How It Was Done, and Why.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THE Sunday-schools of the country are now engaged in studying the book of Acts, having recently begun with the twentieth chapter, where they left off six months ago. That chapter notes a certain meeting that was held by the disciples, on the first day of the week, and it was to be expected that the many lesson commentators would make as much out of it as possible, to bolster up Sunday observance. In looking over the list, we find that they are all about the same. The following from the N. Y. Independent, of Dec. 25, 1884, is a fair sample of the whole:— "At Troas we find the brethren assembled on a Sunday. In the early churches there was an observance of the seventh day and the first day both. The observance of the seventh day has never been formally abrogated; but it died out gradually, as the converted Jew of to-day does not circumcise his children, though the command to circumcise has never been formally repealed. Among the converted Gentiles the Lord's Day [By this term the Independent means Sunday, and not the Sabbath.] would naturally command a more general observance than the seventh day, and as Christianity ceased to make converts among the Jews, but increased among the Gentiles, the observance of the first day became general and that of the seventh was gradually discontinued." In nothing else would scholars, such as the editors of the Independent, tolerate jumping at conclusions in this way. A single meeting on the first day of the week is accepted as proof that Sunday was the regular day of worship among the early Christians. If this be logic, what conclusion must we draw from the fact that, beginning with the day of Pentecost, they held meetings every day? The Sunday controversy affords proof that the keenest logicians may be led by self-interest to take leave of logic, and reason like infants. Let us notice in detail the Independent's position on the introduction of the Sunday into the Christian church. 1. "In the early churches there was an observance of the seventh day and the first day both." Well, then, if we are to be guided by the practice of the early church, why do not all the churches now observe both days? Why is it that the Independent, which believes in following the example of the early church, has omitted one important item? One thing is certain: The Independent has no ground on which to condemn Seventh-day Adventists. It acknowledges that Christians generally have departed from the custom of the early church, which it regards as authoritative. For our part we make no claim to follow a certain course simply because some one did so long ago. The Scriptures are the only guide, and we can read them and understand them as well as people ever could. 2. "The observance of the seventh day has never been formally abrogated." But it was formally enjoined, and is therefore still binding. "It [the observance of the seventh day] died out gradually." Will the Independent please tell us what constitutes sin? Is it violation of law, or violation of custom? Among certain nations the worship of the true God gradually died out, until it ceased altogether. Must we conclude that in those countries the old law which says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," is not binding? that the worship of idols is all right? Why cannot people remember that the command, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil," is for all time, and that wrong cannot be made right, no matter how many people practice it. The New Testament bears this testimony: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 3:4. Modern and uninspired teachers would have us accept this version: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also custom; for sin is the transgression of custom." We do not accept this new version. "The old is better." If the law enjoining the observance of the seventh day has not been abrogated, then every one who does not observe the73seventh day is, to that extent, a sinner. With many, such action may be a sin of ignorance, but it is a sin nevertheless. But the Independent claims to present a parallel to the neglect of Sabbath observance. It says: "It died out gradually, as the converted Jew of to-day does not circumcise his children, though the commandment to circumcise has never been formally repealed." If a text could be found which should say, "Sabbath-keeping is nothing," as 1 Cor. 7:19 says of circumcision, how readily it would be quoted. Of circumcision Paul says: "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter." Rom. 2:28, 29. If now the Independent could find a text, saying, "For he is not a Sabbath-keeper, who observes the seventh day; . . . but he is a Sabbath-keeper, who observes the first day," then it would have as good ground for Sabbath desecration as it has for not practicing circumcision. The Independent well knows that there is no point of comparison between circumcision and the Sabbath. By the style of argument which it uses, every one of the precepts of the moral law may be trampled upon without sin. The Spiritualist says, "Whatever is, is right;" that is, custom and inclination must be allowed to settle questions of right and wrong. "Oh, no," says the Independent, "you must not say so of everything; that is true only when applied to the fourth commandment." But it will not be long before Christian people who give custom and inclination as reasons for disregarding the Sabbath of the Lord, will find the same argument thrown back on them concerning the sixth, seventh, and eighth commandments. Those who thus set at naught a portion of the law of God, are opening the flood-gates of iniquity, and will certainly be responsible for the wickedness that follows. 3. "Among the converted Gentiles the Lord's Day [Sunday] would naturally command a more general observance than the seventh day." Of course it would; and so, likewise, falsehood, and demon-worship accompanied by licentious rites would naturally command more general observance than would the pure worship of Jehovah; but that would not make such practices right. In the last part of the paragraph quoted, the Independent has let us into the true secret of the change from the seventh to the first day of the week. The first day was the heathen festival day. Around that day clustered memories of wild revels in honor of their god; in fact, all their old religious prejudices were naturally in favor of that day, and as they increased in numbers until the true disciples became only a small minority, the old customs were indeed gradually brought in. And because a horde of heathen chose to call themselves Christians while retaining their heathen customs, Christians of to-day think that they must follow their example. Dr. Killen, in "The Ancient Church," p. 449, gives us another custom for which these nominally converted heathen manifested a natural fondness. He says:— "The code of heathen morality supplied a ready apology for falsehood, and its accommodating principles soon found too much encouragement within the pale of the church. Hence the pious frauds which were now perpetrated. Various works made their appearance with the name of some apostolic man appended to them, their fabricators thus hoping to give currency to opinions or practices which might otherwise have encountered much opposition. At the same time many evinced a disposition to supplement the silence of the written word by the aid of tradition." And the successors of those persons are now numbered by the million. Tradition is now exalted far above the law of God. Why do not the churches adopt lying as a Christian ordinance? It was practiced in the early church. To be sure there is a law against lying, and it was never formally abrogated, but the converts from among the Gentiles had a natural tendency to lie, and so a strict regard for truth began gradually to die out. If it is right to keep Sunday, then it is right to lie and deceive, for both practices stand on the same foundation, namely, the custom of the majority. Verily, "The customs of the people are vain." E. J. W.