p. 681 | The Lord’s Day by Ellet Joseph Waggoner

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Nov 13, 1884

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 10, No. 43.

“The Lord’s Day.”

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

CONSIDERATION OF THE ARGUMENT FROM THE PRACTICE OF THE EARLY CHURCH.

It will be remembered that our articles on the “Teaching of the Apostles” were called out by an article that appeared in the Advance, making extravagant claims for that document, as forever settling the Sunday question. Its argument was as follows: The “Teaching” exhorts all to come together on the Lord’s day to break bread and give thanks; the disciples at Troas, with Paul, did on one occasion assemble on the first day of the week to break bread; and Justin Martyr said, in his first apology to the Roman Senate, that “on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place,” etc. From these they arrive at the conclusion that when the apostle John said, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day,” he intended by the term “the Lord’s day” to designate the first day of the week. This is a fair statement of the Sunday Lord’s-day position, which we design to candidly examine. In this examination we have nothing to do with the so-called “Teaching of the Apostles,” because (1) we have already shown that it has not the slightest degree of authority, being the uninspired production of some unknown person, and (2) the expression “Lord’s day” nowhere occurs in that document, whether it be good or bad. The term “Lord’s day” is used, however, by the apostle, and people have a right to demand that teachers of the Bible tell whether he referred to the seventh or the first day.

The statement of Justin Martyr will be considered first. The reader will notice that even he does not say that the first day of the week was termed the Lord’s day, but uses the expression, “on the day called Sunday.” If that day had been regarded as sacred, some other title would have been bestowed. This, however, is of little consequence. The argument is that John speaks of the Lord’s day, and the fact that Christians of Justin Martyr’s time assembled on Sunday, proves that Sunday is the day which John had in mind. The reason why he spoke of it as “the day called Sunday” was, as is stated by the Advance, because it was called by the Romans “the day of the sun.”

This argument for Sunday as the Lord’s day would be a good one, and indeed conclusive, if it could be shown that the practices of Christians in the early centuries were always in harmony with the Scriptures. In order to make the argument of any account whatever, it must be shown that their customs were necessarily correct. But how shall we know whether or not their practices were correct? Only by comparing them with the Bible, for that alone contains the rule of righteousness. Our Sunday friends, in their appeals to the practice of the early church, make the mistake of determining by the actions of men what the Bible teaches, when, instead of that, they ought to appeal to the Bible, to determine the correctness of those actions.

We will give a few quotations to show how little we can depend on the practices of Christians, even in the first centuries, as exponents of true Christian doctrine. First we quote the words of Paul. To the elders of the church at Ephesus, he said:—

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” Acts 20:28–30.

Not only did he predict that there would be heresies taught in the church after his departing, but writing to the Thessalonians, he said, “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work.” Church history, written by first-day authors, bears witness

to the truth of Paul's words. Mosheim, writing concerning the second century, says:—

“A large part, therefore, of the Christian observances and institutions, even in this century, had the aspect of pagan mysteries.”—Book I, Part II, chap. IV, sec. 5.

Again he says:—

“There is good reason to suppose that the Christian bishops purposely multiplied sacred rites for the sake of rendering the Jews and pagans more friendly to them.”—Book I, Cent. II, Part II, chap. IV, sec. 2.

In a foot-note to the above passage, Mosheim says further:—

“It will not be unsuitable to transcribe here a very opposite passage which I met with in Gregory Nyssa's life of Gregory Thaumaturgus: ‘When Gregory perceived that the ignorant and simple multitude persisted in their idolatry, on account of the sensitive pleasures and delights it afforded, he allowed them, in celebrating the memory of the martyrs, to indulge themselves, and give a loose to pleasure (i. e., as the thing itself and both what precedes and follows place beyond all controversy, he allowed them at the sepulchers of the martyrs, on their feast days, to dance, to use sports, to indulge conviviality, and to do all things that the worshipers of idols were accustomed to do in their temples on their festival days), hoping that in process of time they would spontaneously come over to a more becoming and more correct manner of life.’”

Such was the policy of the leaders of the church, in the second century, the century in which Justin Martyr lived. Let any one read the last quotation, and then read the description of the abominations practiced at heathen festivals, and he will hardly be willing to adopt any custom whatever on the example of such Christians. Sunday was so called by the Romans, because it was dedicated to the worship of the sun. Its Latin name was Dies Solis, day of the sun. Now if the bishops of the church, in their desire for “converts” from among the heathen, allowed them to observe their festivals with the most abominable orgies, is it to be considered a strange thing if they allowed them to retain the very day of one of their festivals? If they did not scruple to multiply rites and ceremonies to suit the superstitions of the ignorant crowd, certainly they would not hesitate to accept one that was already in use.

Thus far we have simply shown that we are not to be influenced in favor of any custom because it was practiced by the early Christians. Their course determines nothing for us. We will therefore leave them, and in our next article will allow the Bible to determine which day of the week is the Lord's day. E. J. W.