02.09. The Lord's Day: The View Entertained by Christians in General

CHAPTER II
THE VIEW ENTERTAINED BY CHRISTIANS IN GENERAL

Adventists generally discard this as evidence. They tell us that these views have been wrong, and that the whole question must be settled by the word of God and by that alone. “And that to insist on any testimony from the religious world, will be to lay the foundations for apostasy." By such evidence, they say, "we could sustain infant baptism, or sprinkling, instead of the immersion which Jesus taught, or any of the forms of merely human origin." And yet when they can find the religious world blending the law and the gospel, and urging their memberships to keep the Sabbath, they are not slow to remind us of the fact that they hold the same opinion which the great men have always held, and, therefore, there is strong reason for regarding their views in that respect, as being well sustained. With them, it depends somewhat upon whose ox is being gored. If I should do the same thing with this human testimony which they do, they should not grumble.

It should be remembered, however, that while testimony of this kind can serve in no sense to set aside the statements of the word of God, or to sustain customs for which nothing was ever claimed by way of divine appointment, still, respecting those questions in which men have examined the word of God and founded their practice on what they have, in this way, come to regard as the requirements of heaven; and, especially, in those matters where there has been perfect unanimity of senti­ment, such views are worthy of the highest respect.

If our question related to a matter in which religious people are to be found keeping a law or a custom under which they had been raised, the testimony would certainly amount to but very little. All prejudices and customs are in favor of those things with which we have been familiar. Such things might continue for centuries, without anyone taking the trouble to investigate the question in any way. It is easy to retain the customs of the past, but very difficult to remove them. Hence, in any case where we find a large number of people ceasing from any former religious custom, we may be pretty well assured of one or two things: either the change is being made for convenience’s sake, to something which will satisfy con­science, and yet is very much more easily practiced, than what was formerly done, or they are making the change from con­viction of right.

Concerning the keeping of a day, there would be nothing to be gained in the way of ease. It would be as difficult to observe the first day of the week as to keep the seventh. Indeed, it would be much more difficult. They were surrounded by Jews in the early times, and from these the change comes. To act in harmony with their customs would be comparatively easy, while to change the custom in this respect would be attended with a great deal of annoyance. Nor was this all: their own prejudices were in the way. These early Christians had been Jews, and would naturally feel inclined to retain as much of their old religion as possible. Many of them had the idea that the Gentiles had no right to be saved. And even when they became convinced that they were to be accepted as well as the Jews, they thought that they must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, or they could not be saved. The apostles knew better, but they met the prejudice of the whole church at this point. Now, for this people to change from the seventh to the first day of the week, declares that, in their minds, there were sound scriptural reasons for doing so. And still further: the religious world has had the prejudice of a mistaken interpretation to contend with upon this point during all these centuries. At a very early period in the history of the church, the desire was manifested to accommodate the religion of Christ to the tastes and customs of the world. Rather than to offend the Jew who was zealous for the law, they were ready- to yield to his demands, either in practice or in theory. In this way they accommodated Christianity to the Gentile world. And many of the forms and ceremonies of the Catholic Church to-day are nothing but baptized heathenisms. Also, many other things are a mixture of Paganism and Judaism. And, like many of the reformatory kings in Israel, who tried to remove idolatry without removing the idols or stopping the worship in the high places, our reformers have handed down to us a large number of customs and doctrines labeled “Christianity" that were received from the Mother Church. Because of this desire to accommodate the religion of Christ to the wish of the Jews, they have entertained the idea that Christians are now keeping the Law of Moses. In this way they talk and teach of baptism in the room of circumcision, and of keeping the Sabbath when they are only keeping the first day of the week. But with this feeling in the mind that we are under the law, there has been, during the ages, all the pleading which has ever been made for a scriptural practice, to return to the keeping of the seventh day of the week. Certainly nothing has kept them from returning to that law in practice as well as in theory, but the fact that they could not find that the apostles and early Chris­tians did so.

Then we find that this change has not only taken place, but that it has come in opposition to all the prejudices of the people who made it and of those who have continued it.

Indeed, we shall hereafter find that zealots for the law kept both days. They regarded the seventh day because of the Decalogue, and observed the first day of the week because of the practice of the apostles and the first Christians. The Ebionites, as related by Theodoret, held this view and kept both days. Dr. Moses Stuart, of Andover, says, referring to that statement of Theodoret: “This gives a good historical view of the state of things in the early ages of the church. The zealots for the law wished the Jewish Sabbath to be observed as well as the Lord’s Day; for about the latter, there appears never to have been any question among any class of Christians, so far as I have been able to discover. The early Christians, one and all of them, held the first day of the week to be sacred." Does someone say that even so learned a man as Dr. Stuart might have been mistaken? We do not claim infallibility for him And yet to say that he was as familiar with all the customs of past ages, and especially with those which related to the religion of Christ, as any man whose name is known to the reading public, and that he would be as conscientious in stating these facts as any to whom reference might be made, is only to state truth in a very feeble way. He was a prince of scholars 1 a man of pains-taking, carefulness and accuracy in all he said and wrote. Such testimony must have great weight with those who are wishing for light respecting the views and practices of Christians from the very first.

I am not aware that this statement of the Professor has ever been seriously questioned by anyone. So far as I know, both parties accept his statement as being, at least, substantially correct. This gives us the assistance of a strong argument; one that is not to be lightly thrown aside.

We have as many quotations at hand as it would be possible to use in a work of reasonable limits, showing that the unani­mous opinion of the whole church has been, from the very first, that the Lord’s Day, or the first day of the week, should be observed as a sacred day by all Christians. But for the present, we want to go a step further, and show the purpose had in view in meeting together. It would be too much to say that all dis­ciples of Jesus have ever been agreed in this purpose, for not all have studied the subject. But I shall quote the opinions of those who are most entitled to consideration, showing that, in their view of the matter, the chief purpose for these meetings on the first day of the week was to break bread, or attend to the communion.

William King, Archbishop of Dublin, in a sermon concerning the “inventions of men in the worship of God," says:

"It is manifest that if it be not our own faults, we may have an opportunity every Lord’s Day when we meet together; and, therefore, that church is guilty of laying aside the command, whose order and worship doth not require and provide for this practice. Christ’s command seems to lead us directly to it: for, ’ Do this in remembrance of me,’ implies that Christ was to leave them, that they were to meet together after he was gone, and that he required them to remember him at their meetings whilst he was absent. The very design of our public meetings on the Lord’s Day, not on the Jewish Sabbath, is to remember and keep in our minds a sense of what Christ did and suffered for us till he come again; and this we are obliged to do, not in such a manner as our own inventions suggest, but by such means as Christ himself has prescribed to us, that is, by celebrating this holy ordinance

"It seems, then, probable, from the very institution of this ordinance, that our Savior designed it should be a part of God’s service, in all the solemn assemblies of Christians, as the pass-over was in the assemblies of the Jews. To know, therefore, how often Christ requires us to celebrate this feast, we have no more to do, but to inquire how often Christ requires us to meet together; that is, at least every Lord’s Day."

Dr. Scott, in his commentary on Acts 20:7, says:

“Breaking of bread, or, commemorating the death of Christ in the euchar­ist, was one chief end of their assembling; this ordinance seems to have been constantly administered every Lord’s Day, and probably no professed Christians absented themselves from it, after they had been admitted into the church; unless they lay under some censure, or had some real hindrance."

Dr. Mason, in his “Lectures on Frequent Communion," Edinburgh edition, says

“Communion every Lord’s Day was universal, and was preserved in the Greek church till the seventh century; and such as neglected three weeks together were excommunicated."

John Wesley, in a letter to America, 1784, said:

“I, also, advise the elders to administer the supper of the Lord on every Lord’s Day." In all the ages of the church there have been a large number of devout men demanding that the church should return to what they denominate the practice of the apostles respecting the communion, that of meeting together on every first day of the week to remember the Lord’s death in that Institution, till he shall come again.

Dr. Barnes makes this note on Acts 20:7 :

“And upon the first day of the week. Showing thus that this day was then observed by Christians as holy time. Comp. 1Co 16:2; Rev 1:10. To break bread. Evidently to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Comp. chap. 2:46. So the Syriac understands it, by translating it, ’ to break the eucharist’; that is the eucharistic bread. It is probable that the apostles and early Christians celebrated the Lord’s Supper on every Lord’s Day."

There is so much of candor in this that it is surely entitled to consideration. The practice of the church to which Dr. Barnes belonged was in the way of this clear acknowledgment. Still he makes it, because it seemed to him as the evident teaching of the Scriptures on the subject. In the Encyclopedia Britannica, under the head of "Eucharist," we have this statement: “With regard to the frequency of Holy Communion, although it has been concluded with much probability from Acts 2:46 that the earliest Christians, in the first fervor of their faith, partook of the Eucharist daily, ap­pearances are rather in favor of a weekly celebration on the Lord’s Day being the rule in the apostolic and primitive church, It was on the ’ first day of the week’ that the Christians met for breaking bread at Troas (Acts 20:7); and St. Paul’s direc­tion to the Corinthian Christians to lay by for the poor on that day, may be reasonably associated with the oblations at the time of celebration. Pliny tells us that it was on a `fixed day, stato die, the Christians came together for prayer and commun­nion,’ and, as we have seen, Justin Martyr speaks of Sunday by name Owe legomenee heliou hemera as the day of celebration." From chapter fourteen of the “Teaching of the Twelve Apos­tles" we have the following, as their instruction respecting the communion:

"And every Lord’s Day, having gathered yourselves together, ye shall break bread and give thanks, having moreover con­fessed your transgressions, in order that your sacrifice may be pure."

It is not proper to make the claim that some have made for this manuscript, that it was not more than fifty years on this side of the Apostle John. We do know, however, that Justin taught as plainly as that, at still an earlier day, though he used the Roman term “Sunday” instead of Lord’s Day, as found in this writing. But it is safe to say that the manuscript was of very early date, and tells very clearly how early Christians understood this service.

We are greatly tempted to give a number of such quotations from Christian workers and thinkers during the ages, but we must not take the space to do so. Rev. C. H. Spurgeon now communes on every recurring Lord’s Day, and in the minds of the great host of Christian thinkers it was the primitive cus­tom. And there remains no room for doubt that when the religious world shall come to look upon apostolic precedent as a proper guide for all Christians in all time, the whole church will return to this ancient custom.