50
THOUGHTS
ON
THE
SABBATH.
any
other
manner,
it
does
not
occur
to
the
writer
of
these
remarks.
Now,
if
the
Sunday
celebration
of
Christ's
res-
urrection
stands
upon
divine
appointment,
it
is
clear
that
the
manner
of
its
appointment
was
unique
and
exceptional.
Can
any
good
reason
be
assigned
for
this?
If
this
institution
grew
up
and
obtained
favor
in
a
way
so
entirely
different
from
any
and
every
other,
is
not
the
presumption
fair
that
it
was
“always
only
a
human
ordinance?”
*
Ab
brethren!
weak
and
treacherous
is
the
ground
upon
which
you
stand
here.
Do
you
not
feel
it
?
But
what
were
the
circumstances
of
the
next
Sunday
meeting
?—taking
for
granted
that
the
next
meeting
of
the
disciples
Was
on
the
first
day
of
the
week
;
though
how
the
expression,
“after
eight
days,”
proves
if,
was
never
clear
to
our
mind.
Were
the
disciples
then
assembled
to
com-
memorate
their
Lord’s
resurrection?
Was
that
the
object
that
brought
them
together?
What-
ever
it
was
that
brought
the
others,
it
is
clear
that
one
of
their
company
did
not
meet
with
them
from
any
such
motive;
for
Thomas,
up
to
that
hour,
remained
an
unbeliever.
And
there
is
nothing
in
the
record
to
show
that
the
reason
which
brought
the
other
disciples
to
the
meeting
was
any
thing
different
from
that
which
had
brought
him.
Our
author,
to
be
sure,
7magines
another
reason,
saying
that
“the
resurrection
of
their
Lord
had
pre-
scribed
the
proper
day,
and
this,
with
his
visit,
taught
them
to
expect
his
presence
on
the
first
*
«The
festival
of
Sunday,
like
all
other
festivals,
was
always
only
a
human
ordinance,
and
it
was
far
from
the
intention
of
the
Apostles
to
establish
a
divine
command
in
this
respect,
far
from
them
and
from
the
carly
apostolic
church
to
transfer
the
laws
of
the
Sabbath
to
Sunday.’
—NVeander.
THOUGHTS
ON
THE
SABBATH.
51
day
of
the
week;
and
that
he,
“by
appearing
among
them
a
second
time
on
the
first
day
of
the
week,
and
in
the
scene
of
public
worship,
expresses
in
the
most
emphatic
manner
his
approval
of
‘
the
order,’
both
as
respects
the
time
and
the
engage-
ments
of
this
infant
Church.””*
But
we
have
only
to
say,
in
reply,
that
this
is
not
in
the
record,
nor
is
it
a
necessary
inference
from
the
facts
recorded.
We
are
now
ready
to
consider
the
nature
of
these
meetings,
as
determined
by
the
situation
of
the
disciples
themselves.
Gilfillan
speaks
of
them
as
religious
gatherings—meetings
held
for
the
avowed
purpose
of
worshiping
God.
Speaking
of
John
20:
26,
he
says,
“
Here
we
have
plainly
a
stated
day
of
religious
convocation.”
But
with
all
due
deference
to
the
author,
we
must
say
that
there
is
no
plain
statement
of
any
such
thing.
This,
as
well
as
the
other
meeting
referred
to,
was
religious
in
the
same
sense
that
any
afternoon
or
evening
social
party
is
religious,
when
the
con-
versation,
instead
of
being
entirely
upon
worldly
subjects,
takes
a
religious
turn.
Our
reason
for
this
view
will
be
seen
from
what
follows.
Jerusalem
was
not
the
home
of
the
disciples.
They
were
Galileans,t
and,
at
the
time
of
the
Crucifixion,
were
temporarily
resident
at
Jerusa-
lem
on
account
of
the
Passover.
On
this
festive
occasion,
it
was
customary
for
the
inhabitants
to
give
the
free
use
of
their
rooms
and
furniture
to
strangers.
Thus
our
Saviour
sends
his
disciples
to
a
certain
man
for
the
use
of
his
chamber,
which
was
granted
at
once,
notwithstanding
there
seems
to
have
been
no
previous
arrangement
for
it.}
The
apartment,
thus
secured,
was
occupied
by
#Pp.
309,
810,
+Acts
2:7
and
13:31,
{Mark
14:12.16.