A BAPTIST AND THE SABBATH.
A FRIEND sends us a copy of the National Baptist Flag containing an article entitled "The Christian Sabbath," with the sub-title "SIGNS OF THE TIMES and the Tacoma Baptist on the Sabbath." It is written by J. Lewis Smith, D.D. We are requested to reply to it. The contention of the writer is that Sunday-keeping was not brought in through the Catholic Church, or Constantine; in question form, "Did Constantine or the Catholic Church Originate Sunday Observance among Christians?" And the principal attack is against Apples of Gold Library, No. 45, "Historical Facts and Incidents Relative to the Sabbath and the Sunday." 1. Now, in the first place, it is not contended, nor has it been by the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, nor is it by the tract, that Sunday-keeping leaped into the Christian church all at once, full-fledged. Like all other error, it came in gradually. It was not at first in any way considered obligatory. Sunday observance of a sort came in early; for the apostasy began in the apostles' days. 2 Thess. 2:3-7; 1 John 4:1. But the custom was not established till years later, through the united influence of both Church and State. Dr. Smith endeavors to make the simple statements of these facts by the SIGNS, appear as contradictions. The contradictions all lie in the inconsistencies of an apostate church. 2. The writer says that he "agrees with every word" of Neander's statement that "the festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intention 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." Now if Dr. Smith and the Baptist Flag agree with every word of that, they certainly do not believe in a Scriptural Sunday, or so-called first-day "Christian sabbath;" for if it "was far from the intentions of the apostles" or the early church to establish any such institution, as Neander declares, and Dr. Smith believes, all the authority Sunday has in this matter comes from an apostate church, a church which, in its purposes as respects Sunday, was "far from the intention of the apostles." Dr. Smith says, "Everybody knows there is no divine command in the New Testament for Sunday-keeping." Then why does Dr. Smith contend for it? Baptism is clearly based on explicit scriptural injunction and example; where are these for Sunday, or the first day of the week? Neither is there any divine command in the New Testament for Saturday-keeping.
But were these inspired men and the early churches commanded to keep the Jewish seventh day?
And for answer our Baptist brother goes to Neander, and Justin Martyr, and other of the "fathers" of Dr. Smith's unbaptistic practises. Why did he not go to God's Word? Why did he not take the commandments spoken by the Son of God on Sinai? Ex. 20:8-11. Why did he not take the words of Christ, that He came not to change this law even so much as to a jot or tittle; and that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than one tittle of the law to fail? Matt. 5:17-20; Luke 16:17. Why did he not take the words of Jesus, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matt. 19:17); "If ye keep My commandments, ye shall abide in My love; even as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love" (John 15:10); and the words of John, "He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked" (1 John 2:6)? Why does he not take Paul's words that the Jews knew God's "will," because they were "instructed out of the law," and that they had "the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law"? See Rom. 2:17-22. The only difficulty was that they were trying to keep the law with carnal hearts, which were at enmity with God, the Lawgiver. Rom. 8:7. Why does not Dr. Smith refer to the text, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law"? Rom. 3:31. And there are a multitude more of kindred expressions, such as James 2:8-12; Rev. 14:12; 1 John 5:3, etc. Why not turn to the Bible for what was commanded of God concerning the law and the Sabbath? We turn to Neander, the great church historian, for custom and usage of post New Testament times; but for apostolic times why not go to the apostles? 4. Again, Dr. Smith tells us:— Your "Historical Facts" say that Tertullian, A.D. 200, was the first father who, without doubt, applies the term Lord's day to Sunday. Doesn't the Didache of the Apostles, written nearly 100 years before Tertullian, speak of Sunday as the Lord's day? You didn't know that, did you? Doesn't Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 194, speak of the Lord's day? He wrote before Tertullian, didn't he? Doesn't Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, A.D. [170], speak of the Lord's day? If you do not know these facts, read up. Don't blunder any longer.
No, sir; we do not know them as "facts," now. And we, right here, ask Dr. J. Lewis Smith to tell us just where these statements are found. We have no idea that he will do it. If the reader wishes to look up all that is said about Sunday or Lord's day in the fathers, he would do well to consult Andrews' "History of the Sabbath," or "The Fathers of the Catholic Church," in which all these various claims are candidly discussed. Statements are one thing; facts, another. Will Dr. Lewis quote the statement and give the work from which he takes it, the edition, and page? Then we will show him and others the kind of authority Sunday has. 5. Our Baptist brother contends from the authority of certain commentators that the Lord's day of Rev. 1:10 refers to the first day of the week, the day of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us see if this is true. That is, according to the Lord's own Word and the Lord's own example, what is the Lord's day? It is not a question to be settled by common usage. Many counterfeit bills pass because well worn, but they are not the less counterfeit; and, if brought to test, the fact of their continued use has no bearing with the honest official. The bill, judged by government standard, is false; it must go. So the Lord's day must be tested by government standard. This standard is not the corrupt semi-heathen "fathers of the church." They may be brought forward to sanction every error which has ever cursed the church. The standard of God is His Holy Word. According to that standard, what is the true Lord's day? (1) Jesus Christ was the Creator of all things. John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16. (2) He, the Son of God, made the seventh day in the beginning "holy unto the Lord." Gen. 2:2, 3. (3) "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Ex. 20:10. (4) Christ, whose Spirit spoke through the prophets (1 Peter 1:11), calls it in Isa. 58:13, "My holy day." (5) Jesus says, "The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath day." Mark 2:28. (6) Finally, He Himself observed that day as an example. John 15:10; 1 John 2:6. Therefore, according to the standard of the Lord's Word, according to the example of the Lord, what day is the Lord's day? In the light of the judgment, and of that Word which shall either acquit or condemn you in the judgment (John 12:48), reader, how would you answer the question? Now it must be evident that to him who believes God's Word, and believes that Word to be a sufficient guide in moral duty, not only has Sunday observance no authority in God's Word, but the people who originated it had departed from that Word. 6. Dr. Smith again says:— To my statement that all the early Christian fathers observed Sunday as the day on which Christ rose from the dead, not one word in rebuttal is submitted. They did observe the first day of the week as the Lord's day.
This is true as regards a portion of the so-called "Christian fathers." Jesus says, "Call no man father upon the earth." The true Bible Christian's Father is God. The Founder of the Christian church is Jesus Christ, the Foundation of apostles and prophets; and the teaching of any "Christian father," whoever he may be, that is not in harmony with the Foundation, is but wood, hay, and stubble. It is still true, as stated in "Historical Facts," that "the first early father" who, without doubt, applies the term "Lord's day" to Sunday is Tertullian. On that day he tells us that fasting or kneeling was unlawful. They traced on the forehead the sign of the cross, and made offerings for the dead in connection with Sunday observance." This is one of Dr. Smith's orthodox "Christian fathers." Eusebius, another "Christian father" and bishop, admirer and flatterer of Constantine, says ("Commentary on the Psalms," quoted in Cox' "Sabbath Literature," vol. 1, p. 361): "And all things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we [Constantine, Eusebius, and other bishops] have transferred to the Lord's day, as more appropriately belonging to it." But previous to this, and long after, many Christians paid no regard to Sunday as a holy day. It was not till the beginning of the sixth century that the opinion began to spread abroad that Sunday labor was sinful, the Third Council of Orleans (A.D. 538) condemning such opinion. A council was held by King Gunthrum, in Mascon, Burgundy (A.D. 588), and this council warned Christians to "keep then the Lord's day." (Morer's "Dialogues on the Lord's Day," p. 265.) Another council was held at Narbon (A.D. 590), which threatened confiscation and banishment to those who would not keep the Lord's day. (Id., pp. 265, 266.) This shows how the early Christians observed it. On the other hand, those were anathematized who continued to observe the Sabbath. And Sir William Domville says: "Not any ecclesiastical writer of the first three centuries attributed the origin of Sunday observance either to Christ or to His apostles."—Examination of the Six Texts Supplement, pp. 6, 7. And very much more might be said. Sunday observance rests (1) upon the old heathen custom of sun-worship; (2) It was brought into the church as a holy day through these half-converted heathen philosophers and backslidden Christians. (3) Constantine greatly helped it by the first law for Sunday observance found on record. (4) This was supplemented by church decrees. And the church which did all this was apostate, the beginning of the apostasy which ripened into the Papacy. Those Christians who most faithfully served God had no learned disquisitions to offer, and the most of their writings have perished from the earth; but their record is on high. No better can be done than to close this7article in the words of Dowling: "The Bible and the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants."