Earlier text: General ArticlesWe must now resume the narrative of the triple division of the dominions of Clovis—Austrasia, Neustria, and Burgundy. Before the end of the sixth century we may mark the rise of a new character, the Mayor of the Palace, which finally developed the glorious era of Charlemagne. The last of the line of Clovis—the Merovingians—who possessed or displayed any of the characteristics of a king, was Dagobert. After his death in A. D. 638, the kings dwindled into insignificance, if not idiocy, and the Mayors of the Palace assumed sole authority, yet always in the name of the "do-nothing" kings; and the struggle for supremacy was kept up between the Mayors, as it had been before by the kings. Finally, in A. D. 687, Pepin of Heristal, Mayor of the Palace, of Austrasia, defeated Berthar, Mayor of Neustria, at the battle of Testry, and so brought the contest virtually to an end. "From that time to the end of his life, in A. D. 714, Pepin of Heristal was unquestioned master of all Franks, the kings under him being utterly insignificant." Pepin of Heristal was succeeded by his son Charles, who in A. D. 732 won the name of Martel—the Hammer—by the crushing defeat which he gave the Saracens under Abdel-Rahman at the battle of Tours. Charles Martel died October 22, 741, and left his dominions divided between his two sons, Pepin the Short, and Carloman. Pepin had Neustria, Burgundy, Provence and the suzerainty of Aquitaine. Carloman had Austrasia, Thuringia, and Allemania. Each, however, with only the title of Mayor of the Palace. In 746 Carloman abdicated his power, left his dominions to Pepin, had Pope Zachary to make him a monk, and shut himself up in the monastery of Monte Cassino. In 747 Pepin the Short found himself sole master of all the heritage of Clovis, but still with the title of Mayor of the Palace. At last in 751 he decided to put an end to the fiction. He sent an embassy to the Pope to consult him "on the subject of the kings then existing amongst the Franks, and who bore only the name of king without enjoying a tittle of royal authority." The Pope, who had been already posted on the matter, answered that "it was better to give the title of king to him who exercised the sovereign power." Accordingly the next year in March, 752, "in the presence and with the assent of the general assembly" at Soissons, Pepin was proclaimed king of the Franks, and received from the hand of St. Boniface the sacred anointment. "At the head of the Franks, as Mayor of the Palace from 741, and as king from 752, Pepin had completed in France and extended in Italy the work which his father Charles Martel had begun and carried on from 714 to 741 in State and church. He left France reunited in one and placed at the head of Christian Europe." He died at the monastery of St. Denis, September 18, 768.—Guizot's France, chap. 9. Pepin, like his father, left his dominions to two sons, Charles and Carloman; but in 771 Carloman died, leaving Charles sole king, who, by his remarkable ability, became Charles the Great—CHARLEMAGNE. Thoughts on Truth and Books
The best of a book is not the thought which it contains, but the thought it suggests, just as the charm of music dwells not in the tones, but in the echoes of our hearts.—Holmes. If a man is faithful to truth, truth will be faithful to him. He need have no fears. His success is a question of time.—Professor Phelps. This is a speech, brief, but full of inspiration, and opening the way to all victory. It solves the problem of all heroes; it is the rule by which to weigh rightly all wonderful successes and triumphal marches to fortune and genius. It should be the motto of all, old and young, high and low, fortunate and unfortunate, so-called. "Press on!" Never despair, never be discouraged, however stormy the heavens, however dark the way, however great the difficulties and repeated the failures. "Press on!" If fortune has played false with thee to-day, do thou play true for thyself to-morrow. If an unfortunate bargain has deranged thy business, do not fold thine arms and give up all as lost, but stir thyself and work the more vigorously. Let the foolishness of yesterday make thee wise to-day. If another has been false to thee, do not thou increase the evil by being false to thyself. Do not say the world has lost all its poetry and beauty; 'tis not so; and even if it be so, make thine own poetry and beauty by living a true, and, above all, a religious life.—Sel. The Same Methods in the East.
TURNING our attention from the Sabbath-keeping Christians of the West, to those of the East, we find that the methods used in Spain and Portugal were also used for the same purpose in India. On the Malabar coast of Hindustan, there were, in the beginning of the present century, a large number of Christians, who claim to have existed as a pure church from the time of the apostles, and who for thirteen hundred years had enjoyed a succession of bishops appointed by the patriarch of Antioch. Near the beginning of the sixteenth century the Portuguese formed a colony on this coast. They were glad to find a large number of Christian churches in the country, but sorry to learn that they did not own allegiance to the Pope of Rome. "When the power of the Portuguese became sufficient for their purpose, they invaded these tranquil churches, seized some of the clergy, and devoted them to the death of heretics. Then the inhabitants heard for the first time that there was a place called the Inquisition, and that its fires had been largely lighted at Goa, near their own land. But the Portuguese, finding that the people were resolute in defending their ancient faith, began to try more conciliatory measures. They seized the Syrian Bishop, Mar Joseph, and sent him prisoner to Lisbon, and then convened a synod at one of the Syrian churches called Diamper, near Cochin, at which the Romish Archbishop Meneses presided. At this compulsory synod, 150 of the Syrian clergy appeared. They were accused of the following practices and opinions: 'that they had married wives; that they owned but two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper; that they neither invoked saints nor worshiped images, nor believed in purgatory; and that they had no other orders or names of dignity in the church than priests and deacons.' These tenets they were called on to abjure, or to suffer suspension from all church benefices. It was also declared that all the Syrian books on ecclesiastical subjects that could be found should be burned, 'in order,' said the Inquisitors, 'that no pretended apostolic monuments may remain.' "The churches on the sea-coast were thus compelled to acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope, but they refused to pray in Latin, and insisted on retaining their own language and liturgy. This point they said they would only give up with their lives. The Pope compromised with them; Meneses purged their liturgy of its errors, and they retain their Syriac language, and have a Syriac college unto this day. These are called the Syro-Roman churches, and are principally situated on the sea-coast. "The churches in the interior would not yield to Rome. After a show of submission for a little while they proclaimed eternal war against the Inquisition; they hid their books, fled to the mountains, and sought the protection of the native princes who had always been proud of their alliance."—Buchanan's Christian Researches, ninth edition, London, 1812, pp. 107-110. Dr. Buchanan, who belonged to the English church, says: "I took this occasion to observe that there were some rites and practices in the Syrian church which our church might consider objectionable and nugatory."—Idem., p. 133. The observance of the Sabbath instead of Sunday, was undoubtedly one of these "objectionable and nugatory" practices. To change this practice the cruelties of the Inquisition were used. "The wretched victims to be sacrificed by the Holy Inquisition were ordered to advance separately. There was a man and a woman, and the images of four men deceased, with the chests in which their bones were deposited. The man and woman were black native Christians accused of magic, and condemned as apostates; but, in truth, as little sorcerers as those by whom they were condemned. "Two of the statues, also, represented persons convicted of magic, and the others, two new Christians who were said to have Judaized. One of these had died in the prisons of the Holy Office; the other expired in his own house, and his body had long since been interred in the parish church; but having been accused of Judaism after his decease, as he had left considerable wealth, his tomb was opened, and his remains disinterred to be burned at the Auto da Fe, whence it may be inferred that the Holy Inquisition affects, in imitation of our Saviour, to exercise its power on the quick and the dead."—Dellon's Inquisition at Goa, pp. 114, 115. "As soon as the condemned arrive at the place where the lay judges are assembled, they are asked in what religion they wish to die, without referring in any manner to the proceedings against them, which are presumed to have been perfectly correct, and the prisoners justly condemned, the infallibility of the Inquisition never being questioned. Upon this question being answered, the executioner lays hold of them, and binds them to the stake, where they are previously strangled if they die Christians, and burnt alive if they persist in Judaism or heresy, which so seldom happens that scarcely one instance has been known in four Acts of Faith, though few have passed, without a great number having been burnt."—Idem., pp. 116, 117.—Light of Home. "Have Faith in God."
By Parker
You believe in God; that is to say, he has a place in your intellectual notions; you could not on any consideration allow his name to be blotted out of your creed; you are intellectually sure that he lives. Now be true to your own creed and trust in him. You believe that the river runs to the sea, and that the sea is large enough to sustain your ship—then act upon your faith and launch the vessel. If you keep your vessel on the stocks when she is finished, then all your praises of the ocean go for nothing; better never have built the ship than leave her unlaunched—a monument of your scientific belief, but also a testimony of your practical infidelity. This figure will serve us still further. This faith in God is truly as a sea-going ship. It is not a little craft meant for river uses, nor a toy-boat to play upon the shore even of the sea, when the sun is shining and the south wind is as the sweet breath of a sleeping child; this faith is meant for the wide waters of the great deep, where storms have scope for their fury, where the stars are as guide-posts, and where the sun tells the voyager where he is and gives him the time of heaven. You have this great ship; she is well built; you know her preciousness—but there you are, hesitating on the river, running down to the harbor-bar and coming back again aghast as if you had seen a ghost. Have faith; pass the bar; leave the headlands behind; make the stars your counselors, and ride upon the great sea by the guidance of the greater Sun. This is faith; not a mere nodding of the assenting head, but the reverent risking of the loving, clinging heart. To have a God in your belief is to sit in a ship which is chained upon the stocks; but to have a God in the heart, ruling the understanding, the conscience, and the will, is to sail down the river, enter upon the great ocean, and pass over the infinite waters into the haven of rest. Trust in him at all times. This is a practical religion. "What time I am afraid, I will trust in God." "I will say of the Lord, he is my refuge and my fortress; my God, in him will I trust." Religion is not to be occasional, but continuous. In the day-time our faith is to shine as the sun; in the night-time it is to fill the darkness with stars; at the wedding feast it is to turn the water into wine; in the hour of privation it is to surround the impoverished life with angels of hope and promise; it reaches beyond death and takes the sword from the destroyer and gives the victory to him who is apparently worsted in the fight. It is not easy to do this. All this holy and happy issue does not come in uninterrupted sequence; great fights of affliction have to be endured, daily discipline has to be undergone, but, blessed be God, the issue is not a mere conjecture, a shining possibility which may or may not be attained; it has actually been realized by countless numbers of holy men, and upon their testimony we build the doctrine, that what the grace of God has once done it can repeat in full and abiding miracles.—Parker. Testimony of the Monuments.
THE Christian world is getting rather tired of the cobweb historical and antibiblical criticisms spun by German critics. They are fast being dispelled by the spade and pickax. It was apparently proved that Homer was a myth, and ancient Troy a delusion. Yet Dr. Schliemann has disinterred the captured city, found traces of the fire which destroyed it, and proved that the Iliad and ancient tradition were right in designating its site and surroundings. Genesis and Daniel, both alleged publications of a later age, have been shown to be so minutely in accordance with their professed eras that the hypothesis of posthumous invention becomes incredible. And now Jeremiah is added to the list of accurate narrators, for the digging at Tahpanhes has made it evident that he was thoroughly acquainted with the architectural details of Pharaoh's palace. We might greatly extend the list of scriptural confirmations, but enough has been cited to show that evidence has been dug from the dust which overthrows many a carefully elaborated hypothesis of the skeptical theologians of the fatherland. A good deal more is to follow, for the work of exploration and disinterment is yet in its early stages. Thus far not a single discovery has shaken the accuracy of holy writ, while light has been thrown upon not a few obscure passages, and the complete truthfulness of important statements has been demonstrated. There was never greater reason for cheerfulness among the defenders of the faith. Every rescued monument adds a new stone to the walls about Zion.—Western Christian Advocate. "Who Is My Neighbor?"
By W.
THE following question has been asked:— "According to the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37), who is our neighbor? Do verses 36 and 37 teach that they only are our neighbors who show themselves to be neighborly, and that it is only such that we are to love as our neighbors, while we are to love others as enemies?" We are not able to find in the Bible any distinction between the treatment of "neighbors" and "enemies." If there were such distinction, the parable referred to would certainly read differently from what it does. Between the Jews and the Samaritans there was bitterness amounting to almost deadly hatred. See John 4:9; Luke 9:51-54. For this enmity it seems that the Jews were chiefly responsible, as they considered themselves far superior to the Samaritans, whom they regarded with contempt, treating them as dogs. The worst thing the unbelieving Jews could say in reproach of Christ was, "Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan,711 and hast a devil?" John 8:48. To call him a Samaritan was to brand him with infamy. In the parable we have a man, presumably a Jew, since he was going down to Jericho from Jerusalem, who was maltreated by robbers, and left for dead. Some of his own countrymen, a priest and a Levite, passed by, and left him to his fate. But a Samaritan, one of the despised and hated race, came by, and did to the wounded man as is described. He could not have done more for him if he had been his brother. Now the question is, Who was neighbor to him that fell among thieves? The answer is, "He that showed mercy upon him," and this answer is accepted. The good Samaritan was neighbor to the disabled Jew, whom he treated as his own neighbor. And yet, the Jew was the enemy of the Samaritan. The only inference is, that when the law says, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," we are to hold ourselves ready to serve anybody who needs assistance, and are not to stop to inquire whether the needy person is a "neighbor" or an "enemy" and have two standards of action. In other words, our enemies are to be treated as our neighbors; or, better still, we are to act as though we had no enemies. In our dealings with our fellow-men we are not to consider that any man is our enemy, but are to treat all with kindly consideration. This is in harmony with our Saviour's words in the sermon on the mount: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in Heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." Matt. 5:43-45. God dispenses the favors of his Providence impartially on the good and the bad. Blasphemers, as well as those who praise, are the objects of God's kind care. If we would be his children, we must do likewise. It is not in accordance with human nature so to do. This can be done only when we are fully imbued with the Spirit of Him who on the cross prayed for his relentless persecutors, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
W. FOLLOWING is a part of an article by the Rev. A. H. Lewis, D. D., which first appeared under the above heading in the Popular Science Monthly, and was copied into the Chicago Tribune of October 30, 1886. It contains nothing new, for it would be difficult to find anything new on this subject; but it is a very clear and concise statement of the origin of Sunday observance, and is worthy of a careful perusal. We are very glad to see articles of this class given a place in popular magazines and newspapers. It shows that the Sabbath question is rapidly coming to the front. W. "The times demand a reconsideration of our Sunday laws. They are practically inoperative. There must be some essential reason for this, in the character of the people or in the character of the laws, perhaps both. Either the laws have a false basis and cannot rightly claim public regard, or the people are wickedly indifferent to rightful authority. This is true of the church as well as the 'world.' To know the origin of these laws will help to solve the problem. "Sun-worship is the oldest and most widespread form of paganism. It reaches back to the prehistoric period. Under various phases it has always been the persistent foe to the worship of Jehovah. It was the prevailing and most corrupting form of idolatry which assailed the Hebrew nation. Its lowest form, Baal-worship, produced the deepest social and moral degradation. As the period of idolatry passed away sun-worship assumed a less materialistic form, without losing the virulence of its poison. It lay in waiting, like a beast of prey, to corrupt Christianity, as it had already corrupted Judaism. Transferred from the East and from Egypt to Greece and Rome, it became popular, and great efforts were made under Heliogabalus and others in the third and fourth centuries to exalt it above all other religions. Indeed, mithraicism came near gaining the field and driving apostolic religion out of the Roman Empire. It did corrupt it to an extent little understood. "Pagan Rome made religion a part of the State. Long before the advent of Christianity, the emperor, as head of the State and therefore of the church—Pontifex Maximus—was accustomed to legislate upon all religious matters. He had supreme power in this direction. Scores of sacred days were set apart under the pagan empire, upon which judicial proceedings and certain forms of work were prohibited. It was the settled policy of the empire for the emperor thus to determine concerning ferial days. "Apostolic Christianity forbade all appeal to the civil law in matters of Christian duty. Christ and his apostles sought only the rights of citizenship at the hand of civil Government. When these were refused they gladly yielded, suffering persecution, unto death if need be. Christ repeatedly declared, 'My kingdom is not of this world.' New Testament Christianity could not have instituted such a cultus as that which gave rise to Sunday legislation, the union of Church and State, under an emperor or an emperor-pope. 'Old Mixon' peach trees cannot bear crab-apples. All civil legislation concerning religious faith and practice, such as obtained in the Roman Empire, was the product of paganism. It was not an offshoot of Christianity or of the Hebrew theocracy. "The first civil legislation concerning Sunday appears in the edict of Constantine the Great, 321 A. D. Nothing appears in history as demanding the legislation, or as wishing it, except the will of the emperor. He was a well-known devotee of the sun-god, as were his predecessors. His attitude toward Christianity, both before and long after the issuing of the Sunday edict, was the attitude of a shrewd politician; toward his rivals it was that of an unscrupulous, bloody-handed monarch. He gained power by intrigue, deceit, and murder. No accurate historian dares call him a 'Christian emperor.' Romish tradition and superficial literature have misnamed him the 'first Christian emperor.' The facts relative to his life and character forbid every such claim. He refused to unite with the Christian church until he lay on his death-bed, in 337 A. D., when he received baptism, hoping thus to make the most of both worlds. The text of his Sunday edict and the surroundings all show it to have been purely heathen. The text is as follows:— " 'Let all judges, and all city people, and all tradesmen rest on the venerable day of the sun. But let those dwelling in the country freely and with full liberty attend to the culture of their fields, since it frequently happens that no other day is so fit for the sowing of grain or the planting of vines; hence the favorable time should not be allowed to pass lest the provisions of Heaven be lost.' " 'Given the 7th of March, Crispus and Constantine being Consuls, each for the second time.'—Codex Justin. lib. 3, tit. 12, l. 3. "If the foregoing law were associated with Christian laws, the testimony against it would be less damaging. But the following shows that the next day Constantine issued another edict, which, like the above, is unmixed paganism. "Edict concerning haruspices:— " 'The august Emperor Constantine to Maximus: If any part of the palace or other public works shall be struck by lightning, let the soothsayers, following old usages, inquire into the meaning of the portent, and let their written words, very carefully collected, be reported to our knowledge; and also let the liberty of making use of the custom be accorded to others, provided they abstain from private sacrifices, which are specially prohibited. " 'Moreover, that declaration and exposition written in respect to the amphitheater being struck by lightning, concerning which you had written to Heraclianus, the tribune and master of offices, you may know has been reported to us. " 'Dated the 16th, before the kalends of January, at Seridica (320), Acc. the 8th, before the ides of March, in the Consulship of Crispus II., and Constantine III., Caess, Coss, 321 A. D.'—Codex Theo., lib. 16, tit. 10, l. 1. "The reader will note that nothing appears in the law, neither does anything appear in the accompanying evidence, showing that Christians desired the law, or were in any way interested therein. It applied to all the subjects of the empire alike. The day is not mentioned, except by its heathen title of the Sun. There is nothing in the restrictions placed upon it unlike the restrictions which already existed concerning many other pagan days. The following extract, from the work of an English barrister, is pertinent at this point:— " 'That the division of days into juridici et feriati, judicial and non-judicial, did not arise out of the modes of thought peculiar to the Christian world, must be known to every classical scholar. Before the age of Augustus, the number of days upon which, out of reverence to the gods to whom they were consecrated, no trials could take place at Rome, had become a resource upon which a wealthy criminal could speculate as a means of evading justice; and Suetonius enumerates, among the praiseworthy acts of that emperor, the cutting off from the number thirty days, in order that crime might not go unpunished nor business be impeded.'—Feasts and Fasts, p. 6, by Edward V. Neale. "Church historians have been obliged to recognize the purely heathen character of this legislation. Schaff says:— " 'But the Sunday law of Constantine must not be overrated. He enjoined the observance, or rather forbade the public desecration, of Sunday, not under the name of Sabbatum or Dies Domini, but under its old astrological and heathen title, Dies Solis, familiar to all his subjects, so that the law was as applicable to the worshipers of Hercules, Apollo, and Mithras as to the Christians. There is no reference whatever in his law either to the fourth commandment or to the resurrection of Christ.'—Church History, vol. 3, p. 380. " 'The rescript, indeed, for the religious observance of the Sunday, which enjoined the suspension of all public business and private labor except that of agriculture, was enacted, according to the apparent terms of the decree, for the whole Roman Empire. Yet, unless we had direct proof that the decree set forth the Christian reason for the sanctity of the day, it may be doubted whether the act would not be received by the greater part of the empire as merely adding one more festival to the fasti of the empire, as proceeding entirely from the will of the emperor, or even grounded on his authority as supreme pontiff, by which he had the plenary power of appointing holy days. In fact, as we have before observed, the day of the sun would be willingly hallowed by almost all the pagan world, especially that part which had admitted any tendency toward the oriental theology.'—History of Christianity, vol. 2, pp. 396, 397. "No other legislation concerning Sunday appears for the next sixty-five years. Meanwhile the church was becoming paganized, the Papacy was developing, the empire was tottering, and all things were getting ready for the Dark Ages. From the close of the fourth century to the close of the fifth, the legislation was enlarged, including scores of other days, most of them pagan festivals, christened by new names, and but slightly modified in the manner of their observance. As Church and State became more thoroughly united, the pagan idea that the civil law ought to regulate religious actions and religious belief was so fully developed that the State determined not only what men should do, but what men should believe. Civil law practically decided what Christianity was. It defined orthodoxy and heresy, thus involving the whole realm of religious conscience in the meshes of political intrigue. "As the holy Roman Empire grew upon the ruins of the pagan empire, it continued to secularize and corrupt Christianity. Civil legislation relative to Sunday and other festivals and fasts prevailed during the Dark Ages. Our Saxon ancestors, converted under this empire, received this inheritance, and transmitted through the Saxon and English laws, the entire genius of Sunday legislation to our own time. The chain is unbroken which binds the Sunday law of to-day to the first pagan Sunday law of 321 A. D." Why Should Sunday Be Kept?
By J.
HAVING examined all the places in the Gospels where the first day of the week is mentioned, and found no sign of a reason for the keeping of it with any kind or degree of sacredness, we now take up the only other instances in the New Testament where the day is named. The first of these is in Acts 20:7, and that we may discuss it with the best advantage to the reader we copy the whole connection:— "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed." Verses 7-11. Upon the face of this whole narrative it is evident that this meeting was at night. Let us put together several of the statements: (1) "Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together . . . there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together." (2) "Paul preached unto them . . . and continued his speech until midnight." (3) At midnight Eutychus fell out of the window, and Paul went down and brought him up, and then he broke the bread and ate, therefore we may read, "The disciples came together to break bread," and after midnight the bread was broken. (4) After that Paul "talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed." Therefore we may read (5) Upon the first day of the week, the disciples came together, and there were many lights where they were gathered together. They came together to break bread, and after midnight the bread was broken. Paul preached unto them until midnight, and even till break of day. When the disciples came together, Paul was ready to depart on the morrow, and when he had talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. There can be no room for any reasonable doubt that the meeting referred to in Acts 20:7 was wholly a night meeting, and not only that but that it was an all-night meeting. This meeting being therefore in the night of the first day of the week, the question properly arises: According to the Bible, what part of the complete day does the night form? Is the night the first or the last part of the complete day? The Bible plainly shows that the night is the first part of the day. There was darkness on the earth before there was light. When God created the world, darkness was upon the face of the deep. Then "God said, Let there be light; and there was light." Then "God called the light day, and the darkness he called night." As the darkness was called night, as the darkness was upon the earth before the light, and as it takes both the night and the day—the darkness and the light—to make the complete day, it follows that in the true count of days by the revolution of the earth, the night precedes the day. This is confirmed by the Scripture: "The evening [the darkness, the night] and the morning [the light, the day] were the first day." This is the order which God established in the beginning of the world; it is the order that is laid down in the beginning of the book of God; and it is the order that is followed throughout the book of God. In Leviticus 23:27-32, giving directions about the day of atonement, God said that it should be "the tenth day of the seventh month," and that that was from the ninth day of the month at even; "from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath." Thus the tenth day of the month began in the evening of the ninth day of the month. And so according to Bible time every day begins in the evening, and evening is at the going down of the sun. Deut. 16:6. Therefore as the meeting mentioned in Acts 20:7-11 was in the night of the first day of the week, and as in the word and the order of God the night is the first part of the day, it follows that that meeting was on what is now called Saturday night. For if it had been on what is now called Sunday night it would have been on the second day of the week and not on the first. So Conybeare and Howson, in "Life and Epistles of Paul," say: "It was the evening which succeeded the Jewish Sabbath." And that is now called Saturday night. This meeting, then, being on what is now called Saturday night, as Paul preached till midnight, and after the breaking of bread talked till break of day and departed, it follows that at break of day on the first day of the week, at break of day on Sunday, Paul started afoot from Troas to Assos, a distance of twenty miles, with the intention of going on board a ship at Assos and continuing his journey, which he did. For says the record: "We [Paul's companions in travel, Acts 20:4] went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot. And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in, and came to Mitylene." Verses 13, 14. Paul not only walked from Troas to Assos on Sunday, but he appointed that his companions should go before and sail to that place—about forty miles by water—and be there by the time he came so that he could go on without delay. And when he reached Assos he went at once aboard the ship and sailed away to Mitylene, which was nearly forty miles further. That is to say, on the first day of the week Paul walked twenty miles and then sailed nearly forty more, making nearly sixty miles that he traveled; and he appointed that his companions—Luke, Timothy, Tychicus, Trophimus, Gaius, Aristarchus, and Secundus—should sail forty miles and then take him aboard, and all sail nearly forty miles more, making nearly eighty miles travel for them, all on Sunday. And this is exactly how these Christians kept that first day of the week of which mention is made in Acts 20. But nowadays men try to make it appear that it is an awful sin to travel on Sunday. Yes, some people now seem to think that if a ship should sail on Sunday, the sin would be so great that nothing but a perfect miracle of grace would keep it from sinking. Paul neither taught nor acted any such thing, for says the record, "We went before to ship, and sailed; . . . for so had he appointed." Paul and his companions regarded Sunday in nowise different from the other common working days of the week. For, mark, the first day of the week they sailed from Troas to Mitylene, "the next day" they sailed from Mitylene to Chios, "the next day" from Chios to Samos and Trogyllium, and "the next day" to Miletus. Here are "the first day of the week," "the next day," "the next day," and "the next day," and Paul and his companions did the same things on one of these days that they did on another. They considered one of them no more sacred than another; they considered the first day of the week to be no more of a sabbath than the next day, or the next day, or the next day. True, Paul preached all night, before he started on the first day of the week; but on the fifth or sixth day of the week he preached also at Miletus, to the elders of the church of Ephesus. The only remaining mention of the first day of the week is in 1 Cor. 16:2. "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." What this means is explained by Paul in 2 Cor. 9:1-5: "For as touching the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you; for I know the forwardness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal hath provoked very many. Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain in this behalf; that, as I said, ye may be ready; lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this same confident boasting. Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren, that they would go before unto you, and make up beforehand your bounty, whereof ye had notice before, that the same might be ready, as a matter of bounty, and not as of covetousness." All there is therefore in 1 Cor. 16:2, is that on the first day of the week every one was to "lay by him" what he chose to give for the help of the poor saints at Jerusalem. Rom. 15:26-28. And when the time came for Paul to take it to Jerusalem, that it might be ready for him when he came, he sent brethren before to Corinth to "make up" this bounty that each one had laid by him, according to Paul's directions.712We have now examined every one of the eight instances in which the first day of the week is mentioned in the Bible, and we ask, Where can any person find in any of them any statement that that day should be kept as the Sabbath, or for any other sacred purpose? Where is there in any of them any statement that anybody ever did keep it? Where is there in any of them any reason given for keeping the first day of the week? The only true answer that there can be is, Nowhere. We do not ask whether men can give any reason for it, because men can give a multitude of reasons for a thing, and which may seem to them very satisfactory reasons, but which at the same time do not rest upon any just basis whatever. Bible reasons—that is, reasons framed in Bible language—alone are the just basis of Bible duties. Do you ask us why we keep the seventh day? We answer, Because God said "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." So we might go on through a long list of duties. We do not ask men to do any duty toward God the reason for which we cannot give in the very words of God. But we do ask, Where is there a person who can give, in the words of the Bible, the Bible reason for keeping the first day of the week? Never yet have we seen any such person. Again we say, Bible reasons alone are the just basis of Bible duties. If there is no Bible reason for keeping Sunday, then there is no duty resting upon anybody to keep it. And if there is no Bible reason for it, why in the world do you do it?