02.11. The Lord's Day: Regarded as Sacred in All Ages of Church History

CHAPTER IV
HISTORY SHOWS THAT THE LORD’S DAY,
OR FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK,
HAS BEEN REGARDED AS A SACRED DAY IN
ALL AGES OF THE CHURCH

I begin with a statement of the opinion of the teachings of history on this subject, by B. B. Edwards, in his “Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge," published 1858, found on page 1, 040:

"We are informed by Eusebius that from the beginning the Christians assembled on the first day of the week, called by them the Lord’s Day, for the purpose of religious worship, to read the Scriptures, to preach and to celebrate the Lord’s Supper."

Now, we are not ready to say that the author has misunder­stood his reading, nor that Eusebius has been untrue to the facts in the case. And unless we may impeach one or the other of these witnesses, the question is put to rest with this state­ment.

Chamber’s Encyclopedia has the following on the subject of the Sabbath:

He has come to the edict of Constantine, and gives us some­thing on this side of it: “A new era in the history of the Lord’s Day now commenced; tendencies toward Sabbatarian­ism, or confusion of the Christian with the Jewish Institution beginning to manifest themselves. These were slight till the end of the 5th century, and are traceable chiefly to the evils of legislation."

Johnson’s Encyclopedia has this to say on the subject of the Sabbath:

"The resurrection of Christ and his subsequent appearances to his disciples till his ascension, and the miraculous descent of the Holy Spirit on the first day of the week, led to that being set apart for the special religious assemblies of the Christians, and for the simple services of their faith. For a time the Jewish converts observed both the seventh day, to which the name Sabbath continued to be given exclusively, and the first day, which came to be called Lord’s Day. Later, the Apostle Paul sought to relieve their consciences from the obligations of keeping the Sabbath (Rom 14:5; Col 2:16).... Within a century after the death of the last of the apostles we find the observance of the first day of the week, under the name of the Lord’s Day, established as an universal custom of the church, according to the unanimous testimony of Barnabas, Ignatius, Pliny, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian. It was regarded not as a continuation of the Jewish Sabbath (which was denounced together with circumcision and other Jewish anti-Christian practices), but rather as a substitute for it; and naturally its observance was based on the resurrection of Christ rather than on the creation rest-day or the Sabbath of the Decalogue." As to the origin of the word Sunday, there seems to be no settled view, but some things are agreed to universally, that it was the first day of the week, and that at an early date it came to be used as a synonym for Lord’s Day. With this thought before us we are prepared to hear Mosheim as translated by Murdock, Vol. 1, p. 137, say of the practice of the second century:

“When the Christians celebrated the Lord’s Supper, which they were accustomed to do chiefly on Sundays, they consecrated a part of the bread and wine of the oblations by certain prayers pronounced by the president, the bishop of the congregation."

Same book, p. 278, sec. 5, Mosheim says:

“The first day of the week, (on which Christians were accustomed to meet for the worship of God,) Constantine required, by a special law, to be observed more sacredly than before."

Once more from the same work: Century II., Part II., Chap, 4:, section 8:

“The Christians assembled for the worship of God in private dwelling-houses, in caves, and places where the dead were buried. They met on the first day of the week; and here and there also on the seventh day, which was the Jewish Sabbath."

Then again, in Book I., Century I., Part II., Chap. 4:, Sec. 4:

“The Christians of this century assembled for the worship of God and for the advancement of their own piety on the first day of the week, the day on which Christ re-assumed his life; for that this day was set apart for religious worship by the apostles themselves, and that, after the manner of the church at Jerusalem, it was generally observed, we have unexceptionable testimony. Moreover, those congregations which either lived intermingled with Jews, or were composed in great measure of Jews, were accustomed to observe also the seventh day of the week, as a sacred day: for doing which the other Christians taxed them with no wrong."

Now, so far as history is concerned, we have traced the keep­ing of the first day of the week, or Sunday, or Lord’s Day, back through the fourth century, the third, the second, and away down into the first; right up to the apostles who were at Jeru­salem. Not only so, but we have used their own author, or at least the favored translation of Mosheim.

He finds those Judaizers there just as Paul and Silas did, only Mosheim notices those who were less determined in their plans and methods of worship. Those of whom Luke speaks taught that unless the Gentiles were circumcised and would keep the law they could not be saved. But those our historian speaks of kept the first day of the week and also the seventh. The other Christians only kept the first day of the week.

It would seem unreasonable that we should quote another line of history, for if what we have seen will not convince a man that Christians have kept the first day of the week as a sacred day in all ages of the church, then to such a man history can have but little influence. Still I am disposed to go further and let other historians and commentators and critics have their say on the subject. I do this for two reasons: first, because these witnesses have been badly dealt with, and, secondly, because they throw light on the meaning of many Scriptures, that are not understood by many persons, simply because the manner of speech differs from ours.

J. N. Andrews, Hist. Sabbath, p. 229, 230, says:

“Now let us read what Neander, the most distinguished of church his­torians, says of this apostolic authority for Sunday observance: ’ The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command. in this respect; far from them and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin." This language Mr. Andrews cites to rebut the testimony of Mosheim, whom we have already quoted, showing that the first day of the week was observed from the very first as a day of worship. Now, while this quotation was left out of Neander in its reproduction, I must say that I see nothing damaging in it. If the author had before his mind the first day of the week, and was trying to show that its observance was not apos­tolic, still it would have been simply the opinion of that man as against ten thousand men equally critical in exegesis. But he had before him a wrong use of that day hi establishing a feast on that occasion. It was the festival of Sunday that he condemned. And that is the same thing that Paul condemn­ed in the church at Corinth: not the day on which they met, but the festival on that day. The author further shows that the early Christians did not regard Sunday as being Sabbath. This, again, is certainly correct. But Mr. Andrews relieves us of any further trouble about the missing quotation. He says:

"It is true that in re-writing his work he omitted this sen­tence. But he inserted nothing of a contrary character, and the general tenor of the revised edition is in this place precisely the same as in that from which this out-spoken statement is taken." And then to prove that Neander held the same views in the later work he quotes from vol. 1, p. 295, Torrey’s translation:

“Sunday was distinguished as a day of joy, by being exempted from fasts, and by the circumstance that prayer was performed on this day in a standing and not in a kneeling posture, as Christ by his resurrection, has raised up fallen man again to heaven."

Now, what is there in this that condemns Sunday observance? The historian only shows that the early Christians met together on that day and were glad in view of the resurrection of the Lord from the dead. While this may not, in any way, conflict with the quotation which is now acknowledged to be missing, it would antagonize it very strongly if the meaning of the former was that of condemning the Sunday as not apostolic. Hence, we know that his wonderful quotation, with which he sought to make Neander oppose Mosheim, had no such meaning as that which he gave it. But I am not done yet with Neander. In his “Planting and Training of the Christian Church," a work devoted exclusively to the first century, page 159, he says:

"But since we are not authorized to make this assumption, unless a church consisted for the most part of those who had been Jewish proselytes, we shall be compelled to conclude that the religious observances of Sunday occasioned its being con­sidered the first day of the week. It is also mentioned in Acts 20:7, that the church at Troas assembled on Sunday and cele­brated the Lord’s Supper."

Again, same page:

"They rejected the Sabbath which the Jewish Christians celebrated, in order to avoid the risk of mingling Judaism and Christianity, and because another event associated more closely another day with their feelings. For, since the sufferings and resurrection of Christ appeared as the central point of Christian knowledge and practice; since his resurrection was viewed as the foundation of all Christian joy and hope, it was natural that the day which was connected with the remembrance of this event, should be specially devoted to Christian commun­ion."

Now, if this does not show that Neander was of the opinion that the early Christians regarded the first day of the week as a sacred day, then language cannot be so constructed as to present that thought. But to turn to the very volume from which Mr. Andrews makes his quotation, to show that Neander, in his new work, agrees with his distortion of what he claimed to have found in a former work, and on the same page, only a few sentences from the one to which Mr. A. refers, we read: (See Vol. I., p. 295).

"The opposition to Judaism early led to the special observ­ance of Sunday in the place of the Sabbath. The first intima^­tion of this is in Acts 20:7, where we find the church assem­bled on the first day of the week; a still later one is in Rev 1:10, where, by the Lord’s Day can hardly be understood the day of judgment. As the Sabbath was regarded as represeat­ing Judaism, Sunday was contemplated as a symbol of the new life consecrated to the risen Christ and grounded in his resur­rection. Sunday was distinguished as a day of joy." With all these facts before me, and knowing that they were before Mr. Andrews, it is a strain on my charity to not think of him as deliberately falsifying history. Neander uses the three words, Sunday, first day, and Lord’s Day as expressive of the same occasion: they all and severally mean the resurrection day, were so regarded by early Christians, and the day was kept as a sacred day, a day in which Christians were to meet, and engage in communion. Again on page 332 of this same volume we have the following:

"As we have already remarked, celebration of the Lord’s Supper was still held to constitute an essential part of divine worship on every Sunday, as appears from Justin Martyr; and the whole church partook of the communion after they had joined in the amen of the preceding prayer." So much for Neander. He teaches as positively the opposite of what Mr. Andrews represents him as teaching as it would-be possible for one man to differ from the teaching of another.

One more specimen of the unfairness of Mr. Andrews. He quotes from Tertullian, who wrote towards the close of the second century. The first is from Tertullian on Prayer, Chap. Xxiii:

"We, however, (just as we have received), only on the Lord’s Day of the resurrection ought to guard, not only against kneel­ing, but every posture and office of solicitude; deferring even our business, lest we give any place to the devil. Similarly, too, in the period of Pentecost; which period we distinguish by the same solemnity of exultation."

Next he quotes Tertullian on Idolatry, Chap. 14::

"O, better fidelity of the nations to their own sects, which claims no solemnity of the Christians for itself. Not the Lord’s Day, not Pentecost, even if they had known them, would they have shared with us; for they would fear lest they should seem to be Christians. We are not apprehensive lest we should seem to be heathens. If any indulgence is to be granted to the flesh, you have it. I will not say your own days, but more too; for the heathens each festive day occurs but once annually; you have a festive day every eighth day."

Mr. A. then concedes that this festive eighth day was the Lord’s Day just mentioned. Then he quotes again, this time from Tertuliian’s Ad Natianes, Book I., Chap. 13::

"As often as the anniversary comes around, we make offer­ings for the dead as birth-day honors. We count fasting or kneeling on the Lord’s Day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we hathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign (of the cross)."

He closes his quotations from Tertullian by one from De Corona, sections 3, 4:

“If for these and other such rules you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from someone who has."

Now while Mr. A. cites the references to these garbled ex­tracts, he does so by the use of a foot note, indicated by em­ploying figures. And he is probably correct in supposing that not more than one out of a hundred will notice that his last quotation has nothing to do in any way with the subject of the Lord’s Day. There is not a word in the connection from which it is taken on that topic. He has made four quotations from four different works of that author, on four different subjects, and has thrown them together and then remarked upon them as if they were so much testimony given respecting the Lord’s Day, or first day of the week. And all to show that Tertullian did not regard the Lord’s Day of any direct divine authority.

Suppose that I could find someone saying that the early Christians kept the seventh day of the week, as did the Jews, and regarded themselves as under the law which required its observance, and then I find some other work of that same author, speaking of some things which they have come to practice by tradition and not by direct Scripture command, which he says we don’t claim divine authority for these things, and then argue that my authority confessed that what they did was simply from custom, would not every man regard me as a falsifier of history? I would be making the writer say that he had no authority for the Sabbath when he was not talking on the subject in any way. And yet that is just what Mr. A. does for Tertullian. He says, too, that he has given all that Tertul­lian has said on the subject of the Lord’s Day but one mere reference. Well, this is what Tertullian says in so many words:

“The Lord’s Day is the holy day of the Christian Church. We have nothing to do with the Sabbath. The Lord’s Day is the Christian’s solemnity."

It is no pleasure to expose the tricks of unworthy men. I am ashamed that any man can be found claiming to be a believer in Christ with no higher motive before him. He suppresses the testimony of the men from whom he pretends to quote; applies words written on one subject to another topic, and then draws conclusions that are not even warranted by his patched deliver­ances. 1 will, with this brief notice, dismiss Mr. Andrews, believing him to be unworthy of the confidence of any reader.

Let us now hear from Justin Martyr, in his Apology to Antoninus, page 67, A. D. 140. This man had been raised in Palestine, and only writes a little on this side of the apostle John. He says:

“On the day called Sunday all who live in cities, or in the country, gather in one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits, then the president verbally instructs and exhorts to the imita­tion of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray; then bread and wine and water are brought and the president offers prayers and thanksgiving according to his ability, and the people say, amen. There is a distribution to each, and a par­taking of that over which thanks have been given, and a portion is sent by the deacons to those who are absent. The wealthy among us help the needy; each gives what he thinks fit; and what is collected is laid aside by the president who relieves the orphans and the widows, and those who are sick or in want from any cause, those who are in bonds, and strangers sojourn­ing among us; in a word, he takes care of all who are in need. We meet on Sunday because it is the first day, when God created the world, and Jesus Christ rose from the dead."

We have already seen that Sunday was a common term by which to speak of the first day of the week, or Lord’s Day. Ter­tullian and some others call it the “eighth day," that is, the next day after the seventh. The reason that Justin here prefers the “Sunday “to any other, is that he would be understood by the Emperor to whom he addressed the Apology, in so doing, whereas if he employed the term Lord’s Day, he would fail of his purpose. The language of Pliny, the Governor of Bithynia, to the Emperor Trajan, reveals this same custom. I quote from Blackburn’s History, p. p. 25, 26:

“And this was the account which they gave of the nature of the religion they once pro­fessed, whether it deserve the name of crime or error: That they were accustomed to meet on a stated day, before, sunrise, and repeat among themselves a hymn to Christ as to a God, and to bind themselves as with an oath not to commit any wicked­ness, nor to be guilty of theft, robbery, or adultery, never to deny a promise or break a pledge; after which it was their cus­tom to separate, and to meet again at a promiscuous, harmless meal (doubtless the love feast connected with the Lord’s Supper)." Our author thinks that this letter of Pliny was written about the year 112. Most historical critics put it several years sooner. At any rate it was but a few years after the death of the apostle John. And as we have the united testimony of history and Scripture that the disciples did observe the first day of the week, Sunday or Lord’s Day, as they at any time chose to call it, this is beyond any reasonable question, the meaning of this stated day, on which they met for the purpose of breaking bread.

I will now close the historical discussion of this question. We have seen that many of the best authorities state as plainly as they can, that the early Christians met on the first day of the week and give their reasons for doing so, that it was the day on which the Lord rose from-the dead, and, on that day, the apos­tles and those Christians taught by them, met to break bread and drink wine, in memory of the bruised body and shed blood of the Lord Jesus. We have seen, too, that at an early time there were Judaizing teachers trying to bring the disciples back again under bondage to the Law of Moses. That some of these were determined that they would keep the Sabbath, although they did not refuse to observe the first day of the week as a sacred day, made so by the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Hence there were some who kept both days. But history is as clear as it can be that, as they came to understand the nature of the Gospel of Christ, they discontinued their devotions to the law, as such. And against this, there is no opposing testimony. History cannot be tortured into the support of the seventh day of the week. The most that the Advent historian has tried to do was to cast some doubt on keeping the Lord’s Day. And we have seen that even this cannot be done, only as history is falsified, and made to depose upon subjects and speak language that the writers themselves never thought of.

Usually when history is made to speak on the subject, the advocate of seventh-day-ism says: “Well, there is nothing in it any way." Now, as we said in the beginning of this part of our investigation, we do not regard it as an end to the contro­versy, but that it is a testimony, to the extent of the candor and critical ability of the whole church. Nay, more, they quit the Sabbath and began to keep the Lord’s Day, and for this, there could have been no inducement or producing cause, but the honest conviction that they were not under the law, but were only to follow Christ and the apostles. And with the exception of a few Judaizers here and there, who have not even been able to make spots in history, there has never been any doubt on the correctness of observing the first day of the week.