THE SUNDAY "LORD'S DAY" OF HUMAN ORIGIN.
By W. N. Glenn
IN last week's issue, in the article "The Lord's Day," it was shown that in the Scriptures but one day is known as the Lord's day, namely, the seventh day of the week. The expression "the Lord's day" occurs but once in the Bible (Rev. 1:10), and in the absence of any other explanation as to what particular day is meant, we are forced to the conclusion that reference is had to the only day which the Lord sanctified (Gen. 2:2, 3; Ex. 20:11) and called his own (Isa. 58:13). As the Revelation was written some sixty years after the ascension of Christ, and near the close of the first century, if the Lord had made any change with reference to the day which he called his own, we certainly would expect to find it mentioned by this time. As there is no reference to a change of the Lord's day in the Scriptures, even to the date of the very latest books, the question arises, How did the erroneous idea of such a change gain credence in the church and in the world? Inasmuch as the alleged change is manifestly not of God, it is evident that it is of man. Inasmuch as God's word contains no authority for the change, it is evident that the substitute was instituted by man without authority. Being an unauthorized work of man, it cannot be other than a result of apostasy. And right here the words of another writer are pertinent:— And now mark the work of apostasy. This work never begins by thrusting out God's institutions, but always by bringing in those of men, and at first only asking that they may be tolerated, while yet the ones ordained of God are secretly observed. This in time being effected, the next effort is to make them equal with the divine. When this has been accomplished, the third stage of the process is to honor them above those divinely commanded; and this is speedily succeeded by the fourth, in which the divine institution is thrust out with contempt, and the whole ground given to its human rival. And such has been the history of the Sunday Lord's day dogma. When we have shown that neither Christ nor his apostles ever alluded to any other day as the Lord's day than the one sanctified by the Lord as his own day, we are confronted with the claim that the "early fathers" of the church recognized the change. To this claim it may be said that if every one of the fathers adhered to a doctrine or a theory unauthorized by the word of God, it would not add a feather's weight to the importance or authority of the doctrine or theory. "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isa. 8:20.805 But an examination of the existing writings and reputed teachings of the fathers will show that they were decidedly inharmonious on this subject (as on many others), excepting in this one feature: While in time they came to attach considerable importance to the assumption that the first day of the week is the Lord's day because on that day he rose from the dead, not one of them assume that it is the Sabbath day. There is no intimation of a change of the Sabbath day to the so-called Lord's day until we come to the Council of Laodicea, about A.D. 364. To show the gradual manner in which the innovation crept into the church, we note the fact that the first authentic mention of the Lord's day by any of the early writers is that of Dionysius, bishop of Antioch, who wrote, about A.D. 170, a letter to the church at Rome, in which occurs this sentence:— We passed this holy Lord's day, in which we read your letter, from the constant reading of which we shall be able to draw admonition, even as from the reading of the former one you sent us written through Clement. There is nothing but conjecture to indicate that the writer of this sentence meant the first day of the week. There is much accredited to the fathers of the earlier centuries which has been proven spurious, and much that is, to say the least, uncertain. For instance, some first-day advocates have laid stress upon a so-called "epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians," in which occurs the following language:— But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of days. Even if this were an authenticated document, it recognizes the Sabbath of the law, and does not indicate that the day called by the writer "the Lord's day" was in any sense a substitute for the Sabbath. It simply advances the human assumption that the first day of the week is the Lord's day, and treats it merely as a festival. But the recognized authorities who have investigated these early documents agree that the epistles ascribed to Ignatius are of doubtful authority, expressing the sentiment of a much later date than his life. The "Encyclopedia Britannica" says, "The information we get in regard to Ignatius, up to the time of Eusebius [fourth century], is exceedingly scanty." Again it says, "The letters of Ignatius cause great difficulty to the critic." And McClintock and Strong's "Cyclopedia" says: "We have no trustworthy accounts of the life and ministry of Ignatius. The chief authority is the 'Martyrium Ignatii,' but even those who assert the genuineness of that work admit that it is greatly interpolated." Theophilus, bishop of Antioch from 168 to 181, is represented as saying that "both custom and reason challenge from us that we should honor the Lord's day, seeing on that day it was that our Lord Jesus completed his resurrection from the dead." But an investigator who examined his writings expressly to find the statement, says:— I have carefully examined every paragraph of all the remaining writings of this father, and that several times over, without discovering any such statement. . . . And, further than this, the term Lord's day does not occur in his writings, nor does he even refer to the first day of the week, except in quoting Genesis 1, in a single instance. But Theophilus does give testimony to the law of God several times, in one place saying, "God has given us a law and holy commandments; and everyone who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption." And in connection with the Sabbath he quotes Gen. 2: 2, 3. Clement, of Alexandria, wrote about the close of the second century, and is the first of the fathers who can be positively quoted as using the term Lord's day in connection with the first day of the week. Yet he does not call it the Sabbath, but refers to the seventh day as the Sabbath. Nor does he give the Scripture as authority for calling the first day the Lord's day, but, quite logically, finds authority in the writings of Plato, a heathen philosopher. In other places, however, Clement becomes somewhat ambiguous in regard to the observance of days, as, indeed, anyone must who endeavors to carry along two days. Having said that Sunday may be properly the seventh day, and Saturday the sixth, he calls "the latter [the sixth] properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work." Another peculiar proposition is that a person, "in fulfillment of the precept, according to the gospel, keeps the Lord's day when he abandons an evil disposition, and assumes that of the gnostic, glorifying the Lord's resurrection in himself." Tertullian, who wrote a little later than Clement, applies the term Lord's day to Sunday; but he does not claim divine authority, his idea being to more effectually distinguish the Christians from the Jews. It may be noted that after the apostolic days very few Jews accepted Christianity, and the heathen who came into the church were very much prejudiced against the Jews. This fact had much to do with the encouragement of the heathen Sunday and other heathen innovations, and the discouragement of the day which was observed by the Jews and Jewish Christians. It was this hatred of the Jews which, in a great measure, actuated the Council of Laodicea in its decree of excommunication against all church members who should "Judaize" by keeping the seventh-day Sabbath. The history of the application of the Lord's day to Sunday shows that the custom had very little place in the church until the third century; that it first figured merely as a festival, gaining strength by the accession of those who had observed it as such in their heathen associations. But the "mystery of iniquity" kept on working, through the encouragement of an apostate semi-heathen church leadership, until the commandment of the Lord was well-nigh made void in the church through the tradition of men. But the very fact that at the Council of Laodicea it was deemed necessary to resort to the extreme act of anathema against those who adhered to the commandment of God, is evidence that there was still a sufficient number of such adherents to cause their influence to be felt and feared by the apostate and tyrannical majority. And the action of that Catholic council is being emulated to-day, not only by Roman Catholicism but by so-called Protestantism. But the Lord has always had, and always will have, reserved unto him a people who would not and will not bow the knee to Baal.