THE SUNDAY-LORD’S DAY NOT TRACEABLE TO THE APOSTLES.
General statement respecting the Ante-Nicene fathers—The
change of the Sabbath never mentioned by one of these
fathers—Examination of the historical argument for Sunday as
the Lord’s day—This argument compared with the like argument
for the Catholic festival of the Passover.
The Ante-Nicene fathers[439] are those Christian writers who flourished
after the time of the apostles, and before the Council of Nice, A. D.
325. Those who govern their lives by the volume of Inspiration do not
recognize any authority in these fathers to change any precept of that
book, nor any authority in them to add any new precepts to it. But
those whose rule of life is the Bible as modified by tradition, regard
the early fathers of the church as nearly or quite equal in authority
with the inspired writers. They declare that the fathers conversed with
the apostles; or if they did not do this, they conversed with some who
had seen some of the apostles; or at least they lived within a few
generations of the apostles, and so learned by tradition, which involved
only a few transitions from father to son, what was the true doctrine of
the apostles.
Thus with perfect assurance they supply the lack of inspired testimony
in behalf of the so-called Christian Sabbath by plentiful quotations
from the early fathers. What if there be no mention of the change of the
Sabbath in the New Testament? And what if there be no commandment for
resting from labor on the first day of the week? Or, what if there be no
method revealed in the Bible by which the first day of the week can be
enforced by the fourth commandment? They supply these serious omissions
in the Scriptures by testimonies which they say were written by men who
lived during the first three hundred years after the apostles.
On such authority as this the multitude dare to change the Sabbath of the
fourth commandment. But next to the deception under which men fall when
they are made to believe that the Bible may be corrected by the fathers,
is the deception practiced upon them as to what the fathers actually
teach. It is asserted that the fathers bear explicit testimony to the
change of the Sabbath by Christ as a historical fact, and that they knew
that this was so because they had conversed with the apostles, or with
some who had conversed with them. It is also asserted that the fathers
called the first day of the week the Christian Sabbath, and that they
refrained from labor on that day as an act of obedience to the fourth
commandment.
Now it is a most remarkable fact that every one of these assertions
is false. The people who trust in the fathers as their authority for
departing from God’s commandment are miserably deceived as to what the
fathers teach.
1. The fathers are so far from testifying that the apostles told them
Christ changed the Sabbath, that not even one of them ever alludes to the
idea of such a change.
2. No one of them ever calls the first day the Christian Sabbath, nor
indeed ever calls it a Sabbath of any kind.
3. They never represent it as a day on which ordinary labor was sinful;
nor do they represent the observance of Sunday as an act of obedience to
the fourth commandment.
4. The modern doctrine of the change of the Sabbath was therefore
absolutely unknown in the first centuries of the Christian church.[440]
But though no statement asserting the change of the Sabbath can be
produced from the writings of the fathers of the first three hundred
years, it is claimed that their testimony furnishes decisive proof that
the first day of the week is the Lord’s day of Rev. 1:10. The biblical
argument that the Lord’s day is the seventh day and no other, because
that day alone is in the Holy Scriptures claimed by the Father and the
Son as belonging in a peculiar sense to each, is given in chapter eleven,
and is absolutely decisive. But this is set aside without answer, and the
claim of the first day to this honorable distinction is substantiated out
of the fathers as follows:—
The term Lord’s day as a name for the first day of the week can be traced
back through the first three centuries, from the fathers who lived
toward their close, to the ones next preceding who mention the first day,
and so backward by successive steps till we come to one who lived in
John’s time, and was his disciple; and this disciple of John calls the
first day of the week the Lord’s day. It follows therefore that John must
have intended the first day of the week by the term Lord’s day, but did
not define his meaning because it was familiarly known by that name in
his time. Thus by history we prove the first day of the week to be the
Lord’s day of Rev. 1:10; and then by Rev. 1:10, we prove the first day
of the week to be the sacred day of this dispensation; for the spirit of
inspiration by which John wrote would not have called the first day by
this name if it were only a human institution, and if the seventh day was
still by divine appointment the Lord’s holy day.
This is a concise statement of the strongest argument for first-day
sacredness which can be drawn from ecclesiastical history. It is the
argument by which first-day writers prove Sunday to be the day called by
John the Lord’s day. This argument rests upon the statement that Lord’s
day as a name for Sunday can be traced back to the disciples of John, and
that it is the name by which that day was familiarly known in John’s time.
But this entire statement is false. The truth is, no writer of the first
century, and no one of the second, prior to A. D. 194, who is known to
speak of the first day of the week, ever calls it the Lord’s day! Yet the
first day is seven times mentioned by the sacred writers _before_ John’s
vision upon Patmos on the Lord’s day, and is twice mentioned by John
in his gospel which he wrote _after_ his return from that island, and
is mentioned some sixteen times by ecclesiastical writers of the second
century prior to A. D. 194, and never in a single instance is it called
the Lord’s day! We give all the instances of its mention in the Bible.
Moses, in the beginning, by divine inspiration, gave to the day its name,
and though the resurrection of Christ is said to have made it the Lord’s
day, yet every sacred writer who mentions the day after that event still
adheres to the plain name of first day of the week. Here are all the
instances in which the inspired writers mention the day:—
Moses, B. C. 1490. “The evening and the morning were the first day.” Gen.
1:5.
Matthew, A. D. 41. “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward
the first day of the week.” Matt. 28:1.
Paul, A. D. 57. “Upon the first day of the week.” 1 Cor. 16:2.
Luke, A. D. 60. “Now upon the first day of the week.” Luke 24:1.
Luke, A. D. 63. “And upon the first day of the week.” Acts 20:7.
Mark, A. D. 64. “And very early in the morning, the first day of the
week.” Mark 16:2. “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the
week.” Verse 9.
After the resurrection of Christ, and before John’s vision, A. D. 96, the
day is six times mentioned by inspired men, and every time as plain first
day of the week. It certainly was not familiarly known as Lord’s day
before the time of John’s vision. To speak the exact truth, it was not
called by that name at all, nor by any other name equivalent to that,
nor is there any record of its being set apart by divine authority as
such.
But in the year 96, John says, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.”
Rev. 1:10. Now it is evident that this must be a day which the Lord had
set apart for himself, and which he claimed as his. This was all true in
the case of the seventh day, but was not in any respect true in that of
the first day. He could not therefore call the first day by this name,
for it was not such. But if the Spirit of God designed at this point to
create a new institution and to call a certain day the Lord’s day which
before had never been claimed by him as such, it was necessary that he
should specify that new day. He did not define the term, which proves
that he was not giving a sacred name to some new institution, but was
speaking of a well-known, divinely appointed day. But _after_ John’s
return from Patmos, he wrote his gospel,[441] and in that gospel he twice
had occasion to mention the first day of the week. Let us see whether he
adheres to the manner of the other sacred writers, or whether, when we
know he means the first day, he gives to it a sacred name.
John, A. D. 97. “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early.”
John 20:1. “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the
week.” Verse 19.
These texts complete the Bible record of the first day of the week. They
furnish conclusive evidence that John did not receive new light in vision
at Patmos, bidding him call the first day of the week the Lord’s day, and
when taken with all the instances preceding, they constitute a complete
demonstration that the first day was not familiarly known as the Lord’s
day in John’s time, nor indeed known at all by that name then. Let us now
see whether Lord’s day as a title for the first day can be traced back to
John by means of the writings of the fathers.
The following is a concise statement of the testimony by which the
fathers are made to prove that John used the term Lord’s day as a name
for the first day of the week. A chain of seven successive witnesses,
commencing with one who was the disciple of John, and extending forward
through several generations, is made to connect and identify the Lord’s
day of John with the Sunday-Lord’s day of a later age. Thus, Ignatius,
the disciple of John, is made to speak familiarly of the first day
as the Lord’s day. This is directly connecting the fathers and the
apostles. Then the epistle of Pliny, A. D. 104, in connection with the
Acts of the Martyrs, is adduced to prove that the martyrs in his time
and forward were tested as to their observance of Sunday, the question
being, “Have you kept the Lord’s day?” Next, Justin Martyr, A. D. 140,
is made to speak of Sunday as the Lord’s day. After this, Theophilus of
Antioch, A. D. 168, is brought forward to bear a powerful testimony to
the Sunday-Lord’s day. Then Dionysius of Corinth, A. D. 170, is made to
speak to the same effect. Next Melito of Sardis, A. D. 177, is produced
to confirm what the others have said. And finally, Irenæus, A. D. 178,
who had been the disciple of Polycarp, who had been the disciple of John
the apostle, is brought forward to bear a decisive testimony in behalf of
Sunday as the Lord’s day and the Christian Sabbath.
These are the first seven witnesses who are cited to prove Sunday the
Lord’s day. They bring us nearly to the close of the second century. They
constitute the chain of testimony by which the Lord’s day of the apostle
John is identified with the Sunday-Lord’s day of later times. First-day
writers present these witnesses as proving positively that Sunday is
the Lord’s day of the Scriptures, and the Christian church accepts this
testimony in the absence of that of the inspired writers. But the folly
of the people, and the wickedness of those who lead them, may be set
forth in one sentence:—
The first, second, third, fourth, and seventh, of these testimonies are
inexcusable frauds, while the fifth and sixth have no decisive bearing
upon the case.
1. Ignatius, the first of these witnesses, it is said, must have known
Sunday to be the Lord’s day, for he calls it such, and he had conversed
with the apostle John. But in the entire writings of this father the term
Lord’s day does not once occur, nor is there in them all a single mention
of the first day of the week! The reader will find a critical examination
of the epistles of Ignatius in chapter fourteen of this history.
2. It is a pure fabrication that the martyrs in Pliny’s time, about A. D.
104, and thence onward, were tested by the question whether they had kept
the Sunday-Lord’s day. No question at all resembling this is to be found
in the words of the martyrs till we come to the fourth century, and then
the reference is not at all to the first day of the week. This is fully
shown in chapter fifteen.
3. The Bible Dictionary of the American Tract Society, page 379, brings
forward the third of these Sunday-Lord’s day witnesses in the person of
Justin Martyr, A. D. 140. It makes him call Sunday the Lord’s day by
quoting him as follows:—
“Justin Martyr observes that ‘on the Lord’s day all Christians
in the city or country meet together, because that is the day
of our Lord’s resurrection.’”
But Justin never gave to Sunday the title of Lord’s day, nor indeed any
other sacred title. Here are his words correctly quoted:—
“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the
country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the
apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read, as long as
time permits,” etc.[442]
Justin speaks of the day called Sunday. But that he may be made to help
establish its title to the name of Lord’s day, his words are deliberately
changed. Thus the third witness to Sunday as the Lord’s day, like the
first and the second, is made such by fraud. But the fourth fraud is even
worse than the three which precede.
4. The fourth testimony to the Sunday-Lord’s day is furnished in Dr.
Justin Edwards’ Sabbath Manual, p. 114:—
“Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, about A. D. 162, says: ‘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.’”
Dr. Edwards does not pretend to give the place in Theophilus where these
words are to be found. Having carefully and minutely examined every
paragraph of the writings of Theophilus several times over, I state
emphatically that nothing of the kind is to be found in that writer. He
never uses the term Lord’s day, and he does not even speak of the first
day of the week. These words which are so well adapted to create the
impression that the Sunday-Lord’s day is of apostolic institution, are
put into his mouth by the falsehood of some one.
Here are four frauds, constituting the first four instances of the
alleged use of Lord’s day as a name for Sunday. Yet it is by means of
these very frauds that the Sunday-Lord’s day of later ages is identified
with the Lord’s day of the Bible. Somebody invented these frauds. The use
to which they are put plainly indicates the purpose for which they were
framed. The title of Lord’s day must be proved to pertain to Sunday by
apostolic authority. For this purpose these frauds were a necessity. The
case of the Sunday-Lord’s day may be fitly illustrated by that of the
long line of popes. Their apostolic authority as head of the Catholic
church depends on their being able to identify the apostle Peter as the
first of their line, and to prove that his authority was transmitted to
them. There is no difficulty in tracing back their line to the early
ages, though the earliest Roman bishops were modest, unassuming men,
wholly unlike the popes of after times. But when they come to make Peter
the head of their line, and to identify his authority and theirs, they
can do it only by fraudulent testimonials. And such is the case with
first-day observance. It may be traced back as a festival to the time of
Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, but the day had then no sacred name, and at
that time claimed no apostolic authority. But these must be secured at
any cost, and so its title of Lord’s day is by a series of fraudulent
testimonials traced to the apostle John, as in like manner the authority
of the popes is traced to the apostle Peter.
5. The fifth witness of this series is Dionysius of Corinth, A. D. 170.
Unlike the four which have been already examined, Dionysius actually uses
the term Lord’s day, though he says nothing identifying it with the first
day of the week. His words are these:—
“To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have
read your epistle; in reading which we shall always have our
minds stored with admonition, as we shall, also, from that
written to us before by Clement.”[443]
The epistle of Dionysius to Soter, bishop of Rome, from which this
sentence is taken, has perished. Eusebius, who wrote in the fourth
century, has preserved to us this sentence, but we have no knowledge of
its connection. First-day writers quote Dionysius as the fifth of their
witnesses that Sunday is the Lord’s day. They say that Sunday was so
familiarly known as Lord’s day in the time of Dionysius, that he calls it
by that name without even stopping to tell what day he meant.
But it is not honest to present Dionysius as a witness to the
Sunday-Lord’s day, for he makes no application of the term. But it is
said he certainly meant Sunday because that was the familiar name of the
day in his time, even as is indicated by the fact that he did not define
the term. And how is it known that Lord’s day was the familiar name of
Sunday in the time of Dionysius? The four witnesses already examined
furnish all the evidence in proof of this, for there is no writer this
side of Dionysius who calls Sunday the Lord’s day until almost the entire
period of a generation has elapsed. So Dionysius constitutes the fifth
witness of the series by virtue of the fact that the first four witnesses
prove that in his time, Lord’s day was the common name for first day of
the week. But the first four testify to nothing of the kind until the
words are by fraud put into their mouths! Dionysius is a witness for the
Sunday-Lord’s day because that four fraudulent testimonials from the
generations preceding him fix this as the meaning of his words! And the
name Lord’s day must have been a very common one for first day of the
week because Dionysius does not define the term! And yet those who say
this know that this _one_ sentence of his epistle remains, while the
connection, which doubtless fixed his meaning, has perished.
But Dionysius does not merely use the term Lord’s day. He uses a stronger
term than this—“the Lord’s _holy_ day.” Even for a long period after
Dionysius, no writer gives to Sunday so sacred a title as “the Lord’s
holy day.” Yet this is the very title given to the Sabbath in the Holy
Scriptures, and it is a well-ascertained fact that at this very time it
was extensively observed, especially in Greece, the country of Dionysius,
and that, too, as an act of obedience to the fourth commandment.[444]
6. The sixth witness in this remarkable series is Melito of Sardis, A.
D. 177. The first four, who never use the term Lord’s day, are by direct
fraud made to call Sunday by that name; the fifth, who speaks of the
Lord’s holy day, is claimed on the strength of these frauds to have meant
by it Sunday; while the sixth is not certainly proved to have spoken of
any day! Melito wrote several books now lost, the titles of which have
been preserved to us by Eusebius.[445] One of these, as given in the
English version of Eusebius, is “On the Lord’s Day.” Of course, first-day
writers claim that this was a treatise concerning Sunday, though down to
this point no writer calls Sunday by this name. But it is an important
fact that the word _day_ formed no part of the title of Melito’s book. It
was a discourse on something pertaining to the Lord—ὁ περι τῆς κυριακῆς
λόγος—but the essential word ἡμερας, _day_, is wanting. It may have been
a treatise on the life of Christ, for Ignatius thus uses these words
in connection: κυριακὴν ζωὴν, _Lord’s life_. Like the sentence from
Dionysius, it would not even seem to help the claim of Sunday to the
title of Lord’s day were it not for the series of frauds in which it
stands.
7. The seventh witness summoned to prove that Lord’s day was the
apostolic title of Sunday, is Irenæus. Dr. Justin Edwards professes to
quote him as follows:—[446]
“Hence Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, who
had been the companion of the apostles, A. D. 167 [it should be
A. D. 178], says that the Lord’s day was the Christian Sabbath.
His words are, ‘On the Lord’s day every one of us Christians
keeps the Sabbath, meditating on the law, and rejoicing in the
works of God.’”
This witness is brought forward in a manner to give the utmost weight and
authority to his words. He was the disciple of that eminent Christian
martyr, Polycarp, and Polycarp was the companion of the apostles. What
Irenæus says is therefore in the estimation of many as worthy of our
confidence as though we could read it in the writings of the apostles.
Does not Irenæus call Sunday the Christian Sabbath and the Lord’s day?
Did he not learn these things from Polycarp? And did not Polycarp get
them from the fountain head? What need have we of further witness that
Lord’s day is the apostolic name for Sunday? What if the six earlier
witnesses have failed us? Here is one that says all that can be asked,
and he had his doctrine from a man who had his from the apostles!
Why then does not this establish the authority of Sunday as the Lord’s
day? The first reason is that neither Irenæus nor any other man can add
to or change one precept of the word of God, on any pretense whatever.
We are never authorized to depart from the words of the inspired writers
on the testimony of men who conversed with the apostles, or rather who
conversed with some who had conversed with them. But the second reason is
that every word of this pretended testimony of Irenæus is a fraud! Nor
is there a single instance in which the term Lord’s day is to be found
in any of his works, nor in any fragment of his works preserved in other
authors![447] And this completes the seven witnesses by whom the Lord’s
day of the Catholic church is traced back to and identified with the
Lord’s day of the Bible! It is not till A. D. 194, sixteen years after
the latest of these witnesses, that we meet the first instance in which
Sunday is called the Lord’s day. In other words, Sunday is not called the
Lord’s day till ninety-eight years after John was upon Patmos, and one
hundred and sixty-three years after the resurrection of Christ!
But is not this owing to the fact that the records of that period have
perished? By no means; for the day is six times mentioned by the inspired
writers between the resurrection of Christ, A. D. 31, and John’s vision
upon Patmos, A. D. 96; namely, by Matthew, A. D. 41; by Paul, A. D. 57;
by Luke, A. D. 60, and A. D. 63; and by Mark, A. D. 64; and always as
first day of the week. John, after his return from Patmos, A. D. 97,
twice mentions the day, still calling it first day of the week.
After John’s time, the day is next mentioned in the so-called epistle of
Barnabas, written probably as early as A. D. 140, and is there called
“the eighth day.” Next it is mentioned by Justin Martyr in his Apology,
A. D. 140, once as “the day on which we all hold our common assembly;”
once as “the first day on which God ... made the world;” once as “the
same day [on which Christ] rose from the dead;” once as “the day after
that of Saturn;” and three times as “Sunday,” or “the day of the sun.”
Next the day is mentioned by Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho,
A. D. 155, in which he twice calls it the “eighth day;” once “the first
of all the days;” once as “the first” “of all the days of the [weekly]
cycle;” and twice as “the first day after the Sabbath.” Next it is once
mentioned by Irenæus, A. D. 178, who calls it simply “the first day of
the week.” And next it is mentioned once by Bardesanes, who calls it
simply “the first of the week.” The variety of names by which the day is
mentioned during this time is remarkable; but it is _never_ called Lord’s
day, nor ever called by _any sacred_ name.
Though Sunday is mentioned in so many different ways during the second
century, it is not till we come almost to the close of that century that
we find the first instance in which it is called Lord’s day. Clement,
of Alexandria, A. D. 194, uses this title with reference to “the eighth
day.” If he speaks of a natural day, he no doubt means Sunday. It is not
certain, however, that he speaks of a natural day, for his explanation
gives to the term an entirely different sense. Here are his words:—
“And the Lord’s day Plato prophetically speaks of in the tenth
book of the _Republic_, in these words: ‘And when seven days
have passed to each of them in the meadow, on the eighth they
are to set out and arrive in four days.’ By the meadow is to be
understood the fixed sphere, as being a mild and genial spot,
and the locality of the pious; and by the seven days, each
motion of the seven planets, and the whole practical art which
speeds to the end of rest. But after the wandering orbs, the
journey leads to Heaven, that is, to the eighth motion and day.
And he says that souls are gone on the fourth day, pointing out
the passage through the four elements. But the seventh day is
recognized as sacred, not by the Hebrews only, but also by the
Greeks; according to which the whole world of all animals and
plants revolve.”[448]
Clement was originally a heathen philosopher, and these strange
mysticisms which he here puts forth upon the words of Plato are only
modifications of his former heathen notions. Though Clement says
that Plato speaks of the Lord’s day, it is certain that he does not
understand him to speak of literal days nor of a literal meadow. On the
contrary, he interprets the meadow to represent “the fixed sphere, as
being a mild and genial spot, and the locality of the pious;” which must
refer to their future inheritance. The seven days are not so many literal
days, but they represent “each motion of the seven planets, and the whole
practical art which speeds to the end of rest.” This seems to represent
the present period of labor which is to end in the rest of the saints.
For he adds: “But after the wandering orbs [represented by Plato’s seven
days] the journey leads to _Heaven_, that is, to _the eighth_ motion and
_day_.” The seven days, therefore, do here represent the period of the
Christian’s pilgrimage, and the eighth day of which Clement here speaks
is not Sunday, but Heaven itself! Here is the first instance of Lord’s
day as a name for the eighth day, but this eighth day is a mystical one,
and means Heaven!
But Clement uses the term Lord’s day once more, and this time clearly, as
representing, not a literal day, but the whole period of our regenerate
life. For he speaks of it in treating of fasting, and he sets forth
fasting as consisting in abstinence from sinful pleasures, not only in
deeds, to use his distinction, as forbidden by the law, but in thoughts,
as forbidden by the gospel. Such fasting pertains to the entire life of
the Christian. And thus Clement sets forth what is involved in observing
this duty in the gospel sense:—
“He, 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.”[449]
From this statement we learn, not merely his idea of fasting, but also
that of celebrating the Lord’s day, and glorifying the resurrection of
Christ. This, according to Clement, does not consist in paying special
honors to Sunday, but in abandoning an evil disposition, and in assuming
that of the Gnostic, a Christian sect to which he belonged. Now it is
plain that this kind of Lord’s-day observance pertains to no one day
of the week, but embraces the entire life of the Christian. Clement’s
Lord’s day was not a literal, but a mystical, day, embracing, according
to this, his second use of the term, the entire regenerate life of the
Christian; and according to his first use of the term, embracing also the
future life in Heaven. And this view is confirmed by Clement’s statement
of the contrast between the Gnostic sect to which he belonged and other
Christians. He says of their worship that it was “NOT ON SPECIAL DAYS,
as some others, but _doing this continually_ in our whole life.” And
he speaks further of the worship of the Gnostic that it was “_not_ in
a specified place, or selected temple, or at certain festivals, and on
appointed days, _but during his whole life_.”[450]
It is certainly a very remarkable fact that the first writer who speaks
of the Lord’s day as the eighth day uses the term, not with reference to
a literal, but a mystical, day. It is not Sunday, but the Christian’s
life, or Heaven itself! This doctrine of a perpetual Lord’s day, we
shall find alluded to in Tertullian, and expressly stated in Origen, who
are the next two writers that use the term Lord’s day. But Clement’s
mystical or perpetual Lord’s day shows that he had no idea that John, by
Lord’s day, meant Sunday; for in that case, he must have recognized that
as the true Lord’s day, and the Gnostics’ special day of worship.
Tertullian, A. D. 200, is the next writer who uses the term Lord’s day.
He defines his meaning, and fixes the name upon the day of Christ’s
resurrection. Kitto[451] says this is “the earliest authentic instance”
in which the name is thus applied, and we have proved this true by
actual examination of every writer, unless the reader can discover some
reference to Sunday in Clement’s mystical eighth day. Tertullian’s words
are these:—
“We, however (just as we have received), only on the Lord’s
day of the resurrection [_solo die dominico resurrexionis_]
ought to guard, not only against kneeling, but every posture
and office of solicitude; deferring even our business, lest we
give any place to the devil. Similarly, too, in the period of
Pentecost; which period we distinguish by the same solemnity of
exultation.”[452]
Twice more does Tertullian use the term Lord’s day, and once more does he
define it, this time calling it the “eighth day.” And in each of these
two cases does he place the day which he calls Lord’s day in the same
rank with the Catholic festival of Pentecost, even as he does in the
instance already quoted. As the second instance of Tertullian’s use of
Lord’s day, we quote a portion of the rebuke which he addressed to his
brethren for mingling with the heathen in their festivals. He says:—
“Oh! better fidelity of the nations to their own sects, which
claims no solemnity of the Christians for itself! Not the
Lord’s day, not Pentecost, _even if they had known them_, would
they have shared with us; for they would fear lest they should
seem to be Christians. _We_ are not apprehensive lest we seem
to be _heathens_! If any indulgence is to be granted to the
flesh, you have it. I will not say your own days, but more
too; for to the _heathens_ each festive day occurs but once
annually; _you_ have a festive day every eighth day.”[453]
The festival which Tertullian here represents as coming every eighth day
was no doubt the one which he has just called the Lord’s day. Though he
elsewhere[454] speaks of the Sunday festival as observed at least by some
portion of the heathen, he here speaks of the Lord’s day as unknown to
those heathen of whom he now writes. This strongly indicates that the
Sunday festival had but recently begun to be called by the name of Lord’s
day. But he once more speaks of the Lord’s day:—
“As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings
for the dead as birth-day honors. We count fasting or kneeling
in worship on the Lord’s day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the
same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday [the Pentecost].
We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own,
be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at
every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes,
when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps,
on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life,
we trace upon the forehead the sign [of the cross].
“If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having
positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition
will be held forth to you as the _originator_ of them, custom
as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason
will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either
yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has.”[455]
This completes the instances in which Tertullian uses the term Lord’s
day, except a mere allusion to it in his discourse on Fasting. It is very
remarkable that in each of the three cases, he puts it on a level with
the festival of Whitsunday, or Pentecost. He also associates it directly
with “offerings for the dead” and with the use of “the sign of the
cross.” When asked for authority from the Bible for these things, he does
not answer, “We have the authority of John for the Lord’s day, though we
have nothing but tradition for the sign of the cross and offerings for
the dead.” On the contrary, he said there was no Scripture injunction for
any of them. If it be asked, How could the title of Lord’s day be given
to Sunday except by tradition derived from the apostles? the answer will
be properly returned, What was the origin of offerings for the dead?
And how did the sign of the cross come into use among Christians? The
title of Lord’s day as a name for Sunday is no nearer apostolic than is
the sign of the cross, and offerings for the dead; for it can be traced
no nearer to apostolic times than can these most palpable errors of the
great apostasy.
Clement taught a perpetual Lord’s day; Tertullian held a similar view,
asserting that Christians should celebrate a perpetual Sabbath, not by
abstinence from labor, but from sin.[456] Tertullian’s method of Sunday
observance will be noticed hereafter.
Origen, A. D. 231, is the third of the ancient writers who call “the
eighth day” the Lord’s day. He was the disciple of Clement, the first
writer who makes this application. It is not strange, therefore, that he
should teach Clement’s doctrine of a perpetual Lord’s day, nor that he
should state it even more distinctly than did Clement himself. Origen,
having represented Paul as teaching that all days are alike, continues
thus:—
“If it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are
accustomed to observe certain days, as for example the Lord’s
day, the Preparation, the Passover, or Pentecost, I have to
answer, that to the perfect Christian, who is ever in his
thoughts, words, and deeds, serving his natural Lord, God the
Word, all his days are the Lord’s, and he is always keeping the
Lord’s day.”[457]
This was written some forty years after Clement had propounded his
doctrine of the Lord’s day. The imperfect Christian might honor a Lord’s
day which stood in the same rank with the Preparation, the Passover,
and the Pentecost. But the perfect Christian observed the true Lord’s
day, which embraced all the days of his regenerate life. Origen uses
the term Lord’s day for two different days. 1. For a natural day, which
in his judgment stood in the same rank with the Preparation day, the
Passover, and the Pentecost. 2. For a mystical day, as did Clement, which
is the entire period of the Christian’s life. The mystical day, in his
estimation, was the true Lord’s day. It therefore follows that he did not
believe Sunday to be the Lord’s day by apostolic appointment. But, after
Origen’s time, Lord’s day becomes a common name for the so-called eighth
day. Yet these three men, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen, who first
make this application, not only do not claim that this name was given to
the day by the apostles, but do plainly indicate that they had no such
idea. Offerings for the dead and the use of the sign of the cross are
found as near to apostolic times as is the use of Lord’s day as a name
for Sunday. The three have a common origin, as shown by Tertullian’s own
words. Origen’s views of the Sabbath, and of the Sunday festival, will be
noticed hereafter.
Such is the case with the claim of Sunday to the title of Lord’s day. The
first instance of its use, if Clement be supposed to refer to Sunday, is
not till almost one century after John was in vision upon Patmos. Those
who first call it by that name had no idea that it was such by divine or
apostolic appointment, as they plainly show. In marked contrast with this
is the Catholic festival of the Passover. Though never commanded in the
New Testament, it can be traced back to men who say that they had it from
the apostles!
Thus the churches of Asia Minor had the festival from Polycarp who,
as Eusebius states the claim of Polycarp, had “observed it with John
the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles with whom he
associated.”[458] Socrates says of them that they maintain that this
observance “was delivered to them by the apostle John.”[459] Anatolius
says of these Asiatic Christians that they received “the rule from an
unimpeachable authority, to wit, the evangelist John.”[460]
Nor was this all. The western churches also, with the church of Rome
at their head, were strenuous observers of the Passover festival. They
also traced the festival to the apostles. Thus Socrates says of them:
“The Romans and those in the western parts assure us that their usage
originated with the apostles Peter and Paul.”[461] But he says these
parties cannot prove this by written testimony. Sozomen says of the
Romans, with respect to the Passover festival, that they “have never
deviated from their original usage in this particular; the custom having
been handed down to them by the holy apostles Peter and Paul.”[462]
If the Sunday-Lord’s day could be traced to a man who claimed to have
celebrated it with John and other of the apostles, how confidently
would this be cited as proving positively that it is an apostolic
institution! And yet this can be done in the case of the Passover
festival! Nevertheless, a single fact in the case of this very festival
is sufficient to teach us the folly of trusting in tradition. Polycarp
claimed that John and other of the apostles taught him to observe the
festival on the fourteenth day of the first month, whatever day of
the week it might be; while the elders of the Roman church asserted
that Peter and Paul taught them that it must be observed on the Sunday
following Good Friday![463]
The Lord’s day of the Catholic church can be traced no nearer to John
than A. D. 194, or perhaps in strict truth to A. D. 200, and those
who then use the name show plainly that they did not believe it to be
the Lord’s day by apostolic appointment. To hide these fatal facts by
seeming to trace the title back to Ignatius the disciple of John, and
thus to identify Sunday with the Lord’s day of that apostle, a series
of remarkable frauds has been committed which we have had occasion to
examine. But even could the Sunday-Lord’s day be traced to Ignatius,
the disciple of John, it would then come no nearer being an apostolic
institution than does the Catholic festival of the Passover, which can
be traced to Polycarp, another of John’s disciples, who claimed to have
received it from John himself!