A Refutation of the Claims of Sunday-keeping to Divine Authority

TESTIMONY FOR THE FIRST DAY EXAMINED

At what time the first day of the week came into notice as a festival in the church, it is not easy to determine. The first intimation we have of this, in any ancient writer of acknowledged integrity, is from Justin Martyr’s Apology for the Christians, about A.D. 140. He is cited as saying, “that the Christians, in the city and in the country assembled on the day called Sunday; and after certain religious devotions, all returned home to their labors;” and he assigns as reasons for this, that God made the world on the first day; and, that Christ first showed himself to his disciples on that day, after his resurrection. These were the best, and probably all the reasons that could then be offered for the practice. He also speaks of Sunday only as a festival, on which they performed labor, when not engaged in devotions; and not as substitute for the Sabbath. From this author we can learn nothing as to the extent of the practice; for though he says this was done by those “in the city and in the country,” he may have intended only the city of Rome and its suburbs, since Justin, although a native of Palestine, in Syria, is stated by Eusebius to have made his residence in Rome. Now can we determine from this, that he intended any thing more, than that they did thus on the Sunday in which the church of Rome, a short time after this, is known to have closed the paschal feast, which was observed annually. RCSK 18.2

It is contended, however, that mention is made of keeping the first day previous to Justin. The first intimation of this kind, it is believed, is from an apocryphal writing, styled the Epistle of Barnabas. But to this epistle it is objected, that there is no evidence of its genuineness. Eusebius, who lived near the time when it was written, mentions it as a spurious writing, entitled to no credit. Dr. Milnor says it is an injury to St. Barnabas, to ascribe this epistle to him. Mosheim says it is the work of some superstitious Jew of mean abilities. And we think it has but little to recommend it besides its antiquity. Barnabas’ theory for observing the first day, rests upon the tradition that the seventh day was typical of the seventh millennium of the age of the world, which would be purely a holy age; and that the Sabbath was not to be kept until that time arrived; and he says, “We keep the eighth day with gladness, in which Jesus arose from the dead.” RCSK 18.3

The citations from Ignatius, are as little to the purpose. In the passage of which most use has been made, he did not say that himself or any one else kept the Lord’s day, as is often asserted. His own words are, that “the prophets who lived before Christ, came to a newness of hope, not by keeping Sabbaths, but by living according to a lordly or most excellent life. In this passage, Ignatius was speaking of altogether a different thing from Sabbath-keeping. There is another quotation from him, however, in which he brings out more clearly his view of the relation existing between the Sabbath and Lord’s day. It is as follows: “Let us not keep the Sabbath in a Jewish manner, in sloth and idleness. But let us keep it after a spiritual manner, not in bodily ease, but in the study of the law, and in the contemplation of the works of God.” “And after we have kept the Sabbath, let every one that loveth Christ keep the Lord’s day festival.”—From this it seems that he would have the Sabbath kept first, as such, and in a manner satisfactory to the strictest Sabbatarian, after which the Lord’s day, not as a Sabbath, but as a festival. Indeed with this distinction between the Sabbath and a festival before us, it is easy to explain all those passages from early historians which refer to the first day. We shall find them to be either immediately connected with instructions about such seasons as Good Friday and Holy Thursday, or in the writings of those who have recommended the observance of these festival days. RCSK 19.1

It is also said that Pliny, Governor of Bithynia, in A.D. 102, in a letter to Trajan, states that the Christians met on the first day of the week for worship; but by no fair interpretation of his words can he be so understood. He says, in writing about those of his own province, “that they were accustomed to assemble on a stated day.” This might be referred to the first day, if there were credible testimony that this day was alone regarded by Christians at that time; but as there is no evidence of this, and as the Sabbath is known to have been the stated day of religious assembling a long time after this, it seems more proper to refer it to the Sabbath than to the first day. RCSK 19.2

We will mention but one more of these misinterpreted citations, and this is from Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, who lived a little after Justin. His letter to Soter, bishop of Rome, is cited as saying, “This day we celebrated the holy Dominical day, in which we have read your epistle.” As given by Eusebius, it is thus: “To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day,” etc. the only ground upon which this phrase can be referred to the first day, is, that this day was at that time known by the same title that God had given to the Sabbath, [see Isaiah 58:13,] of which there is no proof. Therefore it is not just to cite this passage as evidence of the observance of the first day at that time. RCSK 19.3

It is indeed, a well known fact, that the first day has come into very extensive use among the great body of Christians, as the only day of weekly rest and worship. The origin of this practice does not appear, however, to be as ancient by some centuries, as many suppose; nor was its adoption secured at once, but by slow and gradual advances it obtained general notice in Christian countries. This is frankly admitted by Morer, an English Episcopalian, in his Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, page 236. He says, “In St. Jerome’s time, (that is, in the fifth century,) Christianity had got into the throne as well as into the empire. Yet for all this, the entire sanctification of the Lord’s day proceeded slowly, and that it was the work of time to bring it to perfection, appears from the several steps the church made in her constitution, and from the decrees of emperors and other princes, wherein the prohibitions from servile and civil business advanced by degrees from one species to another, till the day got a considerable figure in the world.” The same author says on the same page: “If the Christians in St. Jerome’s time, after divine service on the Lord’s day, followed their daily employments, it should be remembered, that this was not done till the worship was quite over, when they might with innocency enough resume them, because the length of time and the number of hours assigned for piety were not then so well explained as in after ages.” RCSK 20.1

It is probable that no other day could have obtained the same notice in ancient times as the first day of the week did; for there were circumstances, aside from the resurrection, that had an influence in promoting its observance. It was at first a celebration of the same character as the fourth and sixth days of the week, and the annual festivals of saints and martyrs. These celebrations were comparatively unobjectionable, when not permitted to interfere with a divine appointment; but when they were made to supersede or cause a neglect of the Sabbath, they were criminal. In respect to these days of weekly celebration, Mosheim, when remarking upon this early period, and the regard then paid to the seventh and first days, says: “Many also observed the fourth day, in which Christ was betrayed, and the sixth day, in which he was crucified.” He adds, “the time of assembling was generally in the evening after sunset, or in the morning before the dawn.” RCSK 20.2