twenty-six intervening years; that during those years, agreeably to his view, there were thirteen hundred and fifty-two first-days, all of which were holy time, and nearly all of which must have been honored by stated meetings on the part of the apostles; and yet, out of that whole number, he only claims to produce the record of one solitary day on which such meeting occurred. What are the facts, then? Paul probably preached every day of the seven, while he was at Troas. Do you ask why the account is not given of such meetings in the book of the Acts? I answer that the Holy Spirit was giving, through Luke, a succinct history of the more striking occurrences which transpired in their travels. The story of the first-day meeting at Troas found its way into the sacred narrative, because its importance to after generations was enhanced by the accidental fall, and the miraculous restoration to life of Eutychus, and perhaps by other facts connected with that event, of equal interest. I think that one of them was a disposition on the part of God to provide his commandment-keeping servants in succeeding generations with a passage in the life of Paul, which should forever silence the cavils of men who should undertake to belittle his ancient Sabbath, and to foist into its place a day which He never commanded. This we will further consider in our next point.

Having endeavored to establish the point that the seventh-day Sabbath was not observed at Troas, an effort is made to show that a change of time had occurred, so that Luke, in giving his account of the transactions mentioned above, treated the day as commencing and ending, not according to the Jewish method, with the setting of the sun, but after the Roman fashion, with midnight. The reader will readily discover the object to be gained by this maneuver, if such I may be allowed to call it. We had insisted that the first day of the week commenced at sunset; that Paul met with the disciples in the dark portion of that day (verse 8), preached to them during that night, and on the next morning commenced a journey of nineteen and a half miles on foot, on that which answered to the daylight portion of our Sunday. This, if true, with the majority of readers, would have forever settled the question that Paul did not believe in first-day sanctity. A remedy, therefore, must be had. The gentleman thinks he has found one. That he has made a desperate effort to obtain it, we are compelled to admit. No man, it seems to us would ever resort to an experiment so hazardous, who did not find himself in the stress of a situation which otherwise would be utterly insupportable. With the most deliberate calculation, and in the face of authority which he himself highly honors, he has decided that the journey in question occurred on the second day of the week, instead of the first, which ended at twelve o’clock the previous night. Well, suppose we admit, for a moment, that this was true; what then? The Sunday is thereby rescued from profanation by Paul; but it is also true that the second day of the week is thereby honored with the meeting of a Christian church, and that it was it, and not the first, after all, which was honored by the breaking of bread during its hours.^[6] So much for some of the consequences of the position, if well taken.

But now let us turn to the argument for the change. Is it really true that Roman, and not Jewish, time, is employed in a portion of the New Testament? If so, the perplexities of the situation are very great. How shall we know when to apply the one, and when the other? How can we tell precisely where the dividing line should be drawn? We hope, in all conscience, independently of the question at issue, that the writer is not correct. He seems to find the first intimation of a change in the gospels. Matt. 28:1, and John 20:19, are referred to in support of his view. Now suppose we concede for a time the point which he desires, and admit that these passages prove the use in them of Roman time; also that, as he claims, the meeting spoken of in John 20:19, occurred in the evening (Roman time), and after the coming on of darkness. This done, we inquire, Was it a Jewish day or a Roman day that was sanctified by the resurrection of Christ, and his appearance to his assembled disciples? We think that few will dispute that it was a Jewish day.

But when did the Jewish day commence? The undeniable answer is, At sunset. But when did Christ appear to the disciples, according to Roman time, as argued? We answer, In the darkness of the evening, and, therefore, after the ending of the Jewish first day. What is the necessary conclusion? We reply, One of two things. 1. Either that the visit of Christ had no reference to the sanctity of the day on which it occurred; or 2. That it was designed to honor the second day of the Jewish week. We leave the writer in question to take whichever horn of this dilemma he pleases. If he should insist that John employed Roman time, then all which he has said in reference to the effect of the visit of Christ upon the first day of the Jewish week is emptied of all force. Never was self-stultification more complete. In his effort to escape from the paws of the Trojan bear (secular travel on Sunday), the writer has thrown himself into the jaws of the lion (no Scripture precedent for Sunday-keeping). For, if he is right in supposing that the meeting in John 20:19, occurred on the Roman evening of that day—that is, after sunset, and the coming on of darkness—then, of course, it did not transpire on the Jewish first day of the week, which had previously ended, according to his own admission, at the going down of the sun; but it actually took place after the commencement of the second day of the Jewish week.

Not only so, but the second meeting, of Christ with his disciples (after eight days), according to his own reasoning, must have fallen on the second Jewish day of the next week. And, finally, accepting his logic that the meeting of Acts 20:7, also fell on the Roman evening of the first day of the week, that precedent, so long cherished, and so often cited, is now forever disposed of, since it, too, illustrates the second Jewish day of the week, and not the first, if, indeed, it adds luster to any. But, reader, it would be neither Christian nor manly to adopt an exegesis of Scripture presented by an opponent, simply because such an exegesis would prove his overthrow. Truth is worth more than mere victory. The gentleman has made a mistake in deciding that Roman time is employed in the Bible, and that mistake has brought him to confusion. But now we propose to show that Roman time is not employed, even though in so doing we shall assist him out of his trouble for the time being. Let no one suppose, however, that the relief which we shall afford him will be permanent, for, unfortunately for him, we shall rescue him from one death simply to deliver him to another.

The whole question turns upon the commencement and end of the Bible day. If it can be shown that it began and terminated with the setting of the sun, then, beyond all dispute, the meeting in Troas occurred at the commencement of the first day of the week, at the coming on of darkness, the only period in that day when lights could be employed to advantage (verse 8). We proceed, therefore, to our task. We have heretofore quoted from the Tract Society’s Bible Dictionary, under the article, day, to prove a general agreement that the Hebrews commenced and ended their day with the setting of the sun. In addition to this, we might refer the reader to Smith’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the Bible on the same subject. In fact, we might multiply authorities without end; but this is not necessary here. By turning to Genesis, chapter 1, the reader will find that God measured the day by “the evening and the morning” (darkness and light). He will here observe that with the ancient Hebrews the whole night preceded the day to which it belonged. Advancing to Leviticus 23:32, he will there read the command of God, that the people should keep their Sabbaths “from even to even.” But as the Sabbath was the last day of the week, and was to commence and end with the evening, he will discover that it will be necessary that all the other days should commence and end in the same manner.

Passing now to the New Testament, he will find the same custom prevailing in the days of our Lord. Nay, more; he will there obtain the authority of Luke himself, who wrote the book of Acts, for believing that Christ and the Jews followed that system of beginning and ending the day which God had inaugurated in the outset. We read in Luke 4:40: “Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases, brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them.” By tracing back the event, as given by Luke, in its parallel, as found in Mark 1, we find that Christ was healing in the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and that he subsequently repaired to the house of Peter, and healed his wife’s mother; and that, “at even, when the sun did set,” the Jews brought to him all those that were diseased, and possessed with devils, for the purpose of having him heal them. This, however, they could not have done on the Sabbath day, according to their views; therefore they prove that the custom was still prevalent among them of ending the days with the setting of the sun. But, furthermore, has it not been argued by the writer himself, that the day of Pentecost was coincident with the first day of the week? We think this will hardly be disputed. If it be true, however, and if the logic be sound, that the Spirit which was poured out on the day of Pentecost was designed to indicate that it corresponded with the Christian Sabbath, then we need not argue further, for no man will deny that that day was emphatically Jewish in its beginning and ending.

This army of Scripture testimony, gleaned from a history of 4000 years, if met at all, it will be necessary that it should be done by clear and emphatic statements emanating from the same source from which the authorities in question are drawn. Has the gentleman furnished any such evidence? The reader will readily discover that he has not. The only texts brought forward in support of the change upon which he insists are John 20:19, and Matt. 28:1. In reference to the first of these, it will only be required that attention should be called to the fact that, with the Hebrews, each day had two evenings. (Exodus 12:6, margin; and Numbers 9:3, and 28:4, margin.) On this point, the Bible Dictionary says: “The Hebrews reckoned two evenings in each day.... According to the Karaites, this time between the evenings is the interval from sunset to complete darkness, that is, the evening twilight. According to the Pharisees and the Rabbins, the first evening began when the sun inclined to descend more rapidly; that is, at the ninth hour; while the second or real evening commenced at sunset.” (Art. Evening.) Now let it be supposed that Christ met with his disciples somewhere between three o’clock and sunset, on the day of the resurrection, and the statement that he met with them the “same day at evening,” is at once verified, and the necessity for the supposition of a change of time disappears.

In explanation of Matt. 28:1, we cannot do better, perhaps, than to append the following comment from Albert Barnes: “The word end, here means the same as after the Sabbath; i. e., after the Sabbath was fully completed, or finished, and may be expressed in the following manner: ‘In the night following the Sabbath; for the Sabbath closed at sunset, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.’” That Mr. Barnes is right in his criticism, will become apparent when we compare Matt. 28:1, with the parallel passage in Mark 16:1, 2, where the same historic fact is introduced with these words: “When the Sabbath was past.” A complete harmony is thus preserved between the two evangelists, and all requisition for the extreme resort to the hypothesis of a sudden and unprecedented employment of the Roman system for the computation of time is dispensed with.

As it regards the objection, which is based upon the use made in Acts 20:7, of the words, “on the morrow,” we reply that it is not well taken. That it was perfectly compatible with a Jewish custom, when speaking of the daylight portion of any day from the stand-point of the previous evening, to allude to it as “the morrow,” we cite the following passages: “Then the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul, and brought him by night to Antipatris. On the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him, and returned to the castle.” Acts 23:31, 32. “Saul also sent messengers unto David’s house, to watch him, and to slay him in the morning; and Michal, David’s wife, told him, saying, If thou save not thy life to-night, to-morrow thou shalt be slain.” 1 Samuel 19:11.

In addition to the above texts, we might quote the authority of Mr. Howson, who is so justly complimented for his scholarship by the writer. He cannot be charged with leaning toward our views of the Sabbath, and, therefore, if he had any bias in the case, it would be against, and not in favor of, the position which we are trying to maintain. If there was really any force in the criticism which is offered respecting the use of the preposition and the term with which it is connected, assuredly the discriminating eye of this gentleman would not have allowed it to escape detection. Nevertheless, he, as the writer admits, deliberately decides, while examining at length the very passages now before us, that the events there spoken of, journey and all, did transpire on the Sunday. In doing so, it follows, as a matter of course, that he did not regard the difficulty which is urged concerning the words, “on the morrow,” as one at all formidable.

Thus much by way of a brief refutation of the diversity theory for the commencing of the days of the Bible. We have seen heretofore, that, if the advocate of this theory were right and we wrong, he has lost to his cause the three precedental meetings of John 20:19, John 20:26, and Acts 20:7, since they occurred on the second, and not the first, Jewish day of the week. Let us now view the situation from the stand-point of one who believes that the sacred, instead of the heathen, method is followed consistently throughout the Scriptures. In Acts 20:7, the text which is passing under review, it is said that there was a meeting held upon the first day of the week, and that Paul preached until midnight. It now becomes important to know on what portion of the first day of the week this meeting fell. By examining the record, we find the statement that there were many lights employed in the chamber where they were gathered. We know, therefore, that the meeting must have taken place during the dark portion of the first day of the week. But as we have seen that the Jewish day commenced with sunset, the only hours of darkness which belong to it were to be found between that time and the next morning. Advancing, we learn that, having spent the night in preaching, breaking of bread, &c., the apostle devoted the daylight portion of the first day of the week to the accomplishment of a journey of nineteen and a half miles, while his companions sailed the vessel a greater distance round the headland to Assos. Here, then, is apostolic example for travel upon the first day of the week. The writer endeavored to escape this conclusion, by asserting that the meeting in question and the travel took place on the second day of the week. This view, we have met, and successfully answered. The record states that it was upon the first day of the week when they came together. It then proceeds to give a connected account of what transpired on that day, and among other things, is found the story of Paul and his companions starting for Jerusalem. Now, if the events related did really transpire on two days, instead of on one merely, as would naturally be inferred from the context, the burden of the proof is with our opponent. We rest the matter, therefore, right here. The only attempt which he has made has been a complete failure. That he thought it was the best he could do under the circumstances, we doubt not.

There remains now no item of difference between ourselves and the writer in the Statesman which should occupy us longer. For, between him and myself there is no room for dispute respecting the morality of traveling on the Sabbath, since, according to his own confession, the object which Paul had in remaining at Troas was that of a good “Sabbath-keeping Christian,” who was unwilling to violate the sacredness of holy time by the performance of secular labor. Here, then, we pause. As we do so, we appeal to the judgment of the candid men and women who have read the criticism of our friend and our reply thereto. Did Paul conscientiously regard the first day of the week, while traveling on foot nineteen and a half miles upon it, and did Luke and his six companions, in sailing a much greater distance on the same hours, transgress the law of God, and ignore the example of Christ; or, did they look upon the first day of the week as one which God had given to man for the purposes of labor and travel? If you still decide that it was holy time, you must be able to reconcile their action with this theory. This, however, you can never do. If, on the contrary, you shall determine that they treated it as a secular day, then it remains so still, for its character has not changed from that day to this.