Sabbath or Lord's Day in the New Testament.
By J. H. W.
One of three positions must be true in regard to the New Testament testimony on this subject: 1. There is a commandment or ordinance for the institution; or 2. There is a recognition of a pre-existing institution; or 3. There is no such institution in the New Testament. This is too plain and reasonable to admit of a doubt; for if there is neither a new one made nor an old one recognized, there is nothing at all. The argument naturally presents itself in the following form: 1. There is such an institution in the New Testament. John says, Rev. i, 10, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." This is sufficient proof that one certain day belonged to the Lord at that time; and if at that time, does still. This is confirmed by the record of the Acts of the Apostles, where frequent mention is made of the Sabbath-day, and what was done on it. Now if there was no Sabbath-day at that time, if no particular day was the Lord's day, then the statements of Acts and Revelation referred to were erroneous. But this will not be claimed; therefore we consider it a settled fact that one day of the week was regarded by inspired writers and teachers in the New Testament as the Lord's day, or the Sabbath. 2. We find no New Testament commandment or ordinance for the institution. This proposition being negative in its nature, we rest it on the admissions of the classes advocating the claims of different days. On the part of all those who insist that the Lord's day is the seventh day, we admit the proposition. On the part of those who insist that the first day is the Lord's day, we offer the admissions of accredited authors among them. 1. Buck's Theol. Dict., Art. Sabbath. "It must be confessed that there is no law in the New Testament concerning the first day." 2. Campbell, Lect. in Beth. Coll., 1848. "Was the first day set apart by public authority in the apostolic age? No. By whom was it set apart, and when? Constantine, who lived about the beginning of the fourth century." 3. Challoner, D. D., Cath. Chris. Inst. "Sundays and holy days all stand upon the same foundation; viz., the ordinance of the church. . . . Does the scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept? The scripture commands us to hear the church." 4. Neander, (Rose's, p. 186). "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." 5. Cranmer, Catechism. "We observe the Sunday and some other days, as the magistrates do judge convenient." 6. Melanchon, Augs. Con. "We find not the same commanded by any apostolic law." 7. Scott, D. D., Com. "The change from the seventh to the first appears to have been gradually and silently introduced, by example rather than precept." 8. Clarke, D. D., Com. "It seems to have been by an especial providence that this change has been made." 9. Prot. Epis. Ch., Expl. Catechism. "We meet with no scriptural direction for the change." 10. Dr. Heylyn, Hist. Sab. "For three hundred years there was neither law to bind them to it, nor any rest from labor or from worldly business required upon it." 11. Eusebius. "All things whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day." Such testimonies might be added to any extent. Another evidence is the fact that those who agree in keeping the first day cannot agree upon a reason for it, which they could readily do if there were a scriptural direction for it. The fact adduced by Dr. Scott, that it was gradually and silently introduced, is sufficient to condemn it. The same may be said of almost every innovation and heresy; but to "good works" we are "thoroughly furnished" by the "scripture." Thus the baptism of penitents was introduced by precept; the sprinkling of infants was introduced "gradually and silently;" and its precise origin is hard to determine. Yet the reason given for sprinkling children is a more plausible inference from scripture facts than the reasons for keeping the Sunday. Dr. Clarke's plea of an "especial providence" might be plead with equal force for any prevalent departure from the teachings of the Bible. Eusebius wrote his statement about ten years after Constantine's edict for "the venerable day of the sun," and he shows to what source it was then ascribed, saying, "we have" done it. Campbell says the first "public authority" for its observance was Constantine's decree, which was in 321, A. D. This is confirmed by Dr. Heylyn, who says there was no law to bind to its observance for three hundred years after Christ. He also says there was no rest from labor or from worldly business required upon it. And Mosheim says that Constantine's edict caused it to be observed with greater solemnity than it had been before. There is no doubt but these statements are all true. To this we may add another from A. Campbell, that "public opinion" demanded of Constantine that such a decree be made. If this statement be true also, then it follows that public opinion regarded the first day as the day of the sun merely, and not as a day of abstinence from ordinary labor. It being thus settled that there is no new institution of a Sabbath or Lord's day in the New Testament, it follows that the true position is the third noticed, to wit: 3. The New Testament testimony of a Sabbath or Lord's day, is a recognition of an old institution. We remark here, that a new institution cannot be proved by a mere recognition or allusion; for it must first be proved that the thing was known to exist to which allusion is said to be made. It is often said that John meant the first day when he said the Lord's day. To establish this it is necessary to prove that the first day was known by that title when the Revelation was written. There is evidence that the first day was not known by that title; there is the fullest evidence that the seventh day was known by that title; therefore if the first day was alluded to by a title which was universally given to the seventh day, it would be deception on the part of the writer. Should I sell a draft on "New York," which should be rejected, what would the buyer think if I should tell him that it was not drawn on the city in the State of that name; but that I "alluded" in the draft to a New York just founded in the Lake Superior Copper Regions? He would justly say it was a deception—a cheat. For New York is well known as a city of mercantile exchange, while nobody knows of any place of exchange by that name in the Copper Regions. So of the Lord's day in Revelation. All Bible readers and hearers knew that the Lord did claim the seventh day as his; that it was his rest-day. And all the New Testament speakers and writers well knew that such an institution did exist, and therefore knew that their hearers and readers would understand them to refer to that existing institution when using its name, unless otherwise informed. But they did not otherwise inform them; thus they sanction the belief that they referred to the same institution, the seventh day. Can this conclusion be denied? If it can, on what ground?