POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED.
By S. B. Whitney
The advocates of first-day observance contend that that day is shown to be the Lord’s day, because Christ appeared to his disciples upon it, and the disciples came together upon it to break bread. But is this sufficient evidence? When the Lord gave his disciples their commission he told them to teach all nations to observe whatsoever he had commanded them. Matt. 28:20. But we have no record that he ever commanded them to keep the first day of the week, nor that they ever taught its observance to others; all of which would be necessary if this was included in that commission. To show this we have but to compare this case with that of baptism. In connection with the establishment of this ordinance we have the following facts:— 1. John came baptizing with water, on the strength of a divine commission, and with direct reference to the manifestation of Christ to Israel. John 1:31, 33. 3. It is safe to infer that the disciples themselves, some of them at least, had also been baptized. John 1:35–47. 4. The disciples had baptized the followers of Christ by his instruction. John 3:22, 26; 4:2. Yet with all this evidence of precept, example, and experience on the part of the disciples, the Lord does not presume upon their knowledge of their duty in this respect; but in giving them their final commission he directly instructs them to baptize those who receive the gospel. Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:16. And in the fulfillment of that commission the disciples never failed to teach the observance of that ordinance. See Acts 2:38; 8:35–38; 10:47, 48, &c. Judging from the above, we conclude that if Christ had intended the first day of the week to be the Lord’s day, very definite instruction, both before and after his resurrection, would have been given as to its institution and observance. Indeed, the necessity for instruction is greater, if possible, in this case than in the other, for there was an institution of the kind already in existence, which must be superseded by the new one; this fact also involving the necessity for giving definite information of the abrogation of the old institution to make room for the introduction of the new, which is also entirely wanting in the Scripture record. If it be said that baptism was also to supersede Jewish ordinances, we reply, that, granting this position, the needed information was given on this point; while the nature, form, and great dissimilarity of the ordinances in question was such that the transition could be much more readily seen and made in this case than the other; so we contend that the utter want of such information in the case of the Sabbath is proof that no such change was ever made.