 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |  |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP - GR VIDEOS - GR YOUTUBE - TWITTER - SD1 YOUTUBE  EARLY APOSTASY IN THE CHURCH General purity of the apostolic churches — Early decline of their piety — False teachers arose in the church immediately after the apostles — The great Romish apostasy began before the death of Paul — An evil thing not rendered good by beginning in the apostolic age — How to decide between truth and error — Age cannot change the fables of men into the truth of God — Historical testimony concerning the early development of the great Apostasy — Such an age no standard by which to correct the Bible — Testimony of Bower relative to the traditions of this age — Testimony of Dowling — Dr. Cumming’s opinion of the authority of the Fathers — Testimony of Adam Clarke — The church of Rome has corrupted the writings of the Fathers — Nature of tradition illustrated — The two rules of faith which divide Christendom — The first-day Sabbath can be sustained only by adopting the rule of the Romanists. THE book of Acts is an inspired history of the church. During the period which is embraced in its record, the apostles and their fellow-laborers were upon the stage of action; and under their watch-care, the churches of Christ preserved, to a great extent;, their purity of life and doctrine. These apostolic churches are thus set forth as examples for all coming time. This book fitly connects the narratives of the four evangelists with the apostolic epistles, and thus unites the whole New Testament. But when we leave the period embraced in this inspired history, and the churches which were founded and governed by inspired men, we enter upon altogether different times. There is, unfortunately, great truth in the severe language of Gibbon: — “The theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing religion as; she descended from heaven, arrayed in her native purity. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption, which she contracted in a long residence upon earth, among a weak and degenerate race of beings.” l What says the book of Acts respecting the time immediately following the labors of Paul? In addressing the elders of the Ephesian church, Paul said: — “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:29,30.) It follows from this testimony that we are not authorized to receive the teaching of any man simply because he lived immediately after the apostolic age, or even in the days of the apostles themselves. Grievous wolves were to enter the midst of the people of God, and of their own selves were men to arise, speaking perverse things. If it be asked how these are to be distinguished from the true servants of God, the proper answer is: Those who spoke and acted in accordance with the teachings of the apostles were men of God; those who taught otherwise were of that class who should speak perverse things to draw away disciples after them. What do the apostolic epistles say relative to this apostasy? Paul writes to the Thessalonians: — “Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God…. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3,4,7,8.) To Timothy, in like manner, it is said: — “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Timothy 4:2-4; 2 Peter 2; Jude 4; 1 John 2:l8.) These texts are most explicit in predicting a great apostasy in the church, and in stating the fact that that apostasy had already commenced. The Romish church, the oldest in apostasy, prides itself upon its apostolic character. In the language of Paul to the Thessalonians, already quoted, that great antichristian body may indeed find its claim to an origin in apostolic times vindicated, but its apostolic character is most emphatically denied. And herein is found a striking illustration of the fact that an evil thing is not rendered good by the accidental circumstance of its originating in the days of the apostles. Everything, at its commencement, is either right or wrong. If right, it may be known by its agreement with the divine standard; if wrong at its origin, it can never cease to be such. Satan’s great falsehood, which involved our race in ruin., has not yet become the truth, although six thousand years have elapsed since it was uttered. Think of this,. ye who worship at the shrine of venerable error. When the fables of men obtained the place of the truth of God, he was thereby dishonored. How, then, can he accept obedience to them as any part of that pure devotion which he requires at our hands? They that worship God must worship him in Spirit and in truth. How many ages must pass over the fables of men before they become changed into divine truth? That these predictions of the New Testament respecting the great apostasy in the church were fully realized, the pages of ecclesiastical history present ample proof. Mr. Dowling, in his “History of Romanism,” bears the following testimony: — “There is scarcely anything which strikes the mind of the careful student of ancient ecclesiastical history with greater surprise than the comparatively early period at which many of the corruptions of Christianity, which are embodied in the Romish system, took their rise; yet it is not to be supposed that when the first originators of many of these unscriptural notions and practices planted those germs of corruption, they anticipated or even imagined they would ever grow into such a vast and hideous system of superstition and error as that of popery…. Each of the great corruptions of the latter ages took its rise in a manner which it would be harsh to say was deserving of strong reprehension…. The worship of images, the invocation of saints, and the superstition of relies, were but expansions of the natural feelings of veneration and affection cherished toward the memory of those who had suffered and died for the truth.” Robinson, author of the “History of Baptism,” speaks as follows: — “Toward the latter end of the second century, most of the churches assumed a new form, the first simplicity disappeared; and insensibly, as the old disciples retired to their graves, their children, along with new converts, both Jews and Gentiles, came forward and new-modeled the cause.” The working of the mystery of iniquity in the first centuries of the Christian church is thus described by a recent writer: — “During these centuries, the chief corruptions of popery were either introduced in principle, or the seeds of them so effectually sown as naturally to produce those baneful fruits which appeared so plentifully at a later period. In Justin Martyrdom, within fifty years of the apostolic age, the cup was mixed with water, and a portion of the elements sent to the absent. The bread, which at first was sent only to the sick, was, in the time of Tertullian and Cyprian, carried home by the people, and locked up as a divine treasure for their private use. At this time, too, the ordinance of the supper was given to infants of the tenderest age, and was styled the sacrifice of the body of Christ. The custom of praying for the dead, Tertullian states, was common in the second century, and became the universal practice of the following ages; so that it came in the fourth century to be reckoned a kind of heresy to deny the efficacy of it. By this time the invocation of saints, the superstitious use of images, of the sign of the cross, and of consecrated oil, were become established practices, and pretended miracles were confidently adduced in proof of their supposed efficacy. Thus did that mystery of iniquity, which was already working in the time of the apostles, speedily after their departure, spread its corruptions among the professors of Christianity.” Neander speaks thus of the early introduction of image worship: — “And yet, perhaps, religious images made their way from domestic life into the churches as early as the end of the third century; and the walls of the churches were painted in the same way. The early apostasy of the professed church is a fact which rests upon the authority of inspiration not less than upon that of ecclesiastical history. “The mystery of iniquity,” said Paul, “doth already work.” We marvel that so large a portion of the people of God were so soon removed from the grace of God unto another gospel. What shall be said of those who go to this period of history, and even to later times, to correct their Bibles? Paul said that men would rise in the very midst of the elders of the apostolic church, who would speak perverse things, and that men would turn away. their cars from the truth, and would be turned unto fables. Are the traditions of this period of sufficient importance to make void God’s word? The learned historian of the popes, Archibald Bower, uses the following emphatic language: — “To avoid being imposed upon, we ought to treat tradition as we do a notorious and known liar, to whom we give no credit, unless what he says is confirmed to us by some person of undoubted veracity…. False and lying traditions are of an early date, and the greatest men have, out of a pious credulity, suffered themselves to be imposed upon by them.” Mr. Dowling bears a similar testimony: — “‘The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants!’ Nor is it of any account in the estimation of the genuine Protestant how early a doctrine originated, if it is not found in the Bible. He learns from the New Testament itself that there were errors in the time of the apostles, and that their pens were frequently employed in combating those errors. Hence, if a doctrine be propounded for his acceptance, he asks, Is it to be found in the inspired word? Was it taught by the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles?…More than this, we will add, that though Cyprian, or Jerome, or Augustine, or even the Fathers of an earlier age, Tertullian, Ignatius, or Irenaeus, could be plainly shown to teach the unscriptural doctrines and dogmas of popery, which, however, is by no means admitted, still the consistent Protestant would simply ask, Is the doctrine to be found in the Bible? Was it taught by Christ and his apostles?…He who receives a single doctrine upon the mere authority of tradition, let him be called by what name he will, by so doing, steps down from the Protestant rock, passes over the line which separates Protestantism from popery, and can give no valid reason why he should not receive all the earlier doctrines and ceremonies of Romanism upon the same authority.” Dr. Cumming, of London, thus speaks of the authority of the Fathers of the early church: — “Some of these were distinguished for their genius, some for their eloquence, a few for their, piety, and too many for their fanaticism and superstition. It is recorded by Dr. Delahogue (who was Professor in the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth), on the authority of Eusebius, that the Fathers who were really most fitted to be the luminaries of the age in which they lived, were too busy in preparing their flocks for martyrdom to commit anything to writing; and, therefore, by the admission of this Roman Catholic divine, we have not the full and fair exponent of the views of all the Fathers of the earlier centuries, but only of those who were most ambitious of literary distinction, and least attentive to their charges…. The most devoted and pious of the Fathers were busy teaching their flocks; the more vain and ambitious occupied their time in preparing treatises. If all the Fathers who signalized the age had committed their sentiments to writing, we might have had a fair representation of the theology of the church of the Fathers; but as only a few have done so (many even of their writings being mutilated or lost), and these not the most devoted and spiritually minded, I contend that it is as unjust to judge of the theology of the early centuries by the writings of the few Fathers who are its only surviving representatives, as it would be to judge of the theology of the nineteenth century by the sermons of Mr. Newman, the speeches of Dr. Candlish, or the various productions of the late Edward Irving.” Dr. Adam Clarke gives the following decisive testimony on the same subject: — “But of these we may safely state that there is not a truth in the most orthodox creed that cannot be proved by their authority; nor a heresy that has disgraced the Romish church, that may not challenge them as its abettors. In points of doctrine, their authority is, with me, nothing. The WORD of God alone contains my creed. On a number of points I can go to the Greek and Latin Fathers of the church to know what they believed, and what the people of their respective communions believed; but after all this, I must return to God’s word to know what he would have me to believe.” In his life, he uses the following strong language: — “We should take heed how we quote the Fathers in proof of the doctrines of the gospel; because he who knows them best, knows that on many of those subjects they blow hot and cold.” The following testimonies will in part explain the unreliable nature of the Fathers. Thus Ephraim Pagitt testifies: — “The church of Rome, having been conscious of their errors and corruptions, both in faith and manners, have sundry times pretended reformations; yet their great pride and infinite profit, arising from purgatory, pardons, and such like, hath hindered all such reformations. Therefore, to maintain their greatness, errors, and new articles of faith,1. They have corrupted many of the ancient Fathers, and, reprinting them, make them speak as they would have them…. 2. They have written many books in the names of these ancient writers, and forged many decrees, canons, and councils, to bear false witness to them.” 11 Wm. Reeves testifies to the same fact: — “The church of Rome has had all the opportunities of time, place, and power to establish the kingdom of darkness; and that in coining, clipping, and washing the primitive records to their own good liking, they have not been wanting to themselves, is notoriously evident.” The traditions of the early church are considered by many quite as reliable as the language of the Holy Scriptures. A single instance taken from the Bible will illustrate the character of tradition, and show the amount of reliance that can be placed upon it: — “Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved, following (which also leaned on his breast at supper, and saith, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?); Peter, seeing him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die; yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” (John 21:20-23.) Here is the account of a tradition which actually originated in the very bosom of the apostolic church, which, nevertheless, handed down to the following generations an entire mistake. Observe how carefully the word of God has corrected this error. Two rules of faith really embrace the whole Christian world. One of these is the word of God alone; the other is the word of God and the traditions of the church, Here they are: — 1. THE RULE OF THE MAN OF GOD, THE BIBLE ALONE. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16,17.) 2. THE RULE OF THE ROMANIST, THE BIBLE AND TRADITION. “If we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone; nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book and the true meaning of it.” It is certain that the first-day Sabbath cannot be sustained by the first of these rules; for the word of God says nothing respecting such an institution. The second one is necessarily adopted by all who advocate the sacredness of the first day of the week; for the writings of the Fathers and the traditions of the church furnish all the testimony which can be adduced in support of that day. To adopt the first rule is to condemn the first-day Sabbath as a human institution. To adopt the second is virtually to acknowledge that the Romanists are right,; for it is by this rule that they are able to sustain their unscriptural dogmas. Mr. W. B. Taylor, an able and-Sabbatarian writer, states this point with great clearness: — “The triumph of the consistent Roman Catholic over all observers of Sunday, calling themselves Protestants, is indeed complete and unanswerable…. It should present a subject of very grave reflection to Christians of the reformed and evangelical denominations, to find that no single argument or suggestion can be offered in favor of Sunday observance that will not apply with equal force and to its fullest extent in sustaining the various other ‘holy days’ appointed by ‘the church.’” Listen to the argument of a Roman Catholic: — “The word of God commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath of our Lord, and to be kept holy: you [Protestants] without; any precept of Scripture, change it to the first day of the week, only authorized by our traditions. Divers English Puritans oppose against this point, that the observation of the first day is proved out of Scripture, where it is said ‘the first day of the week.’ 15 Have they not spun a fair thread in quoting these places? If we should produce no better for purgatory and prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints, and the like, they might have good cause indeed to laugh us to scorn; for where is it written that these were Sabbath-days in which those meetings were kept? Or where is it ordained they should be always observed? Or, which is the sum of all, where is it decreed that the observation of the first day should abrogate or abolish the sanctifying of the seventh day, which God commanded everlastingly to be kept holy? Not one of those is expressed in the written word of God.” (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10.) Whoever, therefore, enters the lists in behalf of the first-day Sabbath, must of necessity do this — though perhaps not aware of the fact — under the banner of the church of Rome. 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 1 are those Christian writers who flourished after the time of the apostles, and before the council of Nicaea, 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 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 to 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 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. 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 Revelation 1:10. The Biblical argument that this term refers to 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 this title, but, did not define his meaning because it was familiarly known by that name in his time. Thus by history they claim to prove the first day of the week to be the Lord’s day of Revelation 1:10; and then by Revelation 1:10, they attempt to show 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 John called 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, 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 first 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.” Genesis 1:5. Matthew, A.D. 41: “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.” Matthew 28:1. Paul, A.D. 57: “Upon the first day of the week.” 1 Corinthians 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.” Revelation 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 of the seventh day, but was not in any respect, true 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 which before had never been claimed by him, 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,3 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 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. 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 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, Irenaeus, A.D. 178, who had been the disciple of Polycarp, one of the disciples of the apostle John, 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 that Sunday is 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. Firstday 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. 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 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 riot 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 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 their line back 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 claimed no apostolic authority. These must be secured, however, 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: — “Today 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.” The epistle of Dionysius to Sorer, 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 theft Sunday is the Lord’s day. They say that Sunday was so familiarly known as such 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. Yet it is said he certainly meant Sunday, because that was the familiar name of the day in his time, 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 for 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 clapsed. So Dionysius constitutes the fifth witness of the series by virtue of the tact that the first four witnesses prove that in his time, “Lord’s day” was the common name for the first clay 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 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 the 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.” lie 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. 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 Sunday; while the sixth is not certainly proved to have spoken of any day! Melito wrote several books which are now lost, but their titles have been preserved by Eusebius. 7 One of these, as given in the English version of Eusebius, is “On the Lord’s Day.” Of course, first-day writers claim 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, — oJ peri th~v kuriakh~v lo>gov , — but the essential word, hJmerav (day), is wanting. It may have been a treatise on the life of Christ, for Ignatius thus uses these words in connection: kuriakh The first reason is that neither Irenaeus 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. And the second reason is that every word of this pretended testimony of Irenaeus 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! 9 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 63; and by Mark, A.D. 64; and always as the first day of the week. John, after his return from Patmos, A.D. 97, twice mentions the day, still calling it the 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.” Then it is spoken of 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 Christt rose from the dead;” once as “the day after that of Saturn; ” and three times as “Sunday,” or “the day of the sun.” Again he refers to it 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.” It is once mentioned by Irenaeus, A.D. 178, who calls it simply the “first day of the week.” And next it is introduced once by Bardesanes, who likewise 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 is it ever designated 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 the second, 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.” 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 clay.” 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 of 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.” 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.” 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. But Clement’s mystical or perpetual Lord’s day shows that he had no idea that John meant Sunday by his use of these words; 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 13 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.” 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 he places; the day which he calls the Lord’s day in the same rank with the Catholic festival of Pentecost, 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.” 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 16 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 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.”
Once more he speaks of it: — “As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the (lead 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.” 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. 18 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 the 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.” 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” became 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 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 the 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 called 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!
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.” 20 Socrates says of them that they maintain that this observance “was delivered to them by the apostle John.” 21 Anatolius says of these Asiatic Christians that they received “the rule from an unimpeachable authority, to wit, the evangelist John.” 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.” 23 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.” 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! 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!
THE FIRST WITNESSES FOR SUNDAY
Origin of Sunday observance the subject of present inquiry — Contradictory statements of Mosheim and Neander — The question between them stated, and the true data for deciding that question — The New Testament furnishes no support for Mosheim’s statement — Epistle of Barnabas a forgery — The testimony of Pliny determines nothing in the case — The epistle of Ignatius probably spurious, and certainly interpolated so far as it is made to sustain Sunday — Decision of the question.
SUNDAY, the first day of the week, is now almost universally observed as the Christian Sabbath. The origin of this institution is still before us as the subject of inquiry. This is presented by two eminent church historians; but so directly do they contradict each other, that it is a question of curious interest to determine which of them states the truth. Thus Mosheim writes respecting the first century: — “All Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week, on which the triumphant Savior arose from the dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship. This pious custom, which was derived from the example of the church of Jerusalem, was founded upon the express appointment of the apostles, who Consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose, and was observed universally throughout the Christian churches, as appears from the united testimonies of the most credible writers.”
Now let us read what Neander, the most distinguished of church historians, says of this apostolic authority for Sunday observance: — “The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions 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. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.” How shall we determine which of these historians is in the right? Neither of them lived in the apostolic age of the church. Mosheim was a writer of the eighteenth century, and Neander, of the nineteenth. Of necessity, therefore, they must learn the facts in the case from the writings of that period which have come down to us. These contain all the testimony which can have any claim to be admitted in deciding this case. These are, first, the inspired writings of the New Testament; secondly, the reputed productions of such writers of that age as are supposed to mention the first day; viz., the epistle of Barnabas, the letter of Pliny, governor of Bythinia, to the emperor Trajan, and flit epistle of Ignatius. These are all the writings prior to the middle of the second century — and this is late enough to amply cover the ground of Mosheim’s Statement — which can be introduced as even referring to the first day of the week.
The questions to be decided by this testimony are these: Did the apostles set apart Sunday for divine worship, as Mosheim affirms? or does the evidence in the case show that the festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, as is affirmed by Neander?
It is certain that the New Testament contains no appointment of Sunday for the solemn celebration of public worship. And it is equally true that there is no example of the church of Jerusalem on which to found such observance. The New Testament, therefore, furnishes no support 3 for the statement, of Mosheim.
The three epistles which have come down to us purporting to have been written in the apostolic age, or immediately subsequent to that age, next come under examination. These are all that remain to us of a period more extended theft that embraced in the statement of Mosheim. He speaks of the first century only; but we summon all the writers of that century, and of the following one prior to the time of Justin Martyr, A.D. 140, who are even supposed to mention the first day of the week. Thus the reader is furnished with all the data in the, case. The epistle of Barnabas speaks as follows in behalf of the first-day observance: — “Lastly he saith unto them, Your new moons and your sabbaths I cannot bear them. Consider what he means by it; the sabbaths, says he, which ye now keep, are not acceptable unto me, but those which I have made; when resting from all things, I shall begin the eighth day, that is, the beginning of the other world; for which cause we observe the eighth day with gladness, in which Jesus arose from the dead, and having manifested himself to his disciples, ascended into heaven.” It might be reasonably concluded that Mosheim would ‘place great reliance upon this testimony as coming from an apostle, and as being somewhat better suited to sustain the sacredness of Sunday than anything previously examined by us. Yet he frankly acknowledges that this epistle is spurious.
Thus he says: — “The epistle of Barnabas was the production of some Jew who, most probably, lived in this century, and whose mean abilities and superstitious attachment to Jewish fables, show, notwithstanding the uprightness of his intentions, that he must have been a very different person from the true Barnabas, who was St. Paul’s companion.” In another work, Mosheim says of this epistle: — “As to what is suggested by Some, of its having been written by that Barnabas who was the friend and companion of St. Paul, the futility of such a notion is easily to be made apparent from the letter itself; several of the opinions and interpretations of Scripture which it contains having in them so little of either truth, dignity, or force as to render it impossible that they could ever have proceeded from the pen of a man divinely instructed.” Neander speaks thus of this epistle: — “It is impossible that we should acknowledge this epistle to belong to that Barnabas who was worthy to be the companion of the apostolic labors of St. Paul.” Prof. Stuart bears a similar testimony: — “That a man by the name of Barnabas wrote this epistle I doubt not; that the chosen associate of Paul wrote it, I, with many others, must doubt.” Dr. Killen, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church of Ireland, uses the following language: — “The tract known as the Epistle of Barnabas was probably composed in A.D. 135. It is the production, apparently, of a convert from Judaism who took special pleasure in allegorical interpretation of Scripture.” Prof. Hackett bears this testimony: — “The letter still extant, which was known as that of Barnabas even in the second century, cannot be defended as genuine.” Mr. Milner speaks of the reputed epistle of Barnnbas as follows: — “It. is a great injury to him to apprehend the epistle, which goes by his name, to be his.” Kitto speaks of this production as — “The so-called epistle of Barnabas, probably a forgery of the second century.” Says the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, speaking of the Barnabas of the New Testament: — “He could not be the author of a work so full of forced allegories, extravagant and unwarrantable explications of Scripture, together with stories concerning beasts, and such like conceits, as make up the first part of this epistle.” Eusebius, the earliest of church historians, places this epistle in the catalogue of spurious books. Thus he says: — “Among the spurious must be numbered both the books called, ‘The Acts of Paul,’ and that called, ‘Pastor,’ and ‘The Revelation of Peter.’ Besides these, the books called, ‘The Epistle of Barnabas,’ and what are called, ‘The Institutions of the Apostles.’” Sir Wm. Domville speaks as follows: — “But the epistle was not written-by Barnabas; it was not, merely unworthy of him, it would be a disgrace to him; and what is of much more consequence, it would be a disgrace to the Christian religion, as being the production of one of the authorized teachers of that religion in the times of the apostles, which circumstance would seriously damage the evidence of its divine origin. Not being the epistle of Barnabas, the document is, as regards the Sabbath question, nothing more than the testimony of some unknown writer to the practice of Sunday observance by some Christians of some unknown community, at some uncertain period of the Christian era, with no sufficient ground for believing that period to have been the first century.” Coleman bears the following testimony: — “The epistle of Barnabas, bearing the honored name of the companion of Paul in his missionary labors, is evidently spurious.
It abounds in fabulous narratives, mystic, allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament, arid fanciful conceits, and is generally agreed by the learned to be of no authority.” As a specimen of the unreasonable and absurd things contained in this epistle, the following passage is quoted: — “Neither shalt thou eat of the hyena: that is, again, be not an adulterer; nor a corrupter of others; neither be like to such. And wherefore so! Because that creature every year changes its kind, and is sometimes male, and sometimes female.” Thus first-day historians being allowed to decide the ease, we are authorized to treat this epistle as a forgery. And whoever will read its ninth chapter (for it will not bear quoting) will acknowledge the justice of the conclusion. This epistle is the only writing purporting to come from the first century, except the New Testament, in which the first day is even referred to. That this furnishes no support for Sunday observance, even Mosheim acknowledges.
The next document that claims our attention is the letter of Pliny, the Roman Governor of Bythinia, to the emperor Trajan. It was written about A.D. 104. He says of the Christians of his province: — “They affirmed that the whole of their guilt or error was, that they met on a certain stated day, before it was light, and addressed themselves in a form of prayer to Christ, as to some god, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never ‘to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery; never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then re-assemble to eat in common a harmless meal.” This epistle of Pliny certainly furnishes no support for Sunday observance. The case is presented in a candid manner by Coleman. He says of this extract: — “This statement is evidence that these Christians kept a day as holy time, but whether it was the last or the first day of the week, does not appear.” Charles Buck, an eminent first-day writer, saw no evidence in this epistle of first-day observance, as is manifest from the indefinite translation which he gives it. Thus he cites the epistle: — “These persons declare that their whole crime, if they are guilty, consists in this: that on certain days they assemble before sunrise to sing alternately the praises of Christ as of God.” Tertullian, who wrote A.D. 200, speaks of this very statement of Pliny’s thus: — “He found in their religious services nothing but meetings at early morning for singing hymns to Christ and God, and sealing home their way of life by a united pledge to be faithful to their religion, forbidding murder, adultery, dishonesty, and other crimes.” Tertullian certainly found in this no reference to the festival of Sunday.
Mr. W. B. Taylor speaks of this stated day as follows: — “As the Sabbath-day appears to have been quite as commonly observed at this date as the sun’s day (if not even more so), it is just as probable that this ‘stated day’ referred to by Pliny was the seventh day, as that it was the first day; though the latter is generally taken for granted .” Taking for granted the very point that should be proved, is no now feature in the evidence thus far examined in support of first-day observance.
Although Mosheim relies on this expression of Pliny’s as a chief support of Sunday, yet he speaks thus of the opinion of another learned man: — “B. Just. Hen. Boehmer would indeed have us to understand this day to have been the same with the Jewish Sabbath.” This testimony of Pliny was written a few years subsequent to the time of the apostles. It relates to a church which probably had been founded by the apostle Peter. 24 It is certainly far more probable that this. church, only forty years after the death of Peter, was keeping the fourth commandment, than that it was observing a day never enjoined by divine authority. It must be conceded that this testimony from Pliny proves nothing in support of Sunday observance; for it does not designate what day of the week was thus observed.
The epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, so often quoted in behalf of first-day observance, next claim our attention. He is represented as saying: — “Wherefore if they who are brought up in these ancient laws came nevertheless to the newness of-hope, no longer observing sabbaths, but keeping the Lord’s day, in which also our life is sprung; up by him, and through his death, whom yet some deny (by which mystery we have been brought to believe, and therefore wait that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only master) how shall we be able to live different from him; whose disciples the very prophets themselves being, did by the Spirit expect him as their master.” Two important facts relative to this quotation are worthy of particular notice: 1. That the epistles of Ignatius are acknowledged to be spurious by first-day writers of high authority; and those epistles which some of them except as possibly genuine, do not include in their number the epistle to the Magnesians, from which the above quotation is made, nor do they say anything relative to first-day observance; 2. That the epistle to the Magnesians would say nothing of any day, were it not that the word day had been fraudulently inserted by the translator! In support of the first of these propositions, the following testimony from Dr. Killen is adduced: — “In the sixteenth century, fifteen letters were brought out from beneath the mantle of a hoary antiquity, and offered to the world as the productions of the pastor of Antioch. Scholars refused to receive them on the terms required, and forthwith eight of them were admitted to be forgeries. In the seventeenth century, the seven remaining letters, in a somewhat altered form, again came forth from obscurity, and claimed to be the works of Ignatius.
Again discerning critics refused to acknowledge their pretensions; but curiosity was roused by this second apparition, and many expressed an earnest desire to obtain a sight of the real epistles.
Greece, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt were ransacked in search of them, and at length three letters are found. The discovery creates general gratulation; it is confessed that four of the epistles so lately asserted to be genuine, are apocryphal; and it is boldly said that the three now forthcoming are above challenge. But truth still refuses to be compromised, and sternly disowns these claimants for her approbation. The internal evidence of these three epistles abundantly attests that, like the last three books of the Sibyl, they are only the last shifts of a grave imposture.” The same writer thus states the opinion of Calvin: — “It is no mean proof of sagacity of the great Calvin, that, upwards of three hundred years ago, he passed a sweeping sentence of condemnation on these Ignatian epistles.” Of the three epistles of Ignatius still claimed as genuine, Prof. C. F.
Hudson speaks as follows: — “Ignatius of Antioch was martyred probably A.D. 115. Of the eight epistles ascribed to him, three are genuine; viz., those addressed to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans.” It will be observed that the three epistles which are here mentioned as genuine do not include that epistle from Which the quotation in behalf of Sunday is taken, and it is a fact, also, that they contain no allusion to Sunday. Sir Win. Domville, an and-Sabbatarian writer, uses the following language: — “Every one at all conversant with such matters is aware that the works of Ignatius have been more interpolated and corrupted than those of any other of the ancient Fathers; and also that some writings have been attributed to him which are wholly spurious.” Robinson, an eminent English Baptist writer of the last century, expresses the following opinion of the epistles ascribed to Ignatius, Barnabas, and others: — “If any of the writings attributed to those who are called apostolic Fathers, as Ignatius, teacher at Antioch, Polycarp, at Smyrna, Barnabas, who was half a Jew, and Hemas, who was a brother to Pius, teacher at Rome, if any of these be genuine, of which there is great reason to doubt, they only prove the piety and illiteracy of the good men. Some are worse, and the best not better, than the godly epistles of the lower sort of Baptists and Quakers in the time of the civil war in England. Barnabas and Hermas both mention baptism; but both of these books are contemptible reveries of wild and irregular geniuses.” The doubtful character of these Ignatian epistles is thus sufficiently attested. The quotation in behalf of Sunday is not taken from one of the three epistles that are still claimed as genuine; and what is still further to be observed, it would say nothing in behalf of any day were it not for an extraordinary license, not to say fraud, which the translator has used in inserting the word day. This fact is shown with critical accuracy by Kitto, whose Cyclopedia is in high repute among first-day scholars. He presents the original of Ignatius, with comments and a translation, as follows: — “We must here notice one other passage…as bearing on the subject of the Lord’s day, though it certainly contains no mention of it. It occurs in the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (about A.D. 100). The whole passage is confessedly obscure, and the text may be corrupt. .. The passage is as follows: — “ Eij oujn oji ejn pajlaioi~v pra>gmasin ajnastrafe>ntev, eijv kaino>thta ejlpi>dov hJlqon mhke>ti sabbati>zontev, ajlla< kata< kuriakh>n zwh Gurney 34 puts forward as a material witness to prove the observance of the Lord’s day in the beginning of the second century, fails to prove any such fact, it appearing on a thorough examination of his testimony that he does not even mention the Lord’s day, nor in any way allude to the religious observance of it, whether by that name or by any other.” It is manifest, therefore, that this famous quotation has no reference whatever to the first day of the week, and that it furnishes no evidence that that day was known in the time of Ignatius by the title of Lord’s day. 36 The evidence is now before the reader which must determine whether Mosheim or Neander spoke in accordance with the facts in the case. And thus it appears that in the New Testament, and in the uninspired writings of the period referred to, there is absolutely nothing to sustain the strong Sunday statement of Mosheim. When we come to the fourth century,-we shall find a statement by him which essentially modifies what he has here said. Of the epistles ascribed to Barnabas, Pliny, and Ignatius, we have found that the first is a forgery; that the second speaks of a stated day without defining what one; and that the third, which is probably a spurious document, would say nothing relative to Sunday, if the advocates of first-day sacredness had not interpolated the word day into the document! We can hardly avoid the conclusion that Mosheim spoke on this subject as a doctor of divinity, and not as a historian; and with the firmest conviction that we speak the truth, we say with Neander, “The festival of Sunday was always only a human ordinance.”
EXAMINATION OF A FAMOUS FALSEHOOD
Were the martyrs in Pliny’s time and afterward tested by the question whether they had kept Sunday or not? — Argument in the affirmative quoted from Edwards — Its origin — No facts to sustain such an argument prior to the fourth century — A single instance at the opening of that century all that can be claimed in support of the assertion — Sunday not even alluded to in that instance — Testimony of Mosheim relative to the work in which this is found.
CERTAIN doctors of divinity have made a special effort to show that the “stated day of Plinys epistle is the first day of the week. For this purpose they adduce a fabulous narrative which the more reliable historians of the church have not deemed worthy of record. The argument is this: In Pliny’s time and afterward, that is, from the close of the first century and onward, whenever the Christians were brought before their persecutors for examination, they were asked whether they had kept the Lord’s day, this term being used to designate the first day of the week. And hence two facts are asserted to be established: 1. That when Pliny says that the Christians who were examined by him were accustomed to meet on a stated day, that day was undoubtedly the first day of the, week; 2. That the observance of the first day of the week was the grand test by which Christians were known to their heathen persecutors; 3. That “Lord’s day” was the name by which the first day of the week was known in the time of Pliny, a few years after the death of John.
To prove these points, Dr. Edwards makes the following statement: — “Hence the fact that their persecutors, when they wished to know whether men were Christians, were accustomed to put to them this question; viz., ‘Dominicum servasti (Hast thou kept the Lord’s day)?’ If they had, they were Christians. This was the badge of their Christianity, in distinction from Jews and pagans. And if they said they had, and would not recant, they must be put to death.
And what, when they continued steadfast, was their answer? ‘Christianus sum; intermittere non possum (I am a Christian; I cannot omit, it).’ It is a badge of my religion, and the man who assumes it must of course keep the Lord’s day, because it is the will of his Lord; and should he abandon it, he would be an apostate from his religion.” Mr. Gurney, an English first-day writer of some note, uses the same argument and for the same purpose. 2 The importance attached to this statement, and the prominence given to it by the advocates of first-day sacredness, render it proper that its merits should be examined. Dr.
Edwards gives no authority for his. statement; but Mr. Gurney traces the story to Dr. Andrews, bishop of Winchester, who claimed to have taken it from the Acta Martyrum, an ancient collection of the acts of the martyrs. It was in the early part of the seventeenth century that Bishop Andrews first brought this forward in his speech in the court of Star Chamber, against Thraske, who was accused before that arbitrary tribunal of maintaining the heretical opinion that Christians are bound to keep the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. The story was first produced, therefore, for the purpose of confounding an observer of the Sabbath when on trial by his enemies for keeping that day. Sir Win. Domville, an able and-Sabbatarian writer, thus traces out the matter: — “The bishop, as we have seen, refers to the Acta of the martyrs as justifying his assertion respecting the question, Dominicum servasti? but he does not cite a single instance from them in which that question was put. We are left, therefore, to hunt out the instances for ourselves, wherever, if anywhere, they are to be found. The most complete collection of the memoirs and legends still extant, relative to the lives and sufferings of the Christian martyrs, is that by Ruinart, entitled, ‘Acta primorum Martyrum sincera et selecta.’ I have carefully consulted that work, and I take upon myself to affirm that among the questions there stated to have been put to the martyrs in and before the time of Pliny, and for nearly two hundred years afterwards, the question, Dominicum servasti? does not once occur; nor any equivalent question.” 3 This shows at once that no proof can be obtained from this quarter, either that the “stated day” of Pliny was the first day of the week, or that the martyrs of the early church were tested by the question whether they ]had observed it or not. It also shows the statement to be false that the martyrs of Pliny’s time called Sunday the Lord’s day, and kept it as such. After quoting all the questions put to martyrs in and before Pliny’s time, and thus proving that no such question as is alleged was put to them, Domville says: — “This much may suffice to show that Dominicum servasti? was no question in Pliny’s time, as Mr. Gurney intends us to believe it was. I have, however, still other proof of Mr. Gurney’s unfair dealing with the subject, but I defer stating it for the present, that I may proceed in the inquiry, What may have been the authority on which Bishop Andrews relied when stating that Dominicum servasti? was ever a usual question put by the heathen persecutors? I shall with this view pass over the martyrdoms which intervened between Pliny’s time and the fourth century, as they contain nothing to the purpose, and shall come at once to that martyrdom the narrative of which was, I have no doubt, the source from which Bishop Andrews derived his question, ‘Dominicum servasti (Hold you the Lord’s day)?’ This martyrdom happened A.D. 304. 4 The sufferers were Saturninus and his four sons, and several other persons. They were taken to Carthage, and brought before the proconsul Amulinus. In the account given of their examinations by him, the phrases, ‘CELEBRARE Dominicum,’ and ‘AGERE Dominicum,’ frequently occur, but in no instance is the verb ‘servare’ used in reference to Dominicum. I mention this chiefly to show that when Bishop Andrews, alluding, as no doubt he does, to the narrative of this martyrdom, says the question was, Dominicum servasti? it is very clear he had not his author at hand, and that in trusting to his memory, he coined a phrase of his own.” Domville quotes at length the conversation between the proconsul and the martyrs, which is quite similar in most respects to Gurney’s and Edward’s quotation from Andrews. He then adds: — “The narrative of the martyrdom of Saturninus being the only one which has the appearance of supporting the assertion of Bishop Andrews that, ‘Hold you the Lord’s day?’ was the usual question to the martyrs, what if I should prove that even this narrative affords no support to that assertion? yet nothing is more easy than this proof; for Bishop Andrews has quite mistaken the meaning of the word Dominicum in translating it ‘the Lord’s day.’ It had no such meaning. It was a barbarous word in use among some of the ecclesiastical, writers in, and subsequent to, the fourth century, to express sometimes a church, and at other times the Lord’s supper, but: NEVER the Lord’s day. 6 My authorities on this point are — “1. Ruinart, who, upon the word Dominicum, in the narrative of the martyrdom of Saturninus, has a note, in which he says it is a word signifying the Lord’s supper 7 (‘Dominicum vero desinat sacra mysteria’), and he quotes Tertullian and Cyprian in support of this interpretation. “2. The editors of the Benedictine edition of St. Augustine’s works.
They state that the word Dominicum has the two meanings of a church and the Lord’s supper. For the former, they quote, among other authorities, a canon of the council of Neo Cesarea. For the latter meaning, they quote Cyprian, and refer also to St. Augustine’s account of his conference with the Donatists, in which allusion is made to the narrative of the martyrdom of Saturninus. “3. Gesner, who, in his Latin Thesaurus, published in 1749, gives both meanings to the word Dominicum. For that of the Lord’s supper, he quotes Cyprian; for that of a church, he quotes Cyprian and also Hillary. Domville states other facts of interest bearing on this point, and then pays his respects to Mr. Gurney as follows: — “It thus appearing that the reference made by Bishop Andrews to the ‘Acts of Martyrs’ completely fails to establish his dictum respecting the question alleged to have been put to the martyrs, and it also appearing that there existed strong and obvious reasons for not placing implicit reliance upon that dictum, what are we to think of Mr. Gurney’s regard for truth, when we find he does not scruple to tell his readers that the ‘stated day’ mentioned in Pliny’s letter as that on which the Christians held their religious assemblies, was ‘clearly the first day of the week,’ as is proved by the very question which it was customary for the Roman persecutors to address to the martyrs, ‘Dominicum servasti (Hast thou kept the Lord’s day)?’ For this unqualified assertion, prefixed as it is by the word ‘clearly,’ in order to. make it the more impressive, Mr. Gurney is without any excuse.” The justice of Domville’s language cannot be questioned, when he characterizes this favorite first-day argument as — “One of those daring misstatements of facts so frequent in theological writings, and which, from the confident tone so generally assumed by the writers on such occasions, are usually received without examination, and allowed, in consequence, to pass current for truth.” The investigation to which this statement has been subjected, shows, 1. That no such question as, Hast thou kept the Lord’s day? is upon record, as proposed to the martyrs in the time of Pithy; 2. That no such question was asked to any martyr prior to the commencement of the fourth century; 3. That a single instance of martyrdom in which any question of the kind was asked, is all that can be claimed; 4. That in this one case, which is all that has even the slightest appearance of sustaining the story under examination, a correct translation of the original Latin shows that the question had no relation whatever to the observance of Sunday!
All this has been upon the assumption that the Acta Martyrum, in which this story is found, is an authentic work. Let Mosheim testify relative to the character of this work for veracity: — “As to those accounts which have come clown to us under the title of Acta Martyrum, or the Acts of the Martyrs, their authority is certainly for the most part of a very questionable nature; indeed, speaking generally, it might be coming nearer to the truth, perhaps, were we to say that they are entitled to no sort of credit whatever.” Such is the authority of the work from which this story is taken. It is not strange that first-day historians should leave the repetition of it to theologians.
Such are the facts respecting this extraordinary falsehood. They constitute so complete an exposure of this famous historical argument for Sunday as to consign it to the just contempt of all honest men. But this is too valuable an argument to be lightly surrendered, and, moreover, it is as truthful as are certain other of the historical arguments for Sunday. It will not do to give up this argument because of its dishonesty; for others will have to go with it for possessing the same character.
Since the publication of Domville’s elaborate work, James Gilfillan, of Scotland, has written a large volume entitled, “The Sabbath,” which has been extensively circulated both in Europe and America, and is esteemed a standard work by the American Tract Society and by firsts-day denominations in general. Gilfillan had read Domville, as appears from his statements on pages 10, 142, 143, 616, of his volume. He was therefore acquainted with Domville’s exposure of the fraud respecting “Dominicum servasti?” But though he was acquainted with this exposure, he offers not one word in reply. On the contrary, lie repeats the story with as much assurance as though it had not been proved a falsehood. But as Domville had shown up the matter from the Acta Martyrum, it was necessary for Gilfillan to trace it to sonic other authority, and so he assigns it to Cardinal Baronius. Here are Gilfillan’s words: — “From the days of the apostles downward for many years, [he followers of Christ had no enemies more fierce and unrelenting than that people [the Jews], who cursed them in the synagogue, sent out emissaries into all countries to calumniate their Master and them, and were abbettors, wherever they could, to the martyrdom of men, such as Polycarp, of whom the world was not worthy.
Among the reasons of this deadly enmity was the change of the Sabbatic day. The Romans, though they had no objection on this score, punished the Christians for the faithful observance of their day of rest, one of the testing questions put to the martyrs being, ‘Dominicum servasti (Have you kept the Lord’s day)?’ — Baron.
An. Eccles., A.D. 303, Numbers 35, etc.” Gilfillan having reproduced this statement, and assigned as his authority the annalist Baronius, more recent first-day writers take courage, and repeat the story after him. Now they are all right, as they think. What if the, Acta Martyrum has failed them? Domville ought to have gone to Baronius, who, in their judgment, is the true source of information in this matter. Had he done this, they say, he would have been saved from misleading his readers. But let us ascertain what evil Domville has done in this case. It all consists in the assertion of two things out of the Acta Martyrum: — 1. That no such question as “Dominicum servasti?” was addressed to any martyr till the early part of the fourth century, some two hundred years after the time of Pliny. 2. That the question even then did not relate to what is called the Lord’s day, but to the Lord’s supper.
Now it is a remarkable fact that Gilfillan has virtually admitted the truth of the first of these statements, for the earliest instance which he could find in Baronius is A.D. 303, as his reference plainly shows. It differs only one year from the date assigned in Ruinart’s Acta Martyrum, and relates to the very case which Domville has quoted from that work! Domville’s first and most important statement is therefore vindicated by Gilfillan himself, though he has not the frankness to say this in so many words.
Domville’s second point is that Dominicum, when used as a noun, as in the present case, signifies either a church or the Lord’s supper, but never signifies Lord’s day. He establishes the fact by incontestible evidence.
Gilfillan was acquainted with all this. He could not answer Domville, and yet he was not willing to abandon the falsehood which Domville had exposed. So he turns from the Acta Martyrum, in which the compiler directly defines the word to mean precisely what Domville assorts, and brings forward the great Romish annalist, Cardinal Baronins. Now, say our first-day friends, we are to have the truth front a high authority. Gilfillan has-found in Baronins an express statement that the martyrs were tested by the question, “Have you kept the Lord’s day?” No matter, then, as to the Acta Martyrum, from which Bishop Andrews first produced this story. That, indeed, has failed us, but we have in its stead the weighty testimony of the great Baronius. To be sure, he fixes this test no earlier than the fourth century, which renders it of no avail as proof that Pliny’s stated day was Sunday; but it is Worth much to have Baronius bear witness, that certain martyrs in the fourth century were put to death because they observed the Sunday Lord’s day.
But these exultant thoughts are vain. I must state a grave fact in plain language: Gilfillan has deliberately falsified the testimony of Baronius!
That historian records at length the martyrdom of Saturninus and his company in Northern Africa in A.D. 303. It is the very story which Domville has cited from the Acta Martyrum, and Baronius repeatedly indicates that he himself copied it from that work. He gives the various questions propounded by the proconsul, and the several answers which were returned by each of the martyrs. I copy from Baronius the most important of these. They were arrested while celebrating the Lord’s sacrament according to custom. 15 The following is the charge on which they were arrested: They had celebrated the Collectam Dominicum against the command of the emperors. 16 The proconsul asked the first whether he had celebrated the Collectam, and he replied that he was a Christian, and had done this. 17 Another says, “I have not only been in the Collecta, but I have celebrated the Dominicum with the brethren, because I am a Christian.” 18 Another says, “We have celebrated the Dominicum, because the Dominicum cannot be neglected.” 19 Another said that the Collecta was made [or observed] at his house. 20 The proconsul, questioning again one of those already examined, received this answer: “The Dominicum cannot be disregarded; the law so commands.” 21 When one was asked whether the Collecta was made [or observed] at his house, he answered, “In my house we have celebrated the Dominicum.” He added, “Without the Dominicum, we cannot be,” or live. 22 To another, the proconsul said that he did not wish to know whether he was a Christian, but whether he participated in the Collecta. His reply was: “As if one could be a Christian without the Dominicum, or as if the Dominicum can be celebrated without the Christian.” 23 And he said further to the proconsul: “We have observed the Collecta most sacredly; we have always convened in the Dominicum for reading the Lord’s word.” 24 Another said: “ I have been in [literally, have made] the Collecta with my brethren, I have celebrated the Dominicum.” After him, another proclaimed the Dominicum to be the hope and safety of the Christian; and when tortured as the others, he exclaimed, “I have celebrated the Dominicum with a devoted heart, and with my brethren I have made the Collecta because I am a Christian.” 26 When the proconsul again asked one or these whether he had conducted the Dominicum, he replied that he had, because Christ was his Savior. I have thus given the substance of this famous examination, and have set before the reader the references there]in’ made to the Dominicum. It. is to be observed that Collecta is used as another name for Dominicum. Now does Baronius use either of these words to signify the Lord’s day? It so happens that he has defined these words with direct reference to this very case no less than seven times. Now let us read these seven definitions: — When Baronius records the first question addressed to these martyrs, he there defines these words as follows: “By the words Collectam, Collectionem, and Dominicum, the author always understands the sacrifice of the Mass.” 28 After recording the words of that martyr who said that the law commanded the observance of the Dominicum, Baronius defines his statement thus: “Evidently the Christian law concerning the Dominicum, no doubt about celebrating the sacrifice.” 29 Baronius, by the Romish words sacrifice and Mass, refers to the celebration of the Lord’s supper by these martyrs. At the conclusion of the examination, he again defines the cele bration of the Dominicum. He says: “It has been shown, above in relating these things that the Christians were moved, even in the time of severe persecution, to celebrate the Dominicum. Evidently, as we have declared elsewhere in many places, it was a sacrifice without bloodshed, and of divine appointment.” 30 He presently defines Dominicum again, saying, “Though it is a fact that the same expression was employed at times with reference to the temple of God, yet since all the churches upon the earth have united in this matter, and from other things related above, it has been sufficiently shown concerning the celebration of the Dominicum, that only the sacrifice of the Mass can be understood.” 31 Observe this last statement, he says, Though the word has been employed to designate the temple of the Lord, yet in the things here related it can only signify the sacrifice of the Mass. These testimonies are exceedingly explicit. But Baronius has not yet finished. In the index to Tome 3, he explains these words again with direct reference to this very martyrdom. Under Collecta is this statement: “The Collecta, the Dominicum, the Mass, the same [A.D.] 303, 39.” 32 Under Missa: “The Mass is the same as the Collecta, or Dominicum [A.D.] 303, 39.” 33 Under Dominicum: “To celebrate the Dominicum is the same as to conduct the Mass, [A.D.] 303, 39; 49; 51.” It is not possible to mistake the meaning of Baronius. He says that Dominicum signifies the Mass! The celebration of the supper by these martyrs was doubtless very different from the pompous ceremony which the church of Rome now observes under the name of Mass. But it was the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, concerning which they were tested, and for observing which they were put to a cruel death. The word Dominicum signifies “the sacred mysteries,” as Ruinart defines it; and Baronius, in seven times affirming this definition, though acknowledging that it has sometimes been used to signify temple of God, plainly declares that in this record, it can have no other meaning than that service which the Romanists call the sacrifice of the Mass. Gilfillan had read all this, yet he dares to quote Baronius as saying that these martyrs were tested by the question, “Have you kept Lord’s day?” He could not but know that he was writing a direct falsehood; but he thought the honor of God, and the advancement of the cause of truth, demanded this act at his hands.
Before Gilfillan wrote his work, Domville had called attention to the fact that the sentence, “Dominicum servasti?” does not occur in the Acta Martyrum, a different verb being used every time. But this is the popular form of this question, and must not be given up. So Gilfillan declares that Baronius uses it in his record of the martyrdoms in A.D. 303. But we have cited the different forms of questions recorded by Baronius, and find them to be precisely the same as those of the Acta Martyrum. “Dominicum servasti?” does not occur in that historian, and Gilfillan, in stating that it does, is guilty of untruth. This, however, is comparatively unimportant.
But for asserting that Baronius speaks of “Lord’s day” under the name of Dominicum, Gilfillan stands convicted of inexcusable falsehood in matters of serious importance.
ORIGIN OF FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE
Sunday a heathen festival from remote antiquity — Origin of the name — Reasons which induced the leaders of the church to adopt this festival — It was the day generally observed by the Gentiles in the first centuries of the Christian era — To have taken a different day would have been exceedingly inconvenient — They hoped to facilitate the conversion of the Gentiles by keeping the same day that they observed — Three voluntary weekly festivals in the church in memory of the Redeemer — Sunday soon elevated above the other two — Justin Martyr — Sunday observance first found in the church of Rome — Irenaeus — First act of papal usurpation was in behalf of Sunday — Tertullian — Earliest trace of abstinence from labor on Sunday — General statement of facts — The Roman church made its first great attack upon the Sabbath by turning it into a fast.
MORE ancient than the Christian religion is the festival of Sunday, its origin being lost in remote antiquity. It did not originate, however, from any divine command, nor from piety toward God; on the contrary, it was set apart as a sacred day by the heathen world in honor of their chief god, the sun. It is from this fact that the first day of the week has obtained the name of Sunday, a name by which it is known in many languages. Webster thus defines the word: — “Sunday; so called because this day was anciently dedicated to the sun or to its worship. The first day of the week; the Christian Sabbath; a day consecrated to rest from secular employments, and to religious worship; the Lord’s day.”
And Worcester, in his large dictionary, uses similar language: — “Sunday; so named because anciently dedicated to the sun or to its worship. The first day of the week; the Christian Sabbath, consecrated to rest from labor and to religious worship; the Lord’s day.”
These lexicographers call Sunday the Christian Sabbath, etc., because in the general theological literature of our language it is thus designated, though never so termed in the Bible. Lexicographers do not undertake to settle theological questions, but simply to define terms as currently used in a particular language. Though all the other days of the week have heathen names, Sunday alone was a conspicuous heathen festival in the days of the early church. The North British Review, in a labored attempt to justify the observance of Sunday by the Christian world, styles that day, “ THE WILD SOLAR HOLIDAY [i.e., festival in honor of the sun] OF ALL PAGAN TIMES.” Verstegan says: — “The most ancient Germans being pagans, and having appropriated their first day of the week to the peculiar adoration of the sun, whereof that day doth yet in our English tongue retain the name of Sunday, and appropriated the next day unto it, unto the special adoration of the moon, whereof it yet retaineth with us the name of Monday; they ordained the next day to these most heavenly planets to the particular adoration of their great reputed god, Tuisco, whereof we do yet retain in our language the name of Tuesday.” The same author thus speaks concerning the idols of our Saxon ancestors: — “Of these, though they had many, yet seven among the rest they especially appropriated unto the seven days of the week…. Unto the day dedicated unto the special adoration of the idol of the sun, they gave the name of Sunday, as much as to say the sun’s day, or the day of the sun. This idol was placed in a temple, and there adored and sacrificed unto, for that they believed that the sun in the firmament did with or in this idol correspond and cooperate.” Jennings makes this adoration of the sun more ancient than the deliverance of Israel from Egypt. For, in speaking of the time of that deliverance, he refers to the Gentiles as — “The idolatrous nations who, in honor to their chief god, the sun, began their day at his rising.” 4 He represents them also as setting apart Sunday in honor of the same object of adoration: — “The day which the heathens in general consecrated to the worship and honor of their chief god, the sun, which, according to our computation, was the first day of the week.” The North British Review thus defends the introduction of this ancient heathen festival into the Christian church: — “That very day was the Sunday of their heathen neighbors and respective countrymen; and patriotism gladly united with expediency in making it at once their Lord’s day and their Sabbath…. If the authority of the church is to be ignored altogether by Protestants, there is no matter; because opportunity and common expediency are surely argument enough for so ceremonial a change as the mere day of the week for the observance of the rest and holy convocation of the Jewish’ Sabbath. That primitive church, in fact, was shut up to the adoption of the Sunday, until it became established and supreme, when it Was too late to make another alteration; and it was no irreverent nor undelightful thing to adopt it, inasmuch as the first day of the week was their own high day at any rate: so that their compliance and civility were rewarded by the redoubled sanctity of their quiet festival.” It would seem that something more potent than “patriotism” and “expediency” would be requisite to transform this heathen festival into the Christian Sabbath, or even to justify its introduction into the Christian church. A further statement of the reasons which prompted its introduction, and a brief notice of the earlier steps toward transforming it into a Christian institution, will occupy the remainder of this chapter.
Chafie, a clergyman of the English Church, in 1652, published a work in vindication of first-day observance, entitled, “The Seventh-day Sabbath.”
After showing the general observance of Sunday by the heathen world in the early ages of the church, Chafie thus states the reasons which forbid the Christians’ attempting to keep any other day: — “1. Because of the contempt, scorn, and derision they thereby should be had in, among all the Gentiles with whom they lived…. How grievous would be their taunts and reproaches against the poor Christians living with them and under their power for their new set sacred day, had the Christians chosen any other than the Sunday…. 2. Most Christians then were either servants or the poorer sort of people; and the Gentiles, most probably, would not give their servants liberty to cease from working on any other set day constantly, except on their Sunday…. 3. Because had they assayed such a change, it would have been but labor in vain;…they could never have brought it to pass.” Thus it is seen that at the time when the early church began to apostatize from God and to foster in its bosom human ordinances, the heathen world — as they had long done — very generally observed the first day of the week in honor of the sun. Many of the early Fathers of the church had been heathen philosophers. Unfortunately, they brought with them into the church many of their old notions and principles. Particularly did it occur to them that by uniting with the heathen in the day of weekly celebration they should greatly facilitate their conversion. The reasons which induced the church to adopt the ancient festival of the heathen as something made ready to hand, are thus stated by Morer: — “It is not to be denied but we borrow the name of this day from the ancient Greeks and Romans, and we allow that the old Egyptians worshiped the sun, and as a standing memorial of their veneration, dedicated this day to him. And we find by the influence of their examples, other nations, and among them the Jews themselves, doing him homage; 8 yet these abuses did not hinder the Fathers of the Christian church simply to repeal, or altogether lay by, the day or its name, but only to sanctify and improve both, as they did also the pagan temples polluted before with idolatrous services, and other instances wherein those good men were always tender to work any other change than what was evidently necessary, and in such things as were plainly inconsistent with the Christian religion; so that Sunday being the day on which the Gentiles solemnly adored that planet, and called it Sunday, partly from its influence on that day especially, and partly in respect to its divine body (as they conceived it), the Christians thought fit to keep the same day and the same name of it, that they might not appear causelessly peevish, and by that means hinder the conversion of the Gentiles, and bring a greater prejudice than might be otherwise taken against the gospel.” In the time of Justin Martyr, Sunday was a weekly festival, widely celebrated by the heathen in honor of their god, the sun. And so, in presenting to the heathen emperor of Rome an “Apology” for his brethren, Justin takes care to tell him thrice that the Christians held their assemblies on this day of general observance. 10 Sunday, therefore, makes its first appearance in the Christian church as an institution identical in time with the weekly festival of the heathen, and Justin, who first mentions this. festival, had been a heathen philosopher. Sixty years later, Tertullian acknowledges that it was not without an appearance of truth that men declared the sun to be the God of the Christians. But he answered that though they worshiped toward the east, like the heathen, and devoted Sunday to rejoicing, it was for a reason far different from sun-worship, And on another occasion, in defending his brethren from the charge of sunworship, he acknowledges that these acts. — prayer toward the east, and making Sunday a day of festivity — did give men a chance to think the sun was the God of the Christians. 12 Tertullian is therefore a witness to the fact that Sunday was a heathen festival when it obtained a foothold in the Christian church, and that the Christians, in consequence of observing, it, were taunted with being sun-worshipers. It is remarkable that in his replies he never claims for their observance any divine precept or apostolic example. His principal point was that they had as good a right to do it as the heathen had. One hundred and twenty-one years after Tertullian, Constantine, while yet a heathen, put forth his famous edict in behalf of the heathen festival of the sun, which day he pronounced “venerable.” And this heathen law caused the day to be observed everywhere throughout the Roman empire, and firmly established it both in church and State. It is certain, therefore, that at the time of its entrance into the Christian church, Sunday was an ancient weekly festival of the heathen world.
That this heathen festival was upon the day of Christ’s resurrection, doubtless powerfully contributed to aid “patriotism” and “expediency” in transforming it: into the Lord’s day, or Christian Sabbath. For, with pious motives, as we may reasonably conclude, the professed people of God early paid a voluntary regard to several days, memorable in the history of the Redeemer. Mosheim, whose testimony in behalf of Sunday has been presented already, uses the following language relative to the crucifixion day: — “It is also probable that: Friday, the day of Christ’s crucifixion, was early distinguished by particular honors from the other days of the week.” Of the second century he says: — “Many also observed the fourth day of the week, on which Christ was betrayed; and the sixth, which was the day of his crucifixion.” Dr. Peter Heylyn says of those who chose Sunday: — “Because our Savior rose that day from among the dead, so chose they Friday for another, by reason of our Savior’s passion; and Wednesday on the which he had been betrayed: the Saturday, or ancient Sabbath, being meanwhile retained in the Eastern churches.” Of the comparative sacredness of these three voluntary festivals, the same writer testifies: — “If we consider either the preaching of the word, the ministration of the sacraments, or the public prayers, the Sunday in the Eastern churches had no great prerogative above other days, especially above the Wednesday and the Friday, save that the meetings were more solemn, and the concourse of people greater than at other times, as is most likely.” And besides these three weekly festivals, there were also two annual festivals of great sacredness. These were the Passover and the Pentecost.
And it is worthy of special notice that although the Sunday festival can be traced no higher in the church than Justin Martyr, A.D. 140, the Passover can be traced to a man who claimed to have received it from the apostles. (See chapter thirteen.) Among these festivals, considered simply as voluntary memorials of the Redeemer, Sunday had very little preeminence; for it is well stated by Heylyn, — “Take which you will, either the Fathers or the moderns, and we shall find no Lord’s day instituted by any apostolic mandate; no Sabbath set on foot by them upon the first day of the week.” Domville bears the following testimony, which is worthy of lasting remembrance: — “Not any ecclesiastical writer of the first three centuries attributed the origin of Sunday observance either to Christ or to his apostles.” “Patriotism” and “expediency,” however, erelong elevated immeasurably above its ‘fellows that one of these voluntary festivals which corresponded to “the wild solar holiday” of the heathen world, making that day, at last, “the Lord’s day”’ of the Christian church. The earliest testimony in behalf of first-day observance that has any claim to be regarded as genuine, is that of Justin Martyr, written about A.D. 140.
Before his conversion, he was a heathen philosopher. The time, place, and occasion of his first Apology or Defense of the Christians, addressed to the Roman emperor, is thus stated by an eminent Roman Catholic historian. He says that Justin Martyr — “Was at Rome when the persecution that was raised under the reign of Antoninus Plus, the successor of Adrian, began to break forth, where he composed an excellent apology in behalf of the Christians.” Of the works ascribed to Justin Martyr, Milner says: — “Like many of the ancient Fathers, he appears to us under the greatest disadvantage. Works really his have been lost; and others have been ascribed to him, part of which are not his, and the rest, at least, of ambiguous authority.” If the writings ascribed to him are genuine, there is little propriety in the use made of his name by the advocates of the first-day Sabbath. He taught the abrogation of the Sabbatic institution; and there is no intimation in his words that the Sunday. festival which he mentions was other than a voluntary observance. Thus he addresses the emperor of Rome: — “And upon the day called Sunday, all that live either in city or country meet together at the same place, where the writings of the apostles and prophets are read as much as time will give leave; when the reader has done, the bishop makes a sermon, wherein he instructs the people, and animates them to the practice of such lovely precepts: at the conclusion of this discourse, we all rise up together, and pray; and prayers being over, as I now said, there is bread and wine and water offered, and the bishop, as before, sends up prayers and thanksgivings, with all the fervency he is able, and the people conclude all with the joyful acclamation of Amen. Then the consecrated elements are distributed to, and partaken of by, all that are present, and sent to the absent by the hands of the deacons. But the wealthy and the willing, for every one is at liberty, contribute as they think fitting; and this collection is deposited with the bishop, and out of this he relieves the orphan and the widow, and such as are reduced to want by sickness or any other cause, and such as are in bonds, and strangers that come from far; and, in a word, he is the guardian and almoner to all the indigent. Upon Sunday we all assemble, that being the first day in which God set himself to work upon the dark void, in order to make the world, and in which Jesus Christ our Savior rose again from the dead; for the day before Saturday he was crucified, and the day after, which is Sunday, he appeared unto his apostles and disciples, and taught them what I have now proposed to your consideration.” This passage, if genuine, furnishes the earliest reference to the observance of Sunday as a religious festival in the Christian church. It should be remembered that this language was written at Rome, and addressed directly to the’ emperor. It shows, therefore, what was the practice of the church in that city and vicinity, but does not determine how extensive this observance was. It contains strong incidental proof that apostasy had made progress at Rome, the institution of the Lord’s supper being changed in part already to a human ordinance, water being now as essential to the Lord’s supper as the wine or the bread. And what is still more dangerous, as perverting the institution of Christ, the consecrated elements were sent to the absent, — a step which speedily resulted in their becoming objects of superstitious veneration, and finally of worship. Justin tells the emperor that Christ thus ordained; but such a statement is a grave departure from the truth of the New Testament.
This statement of reasons for Sunday observance is particularly worthy of attention. He tells the emperor that they assembled upon the day called Sunday. This was equivalent to saying to him, We observe the day on which our fellow-citizens offer their adoration to the sun. Here both “patriotism” and “expediency” discover themselves in the words of Justin, which were addressed to a persecuting emperor in behalf of the Christians. But as if conscious that the observance of heathen festival as the day of Christian worship was: not consistent with their profession as worshipers of the Most High, Justin bethinks himself for reasons in defense of this Observance. He assigns no divine precept nor apostolic example for this festival; for his reference to what Christ taught his disciples, as appears from the connection, was to the general system of the Christian religion, and not to the observance of Sunday. If it be said that Justin might have learned from tradition what is not to be found in the New Testament relative to Sunday observance, and that, after all, Sunday may be a divinely-appointed festival, it is sufficient to answer, 1. That this plea would show only tradition in favor of the Sunday festival; 2. That Justin Martyr is a very unsafe guide, his testimony relative to the Lord’s supper differing from that of the New Testament; and 3. That the American Tract Society, in a work published against Romanism, bears the following testimony relative to the point before us: — “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 thence forward 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.” Justin assigns the following reasons in support of Sunday observance: “That being the first day in which God set himself to work upon the dark void in order to make the world, and in which Jesus Christ our Savior rose again from the dead.” Bishop Jeremy Taylor most fittingly replies to this: — “The first of these looks more like an excuse than a just reason; for if anything of the creation were made the cause of a Sabbath, it ought to be the end, not the beginning; it ought to be the rest, not the first part of the work; it ought to be that which God assigned, not [that] which man should take by way of after justification.” It is to be observed, therefore, that the first trace of Sunday as a Christian festival is found in the church of Rome. Soon after this time, and thenceforward, we shall find “the bishop” of that church making vigorous efforts to suppress the Sabbath of the Lord. and to elevate in its stead the festival of Sunday.
It is proper to note the fact, also, that Justin was a decided opponent of the ancient Sabbath. In his “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew,” he thus addressed him: — “This new law teaches you to observe a perpetual Sabbath; and you, when you have spent one day in idleness, think you have discharged the duties of religion…. If any one is guilty of adultery, let him repent, then he hath kept the true and delightful Sabbath unto God…. For we really should observe that circumcision, which is in the flesh, and the Sabbath, and all the feasts, if we had not known the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, upon the account of your iniquities…. It was because of your iniquities, and the iniquities of your lathers, that God appointed you to observe the Sabbath…. You see that the heavens are not idle, nor do they observe the Sabbath. Continue as ye were born.
For if before Abraham there was no need of circumcision, nor of the 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.” This reasoning of Justin deserves no reply. It shows, however, the unfairness of Dr. Edwards, who quotes Justin Martyr as a witness for the change of the Sabbath; 25 whereas Justin held that God made the Sabbath on account of the wickedness of the Jews, and that he totally abrogated it in consequence of the first advent of Christ: the Sunday festival of the heathen being evidently adopted by the church at Rome from motives of “expediency” and perhaps of “patriotism.” The testimony of Justin, if genuine, is peculiarly valuable in one respect. It shows that, as late as A.D. 140, the first day of the week had acquired no title of sacredness for Justin several times mentions the day, twice as “the day called Sunday,” and twice as “the eighth lay, and by other terms also, but never by any sacred name. The next, important witness in behalf of first-day sacredness is thus presented by Dr. Edwards: — “Hence Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, who had been the companion of the apostles, A.D. 167, 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 testimony is highly valued by first-day writers, and is often and prominently set forth in their publications. Sir Win. Domville, whose elaborate treatise on the Sabbath has been several times quoted, states the following important fact relative to this quotation: — “I have carefully searched through all the extant works of Irenaeus, and can with certainty state that; no such passage, or any one at all resembling it, is there to be found. The edition I consulted was that by Massuet (Paris, 1710); but to assure myself still further, I have since looked to the editions by Erasmus (Paris, 1563), and Grabe (Oxford, 1702), and in neither do I find the passage in question.” 28 It is a remarkable fact that those who quote this as the language of Irenaeus, if they give any reference, cite their readers to Dwight’s Theology, instead of referring them to the place in the works of Irenaeus where it is to be found. It was Dr. Dwight who first enriched the theological world with this invaluable quotation. Where, then, did Dwight obtain this testimony which has so many times been given as that of Irenaeus? On this point, Domville remarks: — “He had the misfortune to be afflicted with a disease in his eyes from the early age of twenty-three, a calamity (says his biographer) by which he was deprived of the capacity for reading and study…. The knowledge which he gained from books after the period above mentioned [by which the editor must mean his age of twenty-three] was almost exclusively at second hand, by the aid of others.” Domville slates another fact which gives us unquestionably the origin of this quotation: — “But although not to be found in Irenaeus, there are, in the writings; ascribed to another Father, namely, in the interpolated epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, and in one of its interpolated passages, expressions so clearly resembling those of Dr. Dwight’s quotation as to leave no doubt of the source from which he quoted.” Such, then, is the end of this famous testimony of Irenaeus, who had it from Polycarp, who had it from the apostles! It was furnished the world by a man whose eyesight was impaired; who, in consequence of this infirmity, took at second hand an interpolated passage from an epistle falsely ascribed to Ignatius, and published it to the world as the genuine testimony of Irenaeus. Loss of eyesight, as we may charitably believe, led Dr. Dwight into the serious error which he has committed; but by the publication of this spurious testimony:, which. Seemed to come in a direct line from the apostles, he has rendered multitudes as incapable of reading aright the fourth commandment, as he, by loss of natural eyesight, was of reading Irenaeus for himself. This case admirably illustrates tradition as a religious guide; it is the blind leading the blind until both fall into the ditch.
Nor is this all that should be said in the case of Irenaeus. In all his writings there is no instance in which lie calls Sunday the Lord’s day! And what is also very remarkable, there is no sentence extant, written by him, in which lie even mentions the first day of the. week! 31 It appears, however, from several statements in ancient writers, that he did mention the day, though no sentence of his in which it is mentioned is in existence. He held that the Sabbath was a typical institution, which pointed to the seventh thousand years as the great day of rest to the church; 32 he said that Abraham was “without observance of Sabbaths;” 33 and yet he makes the origin of the Sabbath to be the sanctification of the seventh day. 34 But he expressly asserts the perpetuity and authority of the ten commandments, declaring that they are identical with the law of nature implanted from the beginning in mankind, that they remain permanently with us, and that if any one does not observe them, he has no salvation.” It is a remarkable fact that the first instance upon record in which the bishop of Rome attempted Co rule the Christian church was byAN EDICT IN BEHALF OF SUNDAY. It had been the custom of all the churches to celebrate the Passover, but with this difference: that while the Eastern churches observed it upon the fourteenth day of the first month, no matter what day of the week this might be, the Western churches kept it upon the Sunday following that day, or rather, upon the Sunday following Good Friday. Victor, bishop of Rome, in the year 196, 36 took upon him to impose the Roman custom upon all the churches; that is, to compel them to observe the Passover upon Sunday. “This bold attempt,” says Bower, “we may call the first essay of papal usurpation.” 37 Dowling terms it the “earliest instance of Romish assumption.” 38 The churches of Asia Minor informed Victor that they could not comply with his lordly mandate.
Then, says Bower, — “Upon the receipt of this letter, Victor, giving the reins to an impotent and ungovernable passion, published bitter invectives against all the churches of Asia, declared them cut off from his communion, sent letters of excommunication to their respective bishops; and, at the same time, in order to have them cut off from the communion of the whole church, wrote to the other bishops, exhorting them to follow his example, and forbear communicating with their refractory brethren of Asia.” 39 The historian informs us that “not one followed his example or advice; not one paid any sort of regard to his letters, or showed the least inclination to second him in such a rash and uncharitable attempt.” He further says: — “Victor being thus baffled in his attempt, his successors took care not to revive the controversy; so that the Asiatics peaceably followed their ancient practice till the council of Nicaea, which, out of complaisance to Constantine the Great, ordered the solemnity of Easter to be kept everywhere on the same day, after the custom of Rome.” The Victory was not obtained for Sunday in this struggle, as Heylyn testifies, — “Till the great council of Nicaea [A.D. 325], backed by the authority of as great an emperor [Constantine], settled it better than before; none but some scattered schismatics, now and then appearing, that durst oppose the resolution of that famous synod.” Constantine, by whose powerful influence the council of Nicaea was induced to decide this question in favor of the Roman bishop, that; is, to fix the Passover upon Sunday, urged the following strong reason for the measure: — “Let us, then, have nothing in common with the most hostile rabble of the Jews.” This sentence is worthy of notice. A determination to have nothing in common with the Jews had very much to do with the suppression of the Sabbath in the Christian church. Those who rejected the Sabbath of the Lord, and chose in its stead the more popular and more convenient Sunday festival of the heathen, were so infatuated with the idea of having nothing in common with the Jews, that they never even questioned the propriety of a festival in common with the heathen.
This festival was not weekly, but annual; but the removal of it from the fourteenth of the first month to the Sunday following Good Friday was the first legislation attempted in honor of Sunday as a Christian festival; and, as Heylyn quaintly expresses it, “The Lord’s day found it no small matter to obtain the victory.” 43 In a brief period after the council of Nicaea, by the laws of Theodosius, capital punishment was inflicted upon those who should celebrate the feast of the Passover upon any other day than Sunday. 44 The Britons of Wales were long able to maintain their ground against this. favorite project of the Roman church, and as late as the sixth century “obstinately resisted the imperious mandates of the Roman pontiffs.” Four years from the commencement of the struggle just narrated, bring us to the testimony of Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin Fathers, who wrote about A.D. 200. Dr. Clarke tells us that the Fathers “blow hot and cold.”
Tertullian is a fair example of this. He places the origin of the Sabbath at the creation, but elsewhere says that the patriarchs did not keep it. He says that Joshua broke the Sabbath at Jericho, and afterward shows that he did not break it. He says that Christ broke, the Sabbath, and in another place proves that he did not. He represents the eighth day as more honorable than the seventh, and elsewhere states the reverse. He states that, the law is abolished, and in other places teaches its perpetuity and authority, He declares that the Sabbath was abrogated by Christ, and afterward asserts that “Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath,” but imparted “an additional sanctity” to “the Sabbath-day itself, which from the beginning had been consecrated by the benediction of the Father.” And he goes on to say that Christ “furnished to this day divine safeguards, — a course which his adversary would have pursued for some other days, to avoid honoring the Creator’s Sabbath.”
This last statement is very remarkable. The Savior furnished additional safeguards to the Creator’s Sabbath. But “his adversary” would have done this to some other days. Now it is plain, first, that Tertullian did not believe that Christ sanctified some other day to take the place of the Sabbath; and secondly, that he believed the consecration of another day to be the work of the adversary of God! When he wrote these words, he certainly did not believe in the sanctification of Sunday by Christ. But Tertullian and his brethren found themselves observing as a festival that day on which the sun was worshiped, and they were, in consequence, taunted with being worshipers of the sun. Tertullian denies the charge, though he acknowledges that it had some appearance of truth, He says: — “Others, again, certainly with more information and greater verisimilitude, believe that the sun is our God. We shall be counted Persians, perhaps, though we do not worship the orb of day painted on a piece of linen cloth having himself everywhere in his own disk. The idea, no doubt, has originated from our being known to turn to the east in prayer. But you, many of you, also, under pretense sometimes of worshiping the heavenly bodies, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise. In the same way, if we devote Sunday to rejoicing, from a fin-different reason than sun-worship, we have some resemblance to those of you who devote the day of Saturn to case and luxury, though they, too, go far away from Jewish ways, of which they are ignorant.” Tertullian pleads no divine command nor apostolic example for this practice. In fact, he offers no reason for the practice, though he intimates that he had one to offer. But he finds it necessary in another work to repel this same charge of sun-worship, because of Sunday observance. In his second answer to this charge he states the ground of defense more distinctly, and here we shall find his best reason: — “Others, with greater regard to. good manners, it must be confessed, suppose that the sun is the God of the Christians, because it is a well-known fact that we pray toward the cast, or because we make Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you do less than this? Do not many among you, with an affectation of sometimes worshiping the heavenly bodies likewise, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise? It is you, at all events, who have even admitted the sun into the calendar of the week; and you have selected its day [Sunday] in preference to the preceding day, as the most suitable in the week for either an entire abstinence from the bath, or for its postponement until the evening, or for taking rest, and for banqueting. By resorting to these customs, you deliberately deviate from your own religious rites to those of strangers.” Tertullian, in this discourse, addresses himself to the nations still in idolatry. With some of these, Sunday was an ancient festival; with others it was of comparatively recent date. But some of these heathen reproached the Sunday Christians with being sun-worshipers. And now observe the answer. He does not say, “We Christians are commanded to celebrate the first day of the week: in honor of Christ’s resurrection.” His answer is doubtless the best that he knew how to frame. It is a mere retort, and consists in asserting, first, that the Christians had done no more than their accusers, the heathen; and secondly, that they had as good a right to make Sunday a day of festivity as had the heathen!
The origin, of first-day observance has been the subject of inquiry in this chapter. We have found that Sunday from remote antiquity was a. heathen festival in honor of the sun, and that. in the first centuries of the Christian era this ancient festival was in general veneration in the heathen world. We have learned that patriotism and expediency, and a tender regard for the conversion of the Gentile world, caused the leaders of the church to adopt as their religious festival the day observed by the heathen, and to retain the same name which the heathen had given it. We have seen that the earliest instance upon record of the actual observance of Sunday in the Christian church, is found in the church of Rome about A.D. 140. The first great effort in its behalf, A.D. 196, is by a singular coincidence the first act of papal usurpation. The first instance of a sacred title being applied to this festival, and the earliest trace of abstinence from labor on that day, are found in the writings of Tertullian at the close of the second century. The origin of the festival of Sunday is now before the reader; the steps by which it has ascended to supreme power will be pointed out in their proper order and place.
One fact of deep interest will conclude this chapter. The first great effort made to put down the Sabbath was the act of the church of Rome in turning it into a fast, while Sunday was made a joyful festival. While the Eastern churches retained the Sabbath, a portion of the Western churches, with the church of Rome at their head, turned it into a fast. As a part of the Western churches refused to comply with this ordinance, a long struggle ensued, the result of which is thus stated by Heylyn: — “In this difference it stood a long time together, till in the end the Roman church obtained the cause, and Saturday became a fast almost through all the parts of the Western world. I say the Western world, and of that alone, the Eastern churches being so far from altering their ancient custom that in the sixth council of Constantinople, A.D. 692, they did admonish those of Rome to forbear fasting on that day upon pain of censure.” Win. James, in a sermon before the University of Oxford, thus states the time when this fast originated: — “The Western church began to fast on Saturday at the beginning of the third century.” Thus it is seen that this struggle began with the third century, that is, immediately after the year 200. Neander thus states the motive of the Roman church: — “In the Western churches, particularly the Roman, where opposition to Judaism was the prevailing tendency, this very opposition produced the custom of celebrating the Saturday in particular as a fast-day.” By Judaism, Neander meant the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. Dr. Charles Hase, of Germany, states the object of the Roman church in very explicit language: — “The Roman church regarded Saturday as a fast-day in direct opposition to those who regarded it as a Sabbath. Sunday remained a joyful festival in which all fasting and worldly business was avoided as much as possible, but the original commandment of the decalogue respecting the Sabbath was not then applied to that day.” Lord King attests this fact in the following words: — “Some of the Western churches, that they might not seem to Judaize, fasted on Saturday, as Victorinus Petavionensis writes:
We use to fast on the seventh day. And it is our custom then to fast, that we may not seem, with the Jews, to observe the Sabbath.” Thus the Sabbath of the Lord was turned into a fast in order to render it despicable before men. Such was the first great effort of the Roman church toward the suppression of the ancient Sabbath of the Bible.
THE NATURE OF EARLY FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE
The history of first-day observance compared with that of the popes — First-day observance defined in the very words of each of the early Fathers who mention it — The reasons which each had for its observance stated in his own words — Sunday in their judgment of no higher sacredness than Easter or Whitsunday, or even than the fifty days between those festivals — Sunday not a day of abstinence from labor — The reasons which are offered by those of them who rejected the Sabbath stated in their own words.
AN apt illustration of the history of first-day observance in the Christian church is that of the bishops of Rome. The Roman bishop now claims supreme power over all the churches of Christ,. He asserts that this. power was given to Peter, and by him was transmitted to the bishops of Rome; or rather that: Peter was the first Roman bishop, and that a succession of such bishops from his time to the present have exercised this absolute power in the church. They are able to trace back their line to apostolic times, and they assert that the power now claimed by the pope was claimed and exercised by the first pastors of the church of the Romans. Those who now acknowledge the supremacy of the pope believe this assertion, and with them it is a, conclusive evidence that the pope is by divine right possessed of supreme power. But the assertion is absolutely false. The early pastors, or bishops, or elders, of the church of the Romans were modest, unassuming ministers of Christ, wholly unlike the arrogant bishop of Rome, who now usurps the place of Christ as the head of the Christian church.
The first day of the week now claims to be the Christian Sabbath, and enforces its authority by means of the fourth commandment, having set aside the seventh day, which that commandment enjoins, and usurped its place. Its advocates assert that this position and this authority were given to it by Christ. As no record of such a gift is found in the Scriptures, the principal argument in its support is furnished by tracing first-day observance back to the early Christians, who, it is said, would not have hallowed the day if they had not been instructed to do it by the apostles; and the apostles would not have taught them to do it if Christ had not, in their presence, changed the Sabbath.
But first-day observance can be traced no nearer to apostolic times than A.D. 140, while the bishops of Rome can trace their line to the very times of the apostles. Herein is the papal claim to apostolic authority better than is that of the first-day Sabbath. But with this exception, the historical argument in behalf of each is the same. Both began with very moderate pretensions, and gradually gaining in power and sacredness, grew up in strength together.
Let us now go to those who were the earliest observers of Sunday, and learn from them the nature of that observance at its commencement. We shall find, 1. That no one claimed for first-day observance any divine authority; 2. That none of them had ever heard of the change of the Sabbath, and none believed the first-day festival to be a continuation of the Sabbatic institution; 3. That labor on that day is never set forth as sinful, and that abstinence from labor is never mentioned as a feature of its observance, nor even implied, only so far as is necessary in order to spend a portion of the day in worship; 4. That if we put together all the hints respecting Sunday observance which are scattered through the Fathers of the first three centuries (for no one of them gives more than two of these, and generally a single hint is all that is found in one writer), we shall find just four items: (1.) An assembly on that day in which the Bible was read and expounded, and the supper celebrated, and money collected; (2.) The day must be one of rejoicing; (3.) It must not be a day of fasting; and (4.) The knee must not be bent in prayer on that day.
The following are all the hints respecting the nature of first-day observance during the first three centuries. The epistle falsely ascribed to Barnabas simply says: “We keep the eighth day with joyfulness.” 1 Justin Martyr, in words already quoted at full length, describes the kind of meeting which they held at Rome and in that vicinity on that day, and this is all that he connects with its observance. 2 Irenaeus taught that to commemorate the resurrection, the knee must not be bent on that day, and mentions nothing else as essential to its honor. This act of standing in prayer was a symbol of the resurrection, which was to be celebrated only on that day, as he held. 3 Bardesanes, the Gnostic, represents the Christians as everywhere meeting for worship on that day, but he does not describe that worship, and he gives no other honor to the day. 4 Tertullian describes Sunday observance as follows: “We devote Sunday to rejoicing;” and he adds, “We have some resemblance to those of you who devote the day of Saturn to ease and luxury.” 5 In another work he gives us a further idea of the festive character of Sunday. Speaking to his brethren, he says: “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 clan.” 6 Dr. Heylyn spoke the truth when he said: — “Tertullian tells us that they did devote the Sunday partly unto mirth and recreation, not to devotion altogether; when in a hundred years after Tertullian’s time there was no law or constitution to restrain men from labor on this day in the Christian church.” The Sunday festival in Tertullian’s time was not like the modern first-day Sabbath, but was essentially the German festival of Sunday, a day for worship and for recreation, and one on which labor was not sinful. But Tertullian speaks further respecting Sunday observance, and the following extract has been used as proof flint labor on that day was counted sinful.
This is the only statement that can be found prior to Constantine’s Sunday law that has such an appearance, and the proof is decisive that its meaning is not what is claimed. Here are his words: — “We, however (just as we have received), only on the day of the Lord’s resurrection, ought to gaurd, 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 exultationi” He speaks of “deferring even our business;” but this does not necessarily imply anything more than its postponement during the hours devoted to religious services. It falls very far short of saying that labor on Sunday is a sin. But we will quote Tertullian’s next mantion of Sunday observance before noticing further the words last quoted: — “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.” These two things, fasting and kneeling, are the only acts which the Fathers set down as unlawful on Sunday, unless, indeed, mourning may be included by some in the list. It is certain that labor is never thus mentioned. And observe that Tertullian repeats the important statement of the previous quotation, that the honor due to Sunday pertains also to the “period of Pentecost,” that is, to the fifty days between Easter, or Passover, and Whitsunday, or Pentecost. If, therefore, labor on Sunday was in Tertullian’s estimation sinful, the same was true for the period of Pentecost, a space of fifty days! But this is not possible. We can conceive of the deferring of business for one religious assembly each day for fifty days, and also that men should neither fast nor kneel during that time, which was precisely what the religious celebration of Sunday actually was.
But to make Tertullian assert that labor on Sunday was a sin, is to make him declare that such was the case for fifty days together, which no one will venture to say was the doctrine of Tertullian.
In another work, Tertullian gives us one more statement respecting the nature of Sunday observance: “We make Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you do less than this? 10 His language is very extraordinary when it is considered that he was addressing heathen. It seems that Sunday as a Christian festival was so similar to the festival which these heathen observed that he challenged them to show wherein the Christians went further than did these heathen whom he here addressed.
The next Father who gives us the nature or early Sunday observance is Peter of Alexandria. He says: — “But the Lord’s day we celebrate as a day of joy, because on it he rose again, on which day we have received it for a custom not even to bow the knee.” He marks two things as essential: it must be a day of joy; and Christians must not kneel on that day. Zonaras, an ancient commentator on these words of Peter, explains the day of joy by saying, “We ought not to fast; for it is a day of joy for the resurrection of the Lord.” 12 Next in order, we quote the so-called Apostolical Constitutions. These command Christians to assemble for worship avery day, “but principally on the Sabbath-day; and on the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God,” etc. The object of assembling was “to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection,” to “pray thrice standing,” to have the prophets read, to have preaching and also the supper. 13 These “Constitutions” not only give the nature of the worship on Sunday as just set forth, but they also give an idea of Sunday as a day of festivity: — “Now we exhort you, brethren and fellow-servants, to avoid vain talk and obscene discourses, and jestings, drunkenness, lasciviousness, luxury, unbounded passions, with foolish discourses since we do not permit you so much as on the Lord’s days, which are days of joy, to speak or act anything unseemly.” This language plainly implies that the so-called Lord’s day was day of greater mirth than the other days of the week. Even on the Lord’s Day they must not speak or act anything unseemly, though it is evident that their license on that day was greater than on other days.
Once more these “Constitutions” give us the nature of Sunday observance “Every Sabbath-day, excepting one, and every Lord’s day hold your solemn assemblies, and rejoice; for he will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord’s day.” 15 But no one can read so much as once that “he is guilty of sin who performs work on this day.”
Next, we quote the epistle to the Magnesians in its longer form, which, though not written by Ignatius, was actually written about, the time that the Apostolical Constitutions were committed to writing, Here are the words of this epistle: — “And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days.” The writer of the Syriac Documents concerning Edessa comes last, and he defines the services of Sunday as follows: “On the first [day] of the week, let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and the oblation.” 17 These are all the passages in the writings of the first three centuries which describe early first-day Observance. Let the reader judge whether we have correctly stated the nature of that observance. Next we invite attention to the several reasons offered by these Fathers for celebrating the festival of Sunday.
The reputed epistle of Barnabas supports the Sunday festival by saying that it was the day “on which Jesus rose again from the dead,” and it intimates that it prefigures the eight thousand years, when God shall create the world anew? Justin Martyr has four reasons: — 1. “It is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world.” 2. “Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” 3. “It is possible for us to show how the eighth day possessed a certain mysterious import, which the seventh day did not possess, and which was oromulgated by God through these rites,” 21 through circumcision. 4. “The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath.” Clement, of Alexandria, appears to treat solely of a mystical eighth day, or Lord’s day. It is perhaps possible that he has some reference to Sunday.
Therefore we quote what he says in behalf of this day, calling attention to the fact that he produces his testimony, not from the Bible, but from a heathen philosopher: — “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 day they are to set out, and arrive in four days.’” Clement’s reasons for Sunday are found outside the Scriptures. The next Father will give us a good reason for Clement’s action in this case.
Tertullian is the next writer who gives reasons for the Sunday festival, he is speaking of “offerings for the dead;” the manner of Sunday observance, and the use of the sign of the cross upon the forehead. Here is the ground on which these observances rest:— “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.” Tertullian’s frankness is to be commended. He had no Scripture to offer, and he acknowledged the fact. he depended on tradition, and he was not ashamed to confess it. Following Tertullian is Origen, who gives Scripture evidence in support of the Sunday festival. Here are his words: — “The manna fell on the Lord’s day, and not on the Sabbath, to show the Jews. That even then the Lord’s day was preferred before it.” Origen seems to have been of Tertullian’s judgment as to the inconclusiveness of the arguments adduced by his predecessors. He therefore coined an original argument, which seems to have been very conclusive in his estimation, as he offers this alone. But he must have forgotten that the manna fell on all the six working days, or he would have seen that while his argument does not elevate Sunday above the other five working days, it does make the Sabbath the least reputable day of the seven! And yet the miracle of the manna was expressly designed to set forth the sacredness of the Sabbath, and to establish its authority before the people.
Cyprian is the next Father who gives an argument for the Sunday festival.
He contents himself with one of Justin’s old arguments, viz., the one drawn from circumcision. Thus he says : — “For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when, Christ came, it was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the Spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us.” Such is the only argument adduced by Cyprian in behalf of the first-day festival. The circumcision of infants when eight days old was, in his judgment, a type of infant baptism. But he did not hold that circumcision on the eighth day of the child’s life, signified that baptism need to be deferred till the infant was eight days old, but, as here stated, did signify that the eighth day was to be the Lord’s day! But the eighth day, on which circumcision took place, was not the first day of the week, but the eighth day of each child’s life, whatever day of the week that might be.
The next Father who gives a reason for celebrating Sunday as a day of joy, and refraining from kneeling on it, is Peter, of Alexandria, who simply says, “Because on it he rose again.” Then come the Apostolical Constitutions, which assert that the Sunday festival is a memorial of the resurrection: — “But keep the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day festival; because the former is a memorial of the creation, and the latter of the resurrection.” The writer, however, offers no proof that Sunday was set apart by divine authority in memory of the resurrection. But the next person who gives his reasons for keeping Sunday “as a festival,” is the writer of the longer form of the reputed epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians. He finds the eighth day prophetically set forth in the title to the sixth and twelfth psalms! In the margin, the word Sheminith is translated “the eighth.” Here is this writer’s argument for Sunday: — “Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, ‘To the end for the eighth day,’ on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ.” There is yet another of the Fathers of the first three centuries who gives the reasons then used in support of the Sunday festival, and that is the writer of the Syriac Documents concerning Edessa. He comes next in order, and closes the list. Here are four reasons: — 1. “Because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the place of the dead.” 2. “On the first day of the week he arose upon the world,” i.e., he was born upon Sunday. 3. “On the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven.” 4. “On the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven.” The first of these reasons is as good a one as man can devise out of his own heart for doing what God never commanded; the second and fourth are mere assertions of which mankind know nothing; while the third is a positive untruth, for the ascension was upon Thursday.
We have now presented every reason for the Sunday festival which can be found in all the writings of the first three centuries. Though generally very trivial, and sometimes worse than trivial, they are nevertheless worthy of careful study. They constitute a decisive testimony that the change of the Sabbath by Christ or by his apostles from the seventh to the first day of the week was absolutely unknown during that entire period. But were it true that such a change had been made, they must have known it. Had they believed that Christ changed the Sabbath to commemorate his resurrection, how emphatically would they have stated that fact, instead of offering reasons for the festival of Sunday which are so worthless as to be, with one or two exceptions, entirely discarded by modern first-day writers. Or had they believed that the apostles honored Sunday as the Sabbath, or Lord’s day, how would they have produced these facts in triumph! But Tertullian said that they had no positive Scripture injunction for the Sunday festival; and the others, by offering reasons that were only devised in their own hearts, corroborated his testimony, and all of them together establish the fact that, even in their own estimation, the day was only sustained by the authority of the church. They were totally unacquainted with the modern doctrine that the seventh day in the commandment means simply one day in seven, and that the Savior, to commemorate his resurrection, appointed the first day of the week to be that one of the seven to which the commandment should apply!
We have given every statement in the Fathers of the first three centuries in which the manner of celebrating the Sunday festival is set forth. We have also given every reason for that observance, which is to be found in any of them. These two classes of testimonies show clearly that ordinary labor was not one of the things which were forbidden on that day. We now offer direct proof that; other days, which on all hands are accounted nothing but church festivals, were expressly declared by the Fathers to be equal, if not superior, in sacredness to the Sunday festival.
The “Lost Writings of Irenaeus” gives us his mind concerning the relative sacredness of the festival of Sunday and of either Easter or Pentecost. This is the statement: — “Upon which [feast] we do not bend the knee, because it is of equal significance with the Lord’s day, for the reason already alleged, concerning it.” Tertullian, in a passage already quoted, which, by omitting the sentence we are about, to quote, has been used as the strongest testimony to the first-day Sabbath in the Fathers, expressly makes the period of Pentecost — a space of fifty days — equal in sacredness with the festival which he calls “Lord’s day.” Thus he says: — “Similarly, too, in the period of Pentecost; which period we distinguish by the same solemnity of exultation. ” He states the same fact in another work: — “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.” Origen classes the so-called Lord’s day with three other church festivals: — “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.” Irenaeus and Tertullian make the Sunday Lord’s day equal in sacredness with the period from the Passover to the Pentecost; but Origen, after classing the day with several church festivals, virtually confesses that it has no pre-eminence above other days.
Commodianus, who once uses the term “Lord’s day,” speaks of the Catholic festival of the Passover as “Easter, that day of ours most blessed .” 35 This certainly indicates that in his estimation no other sacred day was superior in sanctity to Easter.
The “Apostolical Constitutions” treat the Sunday festival in the same manner that it is treated by Irenaeus and Tertullian. They make it equal to the sacredness of the period from Easter to the Pentecost. Thus they say: — “He will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord’s day, being the day of the resurrection, or during the time of Pentecost, or in general, who is sad on a festival day to the Lord.” These testimonies prove conclusively that the festival of Sunday, in the judgment of such men as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others, stood in the same rank with that of Easter or Whitsunday. They had no idea that one was commanded by God, while the others were only ordained by the church. Indeed, Tertullian, as we have seen, expressly declares that there is no precept for Sunday observance? 37 Besides these important facts, we have decisive evidence that Sunday was not a any of abstinence from labor, and our first witness is Justin, the earliest witness to the Sunday festival in the Christian church. Trypho, the Jew, said to Justin, by way of reproof, “You observe no festivals or Sabbaths. 38 This was exactly adapted to bring out from Justin the statement that, though he did not observe the seventh day as the Sabbath, he did thus rest on the first day of the week, if it were true that that day was with him a day of abstinence from labor. But he gives no such answer, tie sneers at the very idea of abstinence from labor, declaring that “God does not take pleasure in such observances.” Nor does he intimate that this is because the Jews did not rest upon the right day; but he condemns the very idea of refraining from labor for a day, stating that “the new law,” which has taken the place of the commandments given on Sinai,39 requires a perpetual Sabbath, and this is kept by repenting of sin: and refraining from its commission. Here are his words: — “The new law requires you to keep a perpetual Sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you; and if you eat unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true Sabbaths of God.” This language plainly implies that Justin did not believe that any day should be kept as a Sabbath by abstinence from labor, but that all days should be kept as sabbaths by abstinence from sin. This testimony is decisive, and it is in exact harmony with the facts already adduced from the Fathers, and with others yet to be presented. Moreover, it is confirmed by the express testimony of Tertullian. He says: — “By us (to whom Sabbaths are strange, and the new moons, and festivals formerly beloved by God the) Saturnalia and new year’s and mid-winter’s festivals and Matronalia are frequented.” And he adds in the same paragraph, in words already quoted: — “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.” Tertullian tells his brethren in plain language that they kept no sabbaths, but did keep many heathen festivals. If the Sunday festival, which was a day of “indulgence” to the flesh, and which he here mentions as the “eighth day,” was kept by them as the Christian Sabbath in place of the ancient seventh day, then he would not have asserted that to us “sabbaths are strange.” But Tertullian has precisely the same Sabbath as Justin Martyr. He does not keep the first day in place of the seventh, but he keeps a “perpetual Sabbath,” in which he professes to refrain from sin every day, and actually abstains from labor on none. Thus, after saying that the Jews teach that “from the beginning God sanctified the seventh day,” and therefore observe that day, he says: — “Whence we [Christians] understand that we still more ought to observe a Sabbath from all ‘servile work’ always, and not only every seventh day, but through all time.” Tertullian certainly had no idea that Sunday was the Sabbath in any other sense than were all the seven days of the week. We shall find a decisive confirmation of this when we come to quote Tertullian respecting the origin of the Sabbath. We shall also find that Clement expressly makes Sunday a day of labor.
Several of the early Fathers wrote in opposition to the observance of the seventh day. We now give the reasons assigned by each for that opposition. The writer called Barnabas did not keep the seventh day, not because it was a ceremonial ordinance unworthy of being observed by a Christian, but because it was so pure an institution that even Christians cannot truly sanctify it till they are made immortal. Here are his words: — “Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, ‘He finished in six days.’ This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with him a thousand years. And he himself testifieth, saying, ‘Behold, today will be as a thousand years.’ Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years; all things will be finished. ‘And he rested on the seventh day.’ This meaneth: When his Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh day. Moreover, he says, ‘Thou shalt sanctify it with pure hands and a pure heart.’ If, therefore, any one can now sanctify the day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in heart in all things, we are deceived. Behold, therefore: certainly one properly resting sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness.
Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves. Further he says to them, ‘your new moons and your sabbaths I cannot endure.’ Ye perceive how he speaks: Your present sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but that is which I have made [namely this], when giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world, wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day, also, on which.Jesus rose again from the dead.” Observe the points embodied in this statement of doctrine: 1 . He asserts that the six days of creation prefigure the six thousand years which our world shall endure in its present state of wickedness; 2. He teaches that at the end of that period, Christ will come again, and make an end of wickedness, and “then shall he truly rest on the seventh day;” 3. That “no one can now sanctify the day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in heart in all things;” 4. But that cannot be the case until the present world shall pass away, “when we ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness: then we shall be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves; ” therefore men cannot keep the Sabbath while this wicked world lasts; 5. So he says, “Your present sabbaths are not acceptable,” not because they are not pure, but because you are not now able to keep them as purely as their nature demands; 6. That is to say, the keeping of the day which God has sanctified is not possible in such a wicked world as this; 7. But though the seventh day cannot now be kept, the eighth day can be, and ought to be, because when the seven thousand years are past, there will be:it the beginning of the eighth thousand, the new creation; 8. Therefore, he did not attempt to keep the seventh day, which God had sanctified; for that is too pure to be kept in the present wicked world, and can only be kept after the Savior comes, at the commencement of the seventh thousand years; but he kept the eighth day with joyfulness, on which Jesus arose from the dead; 9. So it appears that the eighth day, which God never sanctified, is exactly suitable for observance in our world during its present state of wickedness; 10. But when all things have been made new, and we are able to work righteousness, and wickedness no longer exists, then we shall be able to sanctify the seventh day, having first been sanctified ourselves.
The reason Barnabas gives for riot observing the Sabbath of the Lord is not that the commandment enjoining it is abolished, but thai; the institution is so pure that men in their present imperfect state cannot acceptably sanctify it. They will keep it, however, in the new creation; but in the meantime they keep with joyfulness the eighth day, which, having never been sanctified by God, is not difficult to keep in the present state of wickedness.
Justin Martyr’s reasons for not observing the Sabbath are not at all like those of the so-called Barnabas, for Justin seems to have heartily despised the Sabbatic institution. He denies that it was obligatory before the time of Moses, and declares that it was abolished by the advent of Christ. He teaches that it was given to the Jews because of their wickedness, and he expressly affirms the abolition of both the Sabbath and the law. So far is he from roaching the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, or from making the Sunday festival a continuation of the ancient Sab-batic institution, that he sneers at the very idea of days of abstinence from labor, or days of idleness; and though God gives as his reason for the observance of the Sabbath, that that was the day on which he rested from all his work, Justin gives as his first reason for the Sunday festival that that was the day on which ‘God began his work! Of abstinence from labor as an act of obedience to the Sabbath, Justin says: — “The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances.” A second reason for not observing the Sabbath is thus stated by him: — “For we, too, would observe the:fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short, all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you; namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts.” As Justin never discriminates between the Sabbath of the Lord and the annual sabbaths, he doubtless here means to include it as well as them. But what a falsehood it is to assert that the Sabbath was given to the Jews because of their wickedness! The truth is, it was given to the Jews because of the universal apostasy of the Gentiles. 47 But in the following paragraph, Justin gives three more reasons for not keeping the Sabbath: — “Do you see that the elements are not idle, and keep no Sabbaths?
Remain as you were born. For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts and sacrifices, before Moses, no more need is there of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ, the son of God, has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham.” Here are three reasons: 1. “That the elements are not idle, and keep no Sabbaths;” though this reason is simply worthless as an argument against the seventh day, it is a decisive confirmation of the fact already proved, that Justin did not make Sunday a day of abstinence from labor; 2. His second reason here given is that there was no observance of Sabbaths before Moses; and yet we know that God, at the beginning, did appoint the Sabbath to a holy use, — a fact to which, as we shall see, quite a number of the Fathers testify, and we also knorr that in that age were men who kept all the precepts of God; 3. There is no need of Sabbafic observance since Christ. Though this is mere assertion, it is by no means easy for those to meet it fairly who represent Justin as maintaining the Christian Sabbath.
Another argument of Justin against the obligation of the Sabbath is, that God “directs the government of the universe on this day equally as on all others!” 49 as though this were inconsistent with the present sacredness of the Sabbath, when it is also true that God thus governed the world in the period when Justin acknowledges the Sabbath ‘to have been obligatory.
Though this reason is trivial as an argument against the Sabbath, it does show that Justin could have attached no Sabbatic character to Sunday. But he has yet one more argument against the Sabbath. The ancient law has been done away by the new and final law, and the old covenant has been superseded by the news. 50 But he forgets that the design of the new covenant was not to do away with the law of God, but to put that law into the heart of every Christian. And many of the Fathers, as we shall see, expressly repudiate this doctrine of the abrogation of the decalogue.
Such were Justin’s reasons for rejecting the ancient Sabbath. But though he was a decided asserter of the abrogation of the law, and of the Sabbatic institution itself, and kept Sunday only as a festival, modern first-day writers cite him as a witness in support of the doctrine that the first day of the week should be observed as the Christian Sabbath on the authority of the fourth commandment.
Now let us learn what stood in the way of Irenaeus’s observance of the Sabbath. It was not that the commandments were abolished, for we shall presently learn that he taught their perpetuity. Nor was it that he believed in the change of the Sabbath, for he gives no hint of such all idea. The Sunday festival, in his estimation, appears to have been simply of” equal significance” with the Pentecost. 51 Nor was it that Christ broke the Sabbath; for Irenaeus says that he did not. 52 But because the Sabbath is called a sign, he regarded it as significant of the future kingdom, and appears to have considered it no longer obligatory, though he does not expressly say this. Thus he sets forth the meaning of the Sabbath as held by him: — “Moreover, the Sabbath of God, that is, the kingdom, was, as it. were, indicated by created things,” etc. “These [promises to the righteous] are [to take place] in the times of the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, which has been sanctified, in which God rested from all the works which he created, which is the true Sabbath of the righteous,” etc. “For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed; it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the six thousandth year.” But Irenaeus did not notice that the Sabbath, as a sign, does not point forward to the restitution, but backward to the creation, that it may signify that the true God is the Creator.(Exodus 31:17; Ezekiel 20:12,20.)
Nor did he observe the fact that when the kingdom of God shall be established under the whole heaven, all flesh shall hallow the Sabbath.”(Isaiah 66:22,23; Daniel 7:18,27.)
But he says that those who lived before Moses were justified “without observance of Sabbaths,” and offers as proof that the covenant at Horeb was not made with the Fathers. Of course, if this proves that the patriarchs were free from obligation toward the fourth commandment, it is equally good as proof that they might violate any other. ‘These things indicate that Irenaeus was opposed to Sabbatic observance, though he did not in express language assert its abrogation, and did in most decisive terms assert the continued obligation of the ten commandments.
Tertullian offers numerous reasons for not observing the Sabbath, but there is scarcely one of these that he does not in some other place expressly contradict. Thus he asserts that the patriarchs before Moses did not observe the Sabbath. 56 But he offers no proof, and he elsewhere dates the origin of the Sabbath at the creation, as we shall show hereafter. 57 In several places he teaches ‘the abrogation of the law, and seems to set aside moral law as well as ceremonial. But elsewhere he bears express testimony that the ten commandments are still binding as the rule of the Christian’s life. 58 He quotes the words of Isaiah, in which God is represented as hating the. feasts, new-moons, and sabbaths observed by the Jews(Isaiah 1:13,14.), as proof that the seventh-day Sabbath was a temporary institution abrogated by Christ. But in another place he says: “Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath: he kept the law thereof.” 59 And he also explains this very text by stating that God’s aversion toward the Sabbaths observed by the Jews was “because they were celebrated without the fear of God, by a people full of iniquities;” and he adds that the prophet, in a later passage, speaking of Sabbaths celebrated according to God’s commandment, “declares them to be true, delightful, and inviolable.”(Isaiah 56:2; 58:13.)
Another statement is that Joshua violated the Sabbath in the siege of Jericho. 60 ‘Yet he elsewhere explains this very case, showing that the commandment forbids our own work, not God’s. Those who acted at Jericho did “not do their own work, but God’s, which they executed, and that, too, from his express commandment.” 61 He also both asserts and denies that Christ violated the Sabbath. 62 Tertullian was a double-minded man. He wrote against the law and the Sabbath, but contradicted and exposed his own errors.
Origen attempts to prove that the ancient Sabbath is to be understood mystically or spiritually, not literally: — “‘Ye shall sit, every one in your dwellings: no one shall move from his place on the Sabbath-day.’ Which precept it is impossible to observe literally; for no man can sit a whole day so as not to move from the place where he sat down.” Great men are not always wise. There is no such precept in the Bible.
Origen referred to that which forbade the people to go out for manna on the Sabbath, but which did not conflict with another that commanded holy convocations or assemblies for worship on the Sabbath.(Exodus 16:29; Leviticus 23:3.)
Victorinus is the latest of the Fathers before Constantine, who offers reasons against the observance of the Sabbath. His first reason is that Christ said by Isaiah that his soul hated the Sabbath; which Sabbath he in his body abolished; and these assertions we have seen answered by Tertullian. 64 His second reason is that “Jesus [Joshua] the son of Nave [Nun], the successor of Moses, himself broke the Sabbath-day;” 65 which is false. His third reason is that ‘“Matthias [a Maccabean] also, prince of Judah, broke the Sabbath;” 66 which is doubtless false, but is of no consequence as authority. His fourth argument is original, and may fitly close the list of reasons assigned by the Fathers for not observing the Sabbath. It is given in full without an answer: — “And in Matthew we read, that it is written Isaiah also and the rest of his colleagues broke the Sabbath.” 67
THE SABBATH IN THE RECORD 0F THE EARLY FATHERS
The first reasons for neglecting the Sabbath are now mostly obsolete — A portion of the early Fathers taught the perpetuity of the decalogue, and made it the standard of moral character — What they say concerning the origin of the Sabbath at creation — Their testimony concerning the perpetuity and observance of the ancient Sabbath — Enumeration of the things which caused the suppression of the Sabbath, and the elevation of Sunday. THE reasons offered by the early Fathers for neglecting the observance of the Sabbath, show conclusively that they had no special light on the subject by reason of living in the first centuries, which we in this later age do not possess. The fact is, so many of the reasons offered by them are manifestly false and absurd that those who in these days discard the Sabbath, do also discard the most of the reasons offered by these Fathers for this same course. We have also learned from such of the early Fathers as mention first-day observance, the exact nature of the Sunday festival, and all the reasons which in the first centuries were offered in its support.
Very few indeed of these reasons are now offered by modern first-day writers.
But some of the Fathers bear emphatic testimony to the perpetuity of the ten commandments, and make their observance the condition of eternal life. Some also distinctly assert the origin of the Sabbath at creation.
Several of them, moreover, bear witness to the existence of Sabbathkeepers, or give decisive testimony to the perpetuity and obligation of the Sabbath, or define-the nature of proper Sabbatic observance, or connect the observance of the Sabbath and first-day together. Let us now hear the testimony of those who assert the authority of the ten commandments.
Irenaeus asserts their perpetuity, and makes them a test of Christian character. Thus he says: — “For God at the first, indeed, warning them [the Jews] by means of natural precepts, which from the beginning he had implanted in mankind, that is, by means of theDECALOGUE (which, if any one does not observe, he has no salvation), did then demand nothing more of them.” This is a very strong statement, tie makes the ten commandments the law of nature implanted in man’s being at the beginning; and so inherited by all mankind. This is no doubt true. It is the presence of the carnal mind or law of sin and death, implanted in man by the fall, that has partially obliterated this law, and made the work of the new covenant a necessity,(Jeremiah 31:33; Romans 7:21-25; 8:1-7.) He again asserts; the perpetuity and authority of the ten commandments in the following words: — “Preparing man for this life, the Lord himself did speak in his own person to all Mike the words of the decalogue: and therefore, in like manner, do they remain permanently with us, receiving, by means of his advent in the flesh, extension and increase, but not abrogation,” By the “extension” of the decalogue, Irenaeus doubtless means the exposition which the Savior gave of the meaning, of the commandments in his sermon on the mount.(Matthew chapters 5, 6, 7.) Theophilus speaks in like manner concerning the decalogue: — “For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption.” “We have learned a holy law; but we have as Lawgiver him who is really God, who teaches us to act righteously, and to be pious, and to do good.” “Of this great and wonderful law which tends to all righteousness, theTEN HEADS are such as we have already rehearsed.” Tertullian calls the ten commandments “ the rules of our regenerate life,” that is to say, the rules which govern the life of a converted man: — “They who theorize respecting numbers, honor the number ten as the parent of all the others, and as imparting perfection to the human nativity. For my own part, I prefer viewing this measure of time in reference to God, as if implying that the ten months rather initiated man into the ten commandments; so that the numerical estimate of the time needed to consummate our natural birth should correspond to the numerical classification of the rules of our regenerate life .” In showing the deep guilt involved ill the violation of the seventh commandment, Tertullian speaks of the sacredness of the commandments which precede it, naming several in particular, and among them the fourth, and then says of the precept against adultery that — It stands “in the very forefront of the most holy law, among the primary counts of the celestial edict .” Clement of Rome, or rather the, author.whose works have been ascribed to this Father, speaks thus of the decalogue as a test: — “On account of those, therefore, who, by neglect of their own salvation, please the evil one, and those, who, by study of their own profit, seek to please the good One, ten things have been prescribed as a test to this present age, according to the number of ten plagues which were brought upon Egypt.” Novarian, who wrote about A.D. 250, is accounted the founder of (he sect called Cathari, or Puritans. He wrote a treatise on the Sabbath, which is not extant. There is no reference to Sunday in any of his writings. he makes the following striking remarks concerning the moral law: — “The law was given to the children of Israel for this purpose, that they might profit by it, andRETURN to those virtuous manners which, although they had received them from their fathers, they had corrupted in Egypt, by reason of their intercourse with a barbarous people. Finally, also, those ten commandments on the tables teach nothing new, but remind them of what had been obliterated — that righteousness in them, ‘which had been put to sleep, might revive again, as it were, by the afflatus of the law, after the manner of a fire [nearly extinguished].” It is evident that in the judgment of Novarian, the ten commandments enjoined nothing that was not sacredly regarded by the patriarchs before Jacob went down into Egypt. It follows, therefore, that in his opinion the Sabbath was made, not at the fall of the manna, but when God sanctified the seventh day; and that holy men from the earliest ages observed it.
The Apostolical Constitutions, written about the third century, give us an understanding of what was widely ‘regarded in the third century’ as apostolic doctrine. They speak thus of the ten commandments: — “Have before thine eyes the fear of God, and always remember the ten commandments of God, — to love the one and only Lord God with all thy strength; to give no heed to idols, or any other beings, as being lifeless gods, or irrational beings or demons.” “He gave a plain law to assist the law of nature, such a one as is pure, saving, and holy, in which his own name was inscribed, perfect, which is never to fail, being complete in ten commands, unspotted, converting souls.” This writer, like Irenaeus, believed in the identity of the decalogue With the law of nature. These testimonies show that in the writings of the early Fathers are some of the strongest utterances in behalf of the perpetuity and authority of the ten commandments. Now let us hear what they say concerning the origin of the Sabbath at creation. The epistle ascribed to Barnabas says: — “And he says in another place, ‘If my sons keep the Sabbath, then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them.’ The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: ‘And God made in six days the works of his hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it.’” Irenaeus seems plainly to connect the origin of the Sabbath with the sanctification of the seventh day: — “These [things promised] are [to take place] in the times of the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, which has been sanctified, in which God rested from his works which he created, which is the true Sabbath, in which they shall not be engaged in any earthly occupation.” Tertullian, likewise, refers the origin of the Sabbath to “the benediction of the Father”: — “But inasmuch as birth is also completed with the seventh moveth, I more readily recognize in this number than in the eighth the honor of a numerical agreement with the Sabbatical period; so that the month in which God’s image is sometimes produced in a, human birth, shall in its number tally with the day on which God’s creation was completed and hallowed. ” “For even in the case before us, he [Christ] fulfilled the law, while interpreting its condition; [moreover] he exhibits in a clear light the different kinds of work, while doing what the law excepts from ‘the sacredness of the Sabbath, [and] while imparting to the Sabbath-day itself which from the beginning had been consecrated by the benediction of the Father, an additional sanctity by his own beneficent action.” Origen, who, as we have seen, believed in a mystical Sabbath, did nevertheless fix its origin at, the sanctification of the seventh day: — “For he [Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep festival with God who have done all their works in their six days.” The testimony of Novatian, which has been given relative to the sacredness and authority of the decalogue, plainly implies the existence of the Sabbath in the patriarchal ages, and its observance by those holy men of old. It was given to Israel that they might “RETURN to those virtuous manners which, although they had received them from their fathers, they had corrupted in Egypt.” And he adds, “Those ten commandments on the tables teach nothing new, but remind them of what had been obliterated.” He did not, therefore, believe the Sabbath to have originated at the fall of the manna, but counted it one of those things which were practiced by their fathers before Jacob went down to Egypt.
Lactantius places the origin of the Sabbath at creation: — “God completed the world and this admirable work of nature in the space of six days (as is contained in the secrets of holy Scripture), andCONSECRATED the seventh day, on which he had rested from his works. But this is the Sabbath-day, which, in the language of the Hebrews, received its name from the number, whence the seventh is the legitimate and complete number.” In a poem on Genesis, written about the time of Lactantius, but by an unknown author, we have an explicit testimony to the divine appointment of the seventh day to a holy use while man was yet in Eden, the garden of God: — “The seventh came, when God At his work’s end did rest, DECREEING IT SACRED UNTO the COMING AGE’S JOYS.” The Apostolical Constitutions, while teaching the present obligation of the Sabbath, plainly indicate its origin to have been at creation: — “O Lord Almighty, thou hast created the world by Christ, and hast appointed the Sabbath in memory thereof, because that on that day thou hast made us rest from our works, for the meditation upon thy laws.” Such are the testimonies of the early Fathers’ to the primeval origin of. the Sabbath, and to the sacredness and perpetual obligation of the ten commandments. We now call attention to what they say relative to the perpetuity of the Sabbath, and to its observance in the centuries during which they lived. Tertullian defines Christ’s relation to the Sabbath: — “He was called ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ because he maintained the Sabbath as his own institution.” He affirms that Christ did not abolish the Sabbath: — “Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath: he kept the law thereof, and both in the former case did a work which was beneficial to the life of his disciples (for he indulged them with the relief of food when they were hungry), and in the present instance, cured the withered hand; in each case intimating by facts, ‘ I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.’” 22 Nor can it be said that while Tertullian denied that Christ abolished the Sabbath, he did believe that he transferred its sacredness from the seventh day of the week to the first; for he continues thus: — “He [Christ] exhibits in a dear light the different kinds of work, while doing what the law excepts from the sacredness of the Sabbath, [and] while imparting to the Sabbath-day itself, which from the beginning had been consecrated by the benediction of the Father, an additional sanctity by his own beneficent action. For he furnished to this day DIVINE SAFEGUARDS — a course which his adversary would have pursued for some other days, to avoid honoring the Creator’s Sabbath, and restoring to the Sabbath the works which were proper for it.” This is a very remarkable statement. The modern doctrine of the change of the Sabbath was unknown in Tertullian’s time. Had it then been in existence, there could be no doubt that in the words last quoted he was aiming at it a heavy blow; for the very thing which he asserts Christ’s adversary, Satan, would have had him do, that modern first-day Writers assert he did do in consecrating another day instead of adding to the sanctity of his Father’s Sabbath.
Archelaus, of Cascar in Mesopotamia, emphatically denies the abolition of the Sabbath: — “Again, as to the assertion that the Sabbath has been abolished, we deny that he has abolished it plainly; for he was himself also Lord of the Sabbath.” Justin Martyr, as we have seen, was an outspoken opponent of Sabbatic observance, and of the authority of the law of God. He was by no means always candid in what he said. He has occasion to refer to those who observed the seventh day, and he does it with contempt. Thus he says:— “But if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such institutions as were given by Moses (from which they expect some virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reason of the hardness of the people’s hearts), along with their hope in this Christ, and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live with the Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as kinsmen and brethren.” These words are spoken of Sabbath-keeping Christians. Such of them as were of Jewish descent no doubt generally retained circumcision. But there were many Gentile Christians who observed the Sabbath, as we shall see; and it is not true that they observed circumcision. Justin speaks of this class as acting from” weak-mindedness; ” yet he inadvertently alludes to the keeping of the commandments as the performance of “theETERNAL andNATURAL ACTS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS,” a most appropriate designation indeed. Justin would fellowship those who act thus, provided they would fellowship him in the contrary course. But though Justin, on this condition, could fellowship these “weak-minded” brethren, he says that there are those who “do not venture to have any intercourse with, or to extend hospitality to, such persons: but I do not agree with them.” 26 This shows the bitter spirit which prevailed in some quarters toward the Sabbath, even as early as Justin’s time. Justin has no word of condemnation for these intolerant professors; he is only solicitous lest those persons who perform “the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety” should condemn those who do not perform them.
Clement, of Alexandria, though a mystical writer, bears an important testimony to the perpetuity of the ancient Sabbath, and to man’s. present need thereof. He comments thus on the fourth commandment: — “And the fourth word is that which intimates that the world was created by God, and that he gave us the seventh day as a rest, on account of the trouble that there is in life. For God is incapable of weariness, and suffering, and want. But we who bear flesh need rest. The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a rest — abstraction from ills — preparing for the primal day, our true rest.” Clement recognized the authority of the moral law; for he treats of the ten commandments one by one, and shows what each enjoins. He plainly teaches that the Sabbath was made for man, and that he now needs it as a day of rest, and his language implies that. it, was made at the creation. But in the next paragraph he makes some curious suggestions, which deserve notice: — “Having reached this point, we must mention these things by the way; since the discourse has turned on the seventh and the eighth.
For the eighth may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh, and the seventh manifestly the sixth, and the latter properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work. For the creation of the world was concluded in six days.” This language has been adduced to show flint Clement called the eighth day, or Sunday, the Sabbath. But first-day writers in general have not dared to commit themselves to such an interpretation, and some of them have expressly discarded it. Let us notice this statement with especial care.
He speaks of the ordinals seventh and eighth in the abstract, but probably with reference to the days of the week. Observe, then, 1 That; he does not intimate that the eighth day has become the Sabbath in place of the seventh which was once such, but he says that the eighth day may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh. 2. That in Clement’s time, A.D. 194, there was not any confusion in the minds of men as to which day was the ancient Sabbath, and which one was the first day of the week, or eighth day, as it was often called, nor does he intimate that there was. 3. But Clement, from some cause, says that possibly the eighth day should be counted the seventh, and the seventh day the sixth. Now, if this should be done, it would change the numbering of the days, not only as far back as the resurrection or Christ, but all the way back to the creation. 4. If, therefore, Clement, in this place, designed to teach that Sunday is the Sabbath, he must also have held that it always had been such. 5. But observe that, while he changes the numbering of the days of the week, he does not change the Sabbath from one day to another, he says the eighth may possibly be the seventh, and the seventh, properly the sixth, and the latter, or this one [Greek, hJ me There remains but one difficulty to be solved, and that is why he should suggest the changing of the numbering of the days of the week by striking one from the count of each day, thus making the ‘Sabbath the sixth day in the count instead of the seventh; and making Sunday the seventh day in the count instead of the eighth. The answer seems to have eluded the observation of the first-day and Sabbatarian writers who have sought to grasp it. But there is a fact which solves the difficulty. Clement’s commentary on the fourth commandment, from which these quotations are taken, is principally made up of curious observations on “the perfect number six, “the number seven motherless and childless,” and the number eight, which is “a cube,” and the like matters, and is taken, with some change of arrangement, almost word for word from Philo Judaeus, a teacher who flourished at Alexandria about one century before Clement.
Whoever will take pains to compare these two writers will find in Philo nearly all the ideas and illustrations which Clement has used, and the very language also in which he has expressed them. 29 Philo was a mystical teacher to whom Clement looked up, as to a master. A statement which we find in Philo, in immediate connection with several curious ideas, which Clement quotes from him, gives, beyond all doubt; the key to Clement’s suggestion that possibly the eighth day should be called the seventh, and the seventh day called the sixth. Philo said that, according to God’s purpose, the first day of time was not to be numbered with the other days of the creation week. Thus he says: — “And he allotted each of the six days to one of the portions of the whole,TAKING OUT THE FIRST DAY, which he does not even call the first day, that it may not be numbered with the others, but entitling it ONE, he names it rightly, perceiving in it, and ascribing to it, the nature and appellation of the limit.” This would simply change the numbering of the days, as counted by Philo, and afterward partially adopted by Clement, and make the Sabbath, not the seventh day, but the sixth, and Sunday, not the eighth day, but the seventh; but it would still leave the Sabbath-day and the Sunday the same identical days as before. It would, however, give the Sabbath the name of, sixth day, because the first of the six days of creation was not counted; and it would cause the eighth day, so called in the early church because of its coming next after the Sabbath, to be called seventh day. Thus the Sabbath would be the sixth day, and the seventh a day of work, and yet the Sabbath would be the identical day that it has ever been, and the Sunday, though called seventh day, would still, as ever before, remain a day on which ordinary labor was lawful. Of course, Philo’s idea that the first day of time should not be counted, is wholly false; for there is not one fact in the Bible to support it, but many which expressly contradict it, and even Clement, with all deference to Philo, only timidly suggests it. But when the matter is laid open, it shows that Clement had no thought of calling Sunday the Sabbath, and that he does expressly confirm what we have fully proved out of other of the Fathers, that Sunday was a day on which, in their judgment, labor was not sinful.
Tertullian, at different periods of his life, held different views respecting the Sabbath, and committed them all to, writing. We last quoted from him a decisive testimony to the perpetuity of the Sabbath, coupled with an equally decisive testimony against the sanctification of the first day of the week. In another work, from which we have already quoted his statement, that Christians should not kneel on Sunday, we find another statement that “some few” abstained from kneeling on the Sabbath. This has probable reference to Carthage, where Tertullian lived, he speaks thus: — “In the matter of kneeling also, prayer is subject to diversity of observance, through the act of some few who abstain from kneeling on the Sabbath; and since this dissension is particularly on its trial before the churches, the Lord will give his grace that the dissidents may either yield, or else indulge their opinion without offense to others.” The act of standing in prayer was one of the chief honors conferred upon Sunday. Those who refrained from kneeling on the seventh day, without doubt did it because they desired to honor that day. This particular act is of no consequence; for it was adopted in imitation of those who, from tradition and custom, thus honored Sunday; but we have in this an undoubted reference to Sabbath-keeping Christians. Tertullian speaks of them, however, in a manner quite unlike that of Justin in his reference to the commandment-keepers of his time.
Origen, like many others of the Fathers, was far from being consistent with himself. Though he has spoken against Sabbatic observance, and has honored the so-called Lord’s day as something better than the ancient Sabbath, he has nevertheless given a discourse expressly designed to teach Christians the proper method of observing the Sabbath. Here is a portion of this sermon: — “But what is the feast of the Sabbath except that of which the apostle speaks, ‘There remaineth therefore a Sabbatism,’ that is, the observance of the Sabbath, by the people of God? Leaving the Jewish observances of the Sabbath, let us see how the Sabbath ought to be observed by a Christian. On the Sabbath-day all worldly labors ought to be abstained from. If, therefore, you cease from all secular works, and execute nothing worldly, but give yourselves up to spiritual exercises, repairing to church, attending to sacred reading and instruction, thinking of celestial things, solicitous for the future, placing the Judgment to come before your eyes, not looking to things present and visible, but to those which are future and invisible, this is the observance of the Christian Sabbath.” This is by no means a bad representation of the proper observance of the Sabbath. Such a discourse addressed to Christians is a strong evidence that many did then hallow that day. Some, indeed, have. claimed that these words were spoken concerning Sunday. They would have it that he contrasts the observance of the first day with that of the seventh. But the contrast is not between the different methods of keeping two days, but between two methods of observing one day. The Jews in Origen’s time spent the day mainly in mere abstinence from labor, and often added sensuality to idleness. But the Christians were to observe it in divine worship, as well as sacred rest. What day he intends cannot be doubtful. It isDIES SABBATI a term which can signify only the seventh day. Here is the first instance of the term Christian Sabbath, Sabbati Christiani, and it is expressly applied to the seventh day observed by Christians.
The longer form of the reputed epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians was not written till after Origen’s time; but, though not written by Ignatius, it; is valuable for the light, it, throws upon the existing state of things at, the tithe of its composition, and for marking the progress which apostasy had made with respect to the Sabbath, Here is its reference to the Sabbath and first day: — “Let us therefore no longer keel:, the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for he that does not work, let him not eat.’ For say the [holy] oracles, ‘ in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.’ But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which ]lave no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, ‘To the end, for the eighth day,’ on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ.” This writer specifies the different things which made up the Jewish observance of the Sabbath. They may be summed up under two heads: 1. Strict abstinence from labor; 2. Dancing and carousal.
Now in the light of what Origen has said, we can understand the contrast which this writer draws between the Jewish and the Christian observance of the Sabbath. The error of the Jews in the first part of this was that they contented themselves with mere bodily relaxation, without raising their thoughts to God, the Creator, and this mere idleness soon gave place to sensual folly.
The Christian, as Origen draws the contrast, refrains from labor on the Sabbath that he may raise his heart in grateful worship; or, as this writer expresses it, the Christian keeps the Sabbath in “a spiritual manner,” rejoicing, in meditation on the law; but to do thus, he must hallow it in the manner which the law commands, that is, in the observance of a sacred rest which commemorates the rest of the Creator. The writer evidently believed in the observance of the Sabbath as an act of obedience to that law on which they were to mediate on that day. And the nature of the epistle indicates that it was observed, at all events, in the country where it was written. But mark the work of apostasy. The so-called Lord’s day, for which the writer could offer nothing better than an argument drawn from the title of the sixth psalm (see its marginal reading), is exalted above the Lord’s holy day, and made the queen of all days!
The Apostolical Constitutions, though not written in apostolic times, were in existence as early as the third century, and were then very generally believed to express the doctrine of the apostles. They do therefore, furnish important historical testimony to the practice of the church at that time, and also indicate the great progress which apostasy had made. Guericke speaks thus of them: — “This is a collection of ecclesiastical statutes purporting to be the work of the apostolic age, but in reality formed gradually in the second, third, and fourth centuries, and is of much value in reference to the history of polity’, and Christian archaeology generally.” Mosheim says of them: — “The matter of this work is unquestionably ancient; since the manners and discipline of which it exhibits a view are those which prevailed amongst the Christians of the second and third centuries? especially those resident in Greece and the oriental regions.” These Constitutions indicate that the Sabbath was extensively observed in the third century. They also show the standing of the Sunday festival in that century. After solemnly enjoining the sacred observance of the ten commandments, they thus enforce the Sabbath: — “Consider the manifold workmanship of God, which received its beginning through Christ. Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from his work of creation, but ceased not from his work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands.” This is sound Sabbatarian doctrine. To show how distinctly these Constitutions recognize the decalogue as the foundation of Sabbatic authority, we quote the words next preceding the above, though they have been already quoted: — “Have before thine eyes the fear of God, and always remember the ten commandments of God, — to have the one and only Lord God with all thy strength; to give no heed to idols, or any other beings, as being lifeless gods, or irrational beings or demons.” But though these Constitutions thus recognize the authority of the decalogue and the sacred obligation of the seventh day, they elevate the Sunday festival in some respects to higher honor than the Sabbath, though they claim for it no precept of the Scriptures. Thus they say: — “But keep the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day festival; because the former is the memorial of the creation, and the latter of the resurrection.” “For the Sabbath is the ceasing of the creation, the completion of the world, the inquiry after laws, and the grateful praise to God for the blessings he has bestowed upon men. All which the Lord’s day excels, and shows the Mediator himself, the Provider, the Lawgiver, the Cause of the resurrection, the First-born of the whole creation.” “So that the Lord’s day commands us to offer unto thee, O Lord, thanksgiving for all. For this is the grace afforded by thee, which, on account of its greatness, has obscured all other blessings.” Tested by his own principles, the writer of these Constitutions was tilt advanced in apostasy; for he held a festival, for which he claimed no divine authority, more honorable than one which he acknowledged to be ordained of God. There could be but one step more in this course, and that would be to set aside the commandment of God for the ordinance of man, and this step was, not very long afterward, actually taken. One other point should be noticed. It is said: — “Let the slaves work five days; but on the Sabbath-day and the Lord’s day let them have leisure to go to church for instruction in piety.” The question of the sinfulness of labor on either of these days is not here taken into the account; for the reason assigned is that the slaves may have leisure to attend public worship. But While these Constitutions elsewhere forbid labor on the Sabbath on the authority of the decalogue, they do not forbid it upon the first day of the week. Take the following as an example: — “O Lord Almighty, thou hast created the world by Christ, and hast appointed the Sabbath in memory thereof, because that on that day thou hast made us rest from our works, for the meditation upon thy laws.” The Apostolical Constitutions are valuable to us, not as authority respecting the teaching of the apostles, but as giving us a knowledge of the views and practices which prevailed in the third century. As these Constitutions were extensively regarded as embodying the doctrine of the apostles, they furnish conclusive evidence that, at the time when they were put in writing, the ten commandments were very generally revered as the immutable rule of right, and that the Sabbath of the Lord was by many observed as an act of obedience to the fourth commandment, and as the divine memorial of the creation. They also show that the first-day festival had, in the third century, attained such strength and influence as to clearly indicate that ere long it would claim the entire ground. But observe that the Sabbath and the so-called Lord’s day were then regarded as distinct institutions, and that no hint of the change of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first is even once given.
Thus much out of the Fathers concerning the authority of the decalogue, and concerning the perpetuity and observance of the ancient Sabbath. The suppression of the Sabbath of the Bible, and the elevation of Sunday to its place, has been shown to be in no sense the work of the Savior. But so great a work required the united action of powerful causes, and these causes we will now enumerate: — 1. Hatred toward the Jews. — This people, who retained the ancient Sabbath, had slain Christ. It was easy for men to forget that Christ, as Lord of the Sabbath, had claimed it as his own institution, and to call the Sabbath a Jewish institution which Christians should not regard. 2. The hatred of the church of Rome toward the Sabbath, and its determination to elevate Sunday to the highest place. — This church, as the chief in the work of apostasy, took the lead in the earliest effort to suppress the Sabbath by turning it into a fast. And the very first act of papal aggression was by an edict in behalf of Sunday. Thenceforward, in every possible form, this church continued this work until the pope announced that he had received a divine mandate for Sunday observance [the very thing lacking] in a roll which fell from heaven. 3. The voluntary observance of memorable days. — In the Christian church, almost from the beginning, men voluntarily honored the fourth, the sixth, and the first days of the week, and also the anniversary of the Passover and the Pentecost, to commemorate the betrayal, the death, and the resurrection, of Christ, and the descent of the Holy Spirit, which acts in themselves could not be counted sinful. 4. Making tradition of equal authority with the Scriptures, — This was the great error of the early church, and the one to which that church was specially exposed, as having in it those who had seen the apostles, or who had seen those who had seen them. It was this which ‘rendered the voluntary observance of memorable days a, dangerous thing; for what began as a voluntary observance became, after the lapse of a few years, a standing custom, established by tradition, which must be obeyed because it came from those who had seen the apostles, or from those who had seen others who had seen them. This is the origin of the various errors of the great apostasy. 5. The entrance of the no-law heresy. — This is seen in Justin Martyr, the earliest witness to the Sunday festival, and in the church of Rome, of which he was then a member. 6. The extensive observance of Sunday as a heathen festival. — The first day of the week corresponded to the widely observed heathen festival of the sun. It was therefore easy to unite the honor of Christ in the observance of the day of his resurrection, with the convenience and worldly advantage Of his people, in having the same festival day with their heathen neighbors, and to make it a special act of piety in that the conversion of the heathen was thereby facilitated, while the neglect of the ancient Sabbath was justified by stigmatizing that divine memorial as a Jewish institution with which Christians should have no concern.
THE SABBATH AND FIRST-DAY DURING THE FIRST FIVE CENTURIES
Origin of the Sabbath and of the festival of the sun contrasted — Entrance of that festival into the church — The moderns with the ancients — The Sabbath observed by the early Christians — Testimony of Morer — Of Twisse — Of Giesler — Of Mosheim — Of Coleman — Of Bishop Taylor — The Sabbath loses ground before the Sunday festival Several bodies of decided Sabbatarians — Testimony of Brerewood — Constantine’s Sunday law — Sunday a day of labor with the primitive church — Constantine’s edict a heathen law, and himself at that time a heathen — The bishop of Rome authoritatively confers the name of Lord’s day upon Sunday — Heylyn narrates the steps by which Sunday arose to power — A marked change in the history of that institution — Paganism brought into the church — The Sabbath weakened by Constantine’s influence — Remarkable facts concerning Eusebius — The Sabbath recovers strength again — The council of Laodicea pronounces a curse upon the Sabbath-keepers — The progress of apostasy marked — Authority of church councils considered — Chrysostom — Jerome — Augustine — Sunday edicts — Testimony of Socrates relative to the Sabbath about the middle of the fifth century — Of Sozomen — Effectual suppression of the Sabbath at the close of the fifth century.
WE now have the origin of the Sabbath and of the festival of Sunday distinctly before us. In the beginning, when God made the world, he gave to man the Sabbath that he might not forget the Creator of all things. When men apostatized from God, Satan turned them to the worship of the sun, and, as a standing memorial of their veneration for that luminary, caused them to dedicate to his honor the first day of the week. When the elements of apostasy had sufficiently matured in the Christian church, this ancient festival stood forth as a rival to the Sabbath of the Lord. The manner in which it obtained a foothold in the Christian church has been already shown; and many facts which have an important bearing upon the struggle between these rival institutions have also been given. We have, in the preceding chapters, given the statements of the most ancient Christian writers respecting the Sabbath and first-day in the early church. As we now trace the history of these two days during the first five centuries of the Christian era, we shall give the statements of modern church historians, covering the same ground with the early Fathers, and shall also quote, in continuation of the ancient writers, the testimonies of the earliest church historians. The reader can thus discover how nearly the ancients and moderns agree. Of the observance of the Sabbath in the early church, Morer speaks as follows: — “The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons. And it is not to be doubted but they derived this practice from the apostles themselves, as appears by several scriptures to that purpose; who, keeping both that day and the first of the week, gave occasion to the succeeding ages to join them together, and make it one festival, though there was not the same reason for the continuance of the custom as there was to begin it.” A learned English first-day writer of the seventeenth century, William Twisse, D. D., thus states the early history of these two days: — “Yet for some hundred years in the primitive church, not the Lord’s day only, but the seventh day also, was religiously observed, not by Ebion and Cerinthus only, but by pious Christians also, as Baronius writeth, and Gomarus confesseth, and Rivet also, that we are bound in conscience under the gospel, to allow for God’s service a better proportion of time than the Jews did under the law, rather than a worse.” That the observance of the Sabbath was not confined to Jewish converts, the learned Gieseler explicitly testifies: — “While the Jewish Christians of Palestine retained the entire Mosaic law, and consequently the Jewish festivals, the Gentile Christians observed also the Sabbath and the Passover,(1 Corinthians 5:6-8) with reference to the last scenes of Jesus’ life, but without Jewish superstition. In addition to these, Sunday, as the day of Christ’s resurrection, was devoted to religious services.” The statement of Mosheim may be thought to contradict that of Giesler.
He says:— “The seventh day of the week was also observed as a festival, not by the Christians in general, but by such churches only as were principally composed of Jewish converts, nor did the other Christians censure this custom as criminal and unlawful.” It will be observed that Mosheim does not deny that the Jewish converts observed the Sabbath. He denies that this was done by the Gentile Christians. The proof on which he rests this denial is thus stated by him: — “The churches of Bithynia, of which Pliny speaks, in his letter to Trajan, had only one stated day for the celebration of public worship; and that was undoubtedly the first day of the week, or what we call the Lord’s day.” The proposition to be proved is this: The Gentile Christians did not observe the Sabbath. The proof is found in the following fact: The churches of Bithynia assembled on a stated day for the celebration of divine worship. It is seen, therefore, that the conclusion is gratuitous, and wholly unauthorized by the testimony. 6 But this instance shows the dexterity of Mosheim in drawing inferences, and gives us some insight into the kind of evidence which supports some of these sweeping statements in behalf of Sunday. Who can say that this “stated day” was not the very day enjoined in the fourth commandment? Of the Sabbath and first-day in the early ages of the church, Coleman speaks as follows: — “The last day of the week was strictly kept in connection with that of the first clay for a long time after the overthrow of the temple and its worship. Down even to the fifth century the Observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church, but with a rigor and solemnity gradually diminishing until it was wholly discontinued.” 7 This is a most explicit acknowledgment that the Bible Sabbath was long observed by the body of the Christian church. Coleman is a first-day writer, and therefore not likely to state the case too strongly in behalf of the seventh day. He is a modern writer, but we have already proved his statements true by those of the ancients. It is true that Coleman speaks also of the first day of the week, yet his subsequent language shows that it was a long while before this became a sacred day. Thus he says: — “During the early ages of the church, it was never entitled ‘the Sabbath,’ this word being confined to the seventh day of the week, the Jewish Sabbath, which, as we have already said, continued to be observed for several centuries by the converts to Christianity.” This fact is made still clearer by the following language, in which this historian admits Sunday to be nothing but a human ordinance: — “No law or precept appears to have been given by Christ or the apostles, either for the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath, or the institution of the Lord’s day, or the substitution of the first for the seventh day of the week.” Coleman does not seem to realize that in making this truthful statement he has directly acknowledged that the ancient Sabbath is still in full force as a divine institution, and that first-day observance is only authorized by the traditions of men the next relates the manner in which this Sunday festival, which had been nourished in the bosom of the church, usurped the place of the Lord’s Sabbath, — a warning to all Christians of the tendency of human institutions, if cherished by the people of God, to destroy those which are divine. Let this important language be carefully pondered. His words are, — “The observance of the Lord’s day was ordered while yet the Sabbath of the Jews was continued; nor was the latter superseded until the former had acquired the same solemnity and importance which belonged, at first, to that great day which God originally ordained and blessed. But in time, after the Lord’s day was fully established, the observance of the Sabbath of the Jews was gradually discontinued, and was finally denounced as heretical.” 10 Thus is seen the result of cherishing this harmless Sunday festival in the church. It asked only toleration at first; but gaining strength by degrees, it gradually undermined the Sabbath of the Lord, and finally denounced its observance as heretical.
Jeremy Taylor, a distinguished bishop of the Church of England, and a man of great erudition, but a decided opponent of Sabbatic obligation, confirms the testimony of Coleman. He affirms that the Sabbath was observed by the Christians of the first three hundred years, but denies that they did this out of respect to the authority of the law of God. But we have shown from the Fathers that those who hallowed the Sabbath did it as an act of obedience to the fourth commandment, and that the decalogue was acknowledged as of perpetual obligation, and as the perfect rule of right. As Bishop Taylor denies that this was their ground of observance, he should have shown some other, which he has not done. He speaks; as follows: — “The Lord’s day did not succeed in the place of the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was wholly abrogated, and the Lord’s day was merely an ecclesiastical institution. It was not introduced by virtue of the fourth commandment, because they for almost three hundred years together kept that day which was in that commandment; but they did it also without any opinion of prime obligation, and therefore they did not suppose it moral.” That, such an opinion relative to the obligation of the fourth commandment had gained ground extensively among the leaders of the church, as early at least as the fourth century, and probably in the third, is sufficiently attested by the action of the council of Laodicea, A.D. 364, which anathematized those who should observe the Sabbath, as will be noticed in its place. That this loose view of the morality of the fourth commandment was resisted by many, is shown by the existence of various bodies of steadfast Sabbatarians in that age, whose memory has come down to us; and also by the fact that that council made such a vigorous effort to put down the Sabbath. Coleman has clearly portrayed the gradual depression of the Sabbath, as the first-day festival arose in strength, until Sabbath-keeping became heretical, when, by ecclesiastical authority, the Sabbath was suppressed, and the festival of Sunday became fully established as a new and different institution. The natural consequence of this is seen in the rise of distinct sects, or bodies, who were distinguished for their observance of the seventh day. That they should be denounced as heretical, and falsely charged with many errors, is not surprising, when we consider that their memory has been handed down to us by their opponents, and that Sabbath-keepers in our own time are not infrequently treated in this very manner. The first of these ancient Sabbatarian bodies was the Nazarenes. Of these, Morer testifies that — They “retained the Sabbath; and though they pretended to believe as Christians, yet they practiced as Jews, and so were in reality neither one nor the other.” Dr. Francis White, Lord Bishop of Ely, mentions the Nazarenes as one of the ancient bodies of Sabbath-keepers who were condemned by the church leaders for that heresy; and he classes them with heretics, as Morer has done. 13 Yet the Nazarenes have a peculiar claim to our regard, as being in reality the apostolic church of Jerusalem, and its direct successors. Thus Gibbon testifies: — “The Jewish converts, or, as they were afterwards called, the Nazarenes, who had laid the foundations of the church, soon found themselves overwhelmed by the increasing multitudes, that from all the various religions of polytheism enlisted under the banner of Christ. .. The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of Jerusalem to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan, where that ancient church languished above sixty years in solitude and obscurity.” It is not strange that the church which fled out of Judea at the word of Christ 15 should long retain the Sabbath, as it appears that they did, even as late as the fourth century. Morer mentions another class of Sabbathkeepers in the following language: — “About the same time were the Hypsistarii, who closed with these as to what concerned the Sabbath, yet would by no means accept circumcision as too plain a testimony of ancient bondage. All these were heretics, and so adjudged to be by the Catholic church. Yet their hypocrisy and industry were such as gained them a considerable footing in the Christian world.” 16 The Bishop of Ely names these also as a body of Sabbath-keepers whose heresy was condemned by the church. 17 The learned Joseph Bingham, M.
A., gives the following account of them: — “There was another sect which called themselves Hypsistarians, that is, worshipers of the most high God, whom they worshipped as the Jews only in one person. And they observed their Sabbaths, and used distinction of meats, clean and unclean, though they did not regard circumcision, as Gregory Nazianzen, whose father was one of this sect, gives the account of them.” It must ever be remembered that these people, whom the Catholic church adjudged to be heretics, are not speaking for themselves: their enemies who condemned them have transmitted to posterity all that is known of their history. It would be well if heretics, who meet with little mercy at the hand of ecclesiastical writers, could at least secure the impartial justice of a truthful record.
Another class are thus described by Cox in his elaborate work, entitled, “Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties”: — “In this way [that is, by presenting the testimony of the Bible on the subject] arose the ancient Sabbatarians, a body, it is well known, of very considerable importance in respect both to numbers and influence, during the greater part of the third and the early part of the next century.” The close of the third century witnessed the Sabbath much weakened in its hold upon the church in general, and the festival of Sunday, although possessed of no divine authority, steadily gaining in strength and in sacredness. The following historical testimony from a member of the English Church, Edward Brerewood, professor in Gresham College, London, gives a good general view of the matter, though the author’s anti- Sabbatarian views are mixed with it. He says: — “The ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed together with the celebration of the Lord’s day by the Christians of the East church above three hundred years after our Savior’s death; and besides that, no other day for more hundreds of years than I spake of before, was known in the church by the name of Sabbath but that: let the collection thereof and conclusion of all be this: The Sabbath of the seventh day, as touching the alligations of God’s solemn worship to time, was ceremonial; that Sabbath was religiously observed in the East church three hundred years and more after our Savior’s passion. That church, being the great part of Christendom, and having the apostles’ doctrine and example to instruct them, would have restrained it if it had been deadly.” Such was the case in the Eastern churches at the end of the third century; but in such of the Western churches as sympathized with the church of Rome, the Sabbath had been treated as a fast from the beginning of that century, to express their opposition toward those who observed it according to the commandment.
In the early part of the fourth century, an event occurred which could not have been foreseen, but which threw an immense weight in favor of Sunday into the balances already trembling between the rival institutions, the Sabbath of the Lord and the festival of the sun. This was nothing less than an edict from the throne of the Roman empire in behalf of “the venerable day of the sun.” It was issued by the emperor Constantine in A.D. 321, and is thus expressed: — “Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all trades rest on the venerable day of the sun; but let those who are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty attend to the business of agriculture; because it often happens that no other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines; lest, the critical moment being let slip, men should lose the commodities granted by Heaven. Given the seventh day of March; Crispus and Constantine being consuls, each of them for the second time.” Of this law, a high authority speaks as follows: — “It was Constantine the Great who first made a law for the proper observance of. Sunday; and who, according to Eusebius, appointed it should be regularly celebrated throughout the Roman empire.
Before him, and even in his time, they observed the Jewish Sabbath, as well as Sunday; both to satisfy the law of Moses, and to imitate the apostles who used to meet together on the first day.
By Constantine’s law, promulgated in 321, it was decreed that for the future the Sunday should be kept as a day of rest in all cities and towns; but he ‘allowed the country people to follow their work.” Another eminent authority thus states the purport of this law: — “Constantine the Great made a law for the whole empire (A.D. 321) that Sunday should be kept as a day of rest in all cities and towns; but he allowed the country people to follow their work on that day.” Thus the fact is placed beyond all dispute that this decree gave full permission to all kinds of agricultural labor. The following testimony of Mosheim is therefore worthy of strict attention: — “The first day of the week, which was the ordinary and stated time for the public assemblies of the Christians, was in consequence of a peculiar law enacted by Constantine, observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly been.” What will the advocates of first-day sacredness say to this? They quote Mosheim respecting Sunday observance in the first century, — which testimony has been carefully examined in this work,25 — and they seem to think that his language in support of first-day sacredness is nearly equal in authority to the language of the New Testament; in fact, they regard it as supplying an important omission in that book. Yet Mosheim states respecting Constantine’s Sunday law, promulgated in the fourth century, — which restrained merchants and mechanics, but allowed all kinds of agricultural labor on that day, — that it caused the day to be “observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly been.” It follows, therefore, on Mosheim’s own showing, that Sunday, during the first three centuries, was not a day of abstinence from labor in the Christian church. On this point, Bishop Taylor thus testifies: — “The primitive Christians did all manner of works upon the Lord’s day, even in the times of persecution, when they are the strictest observers of all the divine commandments; but in this they knew there was none; and therefore, when Constantine the emperor had made an edict against working upon the Lord’s day, yet he excepts and still permitted all agriculture or labors of the husbandman whatsoever.” Morer tells us respecting the first three centuries, that is to say, the period before Constantine, that — “The Lord’s day had no command that it should be sanctified, but it was left to God’s people to pitch on this or that day for the public worship. And being taken up and made a day of meeting for religious exercises, yet for three hundred years there was no law to bind them to it, and for want of such a law, the day was not wholly kept in abstaining from common business; nor did they any longer rest from their ordinary affairs (such was the necessity of those times) than during the divine service.” And Sir Win. Domville says: — “Centuries of the Christian era passed away before the Sunday was observed by the Christian church as a Sabbath. History does not furnish us with a single proof or indication that it was at any time so observed previous to the Sabbatical edict of Constantine in A.D. 321.” What these able modern writers set forth as to labor on Sunday before the edict of Constantine was promulgated, we have fully proved in the preceding chapters out of the most ancient ecclesiastical writers. That such an edict could not fail to strengthen the current already strongly set in favor of Sunday, and greatly to weaken the influence of the Sabbath, cannot be doubted. Of this fact, an able writer bears witness: — “Very shortly after the period when Constantine issued his edict enjoining the general observance of Sunday throughout the Roman empire, the party that had contended for the observance of the seventh day dwindled into insignificance. The observance of Sunday as a public festival, during which all business, with the exception of rural employments, was intermitted, came to be more and more generally established ever after this time, throughout both the Greek and the Latin churches. There is no evidence, however, that either at this, or at a period much later, the observance was viewed as deriving any obligation from the fourth commandment; it seems to have been regarded as an institution corresponding in nature with Christmas, Good Friday, and other festivals of the church; and as resting with them on the ground of ecclesiastical authority and tradition.” This extraordinary edict of Constantine’s caused Sunday to be observed with greater solemnity than it had Formerly been. Yet we have the most indubitable proof that this law was a heathen enactment; that it was put forth in favor of Sunday as a heathen institution, and not as a Christian festival; and that Constantine himself not only did not possess the character of a Christian, but was at that time in truth a heathen. It is to be observed that Constantine did not designate the day which he commanded men to keep, as Lord’s day, Christian Sabbath, or the day of Christ’s resurrection; nor does he assign any reason for its observance which would indicate that it was a Christian festival. On the contrary, he designates the ancient heathen festival of the sun in language that cannot be mistaken. Dr.
Hessey thus sustains this statement: — “Others have looked at the transaction in a totally different light, and refused to discover in the document, or to suppose in the mind of the enactor, any recognition of the Lord’s day as a matter of divine obligation. They remark, and very truly, that Constantine designates it by its astrological, or heathen title, Dies Solis, and insist that the epithet venerabilis, with which it is introduced, has reference to the rites performed on that day in honor of Hercules, Apollo, and Mithras .” On this important point, Milman, the learned editor of Gibbon, thus testifies: — “The rescript commanding the celebration of the Christian Sabbath, bears no allusion to its peculiar sanctity as a Christian institution.
It is the day of the sun which is to be observed by the general veneration; the courts were to be closed, and the noise and tumult of public business and legal litigation were no longer to violate the repose of the sacred day. But the believer in the new paganism, of which the solar worship was the characteristic, might acquiesce without scruple in the sanctity of the first day of the week.” 31 In a subsequent chapter he adds: — “In fact, as we have before observed, the day of the sun would be willingly hallowed by almost all the pagan world, especially that part which had admitted any tendency toward the Oriental theology.” On the seventh day of March, Constantine published his edict commanding the observance of that ancient festival of the heathen, the venerable day of the sun. On the following day March eighth, 33 he issued a second decree in every respect worthy of its heathen predecessor. 34 The purport of it was this: That if any royal edifice should be struck by lightning, the ancient ceremonies of propitiating the deity should be practiced, and the haruspices were to be consulted to learn the meaning of the awful portent. 35 The haruspices were soothsayers who foretold future events by examining the entrails of beasts slaughtered in sacrifice to the gods! 36 The statute of the seventh of March, enjoining the observance of the venerable day of the sun, and that of the eighth of the same month, commanding the consultation of the haruspices, constitute a noble pair of well-matched heathen edicts. That Constantine himself was a heathen at the time these edicts were issued, is shown not only by the nature of the edicts themselves, but by the fact that his nominal conversion to Christianity is placed by Mosheim two years after his Sunday law, as the following will show: — “After well considering the subject, I have come to the conclusion, that subsequently to the death of Licinius, in the year 323, when Constantine found himself sole emperor, he became an absolute Christian, or one who believes no religion but the Christian to be acceptable to God. He had previously considered the religion of one God as more excellent than the other religions, and believed that Christ ought especially to be worshipped; yet he supposed there were also inferior deities, and that to these some worship might be paid, in the manner of the fathers, without fault or sin.
And who does not know that, in those times, many others also combined the worship of Christ with that of the ancient gods, whom they regarded as the ministers of the supreme God in the government of human and earthly affairs?” 37 As a heathen, Constantine was the worshiper of Apollo, or the sun, a fact that sheds much light upon his edict enjoining men to observe the venerable day of the sun. Thus Gibbon testifies: — “The devotion of Constantine was more peculiarly directed to the genius of the sun, the Apollo of Greek and Roman mythology; and he was pleased to be represented with the symbols of the god of light and poetry The altars of Apollo were crowned with the votive offerings of Constantine; and the credulous multitude were taught to believe that the emperor was permitted to behold with mortal eyes the visible majesty of their tutelar deity. .. The sun was universally celebrated as the invincible guide and protector of Constantine.” His character as a professor of Christianity is described in these words: — “The sincerity of the man, who, in a short period, effected such amazing changes in the religious world, is best known to Him who searches the heart. Certain it is that his subsequent life furnished no evidence of conversion to God. He waded without remorse through seas of blood, and was a most tyrannical prince.” A few words relative to his character as a man will complete our view of his fitness to legislate for the church. This man, when elevated to the highest place of earthly power, caused his eldest son, Crispus, to be privately murdered, lest the fame of the son should eclipse that of the father. In the same ruin was involved his nephew Licinius, “whose rank was his only crime,” and this was Followed by the execution “perhaps of a guilty wife.” Such was the man who elevated Sunday to the throne of the Roman empire; and such the nature of the institution which he thus elevated. A recent English writer says Of Constantine’s Sunday law that it “would seem to have been rather to promote heathen ‘than Christian worship.”
And he shows, in the Following extract, how this heathen emperor became a Christian, and how this heathen statute became a Christian law: — “At aLATER PERIOD, carried away by the current of opinion, he declared himself a convert to the church. Christianity, then, or what he was pleased to call by that name, became the law of the land, and the edict of A.D. 321, being unrevoked, was enforced as a Christian ordinance.” Thus it is seen that a law, enacted in support era heathen institution, after a few years came to be considered a Christian ordinance; and Constantine himself, four years after his Sunday edict, was able to control the church, as represented in the general council of Nicaea, so as to cause the members of that council to establish their annual Festival of the Passover upon Sunday. 42 Paganism had prepared the institution from ancient days, and had now elevated it to supreme power; its work wits accomplished.
We have proved that the Sunday festival in the Christian church had no Sabbatical character before the time of Constantine. We have also shown that heathenism, in the person of Constantine, first gave to Sunday. its Sabbatical character, and, in the very act of doing it, designated it as a heathen, and not as a Christian, festival, thus establishing a heathen Sabbath. It was now the part of popery authoritatively to effect its transformation into a Christian institution, — a work which it was not slow to perform. Sylvester was the bishop of Rome while Constantine was emperor. How faithfully he acted his part in transforming the festival of the sun into Christian institution is seen in that, by his apostolic authority, he changed the name of the day, giving it the imposing title of “LORD’ S DAY.” 43 To Constantine and Sylvester, therefore, the advocates of first-day observance are greatly indebted. The one elevated it as a heathen festival to the throne of the empire, making it a day of rest from most kinds of business; the other changed it into a Christian institution, giving it the dignified appellation of “Lord’s day.” It is not a sufficient reason for denying, that Pope Sylvester, not far from A.D. 325, authoritatively conferred on Sunday the name of Lord’s day, to say that one of the Fathers, as early as A.D. 200, calls the day by that name, and that some seven different writers, between A.D. 200 and A.D. 325, viz., Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Anatolius, Commodianus, Victorinus, and Peter of Alexandria, can be adduced, who give this name to Sunday.
No one of these Fathers ever claims for this title any apostolic authority; and it has been already shown that they could not have believed the day to be the Lord’s day by divine appointment. So far, therefore, is the use of this term by these persons as a name for Sunday from conflicting with the statement that Sylvester, by his apostolic authority, established this name as the rightful title of that day, that it shows the act of Sylvester to be exactly suited to the circumstances of the case. Indeed, Nicephorus asserts that Constantine, who considered himself quite as much the head of the church as was the pope, “directed that the day which the Jews considered the first day of the week, and which the Greeks dedicated to the sun, should be called the Lord’s day.” 44 The circumstances of the case render the statements of Lucius and Nicephorus in the highest degree probable.
They certainly do not indicate that the pope would deem such an act on his part unnecessary.
Take a recent event in papal history as an illustration of this case. Only a few years since, Plus IX. decreed that the virgin Mary was born without sin. This had long been asserted by many distinguished writers in the papal church, but it lacked authority as a dogma of that church until the pope, A.D. 1854, gave it his official sanction. 45 It was the work of Constantine and Sylvester, in the early part of the fourth century to establish the festival of the sun to be a day of rest by the authority of the empire, and to render it a Christian institution by the authority of St.
Peter.
The following from Dr. Heylyn, a distinguished member of the Church of England, is worthy of particular attention. In most forcible language he traces the steps by which the Sunday festival arose to power, contrasting it in this respect with the ancient Sabbath of the Lord; and then, with equal truth and candor, he acknowledges that, as the festival of Sunday was set up by the emperor and the church, the same power can take it down whenever it sees fit: — “Thus do we see upon what grounds the Lord’s day stands;ON CUSTOM FIRST, andVOLUNTARY consecration of it to religious meetings: that custom countenanced by the authority of the church of God, whichTACITLY approved the same; andFINALLY CONFIRMED andRATIFIED BY CHRISTIAN PRINCES throughout their empires. And as the day for rest from labors, and restraint from business upon that day, [it’] received its greatest strength from the supreme magistrate as long as he retained that power which to him belongs; as after from the canons and decrees of councils, the decretals of popes and orders of particular prelates, when the sole managing of ecclesiastical affairs was committed to them. “I hope it was not so with the former Sabbath, which neither took original from custom, that people being not so forward to give God a day; nor required any countenance or authority from the kings of Israel to confirm and ratify it. The Lord had spoke the word, that he would have one clay in seven, precisely the seventh day from the world’s creation, to be a day of rest unto all his people; which said, there was no more to do but gladly to submit and obey his pleasure But thus it was not done in our present business. The Lord’s day had no such command that it should be sanctified, but was left plainly to God’s people to pitch on this, or any other, for the public use. And being taken up amongst them, and made a day of meeting in the congregation for religious exercises; yet 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. “And when it seemed good unto Christian princes, the nursing fathers of God’s church, to lay restraints upon their people, yet at the first they were not general; but only thus, that certain men in certain places should lay aside their ordinary and daily works, to attend God’s service in the church; those whose employments were most toilsome and most repugnant to the true nature of a Sabbath, being allowed to follow and pursue their labors because most necessary to the commonwealth. “And in the following times, when as the prince and prelate, in their several places endeavored to restrain them from that also, which formerly they had permitted, and interdicted almost all kinds of bodily labor upon that day; it was not brought about without much struggling and an opposition of the people; more than a thousand years being past, after Christ’s ascension, before the Lord’s day had attained that state in which now it standeth..
And being brought into that state, wherein now it stands, it doth not stand so firmly and on such sure grounds, but that those powers which raised it up may take it lower if they please, yea take it quite away as unto the time, and settle it on any other day as to them seems best.” Constantine’s edict marks a signal change in the history of the Sunday festival. Dr. Heylyn testifies: — “Hitherto have we spoken of the Lord’s day as taken up by the common consent of the church; not instituted or established by any text of Scripture, or edict of emperor, or decree of council. .. In that which followeth, we shall find both emperors and councils very frequent in ordering things about this day and the service of it.” After his professed conversion to Christianity, Constantine still further exerted his power in behalf of the venerable day of the sun, now formally transformed into the Lord’s day, by the apostolic authority of the Roman bishop. Heylyn again says: — “So natural a power it is in a Christian prince to order things about religion, that he not only took upon him to command the day, but also to prescribe the service.” The influence of Constantine powerfully contributed to the aid of those church leaders who were intent upon bringing the forms of pagan worship into the Christian church. Gibbon thus places upon record the motives of these men, and the result of their action: — “The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstition of paganism, if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity. The religion of Constantine achieved, in less than a century, the final conquest of the, Roman empire; but the victors themselves were insensibly subdued by the arts of their vanquished rivals.” The body of nominal Christians, which resulted from this strange union of pagan rites with Christian worship, arrogated to itself the title of Catholic church; while the true people of God, who resisted these dangerous innovations, were branded as heretics, and cast out of the church. It is not strange that the Sabbath should lose ground in such a body, in struggling with its rival, the festival of the sun. Indeed, after a brief period, the history of the Sabbath will be found only in the almost obliterated records of those whom the Catholic church cast out and stigmatized as heretics. Of the Sabbath in Constantine’s time, Heylyn says: — “As for the Saturday, that retained its wonted credit in the Eastern churches, little inferior to the Lord’s day, if not plainly equal, not as a Sabbath, think not so; but as a day designed unto sacred meetings.” There is no doubt that, after the great flood of worldliness which entered the church at the time of Constantine’s pretended conversion, and after all that was done by himself and by Sylvester in behalf of Sunday, the observance of the Sabbath became, with many, only a nominal thing. But the action of the council of Laodicea, to which we shall presently refer, proves conclusively that the Sabbath was still observed, not simply as a festival, as Heylyn would have it, but as a day of abstinence from labor, as enjoined in the commandment.
The work of Constantine, however, marks an epoch in the history of the Sabbath and of Sunday. Constantine was hostile to the Sabbath, and his influence told powerfully against it with all those who sought worldly advancement. The historian Eusebius was the special friend and eulogist of Constantine. This fact should not be overlooked in weighing his testimony concerning the Sabbath. He speaks of it as follows: — “They [the patriarchs] did not, therefore, regard circumcision, nor observe the Sabbath, nor do we; neither do we abstain from certain foods, nor regard other injunctions which Moses subsequently delivered to be observed in types and symbols, because such things as these do not belong to Christians.” This testimony shows precisely the views of Constantine and the imperial party relative to the Sabbath. But it does not give the views of Christians as a whole; for we have seen that the Sabbath had been extensively retained up to this point, and we: shall soon have occasion to quote other historians, the contemporaries and successors of Eusebius, who record its continued observance. Constantine exerted a controlling influence in the church, and was determined to “have nothing in common with that most hostile rabble of the Jews.” Happy would it have been had his aversion been directed against the festivals of the heathen, rather than against the Sabbath of the Lord.
Before Constantine’s time, there is no trace of the doctrine of: the change of the Sabbath. On the contrary, we have decisive evidence that Sunday was a day on which ordinary labor was considered lawful and proper. But Constantine, while yet a heathen, commanded that every kind of business excepting agriculture should be laid aside on that day. His law designated the day as a heathen festival, which it actually was. But within four years after its enactment, Constantine had become, not merely a professed convert to the Christian religion, but, in many respects, practically the head of the church, as the course of things at the Council of Nicaea plainly showed. His heathen Sunday law, being unrevoked, was thenceforward enforced in behalf of that day as a Christian festival. This law gave to thin Sunday festival, for the first time, something of a. Sabbatic character. It was now a rest-day from most kinds of business, by the law of the Roman empire. God’s rest-day was thenceforward more in the way than ever before.
But now we come to a fact of remarkable interest. The way having been prepared, as we have just seen, for the doctrine of the change of the Sabbath, and the circumstances of the case demanding its production, it was at this very point brought forward for the first time. Eusebius, the special friend and flatterer of Constantine, was the man who first put forth this doctrine. In his “Commentary on the Psalms” he makes the following statement on Psalm 92, respecting the change of the Sabbath: — “Wherefore as they [the Jews] rejected it [the Sabbath law], the Word [Christ], by the new covenant, TRANSLATED and TRANSFERRED the feast of the Sabbath to the morning light, and gave us the symbol of true rest, viz., the saving Lord’s day, the first [‘day] of the light, in which the Savior of the world, after all his labors among men, obtained the victory over death, and passed the portals of heaven, having achieved a work superior to the sixdays’ creation.” “On this day, which is the first [day] of light and of the true Sun, we assemble, after an interval of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual Sabbaths, even all nations redeemed by him throughout the world, and do those things according to the spiritual law, which were decreed for the priests to do on the Sabbath.” “And all things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s day, as more appropriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence and is first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath.” Eusebius was under the strongest temptation to please and even to flatter Constantine; for he lived in the sunshine of imperial favor. On one occasion he went so far as to say that the city of Jerusalem, which Constantine had rebuilt, might be the New Jerusalem predicted in the prophecies! 55 But perhaps there was no act of Eusebius that could give Constantine greater pleasure than his publication of such doctrine as this respecting the change of the Sabbath. The emperor had, by the civil law, given to Sunday a Sabbatical character. Though he had done this while yet a heathen, he found it to his interest to maintain this law after he obtained a commanding position in the Catholic church. When, therefore, Eusebius came out and declared that Christ transferred the Sabbath to Sunday, a doctrine never before heard of, and in support of which he had no Scripture to quote, Constantine could not but feel in the highest degree flattered that his own Sabbatical edict pertained to the very day which Christ had ordained to be the Sabbath in place of the seventh. It was a convincing proof that Constantine was divinely called to his high position in the Catholic church, that he should thus exactly identify his work with that of Christ, though he had no knowledge at the time that Christ had done any work of the kind.
As no writer before Eusebius had ever hinted at the doctrine of the change of the Sabbath; and as there is the most convincing proof, as we have shown, that before his time Sunday possessed no Sabbatic character; and as Eusebius does not claim that this doctrine is asserted in the Scriptures, nor in any preceding ecclesiastical writer, it is certain that he was the father of the doctrine. This new doctrine was not put forth without some motive. That motive could not have been to bring forward some neglected passages of the Scriptures; for he does not quote a single text in its support. But the circumstances of the Case plainly reveal the motive. The new doctrine was exactly adapted to the new order of things introduced by Constantine. It was, moreover, peculiarly suited to flatter that emperor’s pride, the very thing which Eusebius was under the strongest temptation to do.
It is remarkable, however, that Eusebius, in the very connection in which he announces this new doctrine, unwittingly exposes its falsity. He first asserts that Christ changed the Sabbath, and then virtually contra-diets it by indicating the real authors of the change. Thus he says: — “All things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s day.” The persons here referred to as the authors of this work are the Emperor Constantine, and such bishops as Eusebius, who loved the favor of princes, and Sylvester, the pretended successor of Saint Peter. Two facts refute the assertion of Eusebius that Christ changed the Sabbath: 1. Eusebius, who lived three hundred years after the alleged change, is the first man who mentions such a change; 2. Eusebius testifies that himself and others made this change, which they could not have done had Christ made it at the beginning.
But though the doctrine of the change of the Sabbath was thus announced by Eusebius, it was not seconded by any writer of that age. The doctrine had never been heard of before, and Eusebius had simply his own assertion, but no passage of the Holy Scriptures to offer in its support.
But after Constantine, the Sabbath began to recover strength, at least in the Eastern churches. Prof. Stuart, in speaking of the period from Constantine to the council of Laodicea, A.D. 364, says: — “The practice of it [the keeping of the Sabbath] was continued by Christians who were jealous for the honor of the Mosaic law, and finally became, as we have seen, predominant throughout Christendom. It was supposed at length that the fourth commandment did require the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath (not merely a seventh part of time), and reasoning as Christians of the present day are wont to do, viz., that all which belonged to the ten commandments was immutable and perpetual, the churches in general came gradually to regard the seventh-day Sabbath as altogether sacred.” Prof. Stuart, however, connects with this the statement that Sunday was honored by all parties. But the council of Laodicea struck a heavy blow at this Sabbath-keeping in the Eastern church. Mr. James, in addressing the University of Oxford, bears this witness: — “When the practice of keeping Saturday Sabbaths, which had become so general at the close of this century, was evidently gaining ground in the Eastern church, a decree was passed in the council held at Laodicea [A.D. 364] ‘that members of the church should not rest from work on the Sabbath, like Jews; but should labor on that day, and preferring in honor the Lord’s day, then, if it be in their power, should rest from work as Christians.” This shows conclusively that at that period the observance of the Sabbath according to the commandment was extensive in the Eastern churches. But the Laodicean council not only forbade ‘the observance of the Sabbath, but they even pronounced a curse on those who should obey the fourth commandment! Prynne thus testifies: — “It is certain that Christ himself, his apostles, and the primitive Christians for some good space of time, did constantly observe the seventh-day ‘Sabbath:... the evangelists and St. Luke in the Acts ever styling it the Sabbath-day,... and making mention of its... solemnization by the apostles and other Christians,. .. it being ‘still solemnized by many Christians after the apostles’ times, even till the council of Laodicea [A.D. 364], as ecclesiastical writers and the twenty-ninth canon of that council testify, which runs thus: “Because Christians ought not to Judaize, and to rest in the Sabbath, but to work in that day (which many did refuse at that time to do). But preferring in honor the Lord’s day (there being then a great controversy among Christians which of these two days... should have precedence), if they desired to rest, they should do this as Christians. Wherefore if they shall be found to Judaize, let them be accursed from Christ.’... The seventh-day Sabbath was... solemnized by Christ, the apostles, and primitive Christians, till the Laodicean council did in a manner quite abolish the observation of it. .. The council of Laodicea [A.D. 364]... first settled the observation of the Lord’s day, and prohibited... the keeping of the Jewish Sabbath under an anathema.” The action of this council did not extirpate the Sabbath from the Eastern churches, though it did materially weaken its influence, and cause its observance to become with many only a nominal thing, while it did most effectively enhance the sacredness and the authority of the Sunday festival. That it did not wholly extinguish Sabbath-keeping is thus certified by an old English writer, John Ley: — “From the apostles’ time until the council of Laodicea, which was about the year 364, the holy observation of the Jews’ Sabbath continued, as may be proved, out of many authors; yea, notwithstanding the decree of that council against it.” And Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, about A.D. 272, uses this expostulation: — “With what eyes can you behold the Lord’s day, when you despise the Sabbath? Do you not perceive that they are sisters, and that in slighting the one, you affront the other?” This testimony is valuable in that it marks the progress of apostasy concerning the Sabbath. The Sunday festival entered the church, not as a divine institution, but as a voluntary observance. Even as late as A.D. 200, Tertullian said that it had only tradition and custom in its Support. But in A.D. 372 this human festival had become the sister and equal of that day which God hallowed in the beginning, and solemnly commanded in the moral law. How worthy to be called the sister of the Sabbath the Sunday festival actually was, may’ be judged from what followed. When this selfstyled sister had gained an acknowledged position in the family, she expelled the other, and trampled her in the dust. In our days, the Sunday festival claims to be the ‘very day intended in the fourth commandment.
The following testimonies exhibit the authority of church councils in its true light. Jortin is quoted by Cox as saying: — “In such assemblies, the best and the most moderate men seldom have the ascendant, and they are often led or driven by others who are far inferior to them in good qualities:” The same writer gives us Baxter’s opinion of the famous Westminster Assembly. Baxter says: — “I have lived to see an assembly of ministers, where three or four leading men were so prevalent as to form a confession in the name of the whole party, which had that in it which particular members did disown. And when about a controverted article, one man hath charged me deeply with questioning the words of the church, others, who were at the forming of that article, have laid it all on that same man, the rest being loath to strive much against him; and so it was, he himself was the church whose authority he so much urged.” Such has been the nature of councils in all ages; yet they have ever claimed infallibility, and have largely used that infallibility in the suppression of the Sabbath and the establishment of the festival of Sunday. Of first-day sacredness prior to, and as late as, the time of Chrysostom, Kitto thus testifies: — “Though in later times we find considerable reference to a sort of consecration of the day, it does not seem at any period of the ancient church to have assumed the form of such an observance as some modern religious communities have contended for. Nor do these writers in any instance pretend to allege any divine command, or even apostolic practice in support of it...Chrysostom (A.D. 360) concludes one of his Homilies by dismissing his audience to their respective ordinary occupations.” It was reserved for modern theologians to discover the divine or apostolic authority for Sunday observance. The ancient doctors of the church were unaware that ally such authority existed; and hence they deemed it lawful and proper to engage in usual worldly business on that day, when their religious worship was concluded. Heylyn bears witness concerning St.
Chrysostom that he — “Confessed it to be lawful for a man to look unto his worldly business on the Lord’s day, after the congregation was dismissed.” St. Jerome, a few years after this, at, the opening of the fifth century, in his commendation of the lady Paula, shows his own opinion of Sunday labor. Thus he says: — “Paula, with the women, as soon as they returned home on the Lord’s day, they sat down severally to their work, and made clothes for themselves and others.” Morer justifies this Sunday labor in the following terms: — “If we read they did any work on the Lord’s day, it is to be remembered that this application to their daily tasks was not till their worship was quite over, when they might with innocence enough resume them, because the length of time or the number of hours assigned for piety was not then so well explained as in after ages. The state of the church is vastly different from what it was in those early days. Christians then, for some centuries of years, were under persecution and poverty; and besides their own wants: they had. many of them severe masters, who compelled them to work, and made them bestow less time in spiritual matters titan they otherwise would. In St. Jerome’s age, their condition was better, because 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 constitutions, 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 had got a considerable figure in the world. Now, therefore, the case being so much altered, the most proper use of citing those old examples, is only, in. point of doctrine, to show that ordinary work, as being a compliance with Providence for the support of natural life, is not sinful even on the Lord’s day, when necessity is loud, and the laws of that church and nation where we live are not against it. This is what the first Christians had to say for themselves, in the works they did on that day. And if those works had been then judged a profanation of the festival, I dare believe, they would have suffered martyrdom rather than been guilty.” The bishop of Ely thus testifies: — “In St. Jerome’s days, and in the very place where he was residing, the devoutest Christians did ordinarily work upon the Lord’s day, when the service of the church was ended.” St. Augustine, the contemporary of Jerome, gives a synopsis of the argument in that age for Sunday observance, in the following words: — “It appears from the sacred Scriptures, that this day was a Solemn one; it was the first day of the age, that is, of the existence of our world; in it the elements of the world were formed; on it the angels were created; on it Christ rose also from the dead; on it the Holy Spirit descended from heaven upon the apostles, as manna had done in the wilderness. For these and other such circumstances the Lord’s day is distinguished; and therefore the holy doctors of the church have decreed that all the glory of the Jewish Sabbath is transferred to it. Let us therefore keep the Lord’s day as the ancients were commanded to do the Sabbath.” It is to be observed that Augustine does not assign among his reasons for first-day observance, the change of the Sabbath by Christ or his apostles, or that the apostles observed that day, or that John had given it the name of “Lord’s day.” These modern first-day arguments were unknown to Augustine. He gave the credit of the work, not to Christ or his inspired apostles, but to the holy doctors of the church, who, of their own accord, had transferred the glory of the ancient Sabbath to the venerable day of the sun. In the fifth century, the first day of the week was considered the most proper day for giving holy orders; that is, for ordinations; and about the middle of this century, says Heylyn, — “A law [was] made by Leo, then pope of Rome, and generally since taken up in the Western church, that they should be conferred upon no day else.” 72 According to Dr. Justin Edwards, this same pope made also this decree in behalf of Sunday: — “WE ORDAIN, according to the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, and of the apostles as thereby directed, that on the sacred day wherein our own integrity was restored, all do rest and cease from labor.” Soon after this edict of the pope, the Emperor Leo, A. D 469, put forth the following decree: — “It is our will and pleasure, that the: holy days dedicated to the most high God, should not be spent in sensual recreations, or otherwise profaned by suits of law, especially the Lord’s day, which we decree to be a venerable day, and therefore free it of all citations, executions, pleadings, and the like avocations. Let not the circus or theater be opened, nor combating with wild beasts be seen on it...If any will presume to offend in the premises, if he be a military man, let him lose his commission; or if other, let his estate or goods be confiscated.” And this emperor determined to mend the breach in Constantine’s law, and thus prohibit agriculture on Sunday; so he adds: — “We command, therefore, all, as well husbandmen as others, to forbear work on this day of our restoration.” The holy doctors of the church had by this time very effectually despoiled the Sabbath of its glory, transferring it to the Lord’s day of Pope Sylvester, as Augustine testifies; yet was not Sabbatical observance wholly extinguished even in the Catholic church. The historian Socrates, who wrote about the middle of the fifth century, says: — “For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to do this. The Egyptians in the neighborhood of Alexandria, and the inhabitants of Thebais, hold their religious meetings on the Sabbath, but do not participate of the mysteries in the manner usual among Christians in general; for, after having eaten and satisfied themselves with food of all kinds, in the evening, making their oblations, they partake of the mysteries.” As the church of Rome had turned the Sabbath into a fast some two hundred years before this, in order to oppose its observance, it is probable that this was the ancient tradition referred to by’ Socrates. And Sozomen, the contemporary of Socrates, speaks on the same point as follows: — “The people of Constantinople, and of several other cities, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the next day; which custom is never observed at ‘Rome, or at Alexandria. There are several cities and villages in Egypt, where, contrary to the usages established elsewhere, the people meet together on Sabbath evenings; and although they had dined previously, partake of the mysteries.” On the statement of these historians, Cox remarks: — “It was their practice to Sabbatize on Saturday, and to celebrate Sunday as a day of rejoicing and festivity. While, however, in some places a respect was thus generally paid to both of these days, the Judaizing practice of observing Saturday was by the leading churches expressly condemned, and all the doctrines connected with it steadfastly resisted.” The time has now come, when, as stated by Coleman, the observance of the Sabbath was deemed heretical; and the close of the fifth century witnessed its effectual suppression in the great body of the Catholic church.
SUNDAY DURING THE DARK AGES
The pope becomes the head of all the churches — The people of God retire into the wilderness — Sunday to be traced through the Dark Ages in the history of the Catholic church — State of that festival in the sixth century — It did not acquire the title of Sabbath for many ages — Time when it became a day of abstinence from labor in the East — When in the West — Sunday canon of the first council of Orleans — Of the council of Arragon — Of the third council of Orleans — Of a council at Mascon — At Narbon — At Auxerre — Miracles establishing the sacredness of Sunday — The pope advises men to atone, by the pious observance of Sunday, for the sins of the previous week — The Sabbath and Sunday both strictly kept by a class at Rome, who were put down by the pope — According to Twisse, they were two distinct classes — The Sabbath, like its Lord, crucified between two thieves — Council of Chalons — Council at Toledo, in which the Jews were forbidden to keep the Sabbath, and commanded to keep Sunday — First English law for Sun-day-Council at Constantinople — In England — In Bavaria — Canon of the archbishop of York — Statutes of Charlemange, and canons of councils which he called — The pope aids in the work — Council at Paris originates a famous first-day argument — The councils fail to establish Sunday sacredness — The emperors besought to semi out some more terrible edict in order to compel the observance of that day — The pope takes the matter in hand in earnest, and gives Sunday an effectual establishment — Other statutes and canons — Sunday piety of a Norwegian king — Sunday consecrated to the mass — Curious but obsolete first-day arguments — The eating of meat forbidden upon the Sabbath by the pope — Pope Urban II. ordains the Sabbath of the Lord to be a festival for the worship of the Virgin Mary — Apparition from St. Peter — The pope sends Eustace into England with a roll that fell from heaven, commanding Sunday observance under direful penalties — Miracles which followed — Sunday established in Scotland — Other Sunday laws down to the Reformation — Sunday always only a human ordinance.
THE opening of the sixth century witnessed the development of the great apostasy to such an extent that the man of sin might be plainly seen sitting in the temple of God.(2 Thessalonians 2.) The Western Roman empire had been broken up into ten kingdoms, and the way was now prepared for the work of the little horn.(Daniel 7.) In the early part of this century, the bishop of Rome was made head over the entire church by the emperor of the East, Justinian. 1 The dragon gave unto the beast his power, and his seat, and great authority. From this accession to supremacy by the Roman pontiff, date the “time, times, and dividing of time,” or twelve hundred and sixty years, of the prophecies of Daniel and John.(Daniel 7:8,24,25; Revelation 13:1-5.)
The true people of God now retired for safety into places of obscurity and seclusion, as represented by the prophecy: “The woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and three-score days.”(Revelation 12.)
Leaving their history for the present, let us follow that of the Catholic church, and trace in its ‘record the history of the Sunday festival through the period of the Dark Ages. Of the fifth and sixth centuries, Heylyn bears the following testimony: — “The faithful, being united better than before, became more uniform in matters of devotion; and in that uniformity did agree together to give the Lord’s day all the honors of an holy festival.
Yet was not this done all at once, but by degrees; the fifth and sixth centuries being well-nigh spent before it came into that height which hath since continued. The emperors and the prelates in these times had the same affections; both [being] earnest to advance this day above all other; and to the edicts of the one, and ecclesiastical constitutions of the other, it stands indebted for many of those privileges and exemptions which it still enjoyeth.” But Sunday had not yet acquired the title of Sabbath. Brerewood gives this testimony: — “The name of the Sabbath remained appropriated to the old Sabbath; and was never attributed to the Lord’s day, not of many hundred years after our Savior’s time.” 3 And Heylyn says of the term “Sabbath” in the ancient church: — “The Saturday is called among them by no other name than that which formerly it had, the Sabbath. So that whenever for a thousand years and upwards, we meet with Sabbatum in any writer of what name soever, it must be understood of no day but Saturday .” Dr. Francis White, bishop of Ely, also testifies: — “When the ancient Fathers distinguish, and give proper names to the particular days of the ‘week, they always style the Saturday, Sabbatum, the Sabbath; and the Sunday, or first day of the week, Dominicum, the Lord’s day.” It should be observed, however, that the earliest mention of Sunday as the Lord’s day, is in the writings of Tertullian; Justin Martyr, some sixty years before, styling it “the day called Sunday;” while the authoritative application of that term to Sunday was by Sylvester, bishop of Rome, more than one hundred years after the time of Tertullian. The earliest mention of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath is thus noted by Heylyn: — “The first who ever used it to denote the Lord’s day (the first that I have met with in all this search) is one Petrus Alfonsus — he lived about the time that Rupertus did [which was the beginning of the twelfth century] — who calls the Lord’s day by the name of Christian Sabbath.” Of Sunday labor in the Eastern church, Heylyn says: — “It was near nine hundred years from our Savior’s birth, if not quite so much, before restraint of husbandry on this day had been first thought of in the East; and probably being thus restrained, did find no more obedience there than it had done before in the Western parts.” Of Sunday labor in the Western church, Dr. Francis White speaks as follows: — “The Catholic church, for more than six hundred years after Christ, permitted labor, and gave license to many Christian people to work upon the Lord’s day at such hours as they were not commanded to be present at the public service by the precept of the church.” But let us trace the several steps by which the festival of Sunday increased in strength until it attained its complete development. These will be found at present mostly in the edicts of emperors, and the decrees of councils.
Morer tells us that:— “Under Clodoveus, king of France, met the bishops in the first council of Orleans [A.D. 507], where they obliged themselves and their successors to be always at the church on the Lord’s day, except in case of sickness or some great infirmity. And because they, with some other of the clergy in those days, took cognizance of judicial matters, therefore by a council at Arragon, about the year 518, in the reign of Theodorick, king of the Goths, it was decreed that ‘No bishop or other person in holy orders should examine or pass judgment in any civil controversy on the Lord’s day.” This shows that civil courts were sometimes held on Sunday by the bishops in those days; otherwise such a prohibition would not have been put forth. Hengstenberg, in his notice Of the third council of Orleans, gives us an insight into the then existing state of the Sunday festival: — “The third council of Orleans, A.D. 538, says in its twenty-ninth canon: ‘ The opinion is spreading amongst the people, that it is wrong to ride, or drive, or cook food, or do anything to the house or the person on the Sunday. But since such opinions are more Jewish than Christian, that shall be lawful in future which has been so to the present time. On the other hand, agricultural labor ought to be laid aside, in order that the people may not be prevented from attending church. ” Observe the reason assigned. It is not lest they violate the law of the Sabbath, but it is that they may not be kept front church. Another authority states the case thus:— “Labor in the country [on Sunday] was not prohibited till the council of Orleans, A.D. 538. It was thus an institution of the church, as Dr. Palcy has remarked. The earlier Christians met in the morning of that day for prayer and singing hymns, in commemoration of Christ’s resurrection, and then went about their usual duties.” In A.D. 588 another council was held, the occasion of which is given in the following extract: — “And because, notwithstanding all this care, the day was not duly observed, the bishops were again summoned to Mascon, a town in Burgundy, by King Gunthrum, and there they framed this canon: ‘Notice is taken that Christian people very much neglect and slight the Lord’s day, giving themselves, as on other days, to common work, to redress which irreverence, for the future, we warn every Christian who bears not that name in vain, to give ear to our advice, knowing we have a concern on us for your good, and a power to hinder you to do evil. Keep, then, the Lord’s day, the day of our new birth.” Further legislation being necessary, we find that: — “About a year forward, there was a council at Narbon, which forbid all persons of what country or quality soever, to do any servile work on the Lord’s day. But if any man presumed to disobey this canon, he was to be fined if a freeman, and if a servant, severely lashed. Or, as Surius represents the penalty in the edict of King Recaredus, which he put out, near the same time, to strengthen the decrees of the council, ‘Rich men were to be punished with a loss of a moiety of their estates, and the poorer sort with perpetual banishment,’ in the year of grace 590. Another synod was held at Auxerre, a city in Champain, in the reign of Clotair, king of France, where it was decreed... ‘ that no man should be allowed to plow, nor cart, or do any such thing on the Lord’s day.” Such were some of the efforts made in the sixth century to advance the sacredness of the Sunday festival. And Morer tells us that: — “For fear the doctrine should not take without miracles to support it, Gregory of Tours [about A.D. 590] furnishes us with several to that purpose.” 14 Mr. Francis West, an English first-day writer, gravely adduces one of these miracles in support; of first-day sacredness: — “Gregory of Tours reporteth, ‘ that a husbandman, who upon the Lord’s day went to plough his field, as he cleansed his plough with an iron, the iron stuck so fast in his hand that for two years he could not be delivered from it, but carried it about continually, to his exceeding great pain and shame.” In the conclusion of the sixth century, Pope Gregory exhorted the people of Rome to “expiate on the day of our Lord’s resurrection what Was remissly done for the six days before.” 16 In the same epistle, this pope condemned a class of men at Rome who advocated the strict observance of both the Sabbath and the Sunday, styling them the preachers of Antichrist. 17 This shows the intolerant feeling of the papacy toward the Sabbath, even when joined with the strict observance of Sunday. It also shows that there were Sabbath-keepers even in Rome itself as late as the seventh century, although so far bewildered by the prevailing darkness that they joined with its observance a strict abstinence from labor on Sunday.
In the early part of the seventh century, arose another foe to the Bible Sabbath in the person of Mahomet. To distinguish his followers alike from those who observed the Sabbath and those who observed the festival of Sunday, he selected Friday, the sixth day of the week, as their religious festival. And thus “the Mohammedans and the Romanists crucified the Sabbath, as the Jews and the Romans did the Lord of the Sabbath, between two thieves, the sixth and the first days of the week; 18 for Mohammedanism and Romanism each suppressed the Sabbath over a wide extent of territory. About the middle of the seventh century, we have further canons of the church in behalf of Sunday: — “At Chalons, a city in Burgundy, about the year 654, there was a provincial synod which confirmed ‘what had been done by the third council of Orleans, about the observation of the Lord’s day, namely, that ‘none should plow or reap, or do any other thing belonging to husbandry, on pain of the censures of the church; which was the more minded, because backed with the secular power, and by an edict menacing such as offended herein; who, if bondmen, were to be soundly beaten, but if free, had three admonitions, and then if faulty, lost the third part of their patrimony, and if still obstinate, were made slaves for the future.
And in the first year of Eringius, about the time of Pope Agatho, there sat the twelfth council of Toledo in Spain, A.D. 681, where the Jews were forbidden to keep their own festivals, but so far at least observe the Lord’s day as to do no manner of work on it, whereby they might express their contempt of Christ or his worship.” These were weighty reasons indeed for Sunday observance! Nor can it be thought strange that in the Dark Ages a constant succession of such things should eventuate in the universal observance of that day. Even the Jews were to be compelled to desist from Sabbath observance, and to honor Sunday by resting on that day from their labor. The earliest mention of Sunday in English statutes appears to be the following: — A.D. 692. “Ina, king of the West Saxons, by the advice of Conred his father, and Heddes and Erkenwald his bishops, with all his aldermen and sages, in a great assembly of the servants of God, for the health of their souls, and common preservation of the kingdom, made several constitutions, of which this was the third: ‘If a servant do any work on Sunday by his master’s order, he shall be free, and the master pay thirty shillings; but if he went to work on his own head, he shall be either beaten with stripes, or ransom himself with a price. A freeman, if he works on this day, shall lose his freedom, or pay sixty shillings; if he be a priest, double.” The same year that this law was enacted in England, the sixth general council convened at Constantinople, which decreed that: — “If any bishop or other clergyman, or any of the laity, absented himself from the church three Sundays together, except in cases of very great necessity, if a clergyman, he was to be deposed; if a layman, debarred the holy communion.” In the year 747 a council of the English clergy was called under Cuthbert, archbishop of Canterbury, in the reign of Egbert, king of Kent, and this constitution made: — “It is ordered that the Lord’s day be celebrated with due veneration, and wholly devoted to the worship of God. And that all abbots and priests, on this most holy day, remain in their respective monasteries and churches, and there do their duty according to their places.” Another ecclesiastical statute of the eighth century was enacted at Dingosolinum in Bavaria, where a synod met about 772, which decreed that:— “If any man shall work his cart on this day, or do any such common business, his team shall be presently forfeited to the public use; and if the party persists in his folly, let him be sold for a bondman.” The English were not behind their neighbors in the good work of establishing the sacredness of Sunday. Thus we read: — A.D. 784. “Egbert, archbishop of York, to show positively what was to be done on Sundays, and what the laws designed by prohibiting ordinary work to be done on such days, made this canon: ‘ Let nothing else, saith he, be done on the Lord’s day, but to attend on God in hymns and psalms and spiritual songs.
Whoever marries on Sunday, let him do penance for seven days.” In the conclusion of the eighth century, further efforts were made in behalf of this favored day: — “Charles the Great summoned the bishops to Friuli, in Italy, where... they decreed [A.D. 791] that all people should, with due reverence and devotion, honor the Lord’s day. .. Under the same prince, another council was called three years later at Frankford in Germany, and there the limits of the Lord’s day were determined from Saturday evening to Sunday evening.” The five councils of Mentz, Rheims, Tours, Chalons, and Arles were all called in the year 813 by Charlemagne. It would be too irksome to the reader to dwell upon the several acts of these councils in behalf of Sunday.
They are of the same character as those already quoted. The council of Chalons, however, is worthy of being noticed, in that, according to Morer, — “They entreated the help of the secular power, and desired the emperor [Charlemagne] to provide for the stricter observation of it [Sunday]. Which he accordingly did, and left no stone unturned to secure the honor of the day. His care succeeded; and during his reign, the Lord’s day bore a considerable figure. But after his day, it put on another face.” The pope lent a helping hand in checking the profanation of Sunday: — “And thereupon rope Eugenius, in a synod held at Rome about 826.. gave directions that the parish priest should admonish such offenders, and wish them to go to church and say their prayers, lest otherwise they might bring some great calamity on themselves and neighbors.” All this, however, was not sufficient; and so another council was summoned. At this council was brought forward — perhaps for the first time — the famous first-day argument now so familiar to all, that Sunday is proved to be the true Sabbath because men are struck by lightning who labor on that day. Thus we read: — “But these paternal admonitions turning to little account, a provincial council was held at Paris three years after,... in 829, wherein the prelates complain that ‘the Lord’s day was not kept with reverence as became religion,... which was the reason that God had sent several judgments on them, and in a very remarkable manner punished some people for slighting and abusing it. For, say they, many of us by our own knowledge, and some by hearsay, know that several countrymen, following their husbandry on this day, have been killed with lightning; others, being seized with convulsions in their joints, have miserably perished. Whereby it is apparent how high the displeasure of God was upon their neglect of this day.’ And at last they conclude that ‘in the first place the priests and ministers, then kings and princes, and all faithful people, be beseeched to use their utmost endeavors and care that the day be restored ‘to its honor, and, for the credit of Christianity, more devoutly observed for the time to come.” Further legislation being necessary, — “It was decreed about seven years, after, in a council at Aken, under Lewis the Godly, that neither pleadings nor marriages should be allowed on the Lord’s day.” But the law of Charlemagne, though backed by the authority of the church, as expressed in the canons of the councils already quoted, became very feeble by the remissness of Lewis, his successor. It is evident that canons and decrees of councils, though fortified with the mention of terrible judgments that had befallen transgressors, were not yet sufficient to enforce the sacred day. Another and more terrific statute than any yet issued was sought at the hands of the emperor, as here expressed:— “Thereupon an address was made to the emperors, Lewis and Lotharius, that they would be pleased to take some care in it, and send out some precept or injunction more severe than what was hitherto extant, to strike terror into their subjects, and force them to forbear their ploughing, pleading, and marketing, then grown again into use; which was done about the year 853; and to that end, a synod was called at Rome under the popedom of Leo IV.” The advocates of the first-day Sabbath have in all ages sought for a law capable of striking terror into those who do not hallow that day. They still continue the vain endeavor. But if they would honor the day which God set apart for the Sabbath, they would find in that law of fire which proceeded from his right hand a statute which renders all human legislation entirely unnecessary.(Exodus 20:8-11; Deuteronomy 33:2.)
At this synod, the pope took the matter in hand in good earnest. Heylyn testifies that under the emperors Lewis and Lotharius, a synod was held at Rome, A.D. 853, under Pope Leo IV., — “Where it was ordered more precisely than in former times that no man should from thenceforth dare to make any markets on the Lord’s day, no, not for things that were to eat; neither to do any kind of work that belonged to husbandry. Which canon being made at Rome, confirmed at Compeigne, and afterwards incorporated, as it was, into the body of the canon law, became to be admitted, without further question, in most parts of Christendom, especially when the popes had attained their height, and brought all Christian princes to be at their devotion. For then the people, who before had most opposed it, might have justly said, ‘Behold, two kings stood not before him, how then shall we stand? ’ Out of which consternation all men presently obeyed, tradesmen of all sorts being brought to lay by their labors; and amongst those, the miller, though his work was easiest, and least of all required his presence.” This was a most effectual establishment of first-day sacredness. Five years after this we read as follows: — A.D. 858. “The Bulgarians sent some questions to Pope Nicholas, to which they desired answers. And that [answer] which concerned the Lord’s day was that they should desist from all secular work, etc.” Morer informs us respecting the civil power, that — “In this century the Emperor [of Constantinople] Leo, surnamed the philosopher, restrained the works of husbandry, which, according to Constantine’s toleration, were permitted in the East.
The same care was taken in the West by Theodorius, king of the Bavarians, who made this order, that ‘If any person on the Lord’s day yoked his oxen, or drove his wain, his right-side ox should be forthwith forfeited; or if he made hay and carried it in, he was to be twice admonished to desist, which if he did not, he was to receive no less than fifty stripes.” Of Sunday laws in England in this century, we read.: — A.D. 876. “Alfred the Great was the first who united the Saxon heptarchy, and it was not the least part of his care to make a law that, among other festivals, this day more especially might be solemnly kept, because it was the day whereon our Savior Christ overcame the devil; meaning Sunday, which is the weekly memorial of our Lord’s resurrection, whereby he overcame death, and him who had the power of death, that is the devil. And whereas, before, the single punishment for sacrilege committed on any other day was to restore the value of the thing stolen, and withal lose one hand, he added that if any person was found guilty of this crime done on the Lord’s day, he should be doubly punished.” Nineteen. years later, the pope and his council still further strengthened the sacred day. The council of. Friburgh in Germany, A.D. 895, under Pope Formosus decreed that the Lord’s day, men “were to spend in prayers, and devote wholly to the service of God, who otherwise might be provoked to anger.” 35 The work of establishing Sunday sacredness in England was carried steadily forward: — “King Athelston,... in the year 928, made a law that there should be no marketing or civil pleadings on the Lord’s day, under the penalty of forfeiting the commodity, besides a fine of thirty shillings for each offense.” In a convocation of the English clergy about this time, it was decreed that all sorts of traffic and the holding of courts, etc., on Sunday should cease. “And whoever transgressed in any of these instances, if a freeman, he was to pay twelve erin; if a servant, be severely whipped.” We are further informed that — “About the year 943, Otho, archbishop of Canterbury, had it decreed that above all things the, Lord’s day should be kept with all imaginable caution, according to the canon and ancient practice.” A.D. 967. King Edgar “commanded that the festival should be kept from three of the clock in the afternoon on Saturday, till day-break on Monday.” “King Ethelred the younger, son of Edgar, coming to the crown about the year 1009, called a general council of all the English clergy, under Elfeagus, archbishop of Canterbury, and Wolstan, archbishop of York. And there it was required that all persons in a more zealous manner should observe the Sunday, and what belonged to it.” 39 Nor did the Sunday festival fail to gain a footing in Norway. Heylyn tells us of the piety of a Norwegian king by the name of Olaus, A.D. 1028: — “For being taken up one Sunday in some serious thoughts, and having in his hand a small walking stick, he took his knife and whittled it, as men do sometimes, when their minds are troubled or intent on business. And when it had been told him, as by way of jest, how he had trespassed therein against the Sabbath, he gathered the small chips together, put them upon his hand, and set fire unto them, that so, saith Crantzius, he might revenge that on himself what unawares he had committed against God’s commandment.” In Spain also the work went forward. A council was held at Coy, A.D. 1050, under Ferdinand, king of Castile, in the days of Pope Leo IX., where it was decreed that the Lord’s day “was to be entirely consecrated to hearing of mass.” To strengthen the sacredness of this venerable day in the minds of the people, the doctors of the church were not wanting. Heylyn makes the following statement:— “It was delivered of the souls in purgatory by Petrus Damiani, who lived A.D. 1056, that every Lord’s day they were manumitted from their pains, and fluttered up and down the lake Avernus in the shape of birds.” At the same time, another argument of a similar kind was brought forward to render the observance still more strict. Morer informs us respecting that class who in this age were most zealous advocates of Sunday observance: — “Yet still the others went on in their way; and to induce their proselytes to spend the day with greater exactness and care, they brought in the old argument of compassion and charity to the damned in hell, who during the day have some respite from their torments, and’ the ease and liberty they have is more or less according to the zeal and degrees of keeping it well.” If, therefore, they would strictly observe this sacred festival, their friends in hell would reap the benefit, in a respite from their torments on that day!
In a council at Rome, A.D. 1075, Pope Gregory VII. decreed that as the Sabbath had been long regarded as a fast-day, those who desired to be Christians should on that day abstain from eating meat. 44 In the eastern division of the Catholic church, in the eleventh century, the Sabbath was still regarded as a festival, equal in sacredness with Sunday. Heylyn contrasts with this the action of the western division of that church: — “But it was otherwise of old in the church of Rome, where they did labor and fast. .. And this, with little opposition or interruption, save that which had been made in the city of Rome in the beginning of the seventh century, and was soon crushed by Gregory, then bishop there, as before we noted. And howsoever Urban, of that name the second, did consecrate it to the weekly service of the blessed virgin, and instituted in the council held at Clermont, A.D. 1095, that our lady’s office should be said upon it, and that upon that day all Christian folks should worship her with their best devotion.” It would seem that this was; a crowning indignity to the Most. High. The memorial of the great Creator was set apart as a festival on which to worship Mary, under the title of “Mother of God”! In the middle of the twelfth century, the king of England was admonished not to suffer men to work upon Sunday. Henry II. entered on the government about the year 1155. “Of him it is reported that he had an apparition at Cardiff (.. in South Wales), which from St. Peter charged him that upon Sundays, throughout his dominions, there should be no buying or selling, and no servile work done.” The sacredness of Sunday ‘was not yet sufficiently established, because a divine warrant for its observance was stilt unprovided. The manner in which this urgent necessity was met is related by Roger Hoveden, a historian of high repute, who lived at the very time when this muchneeded precept was furnished by the pope. Hoveden informs us that Eustace, the abbot of Flaye in Normandy, came into England in the year 1200, to preach the word of the Lord, and that his preaching was attended by many wonderful miracles. he was very earnest in behalf of Sunday.
Thus Hoveden says: — “At London also, and many other places throughout England, he effected by his preaching, that from that time forward people did not dare to hold market of things exposed for sale on the Lord’s day.” But Hoveden tells us that “the enemy of mankind raised against; this man of God the ministers of iniquity,” and it seems that, having no commandment for Sunday, he was in a strait place. The historian continues: — “However, the said abbot, on being censured by the ministers of Satan, was unwilling any longer to molest the prelates of England by his preaching, but returned to Normandy, unto his place whence he came.” But Eustace, though repulsed, had no thought of abandoning the contest, tie had no commandment from the Lord when he came into England the first time. But one year’s sojourn on the continent was sufficient to provide what he lacked. Hoveden tells us how he returned the following year with the needed precept: — “In the same year [1201], Eustace, abbot of Flaye, returned to England, and preaching therein the word of the Lord from city to city, and from place to place, forbade any person to hold a market of goods on sale upon the Lord’s day. For he said that the commandment under-written, as to the observance of the Lord’s day, had come down from heaven: — “THE HOLY COMMANDMENT AS TO THE LORD’S DAY, Which came from heaven to Jerusalem, and was found upon the altar of Saint Simeon, in Golgotha, where Christ was crucified for the sins of the world. The Lord sent down this epistle, which was found upon the altar of Saint Simeon, and after looking upon which three days and three nights, some men fell upon the earth, imploring mercy of God: And after the third hour, the patriarch arose, and Acharias the archbishop, and they opened the scroll, and received the holy epistle from God. And when they had taken the same, they found this writing therein: — “‘I am the Lord who commanded you to observe the holy day of the Lord, and ye have not kept it, and have not repented of your sins, as I have said in my gospel, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Whereas, I caused to be preached unto you repentance and amendment of life, you did not believe me, I have sent against you the pagans, who have shed your blood on the earth; and yet you have not believed; and because you did not keep the Lord’s day holy, for a few days you suffered hunger, but soon I gave you fullness, and after that you did still worse again. Once more, it is my will, that; no one, from the ninth hour on Saturday until sunrise on Monday, shall do any work except that which is good. “‘And if any person shall do so, he shall with penance make amends for the same. And if you do not pay obedience to this command, verily I say unto you, and I swear unto you, by my scat, and by my throne, and by the cherubim who watch my holy seat, that I will give you my commands by no other epistle, but I will open the heavens, and for rain I will rain upon you stones, and wood, and hot water in the night, that no one may take precautions against the same, and that so I may destroy all wicked men. “‘This do I say unto you; for the Lord’s holy day, you shall die the death; and for the other festivals of my saints which you have not kept: I will send unto you beasts that have the heads of lions, the hair of women, the tails of camels, and they shall be so ravenous that they shall devour your flesh, and yea shall long to flee away to the tombs of the dead, and to hide yourselves for fear of the beasts; and I will take away the light of the sun from before your eyes, and will send darkness upon you, that not seeing, you may slay one another, and that I may remove from you my face, and may not show mercy upon you. For I will burn the bodies and the hearts of you, and of all those who do not keep as holy the day of the Lord. “‘Hear ye my voice, that so ye may not perish in the land, for the holy day of the Lord. Depart from evil, and show repentance for your sins, For, if you do not do so, even as Sodom and Gomorrah shall you perish. Now, know ye, that you are saved by the prayers of my most holy mother, Mary, and of my most holy angels, who pray for you daily. I have given unto you wheat and wine in abundance, and for the same ye have not obeyed me. For the widows and orphans cry unto you daily, and unto them you show no mercy. The pagans show mercy, but you show none at all. The trees which bear fruit, I will cause to be dried up for your sins; the rivers and the fountains shall not give water. “‘I gave unto you a law in Mount Sinai, which you have not kept.
I gave you a law with mine own hands, which you have not observed. For you [was born into the world, and my festive day ye knew not. Being wicked men, ye have not kept the Lord’s day of my resurrection. By my right hand I swear unto you, that if you do not observe the Lord’s day, and the festivals of my saints, I will send unto you the pagan nations, that they may slay you. And still do you attend to the business of others, and take no consideration of this? For this will I send against you still worse beasts, who shall devour the breasts of your women. I will curse those who on the Lord’s day have wrought evil. “‘Those who act unjustly towards their brethren, will I curse.
Those who judge unrighteously the poor and the orphans upon the earth, will I curse. For me you forsake, and you follow the prince of this world: Give heed to my voice, and you shall have the blessing of mercy. But you cease not from your bad works, nor from the works of the devil. Because you are guilty of per-juries and adulteries, therefore the nations shall surround you, and shall, like beasts, devour you.’” That such a document was actually brought into England at this time, and in the manner here described, is so amply attested as to leave no doubt. Matthew Paris, like Hoveden, was actually a contemporary of Eustace.
Hoveden properly belongs to the twelfth century, for he died shortly after the arrival of Eustace with his roll. But Matthew Paris belongs to the thirteenth, as he was but young at the time this roll (A.D. 1201) was brought into England. Both have a high reputation for truthfulness, In speaking of the writers of that century, Mosheim bears the following testimony to the credibility of Matthew Paris: — “Among the historians, the first place is due to Matthew Paris, a writer of the highest merit, both in point of knowledge and prudence .” And Dr. Murdock says of him: — “He is accounted the best historian of the Middle Ages, — learned, independent, honest, and judicious.’” Matthew Paris relates the return of the abbot Eustachius (as he spells the name) from Normandy, and gives us a copy of the roll which he brought, and an account of its fall from heaven, as related by the abbot himself. He also tells us how the abbot came by it, tracing the history of the roll from the point when the patriarch gathered courage to take it into his hands, till the time when our abbot was commissioned to bring it into England. Thus he says: — “But when the patriarch and clergy of all the holy land had diligently examined the contents of this epistle, it was decreed in a general deliberation that the epistle should be sent to the judgment of the Roman pontiff, seeing that whatever he decreed to be done, would please all. And when at length the epistle had come to the knowledge of the lord pope, immediately he ordained heralds, who, being sent through different parts of the world, preached everywhere the doctrine of this epistle, the Lord working with them and confirming their words by signs following. Among whom the abbot of Flay, Eustachius by name, a devout and learned man, having entered the kingdom of England, did there shine with many miracles .” Now we know what the abbot was about during the year that he was absent from England. He could not establish first-day sacredness by his first mission to England, for he had no divine warrant in its behalf. He therefore retired from the mission long enough to make known the ‘necessities of the case’ to the “lord pope.” But when he came the second time, he brought the divine mandate for Sunday and with it the commission of the pope, authorizing him to proclaim that mandate to, the people, and informing them that it was sent to His Holiness from Jerusalem by those who saw it fall from heaven. Had Eustace framed this document himself, and then forged a commission from the pope, a few months would have discovered the imposture. But their genuineness was never questioned, as is shown by the preservation of this roll by the best historians of that time. We therefore trace the responsibility for this roll directly to the pope of Rome. The statement, of the pope that he received it from the hands of those who saw it fall from heaven, is the guaranty given by His Holiness to the people that the roll came from God. The historians then living, who record this transaction, were able to satisfy themselves that Eustace brought the roll from the pope; and they believed the pope’s statement that he had received it from heaven. It was Innocent III. who filled the office of pope at this time, of whom Bower speaks thus: — “Innocent was perfectly well qualified to raise the papal power and authority to the highest, pitch, and we shall see him improving, with great address, every opportunity that offered to compass that end.” Another eminent authority makes this statement: — “The external circumstances of his time also furthered Innocent’s views, and enabled him to make his pontificate the most marked in the annals of Rome; the culminating point of the temporal as well as the spiritual supremacy of the Roman See.” “His pontificate may be fairly considered to have been the period of the highest power of the Roman See.” The dense darkness of the Dark Ages still covered the earth, when that pontiff who raised the papacy to its highest elevation occupied the papal throne. Two facts worthy of much thought should here be named in connection: — 1. The first act of papal usurpation was by an edict in behalf of Sunday. 2. The utmost height of papal usurpation was marked by the pope’s act of furnishing a divine precept for Sunday observance.
The mission of Eustace was attested by miracles which are worthy of perusal by those who believe in first-day sacredness because their fathers thus believed. Here they may learn what was done six centuries since, to fix these ideas in the minds of their fathers. Eustace came to York, in the North of England, and, meeting an honorable reception, — “Preached the word of the Lord, and on the breaking of the Lord’s day and the other festivals, and imposed upon the people penance, and gave absolution upon condition that in future they would pay due reverence to the Lord’s day and the other festivals of the saints, doing therein no servile work.” “Upon this, the people who were dutiful to God at his preaching, vowed before God that, for the future, on the Lord’s day, they would neither buy nor sell anything, unless, perchance, victuals and drink to wayfarers.” The abbot also made provision for the collection of alms for the benefit of the poor, and forbade the use of the churches for the sale of goods, and for the pleading of causes. Upon this, the king interfered as follows: — “Accordingly, through these and other warnings of this holy man, the enemy of mankind being rendered envious, he put it into the heart of the king and of the princes of darkness to command that all who should observe the before-stated doctrines, and more especially all those who had discountenanced the markets on the Lordday, should be brought before the king’s court of justice, to make satisfaction as to the observance of the Lord’s day.” The markets on the Lord’s day, it seems, were held in the churches, and Eustace was attempting to suppress these when he forbade the sale of goods in the churches. And now, to confirm the authority of the roll, and to neutralize the opposition of the king, some very extraordinary prodigies were reported. The roll forbade labor “from the ninth hour (that is 3 P.
M.)on Saturday until sunrise on Monday.” Now read what happened to the disobedient: — “One Saturday, a certain carpenter of Beverly, who, after the ninth hour of the day, was, contrary to the wholesome advice of his wife, making a wooden wedge, fell to the earth, being struck with paralysis. A woman also, a weaver, who, after the ninth hour on Saturday, in her anxiety to finish a part of the web, persisted in so doing, fell to the ground, struck with paralysis, and lost her voice.
At Rafferton also, a rill belonging to Master Roger Arundel, a man made for himself a loaf and baked it under the ashes after the ninth hour on Saturday, and ate thereof, and put part of it by till the morning, but when he broke it on the Lord’s day blood started forth therefrom: and he who saw it bore witness, and his testimony is true. “At Wakefield, also, one Saturday, while a miller was, after the ninth hour, attending to grinding his corn, there suddenly came forth, instead of flour, such a torrent of blood, that the vessel placed beneath was nearly filled with blood, and the mill-wheel stood immovable, in spite of the strong rush of the water; and those who beheld it wondered thereat, saying, ‘Spare us, O Lord, spare thy people!’ “Also in Lincolnshire a woman had prepared some dough, and taking it to the oven after the ninth hour on Saturday, she placed it in the oven, which was then at a very great heat; but when she took it out, she found it raw, on which she again put it into the oven, which was very hot; and both on the next day and on Monday, when she supposed that she would find the loaves baked, she found raw dough. “In the same county also, when a certain woman had prepared her dough, intending to carry it to the oven, her husband said to her, ‘It is Saturday, and is now past the ninth hour, put it one side till Monday;’ on which the woman, obeying her husband, did as he commanded’ and so, having covered over the dough with a linen cloth; on coming the next day to look at the dough, to see whether it had not, in risings, through the yeast that was in it, gone over the sides of the vessel, she found there the loaves ready made by the Divine Will, and well baked, without any fire of the material of this world. This was a change wrought ‘by the right hand of Him on high.” 61 The historian laments that these miracles were lost upon the people, and that they feared the king more than they feared God, and so “like a dog to his vomit, returned to the holding of markets on the Lord’s day.” 62 Such was the first attempt in England after the apparition of St. Peter, A.D. 1155, to supply divine authority for Sunday observance. “It shows,” as Morer quaintly observes, “how industrious men were in those times to, have this great day solemnly observed.” 63 And Gilfillan, who has occasion to mention the story of the roll from heaven; has not one word of condemnation for the pious fraud in behalf of Sunday, but he simply speaks of our abbot as “This ardent person.” Two years after the arrival of Eustace in England with his roll, A.D. 1203, a council was held in Scotland concerning the introduction and establishment of the Lord’s day in that kingdom. 65 The roll that had fallen from heaven to supply the lack of scriptural testimony in behalf of this day, was admirably adapted to the business of this council, though Dr. Heylyn informs us that the Scotch were so ready to comply with the pope’s wishes that the packet from the court of heaven and the accompanying miracles were not needed. 66 Yet Morer asserts that the packet was actually produced on this occasion: — “To that end it was again produced and read in a council of Scotland, held under [pope] Innocent III.,... A.D. 1203, in the reign of King William, who... passed it into a law that Saturday from twelve at noon ought to be accounted holy, and that no man shall deal in such worldly business as on feast-days were forbidden. As also that at the toiling of a bell, the people were to be employed in holy actions, going to sermons and the like, and to continue thus until Monday morning, a penalty being laid on those who did the contrary. About the year 1214, which was eleven years after, it was again enacted, in a parliament at Scone, by Alexander III., king of the Scots, that none should fish in any waters from Saturday after evening prayer till sunrise on Monday, which was afterward confirmed by King James I. The sacredness of this papal Lord’s day seems to have been more easily established by taking in with it a part of the ancient Sabbath. The work establishing this institution was everywhere carried steadily forward. Of England we read: — “In the year 1237, Henry III. being king, and Edmund de Abendon archbishop of Canterbury, a, constitution was made, requiring every minister to forbid his parishioners the frequenting of markets on the Lord’s day, and leaving the church, where they ought to meet and spend the day in prayer and hearing the word of God.
And this on pain of excommunication.” Of France we are informed: — “The council of Lyons sat about the year 1244, and it restrained the people from their ordinary work on the Lord’s day and other festivals, on pain of ecclesiastical censures.”
A.D. 1282. The council of Angeirs in France “forbid millers by water or otherwise to grind their corn from Saturday evening till Sunday evening.” Nor were the Spaniards backward in this work: — A.D. 1327, This year “a synod was called at Valladolid in Castile, and then was ratified what was formerly required, that ‘none should follow husbandry, or exercise himself in any mechanical employment, on the Lord’s day or other holy days, but where it was a work of necessity or charity, of which the minister of the parish was to be judge.’” The rulers of the church and realm of England were diligent in establishing the sacredness of this day. Yet the following statutes show that they were not aware of any Bible authority for enforcing its observance: — A.D. 1358. “Istippe, archbishop of Canterbury, with very great concern and zeal, expresses himself thus: ‘We have it from the relation of very credible persons, that in divers places within our province, a very naughty, nay? damnable custom has prevailed, to hold fairs and markets on the Lord’s day. .. Wherefore, by virtue of canonical obedience, we strictly charge and command your brotherhood, that if you find your people faulty in the premises, you forthwith admonish or cause them to be admonished to refrain going to markets or fairs on the Lord’s clay. .. And as for such who are obstinate, and speak or act against you in this particular, you must endeavor to restrain them by ecclesiastical censures, and by all lawful means put a stop to these extravagances.’ “Nor was the civil power silent; for much about that time, King Edward made an act that wool should not be shown at the staple on Sundays and other solemn feasts in the year. In the reign of King Henry VI., Dr. Stafford being archbishop of Canterbury, A.D. 1444, it was decreed that hits and markets should no more kept in churches and church-yards on the Lord’s day, or other festivals, except in time of harvest.” Observe that fairs and markets were held in the churches in England on Sundays as late as 1444! And even later than this; such fairs were allowed in harvest time. On the European continent the sacredness of Sunday was persistently urged. The council of Bourges urges its observance as follows: — A.D. 1532. “The Lord’s day and other festivals were instituted for this purpose, that faithful Christians, abstaining from external work, might more freely, and with greater piety, devote themselves to God’s worship.” They did not seem to be aware of the fact, however, that when the fear of God is taught by the precepts of men, such worship is vain.(Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:9.) The council of Rheims, which sat the next year, made this decree: — A.D. 1588. “Let the people assemble at their parish churches on the Lord’s day and other holidays, and be present at mass, sermons, and vespers. Let no man on these days give himself to plays or dances, especially during service.” And the historian adds: “In the same year another synod at Tours ordered the Lord’s day and other holidays to be reverently observed under pain of excommunication.” A council which assembled the following year thus frankly confessed the divine origin of the Sabbath, and the human origin of that festival which has supplanted it:— A.D. 1584. “Let all Christians remember that the seventh day was consecrated by God, and hath been received and observed, not only by the Jews, but by all others who pretend to worship God; though we Christians have changed their Sabbath into the Lord’s day. A day therefore to be kept, by forbearing all worldly business, snits, contracts, carriages, etc., and by sanctifying the rest of mind and body, in the contemplation of God and things divine, we are to do nothing but works of charity, say prayers, and sing psalms.” We have thus traced Sunday observance in the Catholic church down to a period subsequent to the Reformation. That it is an ordinance of man which has usurped the place of the Bible Sabbath is most distinctly confessed by the council last quoted. Yet they endeavor to make amends for their violation of the Sabbath by spending Sunday in charity, prayers, and psalms, — a course too often adopted at the present time to excuse the violation of the fourth commandment. Who can read this long list of Sunday laws, not from the “one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy,” but from popes, emperors, and councils, without adopting the sentiment of Neander: “The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance”?
TRACES OF THE SABBATH DURING THE DARK AGES
The Dark Ages defined — Difficulty of tracing the people of God during this period — The Sabbath effectually suppressed in the Catholic church at the close of the fifth century — Sabbath-keepers in Rome about A.D. 600 — The Culdees of Great Britain — Columba probably a Sabbathkeeper — The Waldenses — Their antiquity — Their wide extent — Their peculiarities — Sabbatarian character of a part of this people — Important facts respecting the Waldenses and the Romanists — Other bodies of Sabbatarians — The Cathari — The Arnoldistae — The Passaginians — The Petrobruysians — Gregory VII., about A.D. 1074, condemns the Sabbath-keepers — The Sabbath in Constantinople in the eleventh century — A portion of the Anabaptists — Sabbatarians in Abyssinia and Ethiopia — The Armenians of the East Indies — The Sabbath retained through the Dark Ages by those who were not in the communion of the Romish church.
WITH the accession of the Roman bishop to supremacy began the Dark Ages; 1 and as he increased in strength, the gloom of darkness settled with increasing intensity upon the world. The highest elevation of the papal power marks the latest point in the Dark Ages before the firs[gray dawn of twilight. 2 That power was providentially weakened preparatory to the Reformation of the sixteenth century, when the light of advancing day began to manifestly dissipate the gross darkness which covered the earth.
The difficulty of tracing the true people of God through this period is well set forth in the following language of Benedict: — “As scarcely any fragment of their history remains, all we know of them is from accounts of their enemies, which were always uttered in the style of censure and complaint; and without which we should not have known that millions of them ever existed. It was the settled policy of Rome to obliterate every vestige of opposition to her doctrines and decrees, everything heretical, whether persons or writings, by which the faithful would be liable to be contaminated and led astray. In conformity to this, their fixed determination, all books and records of their opposers were hunted up, and committed to the flames. Before the art of printing was discovered in the fifteenth century, all books were made with the pen; the copies, of course, were so few that their concealment was much more difficult than it would be now; and if a few of them escaped the vigilance of the inquisitors, they would soon be worn out and gone. None of them could be admitted and preserved in the public libraries of the Catholics, from the ravages of time, and of the hands of barbarians with which all parts of Europe were at different periods overwhelmed.” The first five centuries of the Christian era accomplished the suppression of the Sabbath in those churches which were under the special control of the Roman pontiff. Thenceforward we must look for the observers of the Sabbath outside the communion of the church of Rome. It was predicted that the Roman power should cast down the truth to the ground.(Daniel 8:12.) The Scriptures set forth the law of God as his truth.(Psalm 119:142, 151.) The Dark Ages were the result of this work of the great apostasy. So dense and all-pervading was the darkness, that God’s pure truth was more or less obscured, even with the true people of God in their places of retirement.
About the year 600, as we have seen, there was in the city of Rome itself a class of Sabbath-keeping Christians who were very strict in the observance of the fourth commandment. It has been said of them that they joined with this a strict abstinence from labor on Sunday. But Dr. Twisse, a learned first-day writer, who has particularly examined the record respecting them, asserts that this Sunday observance pertained to “other persons different from the former.” 4 These Sabbath-keepers were not Romanists, and the pope denounced them in strong language.
The Christians of Great Brittain, before the mission of Augustine to that country, A.D. 596, were not in subjection to the bishop of Rome, but were in an eminent degree Bible Christians. They are thus described: — “The Scottish church, when it first meets the eye of civilization, is not Romish, nor even prelatical. When the monk Augustine, with his forty missionaries, in the time of the Saxon Heptarchy, came over to Britain under the auspices of Gregory, the bishop of Rome, to convert the barbarian Saxons, he found the northern part of the island already well-nigh filled with Christians and Christian institutions. These Christians were the Culdees, whose chief seat was the little island of Hi, or Iona, on the western coast of Scotland. An Irish presbyter, Columba, feeling himself stirred with missionary zeal, and doubtless knowing the wretched condition of the savage Scots and Picts, in the year 565 took with him twelve other missionaries, and passed over to Scotland. They fixed their settlement on the little island just named, and from that point became the missionaries of all Scotland, and even penetrated into England. “The people in the South of England, converted by Augustine and his assistants, and those in the North who had been won by Culdee labor, soon met, as Christian conquest advanced from both sides; and when they came together, it was soon seen that Roman and Culdee Christianity very decidedly differed in a great many respects. The Culdees, for the most part, had a simple and primitive form of Christianity; while Rome presented a vast accumulation of superstitions, and was arrayed in her well-known pomp. “The Culdee went to Iona, that in quiet, with meditation, study, and prayer, he might fit himself for going out into the world as a missionary. Indeed, Iona was a great missionary institute, where preachers were trained who evangelized the rude tribes of Scotland in a very short time. To have done such a work as this in less than half a century implies apostolic activity, purity, and success. “After the success of Augustine and his monks in England, the Culdees had shut themselves up within the limits of Scotland, trod had resisted for centuries all the efforts of Rome to win them over.
At last, however, they were overthrown by their own rulers…” There is strong incidental evidence that Columba, the leading minister of his time among the Culdees, was an observer of the ancient Sabbath of the Bible. On this point I quote two standard authors of the Roman Catholics.
They certainly have no motive to put such words as I here quote, fraudulently into the mouth of Columba; for they claim him as a saint, and they are no friends of the Bible Sabbath. Nor can we see how Columba could have used these words with satisfaction, as he evidently did, when dying, had he all his life long been a violator of the ancient rest-day of the Lord. Here are the words of Dr. Alvan Butler: — “Having continued his labors in Scotland thirty-four years, he clearly and openly foretold his death, and on Saturday, the ninth of June, said to his disciple Diermit: ‘This day is called the Sabbath, that is, the day of rest, and such will it truly be to me; for it will put an end to my labors.’” Another distinguished Catholic author gives us his dying words thus: — “Today is Saturday, the day which the Holy Scriptures call the Sabbath, or rest. And it will truly be my day of rest, for it shall be the last of my laborious life.” These words show, 1. That Columba believed that Saturday was the true Bible Sabbath; 2. That he did not believe the Sabbath had been changed to Sunday; 3. That this confession of faith respecting the Bible Sabbath was made with evident satisfaction, though in view of immediate death.
Did any first-day man ever recur with pleasure on his death-bed to the fact that Saturday is the Bible Sabbath?
But Gilfillan quotes these words of Columba as spoken in behalf of Sunday! In giving a list of eminent men who have asserted the change of the Sabbath, or who ]rove called Sunday the Sabbath, and have taught that it should be observed as a day of sacred rest, he brings in Columba thus: — “The testimony of Columba is specially interesting, as it expresses the feelings of the heart at a moment which tests the sincerity of faith, and the value of a creed: ‘This day,’ he said to his servant, ‘in the sacred volume is called the Sabbath, that is, rest; and will indeed be a Sabbath to me, for it is to me the last day of this toilsome life, the day on which I am to rest (sabbatize), after all my labors and troubles, for on this coming sacred night of the Lord (Dominica nocte), at the midnight hour, I shall, as the Scriptures speak, go the way of my fathers.’” But this day which Columba said “will indeed be a Sabbath to me,” was not Sunday, but Saturday.
Among the dissenters from the Romish church in the period of the Dark Ages, the first place, perhaps, is due to the Waldenses, both for their antiquity and the wide extent of their influence and doctrine. Benedict quotes from their enemies respecting, the antiquity of their origin: — “We have already observed from Claudius Seyssel, the popish archbishop, that one Leo was charged with originating the Waldensian heresy in the valleys, in the days of Constantine the Great. When those severe measures emanated from the Emperor Honorions against re-baptizers, the Baptists left the seat of opulence and power, and sought retreats in the country, and in the valleys of Piedmont; which last place in particular became their retreat from imperial oppression.” Dean Waddington quotes the following from Rainer Saccho, a popish writer, who had the best means of information respecting them: — “There is no sect so dangerous as the Leonists, for three reasons:
First, it is the most ancient, some say as old as Sylvester [pope in Constantine’s time], others as the apostles themselves. Secondly, it is very generally disseminated; there is no country where it has not gained some footing. Thirdly, while other sects are profane and blasphemous, this retains the utmost show of piety; they live justly before men, and believe nothing respecting God which is not good.” Mr. Jones gives Saccho’s own opinion as follows: — “Their enemies confirm their great antiquity. Reinerius Saccho, an inquisitor, and one of their most cruel persecutors, who lived only eighty years after Waldo [A.D. 1160], admits that the Waldenses flourished five hundred years before that preacher. Gretser, the Jesuit, who also wrote against the Waldenses, and had examined the subject fully, not only admits their great antiquity, but declares his firm belief that the Toulousians and Albigenses, condemned in the years 1177 and 1178, were no other than the Waldenses.” Jortin dates their withdrawal into the wilderness of the Alps as follows: — “A.D. 601. In the seventh century, Christianity was propagated in China by the Nestorians; and the Valdenses, who abhorred the papal usurpations, are supposed to have settled themselves in the valleys of Piedmont. Monkery flourished prodigiously, and the monks and popes were in the firmest union.” President Edwards says:— “Some of the popish writers themselves own that this people never submitted to the church of Rome. One of the popish writers, speaking of the Waldenses, says, The heresy of the Waldenses is the oldest heresy in the world. It is supposed that they first betook themselves to this place among the mountains, to hide themselves from the severity of the heathen persecutions which existed before Constantine the Great. And thus the woman fled into the wilderness from the face of the serpent. Revelation 12: 6, 14. ‘And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and hall’ a time, from the face of the serpent.’ The people being settled there, their posterity continued [there] from age to age; and being, as it were, by natural walls, as well as by God’s grace, separated from the rest of the world, they never partook of the overflowing corruption.” Benedict makes other quotations relative to their origin: — “Theodore Belvedre a popish monk, says that the heresy had always been in the valleys. In the preface to the French Bible, the translators say that they [the Waldenses have always had the full enjoyment of the heavenly truth contained in the Holy Scriptures ever since they were enriched with the same by the apostles, having in fair MSS. preserved the entire Bible in their native tongue from generation to generation.” 17 Of the extent to which they spread in the countries of Europe, Benedict thus speaks:— “In the thirteenth century, from the accounts of Catholic historians, all of whom speak of the Waldenses in terms of complaint and reproach, they had founded individual churches, or were spread out in colonies in Italy, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Bohemia, Poland, Lithuania, Albania, Lombardy, Milan, Romagna, Vicenza, Florence, Veleponetine, Constantinople, Philadelphia, Sclavonia, Bulgaria, Diognitia, Livonia Sarmatia, Croatia, Dalmatia, Briton, and Piedmont.” And Dr. Edgar gives the words of an old historian as follows: — “The Waldensians, says Popliner, spread, not only through France, but also through nearly all the European coasts, and appeared in Gaul, Spain, England, Scotland, Italy, Germany, Bohemia, Saxony, Poland, and Lithuania.” According to the testimony of their enemies, they were to some extent divided among themselves. Dr. Allix quotes an old Romish writer, who says of that portion of them who were called Cathari: — “They are also divided amongst themselves; so what some of them say is again denied by others.” And Crosby makes a similar statement: — “There were several sects of Waldenses, or Albigenses, like as there are of Dissenters in England’. Some of these did deny all baptism, others only the baptism of infants. That many of them were of this latter opinion, is affirmed in several histories of this people, as well ancient as modern.” Some of their enemies affirm that they reject the Old Testament; but others, with much greater truthfulness, bear a very different testimony. Thus a Romish inquisitor, as quoted by Allix, bears testimony concerning. those in Bohemia: — “They can say a great part of the Old and Blew Testaments by heart. They despise the decretals, and the sayings and expositions of holy men, and only cleave to the text of Scripture... [They say] that the doctrine of Christ and the apostles is sufficient to salvation, without any church statutes and ordinances. That the traditions of the church are no better than the traditions of the Pharisees; and that greater stress is laid on the observation of human traditions than on the keeping of the law of God. Why do you transgress the law of God by your traditions?…They contemn all approved ecclesiastical customs which they do not read of in the gospel, as the observation of Candlemas, Palm Sunday, the reconciliation of penitents, the adoration of the cross on Good Friday. They despise the feast of Easter, and all other festivals of Christ and the saints, ‘because of their being multiplied to that vast number, and say that one day is as good as another, and work upon holy days, where they can do it without being taken notice of.” Dr. Allix quotes a Waldensian document of A.D. 1100, entitled the “Noble Lesson,” and remarks: — “The author, upon supposal that the world was drawing to an end, exhorts his brethren to prayer, to watchfulness, to a renouncing of all worldly goods. * * * “He sets down all the judgments of God in the Old Testament as the effects of a just and good God; and in particular the decalogue as a law given by the Lord of the whole world. He repeats the several articles of the law, not forgetting that which respects idols.” Their religious views are further stated by Allix: — “They declare themselves to be the apostles’ successors, to have apostolical authority, and the keys of binding and loosing. They hold the church of Rome to be the whore of Babylon, and that all that obey her are damned, especially the clergy that are subject to her since the time of Pope Sylvester. .. They hold that none of the ordinances of the church that have been introduced since Christ’s ascension ought to be observed, as being of no worth; the feasts, fasts, orders, blessings, offices of the church, and the like, they utterly reject.” 25 A considerable part of the people called Waldenses bore the significant designation of Sabbath, or Sabbatati, or Insabbatati. Mr. Jones alludes to this fact in these words: — “Because they would not observe saints’ days, they were falsely supposed to neglect the Sabbath also, and called Insabbatati or Insabbathists .” Mr. Benedict makes the following statement: — “We find that the Waldenses were sometimes called Insabbathos, that is, regardless of Sabbaths. Mr. Milner supposes this name was given to them because they observed not the Romish festivals, and rested from their ordinary occupations only on Sundays. A Sabbatarian would suppose that it was because they met for worship on the seventh day, and did not regard the first-day Sabbath.” Mr. Robinson gives the statements of three classes of writers respecting the meaning of these names which were borne by the Waldenses. But he rejects them all, alleging that these persons were led to their conclusions by the apparent meaning of the words, read not by the facts. Here are his words: — “Some of these Christians were called Sabbati, Sabbatati, Insabbatati, and more frequently Inzabbatati. Led astray by sound without attending to facts, one says they were so named from the Hebrew word Sabbath, because they kept the Saturday for the Lord’s day. Another says they were so called because they rejected all the festivals or Sabbaths in the low Latin sense of the word, which the Catholic church religiously observed. A third says, and many with various alterations and additions have said after him, they were called so from sabot or zabot, a shoe, because they distinguished themselves from other people by wearing shoes marked on the upper part with some peculiarity. Is it likely that people who could not descend from their mountains without hazarding their lives through the furious zeal of the inquisitors, should tempt danger by affixing a visible mark on their shoes?
Besides, the shoe of the peasants happens to be famous in this country; it was of a different fashion, and was: called abarca.” Mr. Robinson rejects these three statements, and then gives his own judgment, that they were so called because they lived in the mountains.
These four views cover all that has been advanced relative to the meaning Of these names. But Robinson’s own explanation is purely fanciful, and seems to have been adopted by no other writer. He offers, however, conclusive reasons for rejecting the statement that they took their name from their shoes. There remain., therefore, only the first and second of these four statements, which are that they were called by these names because they kept the Saturday for the Lord’s day, and because they did not keep the sabbath of the papists. These two statements do not conflict.
In fact, if one of them be true, it almost certainly follows that the other one must be true also. There would be in such facts something worthy to give a distinguishing name to the true people of God, surrounded by the great apostasy; and the natural and obvious interpretation of the names would disclose the most striking characteristic of the people who bore them.
Jones and Benedict agree with Robinson in rejecting the idea that the Waldenses received these names from their shoes. Mr. Jones held, on the contrary, that they were given them because they did not keep the Romish festivals. 29 Mr. Benedict favors the view that it was because they kept the seventh day. 30 But let us now see who they are that make these statements respecting the observance of the Sabbath by the Waldenses, that Robinson alludes to in this place, lie quotes out of Gretser the words of the historian Goldastus as follows: — “Insabbatati [they were called] not because they were circumcised, but because they kept the Jewish Sabbath.” Goldastus was “a learned historian and jurist, born near Bischofszell, in Switzerland, in 1576.” He died in 1635. 32 He was a Calvinist writer of note. 33 He certainly had no desire to favor the cause of the seventh day.
Gretser objects to his statement on the ground that the Waldenses exterminated every festival; but this was the most natural thing in the world for men who had God’s own rest-day in their keeping. Gretser still further objects, that the Waldenses denied the whole Old Testament; but this charge is an utter misrepresentation, as we have already shown in the present chapter.
Robinson also quotes on this point the testimony of Archbishop Usher.
Though that prelate held that the Waldenses derived these names from their shoes, he frankly acknowledges thatMANY understood that they were given to them because they worshipped on the Jewish Sabbath. This testimony is valuable in that it shows that many early writers asserted the observance of “the Saturday for the Lord’s day” by the people who. were called Sabbath. In consequence of the persecutions which they suffered, and also because of their own missionary zeal, the people called Waldenses were widely scattered over Europe. They bore, however, various names in different ages and in different countries. We have decisive testimony that some of these bodies observed the seventh day. Others observed Sunday. Eneas Sylvius says that those in Bohemia hold “that we are to cease from working on no day except the Lord’s day.” 35 This statement, let it, be observed, relates only to Bohemia. But it has been asserted that the Waldenses were s, distinct from the church of Rome they could not have received the Sunday Lord’s day from thence, and must, therefore, have received it from the apostles! But a few words from D’Aubigne will suffice to show that this statement is founded in error. He describes an interview between Oecolampadius and two Waldensian pastors who had been sent by their brethren from the borders of France and Piedmont to open communication with the reformers. It was at Bale, in 1530. Many things which they said pleased Oecolampadius, but some things he disapproved. D’Aubigne makes this statement: — “The barbes [the Waldensian pastors] were at first a little confused at seeing that the elders had to learn of their juniors; however, they were humble and sincere men, and the Bale doctor having questioned them on the sacraments, they confessed that through weakness and fear they had their children baptized by Romish priests and that they even communicated with them, and sometimes attended mass. This unexpected avowal startled the meek Oecolampadius.” 36 When the deputation returned word to the Walden-ses that the reformers demanded of them “a strict reform,” D’Aubigne says that it was “supported by some, and rejected by others.” lie also informs us that the demand that the Waldenses should “separate entirely from Rome” “caused divisions among them.” This is a very remarkable statement. The light of many of these ancient witnesses was almost ready to go out in darkness when God raised up the reformers. They had suffered that woman Jezebel to teach among them, and to seduce the servants of God. They had even come to practice infant baptism, and the priests of Rome administered the rite! And in addition to all this, they sometimes joined with them in the service of mass! Ira portion o£ the Waldenses in Southern Europe at the time of the Reformation had exchanged believers’ baptism for the baptism of children by Romish priests, it is not difficult to see how they could also accept Sunday as a rest-day from the same source in place of the hallowed restday of the Lord. All had not done thin, but some certainly were guilty.
D’Aubigne makes a very interesting statement respecting the French Waldenses in the fifteenth century. His language implies that they had a different Sabbath from the Catholics. he tells us some of the stories which the priests circulated against the Waldenses. These are his words: — “Picardy in the North and Dauphiny in the South were the two provinces of France best prepared [at the opening of the Protestant Reformation] to receive the gospel. During the fifteenth century, many Picardins, as the story ran, went to Vaudery. Seated round the fire during the long nights, simple Catholics used to tell one another how the Vaudois [Waldenses] met in horrible assembly in solitary places, where they found tables spread with numerous and dainty viands. These poor Christians loved, indeed, to meet together from districts often very remote. They went to the rendezvous by night, and along by-roads. The most learned of them used to recite some passages of scripture, after which they conversed together, and prayed. But such humble conventicles were ridiculously travestied. ‘Do you know what they do to get there,’ said the people, ‘so that the officers may not stop them?
The devil has given them a certain ointment, and when they want to go to Vaudery, they smear a little stick with it. As soon as they get astride it, they are carried up through the air, and arrive at their Sabbath without meeting anybody. In the midst of them sits a goat with a monkey’s tail: this is Satan, who receives their adoration.’...
These stupid stories were not peculiar to the people: they were circulated particularly by the monks. It was thus that the inquisitor Jean de Broussart spoke in 1460 from a pulpit erected in the great square at Arms. An immense multitude surrounded him; a scaffold was erected in front of the pulpit, and a number of men and women, kneeling, and wearing caps with the figure of the devil painted on them, awaited their punishment. Perhaps the faith of these poor people was mingled with error. But be that as it may, they were all burnt alive after the sermon.” It seems that these Waldenses had a Sabbath peculiar to themselves. And D’Aubigne himself alludes to something peculiar in their faith which he cannot confess as the truth, and does not choose to denounce as error. He says, “Perhaps the faith of these poor people was mingled with error.” ‘To speak of the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord by New Testament Christians, subjects a conscientious first-day historian to this very dilemma. We have a further account of the Waldenses in France, just before the commencement of the Reformation of the sixteenth century: — “Louis XII., king of France, being informed by the enemies of the Waldenses inhabiting a part of the province of Provence, that several heinous crimes were laid to their account, sent the Master of Requests, and a certain doctor of the Sorbonne, who was the confessor to his Majesty, to make inquiry into this matter. On their return, they reported that they had visited all the parishes where they dwelt, had inspected their places of worship, but that they had found there no images, nor signs of the ornaments belonging to the mass, nor any of the ceremonies of the Romish church; much less could they discover any traces of those crimes with which they were charged. On the contrary, they kept the Sabbath-day, observed the ordinance of baptism according to the primitive church, instructed their children in the articles of the Christian faith and the commandments of God. The king having heard the report of his commissioners, said with an oath that they were better men than himself or his people.” We further read concerning the Vaudois, or Waldenses, as follows: — “The respectable French historian, Do Thou, says that the Vaudois keep the commandments of the decalogue, and allow among them of no wickedness, detesting perjuries, imprecations, quarrels, seditions, etc.” It may be proper to add, that in 1686 the Waldenses were all driven out of the valleys of Piedmont, and that those who returned and settled in those valleys three years afterward, and from whom the present race of Waldenses is descended, fought their way back, sword in hand, pursuing in all respects a course entirely different from that of the ancient Waldenses. Another class of witnesses to the truth during the Dark Ages bore the name of Cathari, that is, Puritans. Jones speaks of them as follows: — “They were a plain, unassuming, harmless, and industrious race of Christians, patiently bearing the cross after Christ, and, both in their doctrines and manners, condemning the whole system of idolatry and superstition which reigned in the church of Rome, placing true religion in the faith, hope, and obedience of the gospel, maintaining a supreme regard to the authority of God in his word, and regulating their sentiments and practices by that divine standard. Even in the twelfth century their numbers abounded in the neighborhood of Cologne, in Flanders, the South of France, Savoy and Milan. ‘They were increased,’ says Egbert, ‘ to great multitudes, throughout all countries.’” That the Cathari did retain and observe the ancient Sabbath, is certified by their Romish adversaries. Dr. Allix quotes a Roman Catholic author of the twelfth century concerning three sorts of here tics, — the Cathari, the Passagii, and the Arnoldistae. Allix says of this Romish writer that,— “He lays it down also as one of their opinions, ‘that the law of Moses is to be kept according to the letter, and that the keeping of the Sabbath, circumcision, and other legal observances, ought to take place. They hold also that Christ, the Son of God, is not equal with the Father, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, these three persons, are not one God and one substance; and as a surplus to these their errors, they judge and condemn all the doctors of the church, and universally the whole Roman church. Now since they endeavor to defend this their error, by testimonies drawn from the New Testament and prophets, I shall, with [the] assistance of the grace of Christ, stop their mouths, as David did Goliath’s, with their own sword.’” Dr. Allix quotes another Romish author to the same effect: — “Alanus attributes to the Cathari almost the very same opinions [as those just enumerated] in his first book against heretics, ‘which he wrote about the year 1192.” Mr. Elliott mentions an incident concerning the Cathari, which is in harmony with what these historians assert respecting their observance of the seventh day. He says: — “In this year [A.D. 1163] certain heretics of the sect of the Cathari, coming from the parts of Flanders to Cologne, took up their abode secretly in a barn near the city. But, as on the Lord’s day they did not go to church, they were seized by the neighbors, and detected.
On their being brought before the Catholic church, when, after long examination respecting their sect, they would be convinced by no evidence however convincing, but most pertinaciously persisted in their doctrine and resolution, they were east out from the church, and delivered into the hands of laics. These, leading them without the city, committed them to the flames, being four men and one little girl.” These statements were made respecting three classes of Christian people who lived during the Dark Ages, the Cathari, or Puritans, the Arnoldistae, and the Passaginians. Their views are presented in the uncandid language of their enemies. But the testimony of ancient Catholic historians is decisive that they were observers of the seventh day. The charge that they observed circumcision also, will be noticed presently. Mr. Robinson understands that the Passaginians were that portion of the Waldenses who lived in the passes of the mountains. He says: — “It is very credible that the name Passageros, or Passagini,... was given to such of them as lived in or near the passes or passages of the mountains, and who subsisted in part by guiding travelers or by traveling themselves for trade.” Mr. Elliott says of the name Passagini: — “The explanation of the term as meaning Pilgrims, in both the spiritual and missionary sense of the word, would be but the translation of their recognized Greek appellation, ekdhmoi , and a title as distinctive as beautiful.” Mosheim gives the following account of them: — “In Lombardy, which was the principal residence of the Italian heretics, there sprung up a singular sect, known, for what reason I cannot tell, by the denomination of Passaginians, and also by that of the circumcised. Like the other sects already mentioned, they had the utmost aversion to the dominion and discipline of the church of Rome; but they were at the same time distinguished by two religious tenets which were peculiar to themselves. The first was a notion that the observance of the law of Moses in everything except the offering of sacrifices, was obligatory upon Christians; in consequence of which they circumcised their followers, abstained from those meats, the use of which was prohibited under the Mosaic economy, and celebrated the Jewish Sabbath. The second tenet that distinguished this sect was advanced in opposition to the doctrine of three persons in the divine nature.” Mr. Benedict speaks of them as follows: — “The account of their practicing circumcision is undoubtedly a slanderous story, forged by their enemies, and probably arose in this way: because they observed the seventh day they were called, by way of derision, Jews, as the Sabbatarians are frequently at this day; and if they were Jews, it followed, of course, that they either did, or ought to, circumcise their followers. This was probably the reasoning of their enemies; but that they actually practiced the bloody rite is altogether improbable.” An eminent church historian, Michael Geddes, thus testifies: — “This [act] of fixing something that is justly abominable to all mankind upon her adversaries, has been the constant practice of the church of Rome.” Dr. Allix states the same fact, which needs to be kept in mind whenever we read of the people of God in the records of the Dark Ages: — “I must desire the reader to consider that it is no great sin with the church of Rome to spread lies concerning those that are enemies of that faith.” “There is nothing more common with the Romish party than to make use of the most horrid calumnies to blacken and expose those who have renounced her communion.” Of the origin of the Petrobrusians, we have the following account by Mr.
Jones: — “But the Cathari, or Puritans, were not the only sect which, during the twelfth century, appeared in opposition to the superstition of the church of Rome. About the year 1110, in the south of France, in the provinces of Languedoc and Provence, appeared Peter de Bruys, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of heaven, and exerting the most laudable efforts to reform the abuses, and remove the superstition which disfigured the beautiful simplicity of the gospel worship. His labors were crowned with abundant success. He converted a great number of disciples to the faith of Christ, and after a most indefatigable ministry of twenty years’ continuance, he was burned at St. Giles,. a city of Languedoc in France, A.D. 1130, by an enraged populace, instigated by the clergy, who apprehended their traffic to be in danger from this new and intrepid reformer.” That this body of French Christians, who, in the very midnight of the Dark Ages, witnessed for the truth in opposition to the Romish church., were observers of the ancient Sabbath, is expressly certified by Dr. Francis White Lord Bishop of Ely. He was appointed by the king of England to write against the Sabbath in opposition to Brabourne, who had appealed to the king in its behalf. To show that Sabbatic observance is contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic church, — a weighty argument with an Episcopalian, — he enumerates various classes of heretics who had been condemned by the Catholic church for keeping holy the seventh day.
Among these heretics he places the Petrobrusians: — “In St. Bernard’s days, it was condemned in the Petrobrusians.” We have seen that, according to Catholic writers, the Cathari held to the observance of the seventh day. Dr. Allix confirms the statement of Dr.
White, that the Petrobrnsians observed the ancient Sabbath, by stating that the doctrines of these two bodies greatly resembled each other. These are his words: — “Petrus Cluniacensis has handled five questions against the Petrobrusians, which bear a great resemblance with the belief of the Cathari of Italy.” The Sabbath-keepers in the eleventh century were of sufficient importance to call down upon themselves the anathema of the pope. Dr. Heylyn says that — “Gregory, of that name the seventh [about A.D. 1074] condemned those who taught that it was not lawful to do work on the day of the Sabbath.” This act of the pope corroborates the testimonies we have adduced in proof of the existence of Sabbath-keepers in the Dark Ages. Gregory the Seventh was one of the greatest men that ever filled the papal chair.
Whatever class he anathematized was of some consequence. Gregory wasted nothing on trifles. In the eleventh century, there were Sabbath-keepers also in Constantinople and its vicinity. The pope, in A.D. 1054, sent three legates to the emperor of the East, and to the patriarch of Constantinople, for the purpose of re-uniting the Greek and Latin churches. Cardinal Humbert was the head of this legation. The legates, on their arrival, set themselves to the work of refuting those doctrines which distinguish the church of Constantinople from that of Rome. After they had attended to the questions which separated the two churches, they found it also necessary to discuss the question of the Sabbath. For one of the most learned men of the East had put forth a treatise, in which he maintained that ministers should be allowed to marry; that the Sabbath should be kept holy; and that leavened bread should be used in the supper, — all of which the church of Rome held to be deadly heresics. We quote from Mr. Bower a concise statement of the treatment which this Sabbatarian writer received: — “Humbert likewise answered a piece that had been published by a monk of the monastery of Studium, [near Constantinople,] named Nicetas, who was deemed one of the most learned men at the time in the East. In that piece the monk undertook to prove that leavened bread only should be used in the eucharist, that the Sabbath ought to be kept holy, and that priests should be allowed to marry. But the emperor, who wanted by all means to gain the pope, for the reasons mentioned above, was, or rather pretended to be, so fully convinced with the arguments of the legate, confuting those alleged by Nicetas, that he obliged the monk publicly to recant, and anathematize all who held the opinion that he had endeavored to establish, with respect to unleavened bread, the Sabbath, and the marriage of the priests. “At the same time Nicetas, in compliance with the command of the emperor, anathematized all who should question the primacy of the Roman church with respect to all other Christian churches, or should presume to censure her ever orthodox faith. The monk having thus retracted all he had written against the Holy See, his book was burnt by the emperor’s order, and he absolved by the legates, from the censures he had incurred.” This record shows that, in the dense darkness of the eleventh century, “one of the most learned men at that time in the East” wrote a book to prove that “the Sabbath ought to be kept holy,” and in opposition to the papal doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy. It also shows how the church of Rome casts down the truth of God by means of the sword of emperors and kings. Though Nicetas retracted, under fear of the emperor and the pope, it appears that there were others who held the same opinions; for he was “obliged” to anathematize all such, and there is no evidence that any of these persons turned from the truth because of the fall of their leader.
Indeed, if there had not been a considerable body of these Sabbatarians, the papal legate would never have deemed it worthy of his dignity to write a reply to Nicetas.
The Anabaptists are often referred to in the records of the Dark Ages. The term signifies re-baptizers, and was applied to them because they denied the validity of infant baptism. The designation is not accurate, however, because those persons whom they baptized, they considered as never having been baptized before, although they had been sprinkled, or even immersed in infancy. This people have been overwhelmed in obloquy in consequence of the fanatical insurrection which broke out in their name in the time of Luther. Of those engaged in this insurrection, Buck says: — “The first insurgents groaned under severe oppressions, and took up arms in defense of their civil liberties; and of these commotions the Anabaptists seem rather to have availed themselves, than to have been the prime movers. That a great part were Anabaptists seems indisputable; at the same time it appears from history that a great part also were Roman Catholics, and a still greater part of those who had scarcely any religious principles at all.” This matter is placed in the true light by Stebbing: — “The overthrow of civil society, and fatal injuries to religion, were threatened by those who called themselves Anabaptists. But large numbers appear to have disputed the validity of infant baptism who had nothing else in common with them, yet who for that one circumstance were overwhelmed with the obloquy, and the punishment richly due to a fanaticism equally fraudulent and licentions.” The ancient Sabbath was retained and observed by a portion of the Anabaptists, or, to use a more proper term, Baptists. Dr. Francis White thus testifies: — “They which maintain the Saturday Sabbath to be in force, comply with some Anabaptists.” 61 In harmony with this statement of Dr. White, is the testimony of a French writer of the sixteenth century. He names all the classes of men who have borne the name of Anabaptists. And of one of them he writes as, follows: — “Some have endured great torments, because they would not keep Sundays and festival days, in despite of Antichrist: seeing they were days appointed by Antichrist, they would not hold forth any thing which is like unto him. Others observe these days, but it is out of charity.” Thus it is seen that within the limits of the old Roman Empire, and in the midst of those countries that submitted to the rule of the pope, God reserved unto himself a people who did not bow the knee to Baal; and among these the Bible Sabbath was observed from age to age.
We are now to search for the Sabbath among those who were never subjected to the Roman pontiff. In Central Africa, from the first part of the Christian era, — possibly from the time of the conversion of the Ethiopian officer of great authority,(Acts 8:26-40.) but very Certainly as early as A.D. 330, 63 — have existed the churches of Abyssinia and Ethiopia. About the time of the accessions of the Roman bishop to supremacy, they were lost sight of by the nations of Europe. “Encompassed on all sides,” says Gibbon, “by the enemies of their religion, the Ethiopians slept near a thousand years, forgetful of the world, by whom they were forgotten.” 64 In the latter part of the fifteenth century, they were again brought to the knowledge of the world by the discovery of Portuguese navigators. Undoubtedly they have been greatly affected by the dense darkness of pagan and Mohammedan errors with which they are encompassed; and in many respects they have lost the pure and spiritual religion of our divine Redeemer. A modern traveler says of them: “They have divers errors, and many ancient truths.” 65 Michael Geddes says of them: — “The Abyssinians do hold the Scriptures to be the perfect rule of the Christian faith; insomuch that they deny it to be in the power of a general council to oblige people to believe anything as an article of faith without an express warrant from thence .” 66 They practice circumcision, but for other reasons than that of a religious duty. 67 Geddes further states their views: — “Transubstantiation, and the adoration of the consecrated bread in the sacrament, were what the Abyssinians abhorred…They deny purgatory, and know nothing of confirmation and extreme unction; they condemn graven images; they keep both Saturday and Sunday.” Their views of the Sabbath are stated by the ambassador of the king of Ethiopia, at the court of Lisbon, in the following words, explaining their abstinence from all labor on that day: — “Because God, after he had finished the creation of the world, rested thereon; which day, as God would have it called the holy of holies, so the not celebrating thereof with great honor and devotion seems to be plainly contrary to God’s will and precept, who will suffer heaven and earth to pass away sooner than his word; and that, especially, since Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. It is not, therefore: in imitation of the Jews, but in obedience to Christ and his holy apostles, that we observe that day.” The ambassador states their reasons for first-day observance in these words: — “We do observe the Lord’s day after the manner of all other Christians in memory of Christ’s resurrection.” He had no Scripture to offer in support of this festival, and evidently rested its observance upon tradition. This account was given by the ambassador in 1534. In the early part of the next century, the emperor of Abyssinia was induced to submit to the pope in these words: — “I confess that the pope is the vicar of Christ, the successor of St.
Peter, and the sovereign of the world. To him I swear true obedience, and at his feet I offer my person and kingdom.” 71 No sooner had the Roman bishop thus brought the emperor to submit to him, than that potentate was compelled to gratify the popish hatred of the Sabbath by an edict forbidding its further observance.
In the words of Geddes, he “set forth a proclamation prohibiting all his subjects, upon severe penalties, to observe Saturday any longer;” 72 or, as Gibbon expresses it, “The Abyssinians were enjoined to work and to play on the Sabbath.” But the tyranny of the Romanists, after a terrible struggle, caused their overthrow mid banishment, and the restoration of the ancient faith. The churches resounded with a song of triumph, “‘that the sheep of Ethiopia were now delivered from the hyaenas of the West;’ and the gates of that solitary realm were forever shut against the arts, the science, and the fanaticism of Europe.” We have proved in a former chapter that the Sabbath was extensively observed, as late as the middle of the fifth century, in the so-called Catholic church, especially in that portion most intimately connected with the Abyssinians; and that from various causes, Sunday obtained certain Sabbatic honors, in consequence of which the two days were called sisters.
We have also shown in another chapter that the effectual suppression of the Sabbath in Europe is mainly due to papal influence. And so for a thousand years we have been tracing its history in the records of those men which the church of Rome has sought to kill.
These facts are strikingly corroborated by the case of the Abyssinians. In consequence of their location in the interior of Africa, the Abyssinians ceased to be known to the rest of Christendom about the fifth century. At this time, the Sabbath and the Sunday in the Catholic church were counted sisters. One thousand years later, these African churches were visited, and though surrounded by the thick darkness of pagan and Mohammedan superstition, and somewhat affected thereby, they were to be found, at the end of this period, holding the Sabbath and first-day substantially as they were held by the Catholic church when it lost sight of them. The Catholics of Europe, on the contrary, had in the meantime trampled the ancient Sabbath in the dust. Why was this great contrast? — Simply because the pope ruled in Europe; while central Africa, whatever else it may have suffered, was not cursed with his presence nor his influence. But so soon as the pope learned of the existence of the Abyssinian churches, he sought to gain control of them, and when he had gained it, one of his first acts was to suppress the Sabbath! In the end, the Abyssinians regained their independence, and thenceforward till the present time have held fast the Sabbath of the, Lord.
The Armenians of the East. Indies are peculiarly worthy of our attention.
J.W. Massie, M. R. I. A., says of the East Indian Christians: — “Remote from the busy haunts of commerce, or the populous. scats of manufacturing industry, they may be regarded as the Eastern Piedmontese, the Vallois of Hindoostan, the witnesses prophesying in sackcloth through revolving centuries, though indeed their bodies lay as dead in the streets of the city which they had once peopled.” Geddes says of those in Malabar: — “The ‘three great doctrines of popery, the pope’s supremacy, transubstantiation, the adoration of images, were never believed nor practiced at any time in this ancient apostolical church.. think one may venture to say that before the time of the late Reformation, there was no church that we know of, no, not that of the Vaudois,. . that had so few errors in doctrine as the church of Malabar.” He adds concerning those churches that “were never within the bounds of the Roman Empire,” “It is in those churches that we are to meet with the least of the leaven of popery.” Mr. Massie further describes these Christians: — “The creed which these representatives of an ancient line of Christians cherished was not in conformity with papal decrees, and has with difficulty been squared with the thirty-nine articles of the Anglican episcopacy. Separated from the Western world for a thousand years, they were naturally ignorant of many novelties introduced by the councils and decrees of the Lateran; and their conformity with the faith and practice of the first ages laid them open to the unpardonable guilt of heresy and schism, as estimated by the church of Rome. ‘We are Christians, and not idolaters,’ was their expressive reply when required to do homage to the image of the Virgin Mary. .. La Croze states them at fifteen hundred churches, and as many towns and villages. They refused to recognize the pope, and declared they had never heard of him; they asserted the purity and primitive truth of their faith since they came, and their bishops had for thirteen hundred years been sent from the place where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians.” The Sabbatarian character of these Christians is hinted by Mr. Yeates. He says that Saturday “among them is a festival day, agreeable to the ancient practice of the church .” “The ancient practice of the church,” as we have seen, was to hallow the seventh day in memory of the Creator’s rest. This practice has been suppressed wherever the great apostasy had power to do it. But the Christians of the East Indies, like those of Abyssinia, have lived sufficiently remote from Rome to be preserved in some degree from its blasting influence. The fact is further hinted by the same writer in the following language: — “The inquisition was set up at Goa in the Indies, at the instance of Francis Xaverius [a famous Romish saint], who signified by letters to Pope John III., Nov. 10, 1545, ‘ThatTHE JEWISH WICKEDNESS spreads more and more in the parts of the East Indies subject to the kingdom of Portugal, and therefore he earnestly besought the said king, that to cure so great an evil he would take care to send the office of the inquisition into those countries.’” “The Jewish wickedness” was doubtless the observance of Saturday as “a festival day agreeable to the ancient practice of the church,” of which this author had just spoken. The history of the past, as we have seen, shows the hatred of the papal church toward the Sabbath. And the struggle of that church to suppress the Sabbath in Abyssinia, and to subject that people to the pope, which at this very point of time was just commencing, shows that the Jesuits would not willingly tolerate Sabbatic observance in the East Indies, even though united with the observance of Sunday also.
It appears, therefore, that this Jesuit missionary desired the pope and the king of Portugal to establish the inquisition in that part of the Indies subject to Portugal, in order to root out the Sabbath from those ancient churches. The inquisition was established in answer to this prayer, and Xavier was subsequently canonized as a saint! Nothing can more clearly show the malignity of the Roman pontiff toward the Sabbath of the Lord; and nothing more clearly illustrates the kind of men that he canonizes as saints.
Since the time of Xavier, the East Indies have fallen under British rule. A distinguished clergyman of the church of England, some years since visited the British empire in India, for the purpose of acquainting himself with these churches, lie gave the following deeply interesting sketch of these ancient Christians, and in it particularly marks their Sabbatarian character: “The history of the Armenian church is very interesting. ‘Of all the Christians in Central Asia, they have preserved themselves most free from Mahometan and papal corruptions. The pope assailed them for a time with great violence, but with little effect. The churches in lesser Armenia, indeed, consented to an union,’ which did not long continue; but those in Persian Armenia maintained their independence; and they retain their ancient Scriptures, doctrines, and worship, to this day. ‘ It is marvelous,’ says an intelligent traveler who was much among them, ‘how the Armenian Christians have preserved their faith, equally against the vexatious oppression of the Mahometans, their sovereigns, and against the persuasions of the Romish church, which for more than two centuries has endeavored, by missionaries, priests, trod monks, to attach them to her communion. It is impossible to describe the artifices and expenses of the court of Rome to effect this object, but all in vain.’ “The Bible was translated into the Armenian language in the fifth century, under very auspicious circumstances, the history of which has come down to us. It has been allowed by competent judges of the language, to be a most faithful translation, La Cruze calls it the ‘Queen of Versions.’ This Bible has ever remained in the possession of the Armenian people; and many illustrious instances of genuine and enlightened piety occur in their history. .. The Armenians in Hindoostan are our own subjects. They acknowledge our government in India, as they do that of the Sophi in Persia; and they are entitled to our regard. They have preserved the Bible in its purity; and their doctrines are, as far as the author knows, the doctrines of the Bible. Besides, they maintain the solemn observance of Christian worship throughout our empire,ON THE SEVENTH DAY, and they have as many spires pointing to heaven among the Hindoos as we ourselves. Are such a people, then, entitled to no acknowledgment on our part, as fellow-Christians?
Are they forever to be ranked by us with Jews, Mahometans, and Hindus?” It has been said, however, that Buchanan might have intended Sunday by the term “seventh day.” This is a very unreasonable interpretation of his words. Episcopalian clergymen are not accustomed to call Sunday the seventh day. We have, however, testimony which cannot with candor be explained away. It is that of Purchas, written in the seventeenth century.
The author speaks of several sects of the Eastern Christians “continuing from ancient times,” as Syrians, Jacobites, Nestortians, Maronites, and Armenians. Of the Syrians, or Surians, as he variously spells the name, who, from his relation, appear to be identical with the Armenians, he says: — “They keep Saturday holy, nor esteem Saturday fast lawful but on Easter even. They have solemn service on Saturdays, eat flesh, and feast it bravely like the Jews.” This author speaks of these Christians disrespectfully, but he uses the uncandid statements of their adversaries, which, indeed, are no worse than those often made in these days concerning those who hallow the Bible Sabbath. These facts clearly attest the continued observance of the Sabbath during the whole period of the Dark Ages. The church of Rome was indeed able to exterminate the Sabbath from its own communion, but it was retained by the true people of God, who were measureably hidden from the papacy in the wilds of, Central Europe; while those African and East Indian churches, that were never within the limits of the pope’s dominion, have steadfastly retained the Sabbath to the present day.
POSITION OF THE REFORMERS CONCERNING THE SABBATH AND FIRST-DAY
The Reformation arose in the Catholic church — The Sabbath had been crushed out of that church, and innumerable festivals established in its stead. — Sunday as observed by Luther, Melancthon, Zwingle, Beza, Bucer, Cranmer, and Tyndale — The position of Calvin stated at length and illustrated — Knox agreed with Calvin — Sunday in Scotland, A.D. 1601 — How we should view the Reformers.
FROM the bosom of the Catholic church itself, arose the great Reformation of the sixteenth century. The Sabbath had long been extirpated from that church; and instead of that merciful institution ordained by the divine Lawgiver for the rest and refreshment of mankind, and that man might acknowledge God as his Creator, the papacy had ordained innumerable festivals, which, as a terrible burden, crushed the people ‘to the earth.
These festivals are thus enumerated by Dr. Heylyn: — “These holy days as they were named particularly in Pope Gregory’s decretal, so was a perfect list made of them in the Synod of Lyons, A.D. 1244, which being celebrated with a great concourse of people from all parts of Christendom, the canons and decrees thereof began forthwith to find a general admittance. The holy days allowed of there, were these that follow; viz., the feast of Christ’s nativity, St. Stephen, St. John the evangelist, the Innocents, St.
Sylvester, the circumcision of our Lord, the Epiphany, Easter, together with the week precedent, and the week succeeding, the three days in rogation week, the day of Christ’s ascension, Whitsunday, with the two days after, St. John the Baptist, the feasts of all the twelve apostles! all the festivities of our Lady, St.
Lawrence,ALL THE LORD’ S DAYS IN THE YEAR, St. Michael the Archangel, All Saints, St. Martin’s, the wakes, or dedication of particular churches, together with the feasts of such topical or local saints which some particular people had been pleased to honor with a day particular amongst themselves. On these and every one of them, the people were restrained as before was said from many several kinds of work, on pain of ecclesiastical censures to be laid on them which did offend, unless on some emergent causes, either of charity or necessity, they were dispensed with for so doing. ..
Peter de Aliaco, Cardinal of Cambray, in a discourse by him exhibited to the council of Constance [A.D. 1416], made public suit unto the fathers there assembled, that there might [be] a stop in that kind hereafter; as also that excepting Sundays and the greater festivals it might be lawful? or the people, after the end of divine service, to attend their business; the poor especially, as having little time enough on the working days to get their living. But these were only the expressions of well-wishing men. The popes were otherwise resolved, and did not only keep the holy days which they found established in the same state in which they found them, but added others daily as they saw occasion. .. Thus stood it as before I said, both for the doctrine and the practice, till men began to look into the errors and abuses in the Roman church with a more serious eye than before they did.” Such was the state of things when the reformers began their labors. That they should give up these Festivals and return to the observance of the ancient Sabbath, would be expecting too much of men educated in the bosom of the Romish church. Indeed, it ought not to surprise us that, while they were constrained to strike down the authority of these festivals, they should nevertheless retain the most important of them in their observance. The reformers spoke on this matter as follows: The Confession of the Swiss churches declares that— “The observance of the Lord’s day’ is founded not on any commandment of God, but on the authority of the church; and, That the church may alter the day at pleasure.” We further learn that, — “In the Augsburg Confession, which was drawn up by Melancthon [and approved by Luther], to the question, ‘What ought we to think of the Lord’s day?’ it is answered that the Lord’s day, Easter, Whitsuntide, and other such holy days, ought to be kept because they are appointed by the church, that all things may be done in order; but that the observance of them is not to be thought necessary to salvation, nor the violation of them, if it be done without offense to others, to be regarded as a Sill.” Zwingle declared “that it was lawful on the Lord’s day, after divine service, for any man to pursue his labors.” 4 Beza taught that “no cessation of work on the Lord’s day is required of Christians.” 5 Bucer goes further yet, “and doth not only call it a superstition, but an apostasy from Christ to think that working on the Lord’s day, in itself considered, is a sinful thing.” 6 And Cranmer, in his Catechism, published in 1548, says: — “We now keep no more the Sabbath on Saturday as the Jews do; but we observe the Sunday, and certain other days as the magistrates do judge convenient, whom in this thing we ought to obey.” Tyndale said: — “As for the Sabbath, we be lords over the Sabbath, and may yet change it into Monday, or into any other day as we see need, or may make every tenth day holy day only if we see cause why.” It is plain that both Cranmer and Tyndale believed that the ancient Sabbath was abolished, and that Sunday was only a human ordinance which it was in the power of the magistrates and the church lawfully to change whenever they saw cause for so doing. And Dr. Hessey gives the opinion of Zwingle respecting the present power of each individual church to transfer the so-called Lord’s day to another day, whenever necessity urges, as, for example, in harvest time. Thus Zwingle says: — “If we would have the Lord’s day so bound to time that it shall be wickedness to transfer it to another time, in which resting from our labors equally as in that, we may hear the word of God, if necessity haply shall so require, this day so solicitously observed, would obtrude on us as a ceremony. For we are no way bound to time, but time ought so to serve us, that it is lawful, and permitted to each church, when necessity urges (as is usual to be done in harvest time), to transfer the solemnity and rest of the Lord’s day, or Sabbath, to some other day.” 9 Zwingle could not, therefore, have considered Sunday as a divinely appointed memorial of the resurrection, or; indeed, as anything but a church festival.
John Calvin said, respecting the origin of the Sunday festival: — “However, the ancients have not without sufficient reason substituted what we call the Lord’s day in the room of the Sabbath. For since the resurrection of the Lord is the end and consummation of that true rest, which was adumbrated by the ancient Sabbath; the same day which put an end to the shadows, admonishes Christians not to adhere to a shadowy ceremony. Yet I do not lay so much stress on the septenary number that I would oblige the church to an invariable adherence to it; nor will I condemn those churches which have other solemn days for their assemblies, provided they keep at a distance from superstition.’” It is worthy of notice that Calvin does not assign to Christ and his disciples the establishment of Sunday in the place of the Sabbath. He says this was done by the “ancients,” 11 or as another translates it, “the old fathers.” Nor does he say “the day which John called the Lord’s day,” but “the day which we call the Lord’s day.” And what is worthy of particular notice, he did not insist that the day which should be appropriated to worship should be one day in every seven; for he was not tied to “the septenary number.” The day might come once in six days, or once in eight.
And this proves conclusively that he did not regard Sunday as a divine institution in the proper sense of the word; for if he had, he would most assuredly have felt that the festival must be septenary, that is, weekly, and that he must urge “the church to an invariable adherence to it.” But Calvin does not leave the matter here. He condemns as “FALSE PROPHETS” those who attempt to enforce the Sunday festival by means of the fourth commandment; and, to do this, they say that the ceremonial part, which requires the observance of the definite seventh day, is abolished, while the moral part, which simply commands the observance of one day in seven, still remains in force, Here are his words: — “Thus vanish all the dreams of false prophets, who in past ages have infected the people with a Jewish notion, affirming that nothing but the ceremonial part of the commandment, which, according to them, is the appointment of the seventh day, has been abrogated, but that the moral part of it, that is, the observance of one day in seven, still remains. But this is only changing the day in contempt of the Jews, while they retain the same opinion of the holiness of a day.” Yet these very “dreams of false prophets,” to use the words of Calvin, constitute the foundation of the modern doctrine of the change of the Sabbath; for whatever may be said of first-day sacredness in the New Testament, the fourth commandment can only be made to recognize that day by means of this very doctrine of one day in seven which Calvin so Sharply denounces. Another important fact is that Calvin’s commentaries on the New Testament cover all the books from which quotations are made in behalf of Sunday, except the book of the Revelation. What does Calvin say concerning the Change of the Sabbath in the record of Christ’s resurrection? 13 — Not one word. He does not even hint at any sacredness in the day, nor any commemoration of the day. Does he say that the meeting “after eight days” was upon Sunday? — He does not say what day it was 14 What does he say of Sunday in treating of the day of Pentecost? 15 — Nothing. He does not so much as say that this festival was on the first day of the week. What does he say of the breaking of bread at Troas? He thinks it took place upon the ancient Sabbath. He says: — “Either he doth mean the first day of the week, which was next day after the Sabbath, or else some certain Sabbath. Which latter thing may seem to me more probable; for this cause, because that day was more fit for an assembly, according to custom .” He says, however, that this place might “very well” be translated “the morrow after the Sabbath;” but he adheres to his own translation, “one day of the Sabbaths,” and not “first day of the week.” He says further: — “For to what end is there mentioned of the Sabbath, save only that he may note the opportunity and choice of the time? Also, it is a likely matter that Paul waited for the Sabbath, that the day before his departure he might the more easily gather all the disciples into one place.” 17 “Therefore I think thus, that they had appointed a solemn day for the celebrating of the holy supper of the Lord among themselves, which might be commodious for them all.” This shows conclusively that Calvin believed the Sabbath, and not the first day of the week, to have been the day for meetings in the apostolic church.
But what does he say of the laying by in store on the first day of the week? — That Paul’s precept relates, not to the first day of the week, but to the Sabbath! And he marks the Sabbath as the day on which the sacred assemblies were held, and the communion celebrated, and says that on account of these things this was the most convenient day for collecting their contribution. Thus he writes: — “On one of the Sabbaths. The end is this: that they may have their alms ready in time. He therefore exhorts them not to wait till he Came, as anything that is done suddenly, and in a bustle, is not done well, but to contribute on the Sabbath what might seem good, and according as every one’s ability might enable; that is, on the day on which they held their sacred assemblies.” “For he has an eye, first of all, to convenience; and farther, that the sacred assembly, in which the communion of saints is celebrated, might be an additional spur to them. Nor am I inclined to admit the view taken by Chrysostom, that the term Sabbath is employed here to mean the Lord’s day (Revelation 1: 10); for the probability is, that the apostles, at the beginning, retained the day theft was already in use, but that afterwards, constrained by the superstition of the Jews, they set aside that day, and substituted another. Now the Lord’s day was made choice of chiefly because our Lord’s resurrection put an end to the shadows of the law. Hence the day itself puts us in mind of our Christian liberty.” These words are very remarkable. They show, first, that by the Sabbathday Calvin means, not the first day: but the seventh; secondly, that in his judgment, as late as the time of this epistle, and of the meeting at Troas [A.D. 60], the Sabbath was the day for the sacred assemblies of the Christians, and for the celebration of the communion; thirdly, “but that\parAFTERWARDS, constrained byTHE SUPERSTITION OF the Jews, they set aside that day, and substituted another.”
Calvin did not, therefore, believe that Christ changed the Sabbath to Sunday to commemorate his resurrection; for he says that the resurrection abolished the Sabbath,21 and yet he believes that the Sabbath was the sacred day of the Christians to the entire exclusion of Sunday, as late as the year 60. Nor could he believe that the apostles set apart. Sunday to commemorate the resurrection of Christ; for he thinks that they did not make choice of that day till after the year 60, and even then they did it merely because constrained so to do by the superstition of the Jews! Dr.
Hessey illustrates Calvin’s ideas of Sunday observance by the following incident: — “Knox was the intimate friend of Calvin — visited Calvin, and, it is said, on one occasion found him enjoying the recreation of bowls on Sunday.” Without doubt, Calvin was acting in exact harmony with his ideas of the nature of the Sunday festival. But the famous case of Michael Servetus furnishes us a still more pointed illustration of his views of the sacredness of that day. Servetus was arrested in Geneva on the personal application of John Calvin to the magistrates of that city. Such is the statement of Theodore Beza, the life-long friend of Calvin. 23 Beza’s translator adds to this fact the following remarkable statement: — “Promptness induced him to have this heresiarch arrested on a Sunday.” The same fact is stated by Robinson: — “While he waited for a boat to cross the lake in his way to Zurich, by some means Calvin got intelligence of his arrival; and although it was on a Sunday, yet he prevailed upon the chief syndic to arrest and imprison him. On that day, by the laws of Geneva no person could be arrested except for a capital crime; but this difficulty was easily removed, for John Calvin pretended that Servetus was a heretic, and that heresy was a capital crime.” “The doctor was arrested and imprisoned on Sunday, the thirteenth of August [A.D. 1553]. That very day he was brought into court.” 26 Calvin’s own words respecting the arrest are these: — “I will not deny but that he was made prisoner upon my application.” The warmest friends of first-day sacredness will not deny that the least sinful part of this transaction was that it occurred on Sunday.
Nevertheless, the fact that Calvin caused the arrest of Servetus on that day shows that he had no conviction that the day possessed any inherent sacredness.
John Barclay, 28 a learned man of Scotch descent, and a moderate Roman Catholic, who was born soon after the death of Calvin, and whose early life was spent in Eastern France, not very remote from Geneva, published the statement that Calvin and his friends at Geneva— “Debated whether the reformed, for the purpose of estranging themselves more completely from the Romish church, should not adopt Thursday as the Christian Sabbath.”
Another reason assigned by Calvin for this proposed change was, — “That it would be a proper instance of Christian liberty.” This statement has been credited by many learned Protestants, 30 some of whom must be acknowledged as men of candor and judgment. But Dr.
Twisee 31 discredits Barclay, because he did not name the individuals with whom Calvin consulted, and produce them as witnesses; and because King James I. of England at one time suspected Barclay of treachery toward him. But no such crime was ever proved, nor does it appear that the king continued always to hold him in that light. 32 His veracity has never been impeached. The statement of Barclay may possibly be incorrect, but it; is not inconsistent with Calvin’s doctrine that the church is not tied to a festival that should come once in seven days, even as Tyndale said that they could change the Sabbath into Monday or could “make every tenth day holy day, only if we see cause why; ” and it is in perfect harmony with Calvin’s idea of Sunday sacredness as shown in his acts already noticed. Like the other reformers, Calvin is not always consistent with himself in his statements. Nevertheless, we have his judgment concerning the several texts which are used to prove the change of the Sabbath, and also respecting the theory that the commandment may be used to enforce, not the seventh day; but one day in seven, and it is tidal to the modern first-day doctrine.
John Knox, the great Scottish reformer, was the intimate friend of Calvin, with whom he lived at Geneva during a portion of his exile from Scotland.
Though the foundation of the Presbyterian church of Scotland was laid by Knox, or rather by Calvin, for Knox carried out Calvin’s system, and though that church is now very strict in the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath, yet Knox himself was of Calvin’s mind as to the obligation of that day. The original Confession of Faith of that church was drawn up by Knox in A.D. 1560. 33 In that document, Knox states the duties of the first table of the law as follows: — “To have one God, to worship and honor him; to call upon him in all our troubles; to reverence his holy name; to hear his word; to believe the same; to communicate with his holy sacraments, are the works of the first table.” It is plain that Knox believed the Sabbath commandment to have been stricken out of the first table. Dr. Hessey, after speaking of certain references to Sunday in a subsequent work of his, makes this statement respecting the present doctrine of the Sabbath in the Presbyterian church: — “On the whole, whatever the language held at present in Scotland may be, it is certainly not owing to the great man whom the Scotch regard as the apostle of the Reformation in their country.” That church now holds Sunday to be the divinely authorized memorial of the resurrection of Christ, enforced by the authority of the fourth commandment. But not thus was it held by Calvin and Knox. A British write,: states the condition of things with respect to Sunday in Scotland about the year 1601: — “At the commencement of the seventeenth century, tailors, shoemakers, and bakers in Aberdeen were accustomed to work till eight or nine every Sunday morning. While violation of the prescribed ritual observances was punished by fine, the exclusive consecration of the Sunday which subsequently prevailed was then unknown. Indeed, there were regular ‘play Sundays’ in Scotland till the end of the sixteenth century.” But the Presbyterian church, after Knox’s time, effected an entire change with respect to Sunday observance. the same writer says: — “The Presbyterian Kirk introduced into Scotland the Judaical observance of the Sabbath [Sunday], retaining with some inconsistency the Sunday festival of the Catholic church, while rejecting all[the other feasts which its authority had consecrated.” Dr. Hessey shows the method’, of doing this as follows: — “Of course some difficulties had to be got over. The Sabbath was the seventh day, Sunday was the first day of the week. But an ingenious theory that one day in seven was the essence of the fourth commandment, speedily reconciled them to this.” The circumstances under which this new doctrine was framed, the name of its author, and the date of its publication will be given in their place. That the body of the reformers should have failed to recognize the authority of the fourth commandment, and that they did not turn men from the Romish festivals to the Sabbath of the Lord, is a matter of regret rather than of surprise. The impropriety of making them the standard of divine truth is forcibly set forth in the following language: — “Luther and Calvin reformed many abuses, especially in the discipline of the church, and also some gross corruptions in doctrine; but they left other things of far greater moment just as they found them. .. It was great merit in them to go as far as they did, and it is not they, but we, who are to blame if their authority induce us to go no farther. We should rather imitate them in the boldness and spirit with which they called in question and rectified so many long-established errors; and availing ourselves of their labors, make further progress than they were able to do. Little reason have we to allege their name, authority, and example, when they did a great deal and we do nothing at all. In this we are not imitating them, but those who opposed and counteracted them, willing to keep things as they were.” 39
LUTHER AND CARLSTADT
The case of Carlstadt worthy of notice — His difficulty with Luther respecting the epistle of James His boldness in standing with Luther against the pope — What Carlstadt did during Luther’s captivity — How far he came under fanaticism — Who acted with Carlstadt in the remoral of images from the churches, the suppression of masses, and the abolition of the law of celibacy — Luther on returning restored the mass, and suppressed the simple ordinance of the supper — Carlstadt submitted to Luther’s correction — After two years, Carlstadt felt constrained to oppose Luther respecting the supper — The grounds of their difference respecting the Reformation — Luther said Christ’s flesh and blood were literally present IN the bread and wine — Carlstadt said they were simply represented by them — The controversy which followed — Carlstadt refuted by banishment — His cruel treatment in exile — lie was not connected with the disorderly conduct of the Anabaptists — Why Carlstadt has been so harshly judged — D’Aubigne’s estimate of this controversy — Carlstadt’s labors in Switzerland — Luther writes against:him — Luther and Carlstadt reconciled — D’Aubign’s estimate of Carlstadt as a scholar and a Christian — Carlstadt a Sabbatartan — Wherein Luther benefited Carlstadt — Wherein Luther might have been benefited by Carlstadt.
IT is worthy of notice that at least one of the reformers of considerable prominence — Carlstadt — was a Sabbatarian. It is impossible to read the records of the Reformation without the conviction that Carlstadt was desirous of a more thorough work. of reformation than was Luther; and that while Luther was disposed to tolerate certain abuses lest the Reformation should be endangered, Carlstadt was, at all hazards, for a complete return to the Holy Scriptures.
The Sabbatarian principles of Carlstadt, his intimate connection with Luther, his prominence in the early history of the Reformation, and the important bearing of Luther’s decision concerning the Sabbath upon the entire History of the Protestant church, render the former worthy of notice in the history of the Sabbath. We shall give his record in the exact words of the best Historians, none of whom were in sympathy with his observance of the seventh day. The manner in which they state his faults shows that they were not partial toward him. Shortly after Luther began to peach against the merit of good works, his deep interest in the work of delivering men from popish thralldom led him to deny the inspiration of some portions of those scriptures which were quoted against him. Dr.
Sears thus states the case: — “Luther was so zealous to maintain the doctrine of justification by faith, that he was prepared even to call in question the authority of some portions of Scripture, which seemed to him not to be reconcilable with it. To the epistle of James, especially, his expressions indicate the strongest repugnance.” Before Luther’s captivity in the castle of Wartburg, a dispute had arisen between himself and Carlstadt on this very subject. It is recorded of Carlstadt that in the year 1520 — “He published a treatise ‘Concerning the Canon of Scripture,’ which, although defaced by bitter attacks on Luther, was nevertheless an able work, setting forth the great principle of Protestantism, viz., the paramount authority of Scripture. He also at this time contended for the authority of the epistle of St. James, against Luther. On the publication of the bull of Leo X. against the reformers, Carlstadt showed a real and honest courage in standing firm with Luther. His work on ‘Papal Sanctity’ (1520) attacks the ‘infallibility of the pope, on the basis of the Bible.” Luther, as is well known, while returning from the Diet, of Worms, was seized by the agents of the Elector of Saxony, and hidden from his enemies in Wartburg castle. We read of Carlstadt at this time as follows:— “In 1521, during Luther’s confinement in the Wartburg, Carlstadt had almost sole control of the reform movement at Wittemburg, and was supreme in the university. He attacked monachism and celibacy in a treatise ‘Concerning Celibacy, Monachism, and Widowhood.’ His next point of assault was the Mass; and a riot of students and young citizens against the Mass soon followed. On Christmas, 1521, he gave the sacrament in both kinds to the laity, and in German; and in January, 1522, he married. His headlong zeal led him to do whatever he came to believe right, at once and arbitrarily. But he soon outran Luther, and one of his great mistakes was in putting the Old Testament on the same footing as the New. On Jan. 24, 1522, Carlstadt obtained the adoption of a new church constitution at Wittemburg, which is of interest only as the first Protestant organization of the Reformation.” There were present at this time in Wittemberg certain fanatical teachers, who, from the town whence they came, were called “the prophets of Zwickau.” They brought Carlstadt for a time so far under their influence, that he concluded academical degrees to be sinful, and that, as the inspiration of the Spirit was sufficient, there was no need of human learning. He therefore advised the students of the university to return to their homes. 4 That institution was in danger of dissolution. Such was Carlstadt’s course in Luther’s absence. With the exception of this last movement, his acts were in themselves right.
The changes made at Wittemberg during Luther’s absence are, whether timely or not, generally set down to Carlstadt’s account, and said to have been made by him on his individual responsibility, and in a fanatical manner. But this was quite otherwise. Dr. Maclaine thus states the case: — “The reader may perhaps imagine, from Dr. Mosheim’s account of this matter, that Carlstadt introduced these changes merely by his own authority; but this was far from being the case; the suppression of private masses, the removal of images cut of the churches, the abolition of the law which imposed celibacy upon the clergy; which are the changes hinted at by our historian as rash and perilous, were effected by Carlstadt, in conjunction with Bugenhagius, Melancthon, Jonas Amsdorf, and others, and were confirmed by the authority of the Elector of Saxony; so that there is some reason to apprehend that one of the principal causes of Luther’s displeasure at these changes, was their being introduced in his absence; unless we suppose that he had not so far shaken off the fetters of superstition, as to be sensible of the absurdity and the pernicious consequences of the use of images.” Carlstadt had given the cup to the laity, of which they had long been deprived by Rome. He had set aside the worship of the consecrated bread.
Dr. Sears rehearses this work of Carlstadt, and then tells us what Luther did concerning it on his return: — “He [Carlstadt] had so far restored the sacrament of the Lord’s supper as to distribute the wine as well as the bread to the laity.
Luther, ‘in order not to offend weak consciences,’ insisted on distributing the bread only, and prevailed. He [Carlstadt] rejected the practice of elevating and adoring the host. Luther allowed it, and introduced it again.” The position of Carlstadt was at this time very trying. He had not received “many things taught by the new teachers” from Zwickau; but he had publicly taught some of their fanatical ideas relative to the influence of, the Spirit of God superseding the necessity of study. But in the suppression of the idolatrous services of the Romanists, he was essentially right, lie had the pain to see much of this set up again. Moreover, the Elector would not allow him either to preach or write upon the points wherein he differed from Luther. D’Aubigne states his course as follows: — “Nevertheless, he sacrificed his self-love for the sake of peace, restrained his desire to vindicate his doctrine, was reconciled, at least in appearance, to his colleague [Lather], and soon after resumed his studies in the university.” As Luther taught some doctrines which Carlstadt could not approve, he felt at last that he must speak. Dr. Sears thus writes: — “After Carlstadt had been compelled to keep silence, from 1522 to 1524, and to submit to the superior power and authority of Luther, he could contain himself no longer. He therefore left Wittemberg, and established a press at Jena, through which he could, in a series of publications, give vent to his convictions, so long pent up.” The principles at the foundation of their ideas of the Reformation were these: Carlstadt insisted on rejecting everything in the Catholic church not authorized in the Bible; Luther was determined to retain everything not expressly forbidden. Dr. Sears here states their primary differences: — “Carlstadt maintained that ‘we should not, in things pertaining to God, regard what the multitude say or think, but look simply to the word of God. Others,’ he adds, ‘say that, on account of the weak, we should not hasten to keep the commands of God; but wait till they become wise and strong.’ In regard to the ceremonies introduced into the church, he judged as the Swiss reformers did, that all were to be rejected which had not a warrant in the Bible. ‘It is sufficiently against the Scriptures if you can find no ground for it in them.’ “Luther asserted, on the contrary, ‘Whatever is not against the Scriptures is for the Scriptures, and the Scriptures for it. Though Christ hath not commanded adoring of the host, so neither hath he forbidden it.’ ‘Not so,’ said Carlstadt; ‘we are bound to the Bible, and no one may decide after the thoughts of his own heart.’” It is of interest to know what was the subject which caused the controversy between them, and what was the position of each. Dr.
Machlaine states the occasion of the conflict which now arose:— “This difference of opinion between Carlstadt and Luther concerning the eucharist, was the true cause of the violent rupture between those two eminent men, and it tended very little to the honor of the latter; for, however the explication which the former gave of the words of the institution of the Lord’s supper may appear forced, yet; the sentiments he entertained of that ordinance as a commemoration of Christ’s death, and not as a celebration of his bodily presence, in consequence of a consubstantiation with the bread and wine, are infinitely more rational than the doctrine of Luther, which is loaded with some of the most palpable absurdities of transubstantiation; and if it be supposed that Carlstadt strained the rule of interpretation too far, when he alleged that Christ pronounced the pronoun this (in the words, This is my body), pointing to his body, and not to the bread, what shall we think of Luther’s explaining the nonsensical doctrine of consubstantiation by the similitude of a red-hot iron, in which two elements are united, as the body of Christ is with the bread of the eucharist?” Dr. Scars also states the occasion of this conflict in 1524: — “The most important difference between him and Luther, and that which most embittered the latter against him, related to the Lord’s supper. He opposed not only transubstantiation, but consubstantiation, the real presence, and the elevation and adoration of the host. Luther rejected the first, asserted the second and third, and allowed the other two. In regard to the real presence, he says: ‘ In the sacrament is the real body. of Christ and the real blood of Christ, so that even the unworthy and ungodly partake of it; and “partake of it corporally,” too, and not spiritually, as Carlstadt will have it.’” That Luther was the one chiefly in error in this controversy will be acknowledged by nearly every one at the present day. D’Aubigne cannot refrain from censuring him: — “When once the question of the supper was raised, Luther threw away the proper element of the Reformation, and took his stand for himself and his church in an exclusive Luteranism .” The controversy is thus characterized by Dr. Sears: — “A furious controversy ensued. Both parties exceeded the bounds of Christian propriety and moderation. Carlstadt was now in the vicinity of the Anabaptist tumults, excited by Muntzer. He sympathized with them in some things, but disapproved of their disorders. Luther made the most of this.” It is evident that in this contest Luther did not gain any decisive advantage, even in the estimation of his friends. The Elector of Saxony interfered, and banished Carlstadt! D’Aubigne relates this event as follows: — “He issued orders to deprive Carlstadt of his appointments, and banished him, not only from Orlamund, but from the States of the electorate.” “Luther had nothing to do with this sternness on the part of the prince; it was foreign to his disposition, — and this he afterward proved.” Carlstadt, for maintaining the doctrine now held by almost all Protestants concerning the supper, and for denying Luther’s doctrine that Christ is personally present in the bread, was rendered a homeless wanderer for years. 1iis banishment was in 1524. What followed is thus described: — “From this date until 1534 he wandered through Germany, pursued by the persecuting opinions of both Lutherans and papists, and at times reduced to great straits by indigence and unpopularity. But, although he always found sympathy and hospitality among the Anabaptists, yet he is evidently clear of the charge of complicity with Muntzer’s rebellion. Yet he was forbidden to write, his life was sometimes in danger, and he exhibits the melancholy spectacle of a man great and right in many respects, but whose rashness, ambition, and insincere zeal, together with many fanatical opinions, had put him under the well-founded but immoderate censure of both friends and foes.” Such language seems quite unwarranted by the facts. There was no justice in this persecution of Carlstadt. He did, for a brief time, hold some fanatical ideas, but he did not afterward maintain them. The sane writer speaks further in the same strain: — “It cannot be denied that in many respects he was apparently in advance of Luther, but his error lay in his haste to subvert and abolish the external forms and pomps before the hearts of the people, and doubtless his own, were prepared by an internal change. Biographies of him are numerous, and the Reformation no doubt owes him much of good, for which he has not the credit, as it was overshadowed by the mischief he produced.” Important truth relative to the services of Carlstadt is here stated, but it is connected with intimations of evil which have no sufficient foundation in fact. Dr. Sears speaks thus of the bitter language concerning him: — “For three centuries, Carlstadt’s moral character has been treated somewhat as Luther’s would have been, if only Catholic testimony had been heard. The party interested has been both witness and judge. What if we were to judge of Zwingle’s Christian character by Luther’s representations? The truth is, Carlstadt hardly showed a worse spirit;, or employed more abusive terms toward Luther, than Luther did toward him. Carlstadt knew that in many things the truth was on his side; and yet, in these, no less than in others, he was crushed by the civil power, which was on the side of Luther.” D’Aubigne speaks thus of the contest between these two men: — “Each turns against the error which, to his mind, seems most noxious, and in assailing it, goes — it may be — beyond the truth.
But this being admitted, it is still true that both are right in the prevailing turn of their thoughts, and though ranking in different hosts, the two great teachers are nevertheless found under the same standard — that of Jesus Christ who alone isTRUTH in the full import of that word.” D’Aubigne says of them after Carlstadt had been banished: — “It is impossible not to feel a pain at contemplating these two men, once friends, and both worthy of our esteem, thus angrily opposed.” Some time after Carlstadt’s banishment from Saxony, he visited Switzerland. D’Aubigne speaks of the result of his labors in that country, and what Luther did toward him: — “His instructions soon attracted an attention nearly equal to that which had been excited by the earliest theses put forth by Luther.
Switzerland seemed almost gained over to his doctrine. Bucer and Capito also appeared to adopt his views. “Then it was that Luther’s indignation rose to its height; and he put forth one of the most powerful, but also mostOUTRAGEOUS, of his controversial writings, — his book ‘Against the Celestial Prophets.’” Dr. Sears also mentions the labors of Carlstadt in Switzerland, and speaks of Luther’s uncandid book: — “The work which he wrote against him, he entitled,’ The Book against the Celestial Prophets.’ This was uncandid; for the controversy related chiefly to the sacrament of the supper. In the south of Germany and in Switzerland, Carlstadt found more adherents than Luther. Banished as an Anabaptist, he was received as a Zwinglian.” Dr. Maclaine relates an incident which followed, that is worthy of the better nature of these two illustrious Imen: — “Carlstadt, after his banishment from Saxony, composed a treatise against enthusiasm in general, and against the extravagant tenets and the violent proceedings of the Anabaptists in particular. This treatise was even addressed to Luther, who was so affected by it, that, repenting of his unworthy treatment of Carlstadt, he pleaded his cause, and obtained from the Elector a permission for him to return into Saxony.” “After this reconciliation with Luther, he composed a treatise on the eucharist, which breathes the most amiable spirit of moderation and humility; and having perused the writings of Zwingle, where he saw his own sentiments on that subject maintained with the greatest perspicuity and force of evidence, he repaired the second time to Zurich, and thence to Basil, where he was admitted to the offices of pastor and professor of divinity, and where, after having lived in the exemplary and constant practice of every Christian virtue, he died, amidst the warmest effusions of piety and resignation, on the 25th of December… 1541.” Of Carlstadt’s scholarship, and of his conscientiousness, D’Aubigne speaks thus:— “‘He was well acquainted,’ says Dr. Seheur, ‘with Latin, Greek and Hebrew;’ and Luther acknowledged him to be his superior in learning. Endowed with great powers of mind, he sacrificed to his convictions fame, station, country, and even his bread.” His Sabbatarian character is attested by Dr. White, Lord Bishop of Ely: — “The same [the observance of the seventh day] likewise being revived in Luther’s time by Carolastadius, Sternebergius, and by some sectaries among the Anabaptists, hath both then and ever since been censured as Jewish and heretical.” Dr. Sears alludes to Carlstadt’s observance of the seventh day, but as is quite usual with first day historians in such cases, he does it in such a manner as to leave the fact sufficiently obscure as to be passed over without notice by the general reader, he writes thus: — “Carlstadt differed essentially from Luther in, regard to the use to be made of the Old Testament. With him, the law of Moses was still binding. Luther, on the contrary, had a strong aversion to what he calls a legal and Judaizing religion. Carlstadt held to the divine authority of the Sabbath from the Old Testament; Luther believed Christians were free to observe any day as a Sabbath, provided they be uniform in observing it.” We have, however, Luther’s own statement respecting Carlstadt’s views of the Sabbath. It is from his book, “Against the Celestial Prophets:” — “Indeed, if Carlstadt were to write further about the Sabbath, Sunday would have to give way, and the Sabbath — that is to say, Saturday — must be kept holy; he would truly make us Jews in all things, and we should come to be circumcised; for that is true, and cannot be denied, that he who deems it necessary to keep one law of Moses, and keeps it as a law of Moses, must deem all necessary, and keep them all.” The various historians who treat of the difficulty between Luther and Carlstadt, speak freely of the motives of each. But of such matters it is best to speak but little; the day of Judgment will show the hearts of men, and we must wait till then. We may, however, freely speak of their acts, and may with propriety name the things wherein each would have benefited the other. Carlstadt’s errors at Wittenberg were not because he rejected Luther’s help, but because, he was deprived of it by Luther’s captivity. Luther’s errors in those things wherein Carlstadt was right, were because he saw it best to reject Carlstadt’s doctrine. 1. Carlstadt’s error in the removal of the images, the suppression of masses, the abolition of monastic vows, or vows of celibacy, and in giving the wine as well as the bread in the supper, and in performing the service in German, instead of Latin, if it was an error, was one of time rather than doctrine, Had Luther been with him, probably all would have been deferred for some months, or perhaps some years. 2. Carlstadt would probably have been saved by Luther’s presence from coming under the influence of the Zwickau prophets. As it was, he did for a brief season accept, not their teachings in general, but their doctrine that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in believers renders human learning vain and worthless. But in both these things, Carlstadt submitted to Luther’s correction. Had Luther regarded Carlstadt, he would have been benefited in the following particulars: — 1. In his zeal for the doctrine of justification by faith, he would have been saved from the denial of the inspiration of the epistle of James, and would not have called it a “strawy or chaffy epistle.” 2. Instead of exchanging transubstantiation — which is the Romish doctrine that the bread and wine of the supper become Christ’s literal flesh and blood — for consubstantiation, the doctrine which he fastened upon the Lutheran church, — that Christ’s flesh and blood are actually present in the bread and wine, — he would have given to that church the doctrine that the bread and wine simply represent the body and blood of Christ, and are used in commemoration of his sacrifice for our sins. 3. Instead of holding fast everything in the Romish church not expressly forbidden in the Bible, he would have laid all aside which had not the actual sanction of that holy book. 4. Instead of the Catholic festival of Sunday, he would have observed and transmitted to the Protestant church the ancient Sabbath of the Lord.
Carlstadt needed Luther’s help, and he accepted it. Did not Luther also need that of Carlstadt? Is it not time that Carlstadt should be vindicated from the great obloquy thrown upon him by the prevailing party? And would not this have been done long since had not Carlstadt been a decided Sabbatarian?
SABBATH-KEEPERS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
The judgment of the martyr Frith — The Reformation brings Sabbathkeepers to light in various countries — In Transylvania — In Bohemia — In Russia — In Germany — In Holland — In France — In England.
JOHN FRITH, an English reformer of considerable note, and a martyr, was converted by the labors of Tyndale about 1525, and assisted him in the translation of the Bible. He was burned at Smithfield, July 4, 1533. He is spoken of in the highest terms by the historians of the English Reformation. 1 His views respecting the Sabbath and first-day are thus stated by himself: — “The Jews have the word of God for their Saturday, sith [since] it is the seventh day, and they were commanded to keep the seventh day solemn. And we have not the word of God for us, but rather against us; for we keep not the seventh day, as the Jews do, but the first, which is not commanded by God’s law.” When the Reformation had lifted the veil of darkness that covered the nations of Europe, Sabbath-keepers were found in Transylvania, Bohemia, Russia, Germany, Holland, France, and England. It was not the Reformation which gave existence to these Sabbatarians, for the leaders of the Reformation, as a body, were not friendly to such views. On the contrary, these observers of the Sabbath appear to be remnants of the ancient Sabbath-keeping churches that had witnessed for the truth during the Dark Ages.
Transylvania, a country which now constitutes one of the eastern divisions of the Austrian empire, was, in the sixteenth century, an independent principality. About the middle of that century, the country was under the rule of Sigismund. The historian of the Baptists, Robinson, gives the following interesting record of events in that age and country: — “The prince received his first religious impressions under his chaplain, Alexius, who was a Lutheran. On his removal, he chose Francis Davidis to succeed him, and by him was further informed of the principles of the Reformation. Davidis was a native of that extremely populous and well-fortified town which is called Coleswar by the natives, Clausenberg by the Germans, and by others, Claudiopolls. He was a man of learning, address, and piety, and reasoned in this part of his life more justly on the principles of the Reformation than many of his contemporaries. In 1563 his highness invited several learned foreigners to come into Transylvania for the purpose of helping forward the Reformation. “Several other foreigners, who had been persecuted elsewhere, sought refuge in this country, where persecution for religion was unknown. These refugees were Unitarian Baptists, trod through their indefatigable industry and address, the prince, the greatest part of the senate, a great number of ministers, and a multitude of the people went heartily into their plan of reformation. “In the end the Baptists became; by far the most numerous party, and were put in possession of a printing-office and an academy, and the cathedral was given to them for a place of worship. They obtained these without any violence, and while they formed their own churches according to the convictions of their members, they persecuted nobody, but allotted the same liberty to others, and great numbers of Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists resided in perfect freedom.” Mr. Robinson further informs us that Davidis took extreme Unitarian ground with respect to the worship of Christ, which seems to have been the only serious error that can be laid to his charge. Davidis was a Unitarian Baptist minister, intrusted by his brethren with the superintendency of the churches in Transylvania. His influence in that country at one period was very great. His views of the Sabbath are thus stated: — “He supposed the Jewish Sabbath not abrogated, and he therefore kept holy the seventh day. He believed also the doctrine of the millennium, and like an honest; man, what he believed he taught.
He was considered by the Transylvanian churches as an apostle, and had grown gray in their service; but the Catholics, the Lutherans, and the Calvinists thought him a Turk, a blasphemer, and an atheist, and his Polish Baptist brethren said he was half a Jew. Had he been a whole Jew, he ought not to have been imprisoned for his speculations. “By what means the Supreme Searcher of hearts only knows, but by some methods till then unknown in Transylvania, the old man was arrested, and by the senate condemned to die. He was imprisoned in the castle, and Providence, by putting a period to his life there, saved his persecutors from the disgrace of a public execution.” Mr. Robinson. says that “many have been blamed” for the death of Davidis, “but perhaps the secret springs of this; event may never be known till the Judge of the world maketh inquisition for blood.” There were many Sabbatarians in Transylvania at this time, for Mr. Robinson enumerates many persons, of distinction who were of the same views with Davidis: the ambassador Be-quessius., general of the army; the princess, sister of prince John; the privy counselor, Chaquius, and the two Quendi; general Andrassi, and many others of high rank; Somer, the rector of the academy at Claudiopolis; Matthias Glirius, Adam Neusner, and Christian Francken, a professor in the academy at Claudiopolis. “These,” says Robinson, “were all of the same sentiments as Davidis, as were many more of different ranks, who, after his death in prison, defended his opinion against Socinus. Palaeologus was of the same mind; he had fled into Moravia, but was caught by the emperor, at the request of Pope Gregory XIV., and carried to Rome, where he was burnt for a heretic, He was an old man, and was terrified at first into a recantation, but he recollected himself, and submitted to his fate like a Christian.” These persons must have been Sabbatarians. Mosheim, after saying that Davidis “Left behind him disciples and friends who strenuously maintained his sentiments,” adds: — “The most eminent of these were Jacob Palaeologus, of the isle of Chio, who was burned at Rome in 1585; Christian Francken, who had disputed in person with Socinus; and John Somer, who was master of the academy of Clausenberg. This little sect is branded by the Socinian writers with the ignominious appellation ofSEMIJUDAIZERS.” We have a further record of Sabbatarians in Transylvania to the effect that in the time of Davidis, — “John Gerendi [was] head of the Sabbatarians, a people who did not keep Sunday, but Saturday, and whose disciples took the name of Genoldists. ” Sabbath-keepers, also, were found in Bohemia, a country of Central Europe, at the time of the Reformation. We are dependent upon those who despised their faith and practice for a knowledge of their existence.
Erasmus speaks of them as follows: — “Now we hear that among the Bohemians a new kind of Jews has arisen called Sabbatarians, who observe the Sabbath with so much superstition, that if on that day anything falls into their eyes, they will not remove it; as if the Lord’s day would not suffice for them instead of the Sabbath, which to the apostles also was sacred; or as if Christ had not sufficiently expressed how much should be allowed upon the Sabbath.” We need say nothing relative to the alleged superstition of these Sabbathkeepers.
The statement sufficiently refutes itself, and indicates the bitter prejudice of those who speak of them thus. But that Sabbath-keepers were found at this time in Bohemia admits of no doubt. They were of some importance, and they must also have published their views to the world; for Cox tells us that — “Hospinian, of Zurich, in his treatise ‘ Concerning the Feasts of the Jews and of the Gentiles,’ chapter 3 (Tiguri, 1592), replies to the arguments of these Sabbatarians.” The existence of this body of Sabbatarians in Bohemia at the time of the Reformation is strong presumptive proof that the Waldenses of Bohemia, noticed in the preceding chapter, though claimed as observers of Sunday, were actually observers of the ancient Sabbath.
In Russia, the observers of the seventh day are numerous at the present time. Their existence can be traced back nearly to the year 1400. They are, therefore, at least one hundred years older than the work of Luther. The first writer that I quote speaks of them as “having left the Christian faith.”
But even in our time, it is very common for people to speak’ of those who turn from the first day to the seventh, that they have renounced Christ for Moses. 13 He also speaks of them as holding to circumcision. Even Carlstadt was charged with this by Luther as a necessary deduction from the fact that he observed the day enjoined in the fourth commandment.
Such being a common method of characterizing Sabbath-keepers in our time, and such also having been the case in past ages, — for when men lack argument, they use opprobrious terms, — the historian, who makes up his record of these people from the statements of the popular party, will certainly represent them as rejecting Christ and the gospel, and accepting instead Moses and the ceremonial law. I give the statements of the historians as they are, and the reader must judge. Robert Pinkerton gives the following account of them: — “Seleznevtschini. This sect are, in modern time, precisely what the Strigolniks originally were. They are Jews in principle; maintain the divine obligation of circumcision; observe the Jewish Sabbath, and the ceremonial law. There are many of them about Tula, on the river Kuma, and in other provinces, and they are very numerous in Poland and Turkey, where, having left the Christian faith, they have joined the seed of Abraham, according to the flesh, in rejecting the Messiah and the gospel.” The ancient Russian name of this people was Strigolniks. Dr. Murdock says of them: — “It is common to date the origin of sectarians in the Russian church, about the middle of the seventeenth century, in the time of the patriarch Nikon. But according to the Russian annals, there existed schismatics in the Russian church two hundred years before the days of Nikon; and the disturbances which took place in his time only proved the means of augmenting their numbers, and of bringing them forward into public view. The earliest of these schismatics first appeared in Novogorod, early in the fifteenth century, under the name of Strigolniks. “A Jew named Horie preached a mixture of Judaism and Christianity; and proselyted two priests, Denis and Alexie, who gained a vast number of followers. This sect was so numerous that a national council was called, toward the close of the fifteenth century, to oppose it. Soon afterwards one Karp, an excommunicated deacon, joined the Strigolniks, and accused the higher clergy of selling the office of priesthood, and of so far corrupting the church, that the Holy Ghost was withdrawn from it.
He was a very successful propagator of this sect.” It is very customary with historians to speak of Sabbath-keeping Christians in one of the following ways: 1. To name their observance of the seventh day distinctly, but to represent them as turning from Christ to Moses and the ceremonial law; or, 2. To speak of their Sabbatarian principles in so vague a manner that the reader will not be likely to suspect them of being Sabbath-keepers.
Pinkerton speaks of these Russian Sabbath-keepers after the first of these methods; Murdock, after the second. It is plain that Murdock did not regard these people as rejecting Christ, and it is certain from Pinkerton that the two writers are speaking of the same people.
What was the origin of these Russian Sabbath-keepers? Certainly it was not from the Reformation of the sixteenth century; for they were in existence at least one century before that event. We have seen that the Waldenses, during the Dark Ages, were dispersed through many of the countries of Europe. And so, also, were the people called Cathari, if, indeed, the two were not one people. In particular, we note the fact that they were scattered through Poland, Lithuania, Sclavonia, Bulgaria, Livonia, Albania, and Sarmatia. 16 These countries are now parts of the Russian empire. Sabbath-keepers were numerous in Russia before the time of Luther. The Sabbath of the Lord was certainly retained by many, of the ancient Waldenses and Cathari, as we have seen. In fact, the very things said of the Russian Sabbath-keepers, that they held to circumcision and the ceremonial law, were also said of the Cathari, and of that branch of the Waldenses called Passaginians. Is there any reasonable doubt that in these ancient Christians we have the ancestors of the Russian Sabbath-keepers of the fifteenth century?
Mr. Maxson makes the following statement: — “We find that Sabbath-keepers appear in Germany late in the fifteenth, or early in the sixteenth century, according to ‘Ross’s Picture of all Religions.’ By this we are to understand that their numbers were such as to lead to organization, and attract attention.
A number of these formed a church and emigrated to America, in the early settlement of this country.” Mr. Utter says of Sabbath-keepers in Germany and in Holland:— “Early in the sixteenth century there are traces of Sabbath-keepers in Germany. the Old Dutch Martyrology gives an account of a Baptist minister named Stephen Benedict, somewhat famous for baptizing during a severe persecution in Holland, who is supposed by good authorities to have kept the seventh day as the Sabbath.
One of the persons baptized by him was Barbary you Thiers, wife of Hans Borzen, who was executed on the 16th of September, 1529. At her trial she declared her rejection of the idolatrous sacrament of the, priest, and also the Mass.” We give her declaration of faith respecting Sundays and holy days: — “God has commanded us to rest on the seventh day. ‘Beyond this she did not go: but with the help and grace of God she would persevere therein, and in death abide thereby; for it is the true faith, and the right way in Christ.” Another martyr, Christina Tolingerin, is mentioned thus: — “Concerning holy days and Sundays, she said: ‘ In six days the Lord made the world, on the seventh day he rested. The other holy days have been instituted by popes, cardinals, and archbishops.’” There were at this time Sabbath-keepers in France: — “In France also there were Christians of this class, among whom were M. de la Roque, who wrote in defense of the Sabbath against Bossuet, Catholic bishop of Meaux.” M. de la Roque is referred to by Dr. Wall in his famous History of Infant Baptism “as a learned man in other points,” but in great error for asserting that “the primitive church did not baptize infants.” 23 It is worthy of notice that Sabbath-keepers are always observers of scriptural baptism — the burial of penitent believers in the watery grave. No people retaining infant baptism, or the sprinkling of believers, have observed the seventh day. The origin of the Sabbatarians of England cannot now be definitely ascertained. Their observance of believers’ baptism, and the keeping of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord, strongly attest their descent from the persecuted heretics of the Dark Ages, rather than from the reformers of the sixteenth century, who retained infant baptism and the festival of Sunday. That these heretics had long been numerous in England, is thus certified by Crosby: — “For in the time of William the Conqueror [A.D. 1070] and his son William Rufus, it appears that the Waldenses and their disciples out of France, Germany, and Holland had their frequent recourse, and did abound in England. .. The Beringarian, or Waldensian, heresy, as the chronologer calls R, had, about A.D. 1080, generally corrupted all France, Italy, and England.” Mr. Maxson says of the English Sabbatarians:— “In England we find Sabbath-keepers very early. Dr. Chambers says: ‘They arose in England in the sixteenth century,’ from which we understand that they then became a distinct denomination in that kingdom.” Mr. Benedict speaks of the origin of English Sabbatarians as follows:— “At what time the Seventh-day Baptists began to form churches in this kingdom does not appear; but probably it was at an early period; and although their churches have never been numerous, yet there have been among them almost for two hundred years past, some very eminent men.” 27
HOW AND WHEN SUNDAY APPROPRIATED THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT
The light of the Reformation destroyed many of the best Sunday arguments of the preceding Dark Ages — The controversy between the Presbyterians and Episcopalians of England brings Sunday sacredness to the test — The former discover the means of enforcing the observance of Sunday by the fourth commandment — How this can be done — Effects of this extraordinary discovery — History of the Sunday festival concluded.
THE light of the Reformation necessarily dissipated into thin air many of the most substantial arguments by which the Sunday festival had been built up during the Dark Ages. The roll that fell from heaven, the apparition of St. Peter, the relief of souls in purgatory, and even of the damned in hell, and many prodigies of fearful portent, — none of these, nor all of them combined, were likely longer to sustain the sacredness of the venerable day. True it was that when these were swept, away, there remained, to sustain the festival of Sunday, the canons of councils, the edicts of kings and emperors, the decrees of the holy doctors of the church, and, greatest of all, the imperious mandates of the Roman pontiff.
Yet these could be adduced also in behalf of the innumerable festivals ordained by the same great apostate church. Such authority ‘would answer for the Episcopalian, who devoutly accepts of all these festivals, because commanded so to do by the church; but for those who acknowledge the Bible as the only rule of faith, the case was different. In the latter part of the sixteenth century, the Presbyterians and Episcopalians of England were involved in such a controversy as brought this matter to an issue.
The Episcopalians required men to observe all the festivals of the church; the Presbyterians observed Sunday, and rejected all the rest. The Episcopalians showed the inconsistency of this discrimination, inasmuch as the same church authority had ordained them all. As the Presbyterians rejected the authority of the church, they would not keep Sunday upon that ground, especially as it would involve the observance also of all the other festivals. They had to choose, therefore, between the giving up of Sunday entirely, and the defense of its observance by the Bible. There was, indeed, another and a nobler choice that they might have made, viz., to adopt the Sabbath of the Lord; but it was too humiliating for them to unite with those who retained that ancient and sacred institution. The issue of this struggle is thus related by a distinguished German theologian, Hengstenberg: — “The opinion that the Sabbath was transferred to the Sunday was first broached in its perfect form, and with all its consequences, in the controversy which was carried on in England between the Episcopalians and Presbyterians. The Presbyterians, who carried to extremes the principle that every institution of the church must have its foundation in the Scriptures, and would not allow that God had given, in ‘this respect, greater liberty to the church of the New Testament, which his Spirit had brought to maturity, than to, that of the Old, charged the Episcopalians with popish leaven, and superstition, and subjection to the ordinances of men, because they retained the Christian feasts. The Episcopalians, on the other hand, as a proof that greater liberty was granted to the New Testament church in such matters as these,’ appealed to the fact that even the observance of the Sunday was only an arrangement of the church.
The Presbyterians were now in a position which compelled them either to give up the observance of the Sunday, or to maintain that a divine appointment from God separated it from the other festivals. The first they could not do, for their Christian experience was too deep for them not to know how greatly the weakness of human nature stands in need of regularly returning periods, devoted to the service of God. They therefore decided upon the latter.” Thus much for the occasion of that wonderful discovery by which the Scriptures are made to sustain the divine appointment of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath. The date of the discovery, the name of the discoverer, and the manner in which he contrived to enforce the first day of the week by the authority of the fourth commandment, are thus set forth by a candid first-day historian, Lyman Coleman:— “The true doctrine of the Christian Sabbath was first promulgated by an English dissenter, the Revelation Nicholas Bound, D. D., of Norton, in the county of Suffolk. About the year 1595, he published a famous book, entitled, ‘Sabbathum Veteris et Novi Testamenti,’ or the True Doctrine of the Sabbath. In this book he maintained ‘that the seventh part of our time ought to be devoted to God — that Christians are bound to rest on the Lord’s day as much as the Jews were on the Mosaic Sabbath, the commandment about rest being moral and perpetual; and that it was not lawful for persons to follow their studies or worldly business on that day, nor to use such pleasures and recreations as are permitted on other clays.’ This book spread with wonderful rapidity. The doctrine which it propounded called forth from many hearts a ready response, and the result was a most pleasing reformation in many parts of the kingdom. ‘ It is almost incredible,’ says Fuller, ‘how taking this doctrine was, partly because of its own purity, and partly for the eminent piety of such persons as maintained it; so that the Lord’s day, especially in corporations, began to be precisely kept; people becoming a law unto themselves, forbearing such sports as yet by statute permitted; yea, many rejoicing at their own restraint herein.’ The law of the Sabbath was indeed a religious principle, after which the Christian church had, for centuries, been darkly groping. Pious men of every age had felt the necessity of divine authority for sanctifying the day. Their conscience had been in advance of their reason. Practically they had kept the Sabbath better than their principles required. “Public sentiment, however, was still unsettled in regard to this new doctrine respecting the Sabbath:. though a few at first violently opposed it. ‘Learned men were much divided in their judgments about these Sabbatarian doctrines; some embraced them as ancient truths consonant to Scripture, long disused and neglected, now seasonably revived for the increase of piety. Others conceived them grounded on a wrong bottom; but because they tended to the manifest advance of religion, it was a pity to oppose them; seeing none have just reason to complain, being deceived unto their own good. But a third sort flatly fell out with these propositions, as galling men’s necks with a Jewish yoke against the liberty of Christians; that Christ, as Lord of the Sabbath, had removed the rigor thereof, and allowed men lawful recreations; that this doctrine put an unequal luster on the Sunday, on set purpose to eclipse all other holy days, to the derogation of the authority of the church; that this strict observance was set up out of faction, to be a character of difference to brand all for libertines who did not entertain it.’ No open opposition, however, was at first manifested against the sentiments of Dr. Bound. No reply was attempted for several years, and ‘not so much as a feather of a quill in print did wag against him.’ “His work was soon followed by several other treatises in defense of the same sentiments. ‘All the Puritans fell in with this doctrine, and distinguished themselves by spending that part of sacred time in public, family, and private devotion.’ Even Dr. Heylyn certified the triumphant spread of those Puritanical sentiments respecting the Sabbath… “‘This doctrine,’ he says, ‘ carrying such a fair show of piety, at least in the opinion of the common people, and such as did not examine the true grounds of it, induced many to embrace and defend it; and in a very little time it became the most bewitching error and the most popular infatuation that ever was embraced by the people of England.’” Dr. Bound was not absolutely the inventor of the seventh-part-of-time theory; but he may be said rather to have gathered up and combined the scattered hints of his predecessors, and to have added to these something of his own production. His grounds for asserting Sunday to be the Sabbath of the fourth Commandment are these: — “That which is natural, namely, that every seventh day should be kept holy unto the Lord, that still remaineth: that which is positive, namely, that day which was the seventh day from the creation, should be the Sabbath, or day of rest, that is now changed in the church of God.” 3 He says that the meaning of the declaration, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” is this: — “There must be one [day] of seven and not [one] of eight.’ But, the special key to the, Whole theory is in the statement that the seventh day in the commandment was “genus,” that is to say, it was a kind of seventh day which comprehended several species of seventh days, at least two. Thus he says: — “So he maketh the seventh day to be genus-in this commandment, and to be perpetual: and in it, by virtue of the commandment, to comprehend these two species or kinds: the Sabbath of the Jews and of the Gentiles, of the law and of the gospel: so that both of them were comprehended in the commandment, even as genus comprehendeth both his species.” He enforces the first day by the fourth commandment as follows: — “So that we have not in the gospel a new commandment for the Sabbath, diverse from that that was in the law; but there is a diverse time appointed; namely, not the seventh day from the creation, but the day of Christ’s resurrection, and the seventh from that: both of them at several times being comprehended in the fourth commandment.” He means to say that the fourth commandment enforces the seventh day from the creation to the resurrection of Christ, and that since that time it enforces a different seventh day, namely, the seventh from Christ’s resurrection. Such is the perverse ingenuity by which men can evade the law of God, and yet make it appear that they are faithfully observing it.
Such was the origin of the seventh-part-of-time theory, by which the seventh day is dropped out of the fourth commandment, and one day in seven slipped into its place, — doctrine most opportunely framed at the very period when nothing else could save the venerable day of the sun.
With ‘the aid of this theory, the Sunday of “pope and pagan” was able coolly to wrap itself in the fourth commandment, and then, in the character of a divine institution, to challenge obedience from all Bible Christians. It could now cast away the other frauds on which its very existence had depended, and support its authority by this one alone. In the time of Constantine it ascended the throne of the Roman empire, and during the whole period of the Dark Ages it maintained its supremacy from the chair of St. Peter; but now it had ascended the throne of the Most High. And thus a day which God “commanded not nor spake it, neither came it into” his “mind,” was enjoined upon mankind with all the authority of his holy law. The immediate effect of Dr. Bound’s work upon the existing controversy is thus described by an Episcopalian eye-witness, Dr. Heylyn: — “For by inculcating to the people these new Sabbath speculations [concerning Sunday], teaching that that day only ‘was of God’s appointment, and all the rest observed in the church of England, a remnant of the will-worship in the church of Rome;’ the other holy days in this church established, were so shrewdly shaken that till this day they are not well recovered of the blow then given. Nor came this on the by or besides their purpose, but as a thing that specially was intended from the first beginning.” In a former chapter we called attention to the fact that Sunday can be maintained as a divine institution only by adopting the rule of faith acknowledged in the church of Rome, which is the Bible, with the traditions of the church added thereto. We have seen that in the sixteenth century the Presbyterians of England were brought to decide between giving up Sunday as a church festival, and maintaining it as a divine institution by the Bible. They chose the latter course. Yet while apparently avoiding the charge of observing a Catholic festival, by claiming to prove the Sunday institution out of the Bible, the utterly unsatisfactory nature of the several inferences adduced from the Scriptures in support of that day compelled them to resort to the traditions of the church, and to add these to their so-called Biblical evidences in its behalf. It would be no worse to keep Sunday while frankly acknowledging it to be a festival of the Catholic church, not commanded in the Bible, than it is to profess that you observe it as a Biblical institution, and then prove it to be such by adopting the rule of faith of the Romanists. Joaunes Perrone, an eminent Italian Catholic theologian, in an important doctrinal work entitled “Theological Lessons,” makes a very impressive statement respecting the acknowledgment of tradition by Protestant Sunday-keepers. In his chapter “Concerning the Necessity and Existence of Tradition,” he lays down the proposition that it is necessary to admit doctrines which we can prove only from tradition, and cannot sustain from the Holy Scriptures. Then he says: — “It is not possible, indeed, if traditions of such character are rejected, that several doctrines, which the Protestants held with us since they withdrew from the Catholic church, could, in any possible manner, be established. The fact is placed beyond a venture of a doubt, for they themselves hold with us the validity of baptism administered by heretics or infidels, the validity also of infant baptism, the true form of baptism [sprinkling]; they held, too, that the law of abstaining from blood and anything strangled is not in force; also concerning the substitution of theLord’s day for the Sabbath; besides those things which I have mentioned before, and not a few others.” Dr. Bound’s theory of the seventh part of time has found general acceptance in all those churches which sprung from the church of Rome.
Most forcibly did old Cotton Mather observe: — “The reforming churches, flying from Rome, carried, some of them more, some of them less, all of them something, of Rome with them.” One sacred treasure which they all drew from the venerable mother of harlots is the ancient festival of the sun. She had crushed out of her communion the Sabbath of the Lord, and having adopted the venerable day of the sun, had transformed it into the Lord’s day of the Christian church.
The reformed, flying from her communion, and carrying with them this ancient festival, now found themselves able to justify its observance as being indeed the veritable Sabbath of the Lord! As the seamless coat of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, was torn from him before he was nailed to the cross, so has the fourth commandment been torn from the rest-day of the Lord, around which it was placed by the great Lawgiver, and given to this papal Lord’s day; and this Barabbas, the robber, thus arrayed in the stolen fourth commandment, has from that time to the present day, and with astonishing success, challenged the obedience of the world as the divinely appointed Sabbath of the most high God. Here we close the history of the Sunday festival, now fully transformed into the Christian Sabbath. A rapid survey of the history of English and American Sabbathkeepers will conclude this work.
ENGLISH SABBATH-KEEPERS
English Sabbatarians in the sixteenth century — Their doctrines — John Trask for these doctrines pilloried, whipped, and imprisoned — He recants — Character of Sirs. Trask — Her crime — Her indomitable courage — She suffers fifteen years’ imprisonment, and dies in prison — Principles of the Traskites — Brabourne writes in behalf of the seventh day — Appeals to King Charles I. to restore the ancient Sabbath — The king employs Dr. White to write against Brabourne, and Dr. Heylyn to write the history of the Sabbath — The king intimidates Brabourne, and he recants — He returns again to the Sabbath — Philip Tandy — James Ockford writes “The Doctrine of the Fourth Commandment” — His book burned — Edward Stennett — Wm. Sellers — Cruel Treatment of Francis Bampfield, Thomas Bampfield Martyrdom of John James How the Sabbath cause was prostrated in England.
CHAMBERS speaks thus of Sabbath-keepers in the sixteenth century: — “In the reign of Elizabeth, it occurred to many conscientious and independent thinkers (as it had previously none to some Protestants in Bohemia) that the fourth commandment required of them the observance, not of the first, but of the specified seventh day of the week, and a strict bodily rest, as a service then due to God; while others, though convinced that the day had been altered by divine authority, took up the same opinion as to the scriptural obligation to refrain from work. The former class became numerous enough to make a considerable figure for more than a century in England, under the title of ‘Sabbatarians’ — a word now exchanged for the less ambiguous appellation of ‘Seventh-day Baptists.’” Gilfillan quotes an English writer of the year 1584, John Stockwood, who says that there was then “A great diversity’ of opinion among the vulgar-people and simple sort, concerning the Sabbath-day and the right use of the same.”
And Gilfillan states one of the grounds of controversy thus: — “Some maintaining the unchanged and unchangeable obligation of the seventh-day Sabbath.” In 1607 an English first-day writer, John Sprint, gave the views of the Sabbath-keepers of that time, which in truth have been substantially the same in all ages: — “They allege reasons drawn, 1. From the precedence of the Sabbath before the law, and before the fall; the laws of which nature are immutable. 2. From the perpetuity of the moral law. 3. And from the large extent thereof appertaining to [the Sabbath above] all [the other precepts]. 4. And of the cause of [this precept of] the law which maketh it perpetual, which is the memorial and meditation of the works of God, which belong unto the Christians as well as to the Jews.” John Trask began to speak and write in favor of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord about the time that King James I. and the archbishop of Canterbury published the famous “Book of Sports for Sunday,” in 1618. His field of labor was London, and being a very zealous man, he was soon called to account by the persecuting authority: of the church of England. He took high ground as to the sufficiency of the Scriptures to direct in all religious services, and that the civil authorities ought not to constrain men’s consciences in matters of religion. He was brought before the infamous Star Chamber, where a long discussion was held respecting the Sabbath. It was on this occasion that bishop Andrews first brought forward that now famous first-day argument, that the early martyrs were tested by the question, “ Hast thou kept the Lord’s day?” Gilfillan, quoting the words of contemporary writers, says of Trask’s trial that, — “For ‘making of conventicles and factions, by that means which may tend to sedition and commotion, and for scandalizing the king, the bishops, and the clergy,’ ‘ he was censured in the Star Chamber to be set upon the pillory at Westminster, and from thence to be whipped to the fleet, there to remain a prisoner.’” This cruel Sentence was carried into execution, and finally broke his spirit.
After enduring the misery of his prison for one year, he recanted his doctrine. 6 The case of his wife is worthy of particular mention. Pagitt gives her character thus: — “She was a woman endued with many particular virtues, well worthy the imitation of all good Christians, had not error in other things, especially a spirit of strange unparalleled opinionativeness and obstinacy in her private conceits, spoiled her.” Pagitt says that she was a school-teacher of superior excellence. She was particularly careful in her dealings with the poor. He gives her reasons thus: — “This she professed to do out of conscience, as believing she must one day come to be judged for all things done in the flesh.
Therefore she resolved to go by the safest rule, rather against than for her private interest.” Pagitt gives her crime in the following words: — “At last for teaching only five days in the week, and resting upon Saturday, it being known upon what account she did it, she was carried to the new prison in Maiden Lane, a place then appointed for the restraint of several other persons of different opinions from the church of England.” Observe the crime: it was not what she did, for a first-day person might have done the same, but because she did it to obey the fourth commandment. Her motive exposed her to the vengeance of the authorities. She was a woman of indomitable courage, and would not purchase her liberty by renouncing the Lord’s Sabbath. During her long imprisonment, Pagitt says that some one wrote to her thus: — “Your constant suffering would be praiseworthy, were it for truth; but being for error, your recantation will be both more acceptable to God, and laudable before men.” 10 But her faith and patience held out till she was released by death. “Mrs. Trask lay fifteen or sixteen years a prisoner for her opinion about the Saturday Sabbath; in all which time she would receive no relief from anybody, notwithstanding she wanted much, alleging that it was written, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’
Neither would she borrow, because it was written, ‘ Thou shalt lend to many nations, and shalt not borrow. So she deemed it a dishonor to her Head, Christ, either to beg or borrow. Her diet for the most part during her imprisonment, that is,. till a little before her death, was bread and water, roots and herbs; no flesh nor wine, nor brewed drink. All her means was an annuity of forty shillings a year; what she lacked more to live upon she had of such prisoners as did employ her sometimes to, do business for them.” Pagitt, who was the contemporary of Trask, thus states the principles of the Sabbatarians of that time, whom he calls Traskites: — “The positions concerning the Sabbath by them maintained, were these: — “1. That the fourth commandment of the decalogue, ‘Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy’ [Exodus 20], is a divine precept, simply and entirely moral, containing nothing legally ceremonial in whole or in part, and therefore the weekly observation thereof ought to be perpetual, and to continue in force and virtue to the world’s end. “2. That the Saturday, or seventh day in every week, ought to be an everlasting holy day in the Christian church, and the religious observation of this day obligeth Christians under the gospel, as it did the Jews before the coming of Christ. “3. That the Sunday, or Lord’s day, is an ordinary working day, and it is superstition and will-worship to make the same the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.” It was for this noble confession of faith that Mrs. Trask was shut up in prison till the day of her death. For the same, Mr. Trask was compelled to stand in the pillory, and was whipped from thence to the fleet, and then shut up in a wretched prison, from which he escaped by recantation after enduring its miseries for more than a year. Mr. Utter mentions the next Sabbatarian minister as follows: — “Theophilus Brabourne, a learned minister of the gospel in the established church, wrote a book, which was printed at London in 1628, wherein he argued ‘that the Lord’s day is not the Sabbathday by divine institution,’ but ‘that the seventh-day Sabbath is now in force.’ Mr. Brabourne published another book in 1632, entitled ‘A Defense of that most Ancient and Sacred Ordinance of God’s, the Sabbath-day.’” Brabourne dedicated his book to King Charles I., requesting him to use his royal authority for the restoration of the ancient Sabbath. But those who put their trust in princes are sure to be disappointed. Dr. F. White, Bishop of ‘Ely, thus states the occasion of his own work against the Sabbath: — “Now because this Brabourne’s treatise of the Sabbath was dedicated to his Royal Majesty, and the principles upon which he grounded all his arguments (being commonly preached, printed, and believed throughout the kingdom), might have poisoned and, infected many people either with this Sabbatarian error, or with some other of like quality; it was the king, our gracious master, his will and pleasure, that a treatise should be set forth, to prevent further mischief, and to settle his good subjects (who have long time been distracted about Sabbatarian questions) in the old and good way of the ancient and orthodoxal Catholic church. Now that which his sacred Majesty commanded, I have by your Grace’s direction [Archbishop Laud] obediently performed.” The king not only wished by this appointment to overthrow those who kept the day enjoined in the commandment, but also those who, by means of Dr. Bound’s new theory, pretended that Sunday was that day. He therefore joined Dr. Heylyn with Bishop White in this work: — “Which burden being held of too great weight for any one to undergo, and the necessity of the work requiring a quick dispatch, it was held fit to divide the employment betwixt two. The argumentative and scholastical part was referred to the right learned Dr. White, then Bishop of Ely, who had given good proof of his ability in polemical matters in several books and disputations against the papists. The practical and historical [was to be written] by Heylyn of Westminster, who had gained some reputation for his studies in the ancient writers.” The works of White and Heylyn were published simultaneously in 1635.
Dr. White, in addressing himself to those who enforce Sunday observance by the fourth commandment, speaks thus of Brabourne’s arguments, that not Sunday, but the ancient seventh day, is there enjoined: — “Maintaining your own principles, that the fourth commandment is purely and simply moral and of the law of nature, it will be impossible for you, either in English or Latin, to solve Theophilus Brabourne’s objections.” But the king had something besides argument for Brabourne. He was brought before Archbishop Laud and the court of High Commission, and, moved by the fate of Mrs. Trask, he submitted for the time to the authority of the church of England, but sometime afterward wrote other books in behalf of the seventh day. 18 Dr. White’s book has this pithy notice of the indefinite-time theory: — “Because an indefinite time must either bind to all moments of time, as a debt, when the day of payment is not expressly dated, is liable to payment every moment; or else it binds to no time at all.” Mr. Utter, after the statement of Brabourne’s case, continues thus: — “About this time, Philip Tandy began to promulgate in the northern part of England the same doctrine concerning the Sabbath.
He was educated in the established church, of which he became a minister. Having changed his views respecting the mode of baptism and the day of the Sabbath, he abandoned that church, and ‘became a mark for many shots.’ He held several public disputes about his peculiar sentiments, and did much to propagate them. James Ockford was another early advocate in England of the claims of the seventh day as the Sabbath. tie appears to have been well acquainted with the discussions in which Trask and Brabourne had been engaged. Being dissatisfied with the pretended conviction of Brabourne, he wrote a book in defense of Sabbatarian views, entitled “The doctrine of the fourth commandment.’ This book, published about the year 1642, was burnt by order of the authorities in the established church.” The famous Stennett family furnished, for four generations, a succession of able Sabbatarian ministers. Mr. Edward Stennett, the first of these, was born about the beginning of the seventeenth century, His work, entitled “The Royal Law Contended For,” was first published at London in 1658. “He was an able and devoted minister, but dissenting from the established church, he was deprived of the means of support.” “He suffered much of the persecution which the Dissenters were exposed to at that; time, and more especially for his faithful adherence to the cause of the Sabbath. For this truth he experienced tribulation, not only from those in power, by whom he was kept a long time in prison, but also much distress from unfriendly, dissenting brethren, who strove to destroy his influence and ruin his cause.” In 1664 he published a work entitled “The seventh Day is the Sabbath o£ the Lord.” 21 In 1671 Win. Sellers wrote a work in behalf of the seventh day, in reply to Dr. Owen. Cox states its object in these words: — “In opposition to the opinion that some one day in seven is all that the fourth commandment requires to be set apart, the writer maintains the obligation of the Saturday Sabbath on the ground that ‘God himself directly in the letter of the text calls the seventh day the Sabbath-day, giving both the names to one and the self-same day, as all men know that ever read the commandments.’” One of the most eminent Sabbatarian ministers of the last half of the seventeenth century was Francis Bampfield. He was originally a clergyman of the church of England. The Baptist historian, Crosby, speaks of him thus: — “But being utterly unsatisfied in his conscience with the conditions of conformity, he took his leave of his sorrowful and weeping congregation in... 1662, and was quickly after imprisoned for worshiping God in his own family. So soon was his unshaken loyalty to the king forgotten,... that he was more frequently imprisoned and exposed to greater hardships for his nonconformity than most other dissenters.” Of his imprisonment, Neal says: — “After the act of uniformity, he continued preaching as he had opportunity in private, till he was imprisoned for five days and nights, with twenty-five of his hearers, in one room,... where they spent their time in religious exercises; but after some time he was released. Soon after, he was apprehended again, and lay nine years in Dorchester jail, though he was a person of unshaken loyalty to the king.” During his imprisonment, he preached almost every day, and gathered a church even under his confinement. And when he was at liberty, he ceased not to preach in the name of Jesus. After his release, he went to London, where he preached with much success. 25 Neal says of his labors in that city: — “When he resided in London, he formed a church on the principles of the Sabbatarian Baptists at Pinner’s hall, of which principles he was a zealous asserter. He was a celebrated preacher, and a man of serious piety.” On Feb. 17, 1682, he was arrested while preaching, and on March 28 was sentenced to forfeit all his goods and to be imprisoned in Newgate for life.
In consequence of the hardships which he suffered in that prison, he died, Feb. 16, 1683. 27 “Bampfield,” says Wood, “dying in the said prison of Newgate,.. aged seventy years, his body was... followed with a very great company of factious and schismatical people to his grave.” 28 Crosby says of him: — “All that knew him will acknowledge that he was a man of great piety. And he would in all probability have preserved the same character, with respect to his learning and judgment, had it not been for his opinion in two points; viz., that infants ought not to be baptized, and that the Jewish Sabbath ought still to be kept.” 29 Mr. Bampfield published two works in behalf of the seventh day as the Sabbath, one in 1672, the other in 1677. In the first of these he thus sets forth the doctrine of the Sabbath: — “The law of the seventh-day Sabbath was given before the law was proclaimed at Sinai, even from the creation, given to Adam,. .. and in him to all the world(Exodus 16:23; Genesis 2:3.)…The Lord Christ’s obedience unto this fourth word in observing in his lifetime the seventh day as a weekly Sabbath-day,... and no other day of the week as such, is a part of that perfect righteousness which every sound believer doth apply to himself in order to his being justified in the sight of God; and every such person is to conform unto Christ in all the acts of his obedience to the ten words.” His brother, Mr. Thomas Bampfield, who had been speaker in one of Cromwell’s parliaments, wrote also in behalf of seventh-day observance, and was imprisoned for his religious principles in Ilchester jail. 31 About the time of Mr. Bampfield’s first imprisonment, severe persecution arose against the Sabbath-keepers in London. Crosby thus bears testimony: — “It was about this time [A.D. 1661] that a congregation of Baptists, holding the seventh day as a Sabbath, being assembled at their meeting-house in Bullstake alley, the doors being open, about three o’clock P.M. [Oct. 19], whilst Mr. John James was preaching, one Justice Chard, with Mr. Wood, an headborough, came into the meeting-place. Wood commanded him in the king’s name to be silent and come down, having spoken treason against the king. But Mr. James, taking little or no notice thereof, proceeded in his work.
The headborough came nearer to him in the middle of the meetingplace, and commanded him again in the king’s name to come down or else he would pull him down; whereupon the disturbance grew so great that he could not proceed.” The officer, having pulled him down from the pulpit, led him away to the court under a strong guard. Mr. Utter continues this narrative as follows:— “Mir. James was himself examined and committed to Newgate, on the testimony of several profligate witnesses, who accused him of speaking treasonable words against the king. His trim took place about a month afterward, at which he conducted himself in such a manner as to create much sympathy, he was, however, sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. 33 This awful sentence did not dismay him in the least. He calmly said, ‘Blessed be God; whom man condemneth, God justifieth.’ While he lay in prison, under sentence of death, many persons of distinction visited him, who were greatly affected by his piety and resignation, and offered to exert themselves to secure his pardon. But he seems to have had little hope of their success. Mrs. James, by advice of her friends, twice presented petitions to the king [Charles II.], setting forth the innocence of her husband, the character of the witnesses against him, and entreating His Majesty to grant a pardon. In both instances she was repulsed with scoffs and ridicule. At the scaffold, on the day of his execution, Mr. James addressed the assembly in a very noble and affecting manner. Having finished his address, and kneeling down, he thanked God for covenant mercies, and for conscious innocence; he prayed for the witnesses against him, for the executioner, for the people of God, for the removal of divisions, for the coming of Christ, for the spectators, and for himself, that he might enjoy a sense of God’s favor and presence, and an entrance into glory. When he had ended, the executioner said, ‘The Lord receive your soul;’ to which Mr. James replied, ‘I thank thee.’ A friend observing to him, ‘This is a happy day,’ he answered, ‘I bless God it is.’ Then having thanked the sheriff for his courtesy, he said, ‘Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.’..
After he was dead, his heart was taken out and burned, his quarters were affixed to the gates of the city, and his head was set up in White chapel on a pole opposite to the alley in which his meetinghouse stood.” Such was the experience of English Sabbath-keepers in the seventeenth century. It cost something to obey the fourth commandment in such times as those. The laws of England during that century were very oppressive to all Dissenters, and bore exceedingly hard upon the Sabbath-keepers. But God raised up able men, eminent for piety, to defend this truth during those troubled times, and, if need be, to seal their testimony with their blood. In the seventeenth century, eleven churches of Sabbatarians flourished in England, while many scattered Sabbath-keepers were to be found in various parts of that kingdom. Now, but three of these churches are in existence; and only remnants, even of these, remain.
To what cause shall we assign this painful fact? It is not because their adversaries were able to confute ‘their doctrine; for the controversial works on both sides still remain, and speak for themselves. It is not that they lacked men of piety and of learning; for God gave them these, especially in the seventeenth century. Nor is it that fanaticism sprang up and disgraced the cause; for there is no record of anything of this kind.
They were cruelly persecuted, but the period of their persecution was that of their greatest prosperity. Like Moses’ bush, they stood unconsumed in the burning fire. The prostration of the Sabbath cause in England is due to none of these things.
The Sabbath was wounded in the house of its own friends. They took upon themselves the responsibility, after a time, of making the Sabbath of no practical importance, and of treating its violation as no very serious transgression of the law of God. Doubtless they hoped to win men to Christ and his truth by this course; but, instead of this, they simply lowered the standard of divine truth into the dust. The Sabbath-keeping ministers assumed the pastoral care of first-day churches, in some cases as their sole charge; in others, they did this in connection with the oversight of Sabbatarian churches. The result need surprise no one; as these Sabbathkeeping ministers and churches said to all men, in thus acting, that the fourth commandment might be broken with impunity, the people took them at their word. Mr. Crosby, a first-day historian, sets this matter in a clear light:— “If the seventh day ought to be observed as the Christian Sabbath, then all congregations that observe the first day as such must be Sabbath-breakers. .. I must leave those gentlemen on the contrary side to their own sentiments; and to vindicate the practice of becoming pastors to a people whom in their conscience they must believe to be breakers of the Sabbath.” 35 Doubtless there have been noble exceptions to this course; but the body of English Sabbatarians for many years have failed to discharge faithfully the high trust committed to them.
THE SABBATH IN AMERICA
The first Sabbath-keeping church in America — Names of its members — Origin of the second — Organization of the Seventh-day Baptist General Conference — Statistics of the denomination at that time — Nature of its organization — Present statistics — Educational facilities — Missionary work — The American Sabbath Tract Society — Responsibility for the light of the Sabbath — The German S. D. Baptists of Pennsylvania — Reference to Sabbath-keepers in Hungary — In Siberia — The Seventh-day Adventists — Their origin — Labors of Joseph Bates — Of James White — The Publishing Association — Systematic Benevolence — The work of the preachers mainly in new fields — Organization of the S. D. Adventists — Statistics — Peculiarities of their faith — Their object — The S. D. Adventists of Switzerland — Why the Sabbath is of priceless value to mankind — The nations of the saved observe the Sabbath in the new earth.
AT Newport, R. I., originated the first Sabbatarian church in America. The first Sabbath-keeper in America was Stephen Mumford, who left London three years after the martyrdom of John James, and forty-four years after the landing of the Pilgrim Fathers at Plymouth. Mr. Mumford, it appears, came as a missionary from the English Sabbath-keepers. 1 Mr. Isaac Backus, the historian of the early New England Baptists, makes the following record: — “Stephen Mumford came over from London in 1664, and brought the opinion with him that the whole of the ten commandments, as they were delivered from Mount Sinai, were moral and immutable; and that it was the and Christian power which thought to change times and laws, that changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. Several members of the first church in Newport embraced this sentiment, and yet continued with the church for some years, until two men and their wives, who had so done, turned back to the keeping of the first day again.” 2 Mr. Mumford, on his arrival, went earnestly to work to convert men to the Observance of the fourth commandment, as we infer from the following record: — “Stephen Mumford, the first Sabbath-keeper in America, came from London in 1664. Tacy Hubbard commenced keeping the Sabbath March 11, 1665; Samuel Hubbard commenced April 1, 1665; Rachel Langworthy, January 15, 1666; Roger Baxter, April 15, 1666; and William Hiscox, April 28, 1666. These were the first Sabbath-keepers in America. A controversy, lasting several years, sprung up between them and members of the church. They desired to retain their connection with the church, but were at last compelled to withdraw, that they might peaceably enjoy and keep God’s holy day.” 3 [Baxter is Buster in the “S. D. B. Memorial.”] Though Mr. Mumford faithfully taught the truth, he seems to have cherished the ideas of the English Sabbatarians, that it was possible for first-day and seventh-day observers to walk together in church fellowship.
Had the first-day people been of the same mind, the light of the Sabbath would have been extinguished within a few years, as the history of English Sabbath-keepers clearly proves. But, in the providence of God, the danger was averted by the opposition which these commandment-keepers had to encounter.
Besides the persons above enumerated, four others embraced the Sabbath in 1666, but in 1668 they renounced it. These four were also members of the First. day Baptist church of Newport. Though the Sabbath-keepers who retained their integrity thought that they might lawfully commune with the members of the church who were fully persuaded to observe the first day, yet they felt otherwise with respect to those who had clearly seen the Sabbath, and had for a time observed it, and then apostatized from it. These persons “both wrote and spoke against it, which so grieved them that they could not sit down to the table of the Lord with them, nor with the church because of them.” But as they were members of a firstday church, and had “no power to deal with them as of themselves without the help of the church” they “found themselves barred as to proceeding with them, as being but private brethren. So they concluded not to bring the case to the church to judge of the fact, viz., in turning from the observation of the seventh day, being contrary-minded as to that.”
They therefore sent to the London Sabbath-keepers for advice, and in the meantime refrained from communing with the church.
Dr. Edward Stennet wrote them in behalf of the London Sabbath-keepers: “If the church will hold communion with these apostates from the truth, you ought then to desire to be fairly dismissed from the church; which if the church refuse, you ought to withdraw yourselves.” 4 They decided, however, not to leave the church. But they told “the church publicly that they Could not have comfortable communion with those four persons that had sinned.” And thus for several months they walked with little or no offense from the church; after which the leading or ministering brethren began to declare themselves concerning the ten precepts.” Mr. Tory “declared the law to be done away.” Mr. Luker and Mr. Clarke “made it their work to preach the non-observation of the law, day after day.” But the Sabbath-keepers replied that “the ten precepts were still as holy, just, good, and spiritual as ever.” Mr. Tory, “with some unpleasant words, said that ‘their tune was only: the fourth precept,’ to which they answered that ‘the whole ten precepts were of equal force with them, and that they did not plead for one without the other.’ And they for several years went on with the church in a halvish kind of fellowship.” Mr. Bailey thus states the result: — “At the time of their change of sentiment and practice, [respecting the Bible Sabbath], they had no intention of establishing a church with this distinctive feature. God, evidently, had a different mission for them, and brought them to it through the severe trial of persecution. They were forced to leave the fellowship of the Baptist church, or abandon the Sabbath of the Lord their God.” “These left the Baptist church on December 7, 1671.” “On the 23d of December, just sixteen days after withdrawing from the Baptist church, they covenanted together in a church organization.” Such was the origin of the first Sabbath-keeping church in America. 9 The second of these churches owes its origin to this circumstance: About the year 1700, Edmund Dunham, of Piscataway, N.J., reproved a person for laboring On Sunday. He was asked for his authority from the Scriptures.
On searching for this, he became satisfied that the seventh day is the only weekly Sabbath in the Bible, and began to observe it. “Soon after, others followed his example, and in 1707 a Seventhday Baptist church was organized, with seventeen members.
Edmund Dunham was chosen pastor, and sent to Rhode Island to receive ordination.” The S. D. Baptist General Conference was organized in 1802. At its first annual session, it included in its organization eight churches, nine ordained ministers, and 1130 members. 11 The Conference was organized with only advisory powers, the individual churches retaining the matters of discipline and church government in their own hands. 12 The Conference now embraces some eighty churches, and about eight thousand members.
These churches are found in most of the Northern and Western States, and are divided into five associations, which, however, have no legislative nor disciplinary power over the churches which compose them. There are, belonging to the denomination, five academies, one college, “and a university with academic, collegiate, mechanical, and theological departments in operation.” The S. D. Baptist Missionary Society sustains several home missionaries, who labor principally on the western and southern borders of the denomination. They have within a few years past met with a good degree of success in this work. It has also a missionary station at Shanghai, China, and a small church there of faithful Christians.
The American Sabbath Tract Society is the publishing agency of that denomination. Its headquarters are at; Alfred Center, N. Y. It publishes the Sabbath Recorder, the organ of the S. D. Baptists, and it also publishes a series of valuable works relating to the Sabbath and the law of God.
During the two hundred years which have elapsed since the organization, of the first Sabbatarian church in America, God has raised up among this people men of eminent talent and moral worth, tie has also, in providential ways, called attention to the sacred trust which he so long since confided to the S. D. Baptists, and which they have been so slow to realize in its immense importance.
Among those converted to the Sabbath through the agency of this people, the name of J. W. Morton is particularly worthy of honorable mention. He was sent in 1847 a missionary to the island of Hayti by the Reformed Presbyterians. Here he came in contact, with Sabbatarian publications, and after a serious examination, became satisfied that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord. As an honest man, what he saw to be truth he immediately obeyed, and returning home to be tried for his heresy, was summarily expelled from the Reformed Presbyterian church, without being suffered to state the reasons which had governed his conduct He has given to the world a valuable work entitled, “Vindication of the True Sabbath,” in which his experience is related, and his reasons for observing the seventh day set forth with great force and clearness.
The S. D. Baptists do not lack men of education and of talent, and they have ample means in their possession with which to sustain the cause of God. If in time past they have not fully realized that they were debtors to all mankind because of the great truth which God committed to their trust, there is reason to believe that they are now, to some extent, awakening to this vast indebtedness. There is also in the State of Pennsylvania a small body of German S. D.
Baptists, found in the counties of Lancaster, York, Franklin, and Bedford, and in the central and western parts of the, State. They originated in from the teaching of Conrad Beissel, a native of Germany. They practice trine immersion, and the washing of feet, and observe open communion.
They encourage celibacy, but make it obligatory upon none. Even those who have chosen this manner of life are at liberty to marry it at any time they choose so to do. They established and successfully maintained a Sabbath-school at Ephrata, their head-quarters, forty years before Robert Raikes had introduced the system, of Sunday-schools. This people have suffered much persecution because of their observance of the seventh day, the laws of Pennsylvania being particularly oppressive toward Sabbatarians. 14 The German S. D. Baptists do not belong to the S. D.
Baptist General Conference.
We have already noticed the fact that Sabbath-keepers are numerous. in Russia, in Poland, and in Turkey. We find the following statement concerning Sabbath-keepers in Hungary: — “A congregation of seventh-day Christians in Hungary, being refused tolerance by the laws, has embraced Judaism, in order to be allowed to exist in connection with one of the ‘received religions.’” The probability is that as the laws of the Austrian empire bear very heavily upon all religious bodies not belonging to some one of the tolerated sects or orders, these “seventh-day Christians,” on “being refused tolerance” in their own name, secured the privilege of observing the seventh day by allowing their doctrine to be classed by the civil authorities under the head of Judaism, and so bringing themselves under the tolerance accorded to the “received religions.” We do not say that this was right, even as a technicality, but it is evidently the extent of what they did.
There is no reason to believe that they abjured Christ. We also learn that there are Sabbath-keepers in the North of Asia: — “There is a sect of Greek Christians in Siberia who keep the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday). Such sects already exist in the United States, in Germany, and we believe in England.” The Sabbath was first introduced ‘to the attention of the Adventist people at Washington, N. H. A faithful Seventh-day Baptist sister, Mrs. Rachel D. Preston, 17 from the State of New York, having removed to this place, bought with her the Sabbath of the Lord. Here she became interested in the doctrine of the glorious advent of the Savior at hand. Being instructed in this subject by the Adventist people, she in turn instructed them in the commandments of God, and as early as 1844 nearly the entire church in that place, consisting of about forty persons, became observers of the Sabbath of the Lord. The oldest body of Sabbath-keepers among Seventhday Adventists is therefore at Washington, N. H. Its present number is small, for it has been thinned by emigration and by the ravages of death; but there still remains a small company to bear witness to this ancient truth of the Bible.
From this place, several Adventist ministers received the Sabbath truth during the year 1844. One of these was Elder T. M. Preble, who has the honor of first bringing this great truth before the Adventists through the medium of the press. His essay was dated Feb. 13, 1845. He presented briefly the claims of the Bible Sabbath, and showed that it was not changed by the Savior, but by the great apostasy, he then said: — “Thus we see Daniel 7:25 fulfilled, the little horn changing ‘times and laws.’ Therefore it appears to me that all who keep the first day for the Sabbath, are Pope’s Sunday-keepers and God’s Sabbath-breakers.” Within a few months, many persons began to observe the Sabbath as the result of the light thus shed on their pathway. Elder J. B. Cook, a man of decided talent as a preacher and a writer, was one of these early converts to the Sabbath. Elders Preble and Cook were at this time in the full vigor of their mental powers, and were possessed of talent and a reputation for piety which gave them great influence among the Adventists in behalf of the Sabbath. These men were called in the providence of God to fill an important place in the work of Sabbath reform.
But both of them, while preaching and writing in its behalf, committed the fatal error of making it of no practical importance. They had apparently the same fellowship for those who rejected the Sabbath that they had for those who observed it. Such a course of action produced a natural result.
After two or three years of this kind of Sabbath observance, each of these men apostatized from it, and thenceforward used what influence they possessed in warring against the fourth commandment. The larger part of those who embraced the Sabbath from their labors were not sufficiently impressed with its importance to become settled and grounded in its weighty evidences, and after a brief period they also turned back from its observance. But enough had been done to excite bitter opposition toward the Sabbath on the part of many Adventists, and to bring out the ingemous and plausible arguments by which men attempt to prove that God has abolished his own sacred law.
Such was the fruit of their course, and such the condition of things at the time of their defection. But the result of their plan of action taught the Advent Sabbath-keepers a lesson of value, which they have never forgotten. They learned that the fourth commandment must be treated as a part of the moral law, if men are ever to be led to its sacred observance.
Elder Preble’s first article in behalf of the Sabbath was the means of calling the attention of our venerable brother, Joseph Bates, to this divine institution. He soon became convinced of its obligation, and at once began to observe it. tie had acted quite a prominent part in the Advent movement of 1843-44, and now, with self-sacrificing zeal, he took hold of the despised Sabbath truth to set it before his fellow-men. He did not do it in the half-way manner of Elders Preble and Cook, but as a man thoroughly in earnest, and fully alive to the importance of his subject.
The subject of the heavenly Sanctuary began about this time to interest many Adventists, and especially Elder Bates. He was one of the first to sea that the central object of that Sanctuary is the ark of God. He also called attention to the proclamation of the third angel relative to God’s commandments, tie girded on the armor to lay it down only when his. work should be accomplished, lie has been instrumental in leading many to the observance of the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and few who have received the Sabbath from his leaching have apostatized from it. It was but a few months after Elder Bates, that our esteemed and efficient brother, Elder James White, also embraced the Sabbath. He had laboredwith much success in the great Advent movement, and he now entered heartily into the work of Sabbath reform. Uniting with Elder Bates in the proclamation of the doctrine of the advent and the Sabbath as connected together in the Sanctuary and the message of the third angel, he has, with the blessing of God, accomplished great results in behalf of the Sabbath.
The publishing interests of the Seventh-day Adventists originated through his instrumentality, he began the work of publishing in 1849, without resources, and with very few friends, but with much toil, self-sacrifice, and anxious care; and with the blessing of God upon his efforts, he has been the means of establishing an efficient office of publication, and of disseminating many important works throughout our country, and, to some extent, to other nations also. The publication of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, the organ of the Seventh-day Adventists, was commenced by him in 1850. For most of the years of its existence, he has served as one of its editors; and for all its earlier years, he was both sole editor and publisher. During this time he has also labored with energy as a minister of the gospel of Christ.
The wants of the cause demanding an enlargement of capital and more extensive operations, to this end an Association was incorporated in the city of Battle Creek, Michigan, May 3, 1861, under the name of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association. This Association owns three commodious publishing houses, with engine, power presses, and all the fixtures necessary for doing an extensive business. There are about fifty persons constantly employed in this work of publication. The Association has a capital of about $70,000. 20 Under God, it owes its prosperity to the prudent management and untiring energy of Elder James White.
The Advent Review has at the present time (Nov., 1873) a. circulation of about 5,000 copies. The Youth’s Instructor, a monthly paper designed for the children of Sabbath-keeping Adventists, began to be issued in 1852, and has now attained a circulation of nearly 5,000 copies.
The Advent Tidende, a Danish monthly, with a circulation of 800, is published for the benefit of those who speak the Danish and Norwegian tongues, of whom a considerable number have embraced the Sabbath.
The Seventh-day Adventists have taken a strong interest in the subject of hygiene and the laws of health, and have established a Health Institute at Battle Creek, Mich., which publishes the Health Reformer, a monthly journal, magazine form, circulating nearly 5,000 copies.
Numerous publications on prophecy, the signs of the times, the coming of Christ, the Sabbath, the law of God, the sanctuary, etc., have been issued within the past twenty years, and have had an extensive circulation, amounting, in the aggregate, to many millions of pages.
The ordinary financial wants of the cause are sustained by a method of collecting means known as Systematic Benevolence. By this system, it is designed that each friend of the cause shall pay a certain sum weekly proportioned to the property which he possesses; but there is no compulsion in this matter. In this manner the burden is borne by all, so that it rests heavily upon none; and the means needed for the work flows with a steady stream into the treasury of the several churches, and finally into that of the State Conferences. A settlement is instituted each year at the State Conferences, in which the labors, receipts, and expenditures of each minister are carefully considered. Thus none are allowed to waste means, and none who are recognized as called to the ministry are allowed to suffer.
The churches sustain their meetings for the most part without the aid of preaching. They raise means to sustain the servants of Christ, but bid them mainly devote their time and strength to save those who have not the light of these important truths shining upon their pathway. So they go out everywhere, preaching the word of God, as his providence guides their feet. During the summer months, the work in new fields is carried forward principally by means of large tents, which enable the preacher to provide a suitable place of worship wherever he may think it desirable to labor.
The Seventh-day Adventists have thirteen State Conferences, which assemble annually’ in their respective States. These bear the names of Maine, Vermont, New England, New York and Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri and Kansas, and California. 21 These Conferences are designed to meet the local wants of the cause. There is also a General Conference, which assembles yearly, composed of delegates from the State Conferences. This Conference takes the general oversight of the work in all the State Conferences, supplying the ‘more destitute with laborers as far as possible, and uniting the whole strength of the body for the accomplishment of the work. It also takes the charge of missionary labor in those States which have no organized Conferences.
There are about fifty ministers who devote their whole time to the work of the gospel. There is also a considerable number who preach a portion of the time, and devote the remainder to secular labor. There are about 6,000 members in the several Conference organizations; but such is the scattered condition of this people (for they are found in all the Northern States and in several of the Southern), that a very large portion have no connection with its organization. They are to be found in single families, scattered all the way from Maine to California and Oregon. The Review and the Instructor constitute, in a great number of eases, the only preachers of their faith.
Those subjects which more especially interest this people, are the fulfillment of prophecy, the second personal advent; of the Savior as an event now near at hand, immortality through Christ alone, a change of heart through the operation of the Holy Spirit, the observance of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, the divinity and mediatorial work of Christ, and the development of a holy character by obedience to the perfect and holy law of God. They are very strict with regard to the ordinance of baptism, believing not only that; it requires men to be buried in the watery grave, but that even such baptism is faulty if administered to those who are breaking one of the ten commandments. They also believe that our. Lord’s direction in John 13 should be observed in connection with the supper.
They teach that the gifts of the Spirit which are set forth in 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4, were designed to remain in the church till the end of time. They believe that these were lost in consequence of the same apostasy that changed the Sabbath. They also believe that in the final restoration of the commandments by the work of the third angel, the gifts of the Spirit of God are restored with them. So the remnant of the church, or the last generation of its members, is said to “keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”(Revelation 12:17; 14:12.) And the angel of God explains this by saying, “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”(Revelation 19:10.)The spirit of prophecy, therefore, has a distinct place assigned to it in the final work of Sabbath reform. Such are their views of this portion of scripture; and their history from the beginning has been marked by the influence of this sacred gift.
In the face of strong opposition, the people known as Seventh-day Adventists have arisen to bear their testimony for the Sabbath of the Lord.
They have had perils front open foes and front false brethren; but they have thus far overcome the difficulties of the way, and from each have gathered strength for the conflict before them. They have a definite work which they hope to accomplish: it is to make ready a people prepared for the advent of the Lord.
Honorable mention should be made of the Seventh day Adventists of Switzerland. They first learned these precious truths from Elder M. B.
Czechowski, who a few years since instructed them in the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Since his labors with them ceased, God has given them strength to stand with firmness for his truth, and has added to their numbers. They have a heart to obey the truth, and to sacrifice for its advancement. They number about sixty persons. There are also a few individuals of this faith in Italy, Germany, and Denmark.
The observance of the Sabbath is sometimes advocated on the ground that man needs a day of rest, and will grow prematurely old if he labors seven days in each week, which is doubtless true; and it has also been advocated on the ground that God will bless in basket and store those who hallow his Sabbath, which may be true in many cases; but the Bible does not urge motives of this kind in respect to this sacred institution. Without doubt there are great incidental advantages in the observance of the Sabbath. But these are not what God sets before us as the reasons for its observance.
The true reason is infinitely higher than all considerations of this kind, and should constrain men to obey, even were it certain that it would cost them all that is dear in the present life.
The Sabbath has been advocated on the ground that it secures to men a day for divine worship, in which, by common consent, they may appear before God. This is a very important consideration, and yet the Bible says little concerning it. It is one of the incidental blessings of the Sabbath, and not the chief reason for its observance. The Sabbath was ordained to commemorate the creation of the heavens and the earth.
The importance of the Sabbath as a memorial of creation is that it keeps ever present the true reason why worship is due to God; for the worship of God is based upon the fact that he is the Creator, and that all other beings were created by him. The Sabbath, therefore, lies at the very foundation of divine worship, for it teaches this great truth in the most impressive manner, and no other institution does this. The true ground of divine worship, not of that on the seventh day merely, but of all worship, is found in the distinction between the Creator and his creatures. This great fact can never become obsolete, and must never be forgotten. To keep it in man’s mind, God gave to him the Sabbath. He received it in his innocency, and notwithstanding the perversity of his professed people, God has preserved this sacred institution through the entire period of man’s fallen state.
The four and twenty elders, in the very act of worshipping Him who sits upon the throne, state the reason why worship is due to God: — “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” (Revelation 4:10-11.)
This great truth is therefore worthy to be remembered even in the glorified State. And we shall presently learn that what God gave to man in Paradise, to keep this great truth before his mind, shall be honored by him in Paradise restored.
The future is given to us in the prophetic Scriptures. From them we learn that our earth is reserved unto fire, and that from its ashes shall spring new heavens and earth, and ages of endless date. 23 Over this glorified inheritance the second Adam, the Lord of the Sabbath, shall bear rule, and under his gracious protection the nations of them which are saved shall inherit the hind forever.(Daniel 7:9,10,13,14, 17-27; Psalm 2:7-9; 37:9- 11, 18-22, 34; Malachi 4:1-3.) When the glory of the Lord shall thus fill the earth as the waters cover the sea, the Sabbath of the Most High is again and for the last time brought to view: — “For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before, me saith the Lord.” (Isaiah 66:22,23.)
Does not Paul refer to these very facts set forth by Isaiah when he says, “There remaineth therefore a rest [Greek, Sabbatismos, literally “A\parKEEPING OF THE SABBATH”] to the people of God”? 24 The reason for this monthly gathering to the New Jerusalem of all the host of the redeemed from every part of the new earth, may be found in the language of the Apocalypse: — “And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and ‘of the Lamb. In the, midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing [literally, the service] 25 of the nations.”(Revelation 22:1,2.)
The gathering of the nations that are saved to the presence of the Creator, from the whole face of the new earth, on each successive Sabbath, attests the sacredness of the Sabbath even in that holy state, and sets the seal of the Most High to the perpetuity of this ancient institution.
APPENDIX IN presenting this, the third edition of the “History of the Sabbath,” to the public, it falls to the lot of the publishers to announce the sad fact that the eminent and devoted author of the foregoing work has been called to rest from his earthly labors. JOHN NEVINS ANDREWS was born in Poland, Cumberland Co., Maine, on the 22d day of July, 1828. Though young in years, he was an active participant in the great Advent movement of 1843-44, to which he alludes on page 508. At the same time that Elder James White and wife commenced the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath, he also adopted the same views and practice. Being a very thorough Bible student, and endowed with a discerning mind and quick understanding, he immediately perceived, not only the position of commanding importance which the Sabbath occupies in the Scriptures, abstractly considered, but also its vital relation to the fulfillment of prophecy in the last days as connected with the subjects of the sanctuary and the third message of Revelation 14. From that time to the close of his labors, his pen was ever busy in defense of these doctrines; and many times his opponents have had reason to quail before the crushing blows of his logic, and the friends of the truth to rejoice in the clear presentation of the views so dear to them. His numerous works, in review of opponents, and in behalf of the subjects of the fulfillment, of prophecy, the second coming of Christ, the sanctuary, messages, law, and Sabbath; have perhaps contributed more than any other human agency to the rapid spread of their views.
Meanwhile he was a constant contributor to the periodicals of the denomination, and a welcome preacher in all parts of the field. He served for many years on the General Conference Committee, and, for a time, as Editor of the Review and Herald. He was connected with that paper almost from the time of the commencement of its publication, He was either editor or associate editor from 1855 until the time of his death.
He has left, however, as his greatest work the “History of the Sabbath’,” to which, for a period of ten years, he devoted the most thorough and conscientious research, Previous to the commencement of his investigations, about the year 1854, but little had been done in this direction as relating to the seventh-day Sabbath; and the testimony then accessible was of the most meager and unsatisfactory kind. With his work, a new mine was opened, and a new interest was created in the subject. For more than twenty years the ‘testimony of this volume has been before the world. A consuming desire to break down its evidence has gnawed at the vitals of many of the opponents of the Sabbath; but how to do it has been with them the perplexing question; for facts are things which the mass of people still regard with a good degree of respect. And some men in public places have thrown over their names a lasting stain, by attempting simply to sneer it out of existence. The fossil remains of the historical forgeries in behalf of first-day observance, so fully exposed in this work, are still handed out by some who would fain appear to their fellow-men as theological teachers but who are either themselves ignorant of the facts in the case, or presume upon the ignorance of their hearers, But the light is shining; and there are many who will not close their eyes thereto.
Reference is made on page 514 to the Seventh-day Adventists of Switzerland. After the publication of what is there said of them, in 1873, the interest in this work so increased among them that it was determined to open a mission in that country; and Elder Andrews was appointed to take charge of it, sailing for his new field, Sept. 15, 1874. He soon made himself proficient in the French and German languages, and in July, 1876, commenced the publication of a monthly French journal, Les Signes des Temps at Basel, Switzerland. To the interests of this paper, and the work in the European field, he assiduously devoted himself till his decease, Oct. 21, 1883. The number of believers in the whole European field reported to the General Conference in 1885, was 826.
In 1885 a large building for the publishing work and for meeting purposes, was erected at Basel, at a cost of $25,000. From this office are issued the French journal Les Signes des Temps, now 16 pages, semi-monthly; the Herold der Wahrheit, German, 16 pages, monthly; L’Ultimo Messagio, Italian, l6 pages, quarterly; and Adevarulu Present, in the Roumanian language,16 pages, quarterly.
At Christiana, Norway, a publishing house, with meeting hall above, was erected in 1885, at a cost of $11,000. From this office are issued four monthly journals, two devoted to the religious views of Seventh-day Adventists, in the Danish and Swedish languages; and two devoted to health and temperance in the same languages.
An office of publication is also established at Great Grimsby, England, from which is issued an 8-page semi-monthly journal, called The Present Truth, devoted to the teaching of Sabbath views to the people of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Eight laborers are now engaged in the, field, publishing the paper, holding meetings in tents and in halls, doing shipmissionary work, holding Bible-readings, etc. A laborer has also gone to Russia, where numbers are embracing the doctrine of the Sabbath.
Early in 1885 a mission to Australia was planned, and in, May of that year, a company, under the supervision et’ Elder S. N. Haskell, departed for that distant field, and began active operations. As the result, at the time of this writing, July, 1886, a church of upwards of one hundred members has been established in Melbourne, some fifty in New Zealand have adopted the same views, and a 16-page monthly journal, called the Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, published in the city of Melbourne, has already reached its seventh number.
Returning to the home field, we have to record a rapid growth in the. cause of Sabbath reform since the, last edition of this work was issued, in 1873, as compared with the statistics of that date, given on pages 509-512. The capital of the Publishing Association, at Battle Creek, Mich., has increased from $70,000 to $250,000; the number of hands employed has grown from 50 to 115; additions to the buildings have more than doubled the room, giving now an aggregate of upwards of 30,000 square feet of floor space, devoted to the various branches of the work. The circulation of the Review has nearly doubled; the Instructor has become a weekly, with a circulation of nearly 13,000; the Tidende (Danish) circulates 2,400 copies semimonthly; the Good Health (formerly Health Reformer) issues about 6,000 copies monthly; in 1874 a journal in the Swedish language, Sanningens Harold, was started, which has now reached a circulation of about 3,000; in 1878 the publication of a paper in the German language, called Stimme der Wahrheit (Voice of Truth) was commenced as a monthly, and now, as a semi-monthly, has a subscription list of between two and three thousand. In 1886 an 8-page semi-monthly journal, called the Gospel Sickle, designed for a certain branch of the missionary work, was commenced, and now circulates about 12,000 copies at each issue.
Of bound books, tracts, and pamphlets, the central office in Michigan issued in 1885, 27,800,000 pages, and the sales during the same period amounted to $61,785.78. The whole number of pages issued from this office alone since its establishment is 353,104,698.
In June, 1874, Elder James White commenced the publication of the Signs of the Times in Oakland, California. In April, 1875, a publishing house was established, and incorporated under the laws of the State. The special object of this incorporation was the publication of this paper, which has been issued weekly since that time. The business name of this institution is the “Pacific Press,” and its capital stock is now (1886) $100,000. Its facilities have increased as the work increased, and for business purposes it has an aggregate of over 25,000 square feet of floor space, and employs over one hundred hands in its various departments. The Signs of the Times was, from its beginning, intended for a missionary or “pioneer” paper, and is the organ of the International Tract and Missionary Society. In 1884 it was enlarged to a 16-page paper. The average circulation for the year ending Jan. 1, 1886, was 21,000 copies weekly.
In January, 1886, the Signs Office commenced the publication of the American Sentinel (monthly), designed to defend the principles of the American Constitution, guaranteeing the right of any one to observe the seventh day, and to labor the other six days, — a right which, by certain misguided parties, is now seriously threatened. The Sentinel has already (September, 1886) a circulation of about 12,000 copies each issue.
This office also publishes the Pacific Health Journal and Temperance Advocate, a 32 page bi-monthly journal, devoted to the cause of health and temperance.
Besides publishing these papers, the Signs Office has printed 13,183,000 pages of bound books, pamphlets, and tracts during the past year.
Something has also been done by this people in the direction of education.
Battle Creek College was established in 1875. A new building has been erected the past year, increasing its capacity to five hundred students. The property is valued at $75,000. A college was started at Healdsburg, California, in 1882, with a property valuation of $50,000 and a capacity for some 300 students. In October, 1884, an Academy was dedicated at South Lancaster, Mass., with a property valuation of $40,000, and a capacity for 200 students. Besides these there are a number of local and church schools in various parts of the field. All the educational institutions are patronized to the full extent of their facilities to accommodate students.
On page 510 mention is made of the Health Institute established at Battle Creek in 1866. A large building was opened for patients in 1878. In another large addition was made to the building to accommodate the growing demand for larger capacity. It now has accommodations for patients, and is largely patronized. Hundreds have received their first knowledge of Sabbath truth at this institution, and many have embraced it.
At St. Helena, Cal., there is another health institution, called the Rural Health Retreat, conducted on the same general principles, and beginning to have a large patronage.
Tent-meetings are resorted to more and more extensively as a means of bringing Sabbath truth to the attention of the people. Some one hundred and twenty-five meetings of this kind are held each year. General gatherings of the people are accomplished by means of camp-meetings, of which fifty were held in 1885, securing an aggregate attendance of not less than 125,000 persons.
The method of raising means formerly known as “Systematic Benevolence,” has been reduced to a more dearly defined and better understood system of tithing, by which one-tenth of every one’s personal income is set apart to the support of the ministry. The amount of funds from this source was, in 1885, $122,641.69.
There are now twenty-four State Conferences in the United States, and four in foreign countries, making twenty-eight in all. Churches have increased to 741, and the membership to about 25,000. One hundred and eighty-six ministers, and one hundred and fifty-one licentiates, are laboring with voice and pen to promulgate the work of Sabbath reform, besides a large number who are going out from the schools and other organizations to act as canvassers for books and periodicals, colporters, Bible-readers, etc. Upwards of 15,000,000 pages of books, and about 12,000,000 copies of periodicals were circulated the past year, the distribution reaching every civilized country on the globe.
The claims of another important branch of religious work have not been entirely overlooked, namely, the organization and maintenance of Sabbathschools.
In the denomination there are now twenty-five State Sabbath school Associations, and the aggregate membership is not far from 20,500.
Much of this growth is due to the organization known as the Tract and Missionary Society; and so important a place has this filled in the work, that it is entitled to more extended mention. The general organization takes the name of “The International Tract and Missionary Society.” To the President of this Society we are indebted for the following sketch of the origin and progress of this branch of the work:— The history of the Tract and Missionary societies among Seventh-day Adventists can be told in a few words, and yet very much might be related respecting the extent and results of their operations, which are seen in all parts of the world.
The origin of our Tract societies was very remarkable. In the summer of 1865, one of our sisters living in Lancaster, Mass., proposed to another sister, both in feeble health, theft they should have a season of prayer for God to bless their efforts in extending a knowledge of the Sabbath reform.
At that time they only had in contemplation one season of prayer; but they experienced so much of the blessing of God that they decided to meet the following Wednesday. The fruit apparent from the feeble efforts which they put forth, and the fact that much of the Spirit of God attended these seasons of prayer, led them to meet regularly at 3 P. M. on Wednesday of every week. Their number soon embraced all the sisters observing the Sabbath in the place. At this time the entire number of Sabbath-keepers in the immediate vicinity was but eight. Although no series of sermons has ever been given here, general meetings have been held from time to time, and the church now numbers one hundred and fifty. These weekly prayermeetings continued for four years, when a Vigilant Missionary Society was organized. Those engaged in the work in Lancaster also secured the cooperation of friends in different parts of the country, who labored, by correspondence and the distribution of reading matter, to awaken an interest wherever they could find openings. In the summer of 1869, Elder James White learned of their efforts, and as it was customary for him to encourage every such enterprise, he made to this Society the first donation of publications which they ever received. It consisted of over a bushel of tracts and pamphlets for free distribution. The following year, in November, 1870, the friends of the cause organized the first Conference Tract Society among the Seventh-day Adventists at New Ipswich, New Hampshire. This organization included four of the New England States. Its object was to encourage all, old and young, to engage in missionary labor, by visiting and praying with families, and sending out reading matter, etc.
Their efforts were not confined to any one section of the country, nor to. their acquaintances; but wherever they could secure addresses of individuals, they sent reading matter, with letters calling attention to the same.
From this commencement, State organizations were effected in New York, Ohio, Michigan, and finally in all Seventh-day Adventist Conferences in America. A correspondence was opened with lonely Sabbath-keepers both in Europe and America, and through them publications were distributed in all parts of the world. Each Conference Tract Society has its regular officers, consisting of a president, vice-president, secretary, who also ‘lets as treasurer, and a board of directors, corresponding in number to the districts into which the Conference is divided, each one having charge of the district in which he lives.
Every lawful means has been taken to bring the light of the Sabbath reform before the people, including the sale of denominational books by agents, the work of the colporter in visiting families, holding Bible-readings, and distributing reading matter, besides the mailing of publications and other labor performed by members of the Society. The work has opened up in Europe, even among believers who have never seen those of like faith, and through correspondence they have been led to engage in missionary work in the localities where they live. In every place where missions are now permanently established, with the exception of Basel, Switzerland, the interest was first awakened by this means.
In 1874, the International Tract and Missionary Society was organized.
This Society embraces all of the State organizations, and is designed to take the general oversight of the work done by them to fill openings for labor where there are no Conference organizations, and to seek the cooperation of other societies in the distribution of literature which treats on the Sabbath reform and the speedy coming of our Lord.
To enumerate the openings and the special providences which have been over the work, would require a volume as large as this book. There is no civilized nation on the globe where reading matter, accompanied with correspondence, has not been sent. And in South America, the islands of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and in different parts of Europe, there are scores who observe the Sabbath as the result of this effort, who have never seen one of like faith from America. Those who embrace the truth are at once made use of as instruments to give it to others. During the past year (1885), statistics show that more has been accomplished by the Tract and Missionary societies than ever before, in the same length of time.
City missions have been opened, or missionary operations entered upon, in all the larger cities of the United States; and in many others there are individuals, not observers of the seventh day, who cooperate with us in placing the literature of the Sabbath reform before the people.
With very few exceptions, the vessels that leave New York City, Liverpool, Boston, Providence, Savannah, New Orleans, San Francisco, Portland (Oregon), Chicago, and Baltimore take with them our publications, and exchange reading matter with the vessels they meet on the ocean. Packages are left at the ports ‘to which they sail.
In addition to what is sent by mail, twenty-six barrels of publications were freighted from South Lancaster, Mass., to various missions established by other religious bodies, who use the publications the same as they are used by Seventh-day Adventists. So thorough has been this work that there is not a town, in some of the territories, to which publications have not been sent, and there are counties in different parts of the country, where the Sabbath reform has never been preached, in which the address of every family has been taken, and in connection with proper correspondence, publications have been sent to them from six weeks to three months.
The literature used in this work is exclusively that published by Seventhday Adventists, and their periodicals are printed not only in English, but in the Swedish, Danish, German, French, Italian, and Romanian languages.
Each one of these periodicals is taken by individuals and societies in clubs of from five up to thirty-five hundred copies, and are re-mailed or otherwise distributed by those receiving them. There is scarcely a State or Territory in the United States in which we have no Conference organized where there are not persons who have received the Sabbath by publications thus sent. Many of them have never seen a preacher or received a visit from any Seventh. day Adventist.
Sea-captains have been known to embrace the truth, and it is reported that in some cases entire ships crows have commenced the observance of the Sabbath. They received the light in the ports which they entered, by having publications placed on board their vessels. Bible-readings are held on board vessels by our colporters at different ports.
There seems to be a power with the truth that gives success to the feeblest effort when put forth in the right direction. There are twenty-five Conference Tract Societies in America; one in England, whose operations extend over Scotland, Ireland, and Wales; one which embraces the three Scandinavian countries; and one established at Basel, Switzerland, which extends its operations through all Central Europe.
The statistics of our Tract Society for the year ending Oct. 1, 1885, show over 10,000 members. The reading matter distributed since the organization of the Society amounts to over 184,240,000 pages. We have placed over eight thousand volumes of bound books in the principal libraries of this country. ‘This has been at an expense of over $6,000. As one of the results of these moves, individuals in different parts of the country are daily becoming interested in the Sabbath reform. The number of believers who observe the Biblo Sabbath, and who are looking for the second coming of Christ, cannot be estimated. In 1884, at one of our Southern camp-meetings, it was learned that there were believers in a portion of the State where none of our ministers had ever been. Upon visiting the place, there were found over sixty keeping the Sabbath in a few counties. Thus it is in many localities; and these results may be traced directly to the tract and missionary work.
It may be proper to add that Seventh-day Adventists understand certain prophecies to foreshadow a great crisis in this country and in the world, touching the Sabbath question, as we draw near the end of all things, — a crisis which will cause those who adhere to the Sabbath, to do so in the face of opposition, legal enactment, and civil penalties, such as those have had to meet, who, in the worst ages of the world, have adhered to the true religion in preference to the false. They are equally confident that the beginnings of this revolution are already seen. The wide-spread agitation for a better Sunday observance, the introduction. of this question into the field of politics, the linking of it with the temperance and other great reforms, the operations of the National Reform Association, whose object is to secure such an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that under it the most rigid enactments for Sunday keeping, can be strictly enforced, and meanwhile the exposure of the scriptural bankruptcy of the Sunday institution by those who are keeping the seventh day, — all these things are rapidly drawing the line between the friends and foes of the Sabbath, throwing the latter in some instances into a position of bitter hostility to the seventh day, or rather to those who observe it. In some States attempts are beginning to be made to enforce such laws as they have against Sunday labor, and in other States to secure laws more strict than now exist, and to abolish every exemption clause that now stands in favor of those who observe the seventh day. Such an exemption clause was lately stricken from the statute book in Arkansas. Accordingly in October, 1885, five members of a church in Washington county were indicted by the grand jury for violating the law of that State which prohibits; Sunday labor. These were quiet, unostentatious believers, and their labor was such that it would be impossible for any one who wished to keep the first day to be disturbed by it. Yet these persons were brought to trial at the term of the court that convened at Fayetteville, Ark., Nov. 2, 1885. The trial excited great interest. A verdict of guilty was rendered, and a sentence of fine or imprisonment pronounced. By stipulation one case was made a test case, and appeal taken thereupon to the Supreme Court of the State. The decision of the lower court was confirmed, and now several other persons are in jail, serving out fines for the same offense.
In Tennessee the same scenes have been enacted. Appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of that State, and the decision of the lower court was sustained. The sentence was a fine of $20 and costs, or imprisonment at 25 cents a day till the whole sum was covered.
In Georgia, Sabbath-keepers have been imprisoned, and in Pennsylvania fined, for quietly pursuing their labor on the first day of the week, after having conscientiously kept the seventh day. These things seem to be the beginning of the very developments which S. D. Adventists have long expected in fulfillment of prophecy, and serve to confirm them in the correctness — of their position, and in the expectation of other events soon to follow.
Cherishing, as they do, a firm belief that the close of human probation is at hand, and that this dispensation is soon to close in the personal revelation of the Son of God in the clouds of heaven, they have an incentive to earnestness and activity such as no people have ever had. Hence they constantly seek to carry forward their work on broader plans, and to enlarge continually their field of operations, in order that, so far as in their power, the world may be warned of events which they believe to be now impending, and be admonished in regard to the moral duties which God requires at their hands. GOTO NEXT CHAPTER - SABBATH HISTORY INDEX & SEARCH
 |
