The Constitutional Amendment: or, The Sunday, the Sabbath, the Change, and Restitution: A discussion between W. H. Littlejohn, Seventh-day Adventist, and the editor of the Christian StatesmanLittlejohn, Wolcott H.
Religion
The Constitutional Amendment: or, The Sunday, the Sabbath, the Change, and Restitution: A discussion between W. H. Littlejohn, Seventh-day Adventist, and the editor of the Christian Statesman
Littlejohn, Wolcott H.
Sabbath; Seventh-Day Adventists -- Doctrinal and controversial works; Sunday; Sunday legislation -- United States
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.
Footnote 5:
As it is not insisted that this translation is a correct one, I shall
not turn aside for the purpose of showing, as might easily be done,
from the original, that it is not admissible where the rule of strict
construction is followed.
Footnote 6:
The honoring of the second day here alluded to rests upon the
hypothesis that the breaking of bread spoken of in Acts 20:11, answers
to the Lord’s supper. It is, however, by no means certain that this
was the case, since scholars differ widely in opinion respecting the
matter; some holding to the opinion that reference was made to the
Lord’s supper, and others to the view that the breaking of bread
referred merely to a common meal.
STATESMAN’S REPLY.
ARTICLE SIX
TESTIMONY OF PAUL AND JOHN TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.
Two important portions of the inspired records remain to be considered.
The first of these reads as follows: “Now concerning the collection for
the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do
ye. 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. 16:1, 2.)
From this passage it is clear that the churches of Galatia, as well as
the church at Corinth, or that Christians generally, were required to
set apart a proportion of their worldly goods, as God prospered them,
for benevolent purposes. It is also clear that the act of setting apart
the required proportion of means was to be performed statedly, every
week, on the first day of the week.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account