תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

practice of the Christians to observe the day according to the Jewish manner, that is, to consider it as beginning at 6 o'clock on the preceding evening. It is much more probable that they considered the day and night as we do, without any respect to the Mosaic law. Our Lord's resurrection took place very early on what we call Sunday morning, John xx. 1. It is also certain, from John xx. 19, that the first assembly of the disciples was on that Sunday afternoon. It is also most likely, though it cannot be proved, that the meeting of the next Sunday, as well as the vast assemblage of persons on the day of Pentecost, came together in the day-time of Sunday, not on Saturday evening. Add to this, that although the Jewish Sabbath began on Friday at even, the Sabbatical service was in the day-time of Saturday: more than all the Sunday's service is commemorative of our Saviour's resurrection from the grave. Is it not then contrary to all reason that his resurrection should be commemorated on Saturday evening, at which time it had not taken place? You see therefore how every probability is in favor of the notion that the religious assembly in Acts xx. took place on Sunday afternoon, and that St. Paul had travelled on the preceding Jewish Sabbath, whereby the transfer of the day consecrated to religious purposes, from the last to the first day of the week, appears plainly indicated. But here again I might grant your assertion" that the preaching of Paul did take place on the Saturday night, after 6 o'clock, and that the Apostle did travel on the Sunday," without any prejudice to my own argument. As far as St. Paul's preaching goes, even on your own showing, it proves that the disciples had met together on the first day of the week, for the purpose of breaking bread, i. e. of celebrating the Lord's Supper. As for his travelling on the Sunday, call it an offence if you please, it does not render that assembly less an assembly, nor the custom, if it was one, less a custom. But in fact it was no offence at all: we want no proof that either he or the disciples kept the Sunday as a Sabbath; nay, we even deny that they did so. Moreover, Paul's travelling was that of a missionary in the service of a Master, who had taught that works of charity and mercy, even performed on the Sabbath, were no transgression of the law.

Having thus endeavored to answer your statements in this passage, I must now beg leave to comment on your omissions. You observe, sect. 61, "that there are only three passages in the New Testament which make mention of the Apostles' being assembled on the first day of the week." Surely the day of Pentecost has slipped your memory, when, as the historian of the Acts informs us, "they were all with one accord in one place;" when the Holy Ghost descended visibly on the followers of Christ, thus sanctifying the day in the most eminent manner possible.

Your omission of the epithet given by St. John' to this day, which so strongly marks the customary celebration of its religious ordinances, is not to be urged against you as a breach of memory, inasmuch as you subsequently deny the conclusion drawn from the Apostle's expression. You derive the epithet xupiaxès from the Sun, which Deity you observe is frequently styled xúpios, or Dominus, "the Lord Sun." Now not to mention the extreme improbability of a disciple of Jesus giving a name to this his peculiar day derived from an idolatrous source; why, it may be asked, do you not give the same meaning to the epithet in the only other instance in which it is used in the New Testament? why do you not suppose devov xupíaxov, or the Lord's Supper, to be derived from Apollo's Delphic feasts? Moreover, in your argument you endeavor to prove too much; you say that the Sun was called Dominus Sol, and thence the day Dies Dominica, just as the Moon was called Domina; but there your analogy fails; you can bring no instance to show that Monday was ever styled Dies Dominica, or Lady's Day: you have not indeed produced any example of the Sun's being called Dominus, or xúgios; but I am not inclined to deny the fact, or even that the Greek word as itself may be derived from the Phoenician Hel or Hal, which signifies Lord, and is the root of the Hebrew Elohim: neither do I deny that Sunday is so named from that day being dedicated to the Sun: but what has this derivation to do with the sanctity of our Christian ordinance ? Whenever that day is mentioned by the early Christians as Sunday, it is called,λíov hμépa, or Dies Solis, which evidently shows that they understood the term huépa xupiaxy in a different sense. And why was the term λíov μépa, or Dies Solis, used by them at all? Because when they were writing apologies to Pagans, or holding an argument with them, they expressed themselves thus, in order that they might be clearly understood. For example, Justin Martyr, writing to a Roman emperor, adopts the name common to Pagans, lou épav; but when he writes to Trypho, a Jew, he calls the Lord's Day, unam Sabbati (the first day of the week), in compliance with the Jewish custom. If you will look into Eusebius Tepì Tns huépas, (p. 2.) you will find it stated that the day was called ἡμέρα κυριακή, because it was considered as κυρία τῶν ἡμέρων ; for before the death and resurrection of our Saviour it was called Tрúτη μépα. In fact the day happened to be that which was called 'the Sun's day;' but no more took its appellation from the Sun than it did from the Moon.

With regard to your observation, that many of the early Christians did strictly observe the Jewish Sabbath, I deny not the fact as far as regards the converts from Judaism; but this only proves the forbearance and toleration shown by the Apostles and first

' Rev. i. 10. ἡμέρᾳ κυριάκῃ.

rulers of the Church. Circumcision was in like manner permitted to these early converts; but they were rebuked when they wished to burthen the consciences of their fellow Christians with the observance of this and other rites of the Mosaic law.

Your remarks in Sect. 71, on 1 Cor. xvi. 2, where you represent the Apostle's recommendation to his converts of laying by a portion of their wealth in store for their indigent brethren, as an exhortation to settle their accounts, as it were with book and ledger, need no answer. But even if such business had been required of them, your very next paragraph would afford one; for I fairly acknowledge myself unable to see in the text quoted, or in any other text of Scripture a proof that Christians are obliged to keep the first day of the week as a Jewish Sabbath.

I must now bring this letter to a conclusion, having proved, 1 hope, satisfactorily, 1. That God's ordinance concerning the sanctification of the seventh day did exist from the very creation of the world. 2. That the additional observances attached to this ordinance constituted it a Sabbath, sign and covenant to the Jews, which was to last until the repeal of their ceremonial and political law took place. 3. That when that repeal did take place by the manifestation of the Messiah, the original ordinance of God still remained; that it was acknowledged by Christ and his Apostles, sanctioned by the Holy Spirit of God, and kept as a sacred festival through all the successive ages of the Church. With the decrees which may have been promulgated concerning it in later ages I have nothing to do, but to obey them when they are legally instituted, and not contrary to the word of God. Concerning the manner of keeping holy the seventh day, I leave this to every man's own reason and conscience, merely remarking, that, if we go back to its origin, we shall find that a rest from the ordinary business of life appears to lie at the very foundation of the institution. Our best guide in all such matters will be the practice of the Apostolic ages, as far as it can be collected. Lastly, I conceive that a day spent in the worship of God, in meditation on his word, in reading his law, and in appropriate conversation with our friends and neighbors, though it may not be enlivened with cricket and football, is any thing but a gloomy, puritanical, pharisaical employment; and when Sunday is described by ancient writers as a day of rejoicing, and a festival, they, like David and other pious characters, do not consider its festivity as consisting in secular amusements, much less in riotous or intemperate pleasures.

I am, Sir,
Your very obedient Servant,
T. S. HUGHES.

CAMBRIDGE,
June 13, 1826.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« הקודםהמשך »