The Constitutional Amendment: or, The Sunday, the Sabbath, the Change, and Restitution / A discussion between W. H. Littlejohn, Seventh-day Adventist, and the editor of the Christian Statesman

by Wolcott H. Littlejohn

Here we might pause, and insist that the gentleman has utterly failed, in the citation before us, to prove anything which is really relevant to the subject. It is in vain that he urges, in extenuation of the fact that Justin calls the first day of the week, the “day of the sun,” that he is addressing a heathen emperor. He was not afraid to speak to that emperor of the Old and New Testaments, of the preaching of the word, of the Lord’s supper, and of the resurrection of Christ; and why should he thus carefully avoid mention of the Lord’s day? Surely, he did not wish to convey the impression that Christians observed the day of the sun because of its heathen character, since he gives the reasons for their doing so.

But, again, it is claimed that at this period the chosen and peculiar appellation which had been given by the Holy Spirit, was that of Lord’s day, and that the Lord’s day, or the Sunday, had become the holy Sabbath which God commanded. This being true, assuredly we might expect that, in the work of Justin entitled, “A Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew,” he would set forth, in the use of its peculiar title, the claims of that day which had been elevated, by divine command, to the position of the ancient Sabbath. But does he do this? The gentleman does not urge it. He does say that, in writing to the Jew, he drops the heathen titles of Sunday and Saturday, and speaks of the first, and the seventh, day of the week. But mark again; it is not urged that he anywhere calls the first day the Lord’s day. Once more, therefore, he has failed on this branch of the subject.

Now it will be well to regard the matter from the other side of the question. It must be conceded, as remarked above, that what Justin Martyr says furnishes stronger support for the idea of worship on the Sunday than anything else which has been adduced. But here again, we protest that the Bible, alone and unexplained, is sufficient for the settlement of this point. Others, if they like, may form their religious faith upon the practice of uninspired men, handed down to us through the perilous transit of the ages, protected and shielded from corruption and innovation by no denunciation of divine wrath against those who change its phraseology; but we much prefer to stand under the covering ægis of these words: “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book.” (Rev. 22:18.) Nor do we think that the gentleman himself would seriously urge that this position is unsound. Let us test it. Justin Martyr is assumed to be a fair exponent of the religious sentiment of his time. Now, therefore, what he believed they believed; and what they believed, we ought to believe, if our position, taken above, is not correct. Proceeding a step farther, we inquire, what was the faith of Justin Martyr and his contemporaries, allowing his writings to be the criterion of judgment? To this it may replied:

1st. That they believed in no Sabbath in this dispensation. Proof: “For if before Abraham there was no need of circumcision, nor of Sabbaths, nor of feasts, nor of offerings before Moses; so now in like manner there is no need of them, since Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was, by the determinate counsel of God, born of a virgin of the seed of Abraham, without sin.” (Dial. of Trypho.) Does the writer believe this? The reader well knows that he does not, for he has nobly repudiated it, again and again.

2d. They believed that the Sabbath was imposed upon the Jews for their sins. Proof: “It was because of your (i. e., Jews) iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers, that God appointed you to observe the Sabbath.” (Idem.) But our reviewer holds—as must all who accept the words of Christ (Mark 2:27, 28)—that it was given to Adam in the garden of Eden, as their representative head, for the benefit of the whole race, more than two thousand years before there was a Jew in the world.

3d. They believed that, in the administration of the Lord’s supper, water should be employed. Proof: “At the conclusion of this discourse, i. e., that of the Bishop on Sunday, we all rise up together and pray; and prayers being over, there is bread, and wine, and water offered.” (First Apol. Tras. by Reeves.) But modern Christendom look upon this as an innovation of popery.

4th. They believed that the reasons why Christians should observe the first day of the week were found in the facts that God dispelled the darkness and chaos on the first day of the week, and that on that day, Christ rose from the dead. Proof: Extract given above by the writer in his article. But the first of these opinions, modern Christians will not admit at all, and the latter furnishes only one-half of the obligation, since it ignores all positive law upon the subject.

So we might proceed, but enough has been said to show that Justin Martyr, as quoted above, is no criterion for the faith of those who have the Bible in their hands, from which they can learn, contrary to his views: 1st. That we have a Sabbath. 2d. That it was given to all mankind as a blessing, and not to the Jews for their sins. 3d. That both the bread and the wine belong to the laity, as well as to the priests. 4th. That the reasons for the observance of the Lord’s day do not rest upon the circumstance that God dispelled the darkness on the first day, but upon an explicit command of Heaven.

If the reader would satisfy himself from other sources that the statements of Justin Martyr are to be taken with extreme caution, and that his judgment was so easily imposed upon as to render him an unsafe guide in the plainest matters of fact, he will read the following extract from a publication of the Am. Tract Society: “Justin Martyr appears indeed peculiarly unfitted to lay claim to authority. It is notorious that he supposed a pillar erected on the island of the Tiber to Semo Sanchus, an old Sabine Deity, to be a monument erected by the Roman people in honor of the impostor, Simon Magus. Were so gross a mistake to be made by a modern writer, in relating a historical fact, exposure would immediately take place, and his testimony would thenceforward be suspected. And, assuredly, the same measure should be meted to Justin Martyr, who so egregiously errs in reference to a fact alluded to by Livy, the historian.”—Spirit of Popery, pp. 44, 45.

In concluding the remarks which will be offered here—in reference to those productions which are attributed to Justin Martyr, and which have been brought forward for the purpose of influencing the mind of the reader in favor of a cause which has found no support in the Scriptures—it is proper to state that their authenticity is by no means above suspicion; or, to speak more accurately, that some of them have been tampered with, is a matter which is settled beyond dispute. Already the reader has seen that by some means they have been made to contribute to the interests of the Romish doctrine of the use of water in the sacrament, as early as the first part of the second century. If it be granted that the statement in question is historically true, then the leaven of the papacy had begun to work so manifestly in the lifetime of Justin, that the opinions of his associates, as well as of himself, ought to have no weight with us who have repudiated the great apostasy.