THE following articles and extracts are a careful
selection from the publications of the Seventh-day Baptists. We send out
this choice work with the expectation that those, who "delight in the law
of God," will be much instructed and blest in reading the clear,
comprehensive and irrefutable arguments which it contains. Though the
Sabbath is one of the most simple truths of the Bible, yet we are thankful
for the comfort and strength which we have received from the publications
of the "American Sabbath Tract Society," especially their "History of the
Sabbath."
We trust that this work will be the means, with the
blessing of God, of leading many to observe ALL of the commandments of
God, and no longer violate the fourth by treading down the Bible Sabbath.
JAMES WHITE.
Paris, Maine, January, 1851.
When was the Sabbath Instituted?
Some have contended that the Sabbath was not instituted
until the law was given to Moses at Mount Sinai. But there are serious
difficulties in the way of this belief. In the second chapter of Genesis,
after having given an account of the creation, the sacred historian says:
"On the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on
the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the
seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all
his work which God created and made." Now, if any part of this narrative
is to be construed literally, the whole of it must be; and if we may not
venture to deny or explain away the account which Moses has given of the
creation, then we may not deny or explain away this unequivocal statement
respecting the original institution of the Sabbath in Paradise. The
blessing and sanctifying of the seventh day is mentioned in connection
with the first seventh day in the order of time, and it is so mentioned as
most forcibly to impress the reader that the Sabbath was then instituted.
God's resting on the day is given as the reason for its sanctification;
and it cannot be supposed that this reason existed two thousand five
hundred years before the institution. We conclude, therefore, that the
Sabbath was enjoined immediately after the close of the work of creation.
This opinion is corroborated by some facts recorded in
the Scriptures. There are frequent and early notices of reckoning by
sevens. Noah observed a period of seven days in sending the raven and dove
from the ark; the term week is used in the contract between Jacob and
Laban; Joseph mourned seven days for his father; and Job and his friends
observed the term of seven days.
Nor is it in the sacred volume or among the Jews alone
that such facts are found. Nearly all the nations of antiquity were
acquainted with the weekly division of time. The Assyrians, Egyptians,
Indians, Arabians, and, in a word, all the nations of the East, have in
all ages made use of a week of seven days. And we find that these nations
not only divided time thus, but that they regarded as holy the very day
which had been sanctified as a Sabbath, although they had forsaken the
true worship of God. Homer, Hesiod, and Callimachus, say, "The seventh day
is holy." Theophilus of Antioch says, respecting the seventh day, "The day
which all mankind celebrate." Josephus asserts that, "no city of Greeks or
barbarians can be found, which does not acknowledge a seventh day's rest
from labor." And Philo says, that "the Sabbath was a festival not peculiar
to any one people or country, but so common to all mankind, that it might
be called a public and general feast of the nativity of the world." These
authors, who lived in different ages and were of different nations, cannot
be supposed to have written thus in order to please the Jews, who were
generally despised and persecuted; and this universal reverence for the
seventh day cannot be accounted for upon any other supposition than that
the Sabbath was instituted at the close of creation, and handed down by
tradition to all the descendants of Adam.
If additional proof of this early institution of the
Sabbath is needed, it may be drawn from the manner in which it was revived
in the wilderness. Before the children of Israel came to Mount Sinai we
find them voluntarily making provision for the Sabbath, by gathering on
the sixth day a double portion of manna. "And all the rulers came and told
Moses. And he said unto them, this is that which the Lord hath said;
to-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." "And it came to
pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day to gather,
and they found none. And the Lord said unto Moses, how long refuse ye to
keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you
the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you, on the sixth day, the bread of two
days." The rebuke, how long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?
implies the previous appointment of the Sabbath; and the positive
assertion, the Lord hath given you the Sabbath ought to settle the
question in any mind disposed to understand the sacred historian.
What day of the week do the Scriptures designate as the
Sabbath?
To this question, it might be supposed that every
person who has any acquaintance with the subject would readily reply - The
seventh. We are aware, however, that efforts are made to render this a
difficult point to determine. We shall, therefore, make a few remarks upon
it.
It is plainly recorded that the Creator, after laboring
the first six days, in which he completed the work of creation, rested the
following day, which was the seventh in the order of creation. This
particular day God therefore sanctified and blessed. "And God blessed the
seventh day." When the law was given at Mount Sinai, the observance of the
seventh day was commanded; and the manner in which the fourth commandment
is expressed, shows beyond a doubt, that one particular and definite day
was known to Israel by this name. Consequently, they needed no instruction
as to which day was intended. This is observable in Ex.xvi,22, where the
sixth and seventh days of the week are mentioned by their ordinal names,
as a subject with which the people were familiarly acquainted. In this
place, also, the seventh day is declared to be the Sabbath. There can be
no reasonable doubt but that the day which in the time of Moses was known
as the seventh day, was the same in its weekly succession with that which
is called the seventh day in Gen.ii,3. If the seventh day mentioned in the
fourth commandment was not the same day of the week mentioned in Gen.ii,3,
as some profess to think, it must be perfectly inexplicable, that no
intimation is given in the history of those events that another seventh
day was intended in the fourth commandment than the one mentioned in the
institution of the Sabbath, especially since both are recorded in the same
appellation in a direct series of events. But what removes all obscurity
from the subject is, that God has positively declared that the day which
he commanded to be observed in Ex.xx, is the same on which he rested at
the close of the creation. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy."
"The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." "For in six days the
Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested on
the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed
it." This language is definite; and while it assures us that the day here
commanded to be observed is the same in its weekly returns with the day on
which God rested, it assures us against any derangement of the week, or
loss of time which might have been produced in the long lapse of time from
the creation, by the general apostasy from the true worship of God. Had
the true Sabbath been lost, it was certainly restored; and the day then
known as the seventh day received the divine sanction. The same remark is
applicable to the subject during the succeeding history of the Jewish
nation. Had the weekly Sabbath fallen into total neglect, and the day of
its regular recurrence been forgotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, by giving
his divine example in favor of the day known by the Jewish nation as the
proper seventh day of the decalogue, has settled the question
conclusively, down to that time: so that the day known in the New
Testament as the Sabbath, was the seventh day in regular succession from
the creation of the world. A perfect uniformity among all the nations in
the known world, as to the days of the week, both before and since the
advent of Christ, is a further testimony, that no derangement of the days
of the week has ever taken place. Indeed, it will not be pretended that
the account of time has been lost since the introduction of Christianity.
Since that period, the Jews as a people have maintained a perfect
uniformity in the observance of the ancient Sabbath, though scattered
through every nation of the globe; and the Christian church, in all its
divisions, has been known to observe either the seventh or the first day
of the week; and for a considerable length of time, both of these days. So
that we are as certain that the day now known as the seventh day of the
week, is the same with that enjoined in the fourth commandment, as we are
of any fact, for the knowledge of which we are dependent on the testimony
of mankind.
In this connection, we would remark, that the
sabbatical law does not appoint a seventh day, but the seventh day. It is
but a flimsy subterfuge to pretend that the fourth commandment enjoins
only a seventh part of our time to be kept holy. The people of Israel
never so understood the law of the Sabbath; and their uniform conduct ever
since shows that they understood it to mean the last day of the week, and
that only. It will be admitted, that had the Jews, in the days of Moses,
profaned the rest of the seventh day, under the pretext that they had
rested on one of the preceding six days, they would have paid dearly for
their presumption. If, then, their sense of this precept was correct, no
person in any age has a right to understand it in a different sense, for a
law cannot have a contrary or a double meaning. While the terms of that
precept remain the same, its meaning must continue the same. It is true
that the law which enjoins the observance of the last day of every seven,
does as a consequence enjoin the seventh part of our time; but it is still
the seventh day in its order that it requires, and not merely a seventh
part. And it should be remembered, that Christ hath said, "not one jot or
tittle shall in any wise pass from the law;" and that the most awful
penalty is denounced on him who dares to explain away its proper meaning.
It is obvious, also, that if a seventh day, or any one day after six of
labor, be all that is required by the law of the Sabbath, the seventh or
last must still be that day, from the fact, that to change it without
divine authority would be to change the length of the week, and violate
God's established order. And as in the first instance it would be sin,
time would never change the character of that act. A wrong never will
become a right by our persisting in it. As it could not be changed without
sin, so the sin must ever remain until repented of and retracted. It
should be remembered, likewise, that by an admission that a seventh day or
a seventh part of our time only is required, all argument for a change is
effectually silenced; for if any good reason existed for one day more than
another, the mere seventh part must be abandoned.
Has the Sabbath been changed from the Seventh to the
First day of the Week?
This question involves matters of such importance that
it should not be answered without a candid and thorough examination. If
the Sabbath has been transferred from the seventh to the first day of the
week, it must be great impiety to neglect that day or to appropriate any
part of it to secular purposes. If, on the other hand, the law requiring
the sanctification of the seventh day of the week remains in force, then
to neglect that day is an act of equal impiety, and exposes the offender
to the most awful consequences. The Scriptures should contain the account
of it, if the Sabbath has been changed by divine authority. And as the
precept requiring the observance of the seventh day is plain and positive,
nothing less than this should satisfy an inquirer in regard to the claims
of the first day.
The method commonly pursued by the advocates for a
change of the Sabbath, is to impress their readers, 1. That the Jewish
prophets predicted such a change; 2. That there was a necessity for the
change in order to commemorate the completion of the work of redemption,
which was finished by the resurrection of Christ; 4. That on this day of
the week Christ frequently met with his disciples after his resurrection;
5. That from that time the Apostles and primitive Christians religiously
observed the first day in memory of this event, and as a substitute for
the Sabbath; 6. That the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended,
was the first day of the week; 7. That by "Lord's day," (Rev.i,10,) the
first day of the week was intended.
As these are the chief arguments advanced in support of
the change, they should be fairly considered, and compared with the Word
of God. "To the law and the testimony; if they speak not according to this
word, it is because there is no light in them." Let us examine them
separately.
1. Did the prophets predict a change of the Sabbath? -
The first and principal text cited in proof of this is Psalm cxviii,24
"The stone which the builders refused is become the headstone of the
corner. This is the Lord's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the
day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it." In order
to make any use of this text, the main points in the argument are assumed.
First, it is assumed, that Christ's becoming the head of the corner refers
to the day of his resurrection; whereas there is no conclusive evidence
that it refers to this rather than to the day of his birth, or of his
entrance on his public ministry, or of his final ascension into heaven.
Next, it is assumed, that the day spoken of is a natural day of
twenty-four hours; whereas this word is often used to designate an
indefinite period of time - particularly the gospel era (John viii,56) -
and is very probably so used here. Again, it is assumed, that the day
mentioned is the first day of the week; whereas there is nothing which
designates this rather than any other, allowing that a natural day is
referred to. Of course no confidence ought to be placed in conclusions
drawn from such premises.
Reference is sometimes made to Isaiah xi,10. "In that
day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the
people; to it shall the Gentiles seek; and his rest shall be glorious."
This "rest" is referred to the Sabbath, and the expression "in that day"
is supposed to show that it was to be changed by Christ. But whoever reads
the following verses will see that the rest here spoken of is not the
Sabbath, but that season when the Lord shall have "set up an ensign for
the nations, and assembled the outcasts of Israel, and gathered together
the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." Such a rest
may well be called "glorious."
There is one prophetic allusion, however, which some
have, not without reason, referred to the change of the Sabbath. This is
found in Daniel vii,25, where in describing the papal anti-christ, the
prophet says, "he shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to
change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand, until a time
and times and the dividing of time." The "times and laws" here referred to
cannot be those of the Mosaic ritual, since they were abolished at the
death of Christ, and it could be no sin to suppress them. But if we allow
that the decalogue, with its laws and time of rest, was to continue by
divine authority, we are compelled to consider this as an allusion to the
Sabbath and the moral code with which it is connected. And the history of
the change of the Sabbath together with the idolatries and sins of the
papal church, show how literally this prophecy has been fulfilled.
2. Is it necessary to change the Sabbath in order to
commemorate the completion of the work of redemption? It is said the work
of redemption is greater than that of creation; hence the necessity for a
change of the day of the Sabbath. In reply to this we remark, the
Scriptures are entirely silent respecting the comparative greatness of
these two works; and while they give us no information on this point, we
are not warranted in making our own suppositions the ground of practice,
to the neglect of a positive injunction. But supposing the work of
redemption to be greater than that of creation, is it therefore necessary
to celebrate it on a different day? Both these works were conceived by the
same mind and wrought out by the same hand. And since God has seen fit to
make the seventh day a time to commemorate the completion of his creative
work, why not gather together all his merciful works for us, and celebrate
them on one and the same day? The greatness of redemption, therefore,
instead of being a reason for a change, is a reason why the Sabbath as
originally given should be doubly dear to us.
Again, supposing that a change of the day is required
in order to celebrate the completion of the work of redemption, what day
shall be chosen as most appropriate? Shall it be the day of the
crucifixion, or of the resurrection, or of the ascension? If the time of
Christ's greatest display of love for mankind and his greatest labor for
them should be selected, then we should celebrate the day of his
crucifixion. This is the day on which, (if on any particular day,) the
work of redemption may properly be said to have been completed, according
to the testimony of the Savior himself, who said on the cross, "It is
finished." This is the day and the event in which the Apostle Paul
eminently gloried; and it was to the passion of Christ that he constantly
directed the minds of his brethren as the ground of hope and source of
encouragement. But if we would have the day of Christ's highest exaltation
to be the day for celebrating the completion of his work, then certainly
we must fix upon the day of his ascension, rather than of his
resurrection. The Scriptures say it was "when he ascended on high" that
"he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men." Then it was that "all
power" was given to him "in heaven and in earth." Then it was that God
"highly exalted him, and gave him a name which is above every name, that
at the name of Jesus every knee should bow." If then, a day were to be
selected as a weekly Sabbath, which was "validly the day of redemption,"
it seems most proper to select the day of Christ's death, which was the
end of his temptation and conflict with the powers of darkness, and the
severest test of his obedience; or the day of his final ascension. These
things are not said to prove that any sanction is given to those days
above others, since only a divine institution will weigh with us; but to
show the absurdities into which they are led who pretend to honor the
resurrection while neglecting the law of God.
It is evident from such considerations as these, that
the argument for a change of the Sabbath from its necessity to commemorate
the work of redemption, is not supported by reason or Scripture. It rests
alone upon man's authority, and acknowledges a principle which would
justify all the innovations and extravagances of Popery.
4. Christ's meeting with the disciples after the
resurrection. It is common for the advocates of a change of the Sabbath to
lay great stress upon Christ's meeting with his disciples, after his
resurrection, on the first day of the week. We will examine these
different appearances, and see if they afford any proof of the change they
are brought to show.
On the day he was first seen after the resurrection,
Christ appeared three times to different persons and at different places.
His first appearance was to Mary, while she was alone at the sepulchre,
John xx,16. There is nothing, however, in the circumstances connected with
this meeting which indicate that the least sacredness is to be attached to
the time when it occurred.
His second appearance was to two of his disciples as
they journeyed to Emmaus, Luke xxiv,13-35. He accompanied them to that
place, and both they and he returned to Jerusalem the same day, making a
distance of about fifteen miles. There is no indication that this journey
was undertaken for religious purposes; and as our Lord did not rebuke the
disciples, or instruct them to do differently in future, it is reasonable
to suppose he approved of their traveling on that day. Of course, then,
this circumstance, instead of indicating a regard for the first day, gives
us the example of Christ and the Apostles for traveling upon it. His third
appearance was in the evening of the same day, when the disciples were
together, probably at their own house; for we find the eleven not long
after this occupying a chamber in Jerusalem. (Compare John xx,10 with Acts
i,13.) There is not the least intimation here that the disciples have been
during the day, or were now, together for worship. On the contrary, the
absence of Thomas affords presumptive evidence that this was not a meeting
generally agreed upon. And the fact that most of them were not satisfied
that Jesus had risen, shows the impropriety of representing this meeting
as proof of a regard for the day on account of the resurrection. It was
important that the earliest information of the resurrection should be
afforded for the consolation of the desponding disciples, and for a
testimony to the truth of the Saviour's prediction, that he would rise
after three days; and there is nothing in these several appearances which
seems intended for any other purpose.
The next and only other meeting of Christ with his
disciples, which is held to have been on the first day of the week, is
mentioned in John xx,26 - "And after eight days again his disciples were
within and Thomas with them." Now had this interview been on the following
first day it could afford no strength to its claim for religious regard,
since it is not noticed as a meeting designed for worship. Mark,
(ch.xvi,14,) in noticing one appearance of Christ, says "He appeared unto
the eleven as they were at meat," i.e. eating a common meal. There is
nothing which gives to the meeting a religious character, or indicates
regard for the day. But it is by no means certain that the expression
"after eight days" means just a week: Who can say that it was not on the
ninth day after his first appearance?
Other appearances of the Saviour are recorded, which no
one will claim as having occurred on the first day. He appeared to the
disciples when they were fishing at the sea of Tiberius, (John xxi,13,)
and was seen of them forty days before his ascension, (Acts i,3.) Now, if
the appearance of Christ on the first day proves it to be the Sabbath,
then his appearances on other days prove them to be Sabbaths, since as
important business was transacted, and as much mention made of the
Sabbath, in one case as in the others. And if this be allowed, then we
have the example of Christ and the Apostles for traveling, fishing, or
doing any other business on the Sabbath. To such results would consistency
drive us in applying the principle that example, without precept, is to
regulate our practice. But the claims of the seventh day rest upon no such
authority. God enjoined it, and then added to the precept his own example
of resting upon it. No argument, therefore, drawn from example without
precept can justly weigh against it.
5. Regard of the Apostles for the first day. Another
argument for the change of the Sabbath, is the supposed apostolic practice
of meeting on the first day of the week for public worship and the
breaking of bread. It is often confidently affirmed that the keeping of
the first day instead of the seventh is sanctioned by apostolic usage. The
proof of this position rests mainly on two passages. Let us examine them.
The first is Acts xx,7. "And upon the first day of the
week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto
them, ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his speech until
midnight." But is there any thing in this transaction, or the attendant
circumstances, which clearly and undeniably proves an apostolic example in
favor of a new Sabbath, or of keeping the first day of the week, in any
manner, as a substitute for the former institution? Surely there is not.
The passage does not so much as prove that the practice of meeting for
worship on the first day of the week was then common and general. But if
it did, it would not determine the change contended for. There is nothing
said in the narrative which characterizes the day of this meeting as a
Sabbath. Assembling for public worship is proper on any day of the week,
and so is the breaking of bread. The supper was first administered on one
of the six working days; and there is nothing in the Scriptures which
restricts its subsequent administration to a particular day - not even to
the authorized Sabbath. Besides, in this case, the breaking of bread was
deferred until after midnight. Of course, according to Jewish reckoning of
time, it was attended actually on the second day; and this must have been
the case, also, according to the prevailing custom among observers of the
first day, commencing the day at midnight. It seems, therefore that the
Apostle and his brethren were not very precise in regard to its being done
on the first day. Let the most be made of this passage, and it lacks a
divine designation of the first day as the Christian Sabbath; and hence it
is entirely wanting as to the requisite evidence of a change in the
sabbatic law. Surely, if there had been such a change, and this, with one
more instance of meeting on the first day of the week, were to contain the
evidence for all after generations, we should have been informed of the
fact. Something would have been said to determine that the first day of
the week was regarded as a Sabbath, and that it had taken the place of the
seventh. But there is nothing of this. The record is perfectly silent in
regard to either point. Besides, it is evident that the original Sabbath
continued to be observed throughout the entire period of New Testament
history. This is so plain a fact, that no one who gives the subject a
candid examination will deny it. This shows the opinion of a new Sabbath -
observed, as it must have been, in connection with the Sabbath of the
fourth commandment, and without a word being said on the subject, or the
least objection, stir, query, or excitement whatever being raised - to be
perfectly preposterous. Such is the result of this reasoning from a
supposed apostolic example, giving the passage its widest possible scope,
as implying a common practice of meeting for public worship on the first
day of the week. But in reality there is nothing in this text which proves
or implies that such a practice was common at that period. For aught
appears, it might have been an occasional meeting, appointed merely in
consequence of Paul's being about to depart on the morrow. Therefore, to
adopt a practice so important as the one in question, upon such vague,
uncertain, and inadequate testimony - especially when, in order thereto,
we must dispose of a plain and positive command of God respecting the
observance of the seventh day, and of a usage as old as the completion of
the creation - is unreasonable in the extreme.
Another passage quoted in proof of an apostolic example
of keeping the first day of the week, and, consequently, in support of the
opinion that the Sabbath is changed, is 1Cor.xvi,2. "Upon the first day of
the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered
him, that there be no gatherings when I come." This passage, like the
others, does not imply that the first day was then commonly and generally
regarded as a day for public worship. Indeed, it does not necessarily
imply a public meeting of any kind. The direction for "every one to lay by
him in store," for the benefit of the poor saints at Jerusalem, "on the
first day of the week," necessarily amounts to no more than an appointment
of this day to make up their bounty at home, so that it might be sure to
be ready when the Apostle should come. But if it be understood to imply
any thing more, it is simply that they should bring their donations
together publicly on the first day of the week, so as to be prepared in
the fullest manner for the Apostle's visit. Therefore, according to this
view of the case, it proves no more than an occasional meeting on this day
for the purpose of a public contribution for an important object of
benevolence. But even if it could be so construed as clearly to imply that
it was then a common and general practice to meet for public worship and
instruction on this day, it would not thereby be pointed out to us as the
Christian Sabbath, and a substitute for the seventh day, seeing that it
contains no information to that effect, and that no divine warrant appears
on any part of the New Testament records for the supposed change. Meetings
for public worship, taking up of collections, and even breaking of bread,
do not constitute a Sabbath. To sabbatize is to rest from our own secular
labors, and keep a season to God. These proofs for a change of the
Sabbath, therefore, which are unquestionably the best that can be
produced, are utterly deficient, and the argument therefrom, as generally
presented, is deceptive, and unworthy of confidence.
6. Descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
- Much has been said respecting the descent of the Holy Spirit, on the day
of Pentecost. It is urged that this was the first day of the week, and
that this circumstance was an intimation that God designed to bestow upon
the day in its weekly returns a special honor. This opinion, however, is
supported only by assumption. The day on which that remarkable event
occurred, is known only as the day of Pentecost, an annual feast of the
Jews, fifty days from the feast of the Passover, which was held on the
fourteenth day of the first month. It might, therefore, occur on the
first, or on any other day of the week. This year it probably came on the
fifth or seventh day. But the fallacy of the argument we here oppose, is
apparent from the fact, that it is founded in the presumption that they
began to count the fifty days from the morrow after the weekly Sabbath,
whereas they counted from the annual passover Sabbath. See Lev.xxiii. The
descent of the Holy Spirit at this time could not be considered as
rendering famous any other day than the Jews' feast of Pentecost. But we
have no evidence that God intended by the event to bestow a special honor
upon any day. It was the fulfillment of an important promise that the
disciples should be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
7. "Lord's Day." - An argument for the change of the
Sabbath is founded on the supposed application of the title "Lord's day,"
to the first day of the week. The only passage referred to for the purpose
of sustaining it, is Rev.i,10. "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day."
But that the day here called the Lord's day, is the first day of the week,
is merely assumed, and hence is not to be considered as proved. It is not
in fact probable that this is the day referred to.
If these words be understood to refer to a natural day,
it is more likely to be the seventh day, which God had blessed and
sanctified for his special service, than the first day. The seventh day is
called by Him "my holy day," and "the holy of the Lord" - phrases very
similar to the one in this passage. This was also the Sabbath which was
made for man, and of which Christ says he is Lord. And since it was
observed up to the close of the New Testament history, it would be
perfectly natural for John to speak of it as "the Lord's day." Further,
there is no evidence that the first day of the week was denominated the
Lord's day, at so early a period. Only one writer mentions the expression
till towards the close of the second century; and the reputed author of
this passage, when speaking, in his Gospel, (which was written some years
later than the Apocalypse,) of the resurrection of Christ, and the first
day of the week, never intimates that the day should be called by any
other name. The learned Morer, though an advocate for the first day, in
mentioning the different days to which this phrase may be applied,
acknowledges the entire uncertainty as to what day is intended, and says,
"It is very likely that the more solemn and public use of the words was
not observed until about the time of Sylvester II., when, by Constantine's
command, it became an injunction." It is evident, therefore, that this
passage cannot justly be used as proof that the Sabbath was transferred to
the first day of the week.
We have now examined the texts commonly adduced to
prove a change of the original Sabbath, and have found them utterly
insufficient and deceptive. Hence the claims of the Sabbath of the fourth
commandment, without alteration, are fully sustained. The advocates for
the first day are aware that if an abrogation or change of the original
Sabbath law cannot be made out, the seventh day is still the true Sabbath.
Dr. Dwight, for instance, makes the following admission: "If we cannot
find in the Scriptures plain and ample proof of the abrogation of the
original day, or the substitution of a new one, the seventh day
undoubtedly remains in full force and obligation, and is now to be
celebrated by all the race of Adam." [From Sab. Vindicator.]
THE SABBATH:
AUTHORITY FOR THE CHANGE OF THE DAY.
It being clear from the Scriptures, that the seventh
day was instituted by divine authority for a weekly Sabbath, and
religiously regarded throughout the times of the Old Testament, those who
now relinquish its observance, and keep the first day of the week, take
the ground that the Sabbath was either abrogated and a new institution
introduced in its room, or that the time of its observance was changed
from the seventh to the first day of the week, in commemoration of the
resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. To be consistent with themselves,
therefore, they are bound to evince one or the other of these positions.
The burden of proof evidently lies on their part. For unless it can be
shown, that the fourth commandment, which requires the sanctification of
the seventh day, has been abolished, or amended by the substitution of the
first for the seventh day of the week, it is clear that the original
appointment remains obligatory and is now binding on the entire human
family. And to substantiate either of these points, the proof must be
clear and decisive. It will not do to rest upon doubtful deductions. We
have an unquestionable right to demand that divine warrant, in either
case, which pertained to the institution as originally delivered.
We will therefore first examine the proofs adduced in
favor of the abrogation of the former weekly Sabbath and the introduction
of a new institution.
To sustain this position, the broad ground is taken by
some, that the Decalogue itself, in which the law of the Sabbath is
contained, was abrogated; and that, under the new dispensation, no part of
it is binding but what is newly enjoined or expressly recognized, either
by Christ or his Apostles.
The perpetual obligation of the Decalogue implies, of
course, the perpetual obligation of the Sabbath as enjoined in the fourth
commandment. But if that was abrogated, the Sabbath which it enjoined was
also abrogated; and, consequently, it ceases to be binding, unless renewed
under the new economy. What, then, is the proof here relied upon? One of
the principal passages in which this proof is supposed to be contained is
2Cor.iii,7,8,13. "But if the ministration of death, written and engraven
on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not
steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance,
which glory was to be done away, how shall not the ministration of the
Spirit be rather glorious? . . . And not as Moses, which put a veil over
his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the
end of that which is abolished." It is argued from this passage, that the
clauses "which glory was to be done away," and "to the end of that which
is abolished," refer to the whole law, moral as well as ritual, because
mention is made of "that which was written and engraven in stones," which
is an evident allusion to the Decalogue. But, on careful examination, it
will be found that "that which was to be done away," was not the Decalogue
itself, but "the ministration of it," which was then appointed - the same
being emblematically illustrated by the glory of Moses' countenance, which
was merely temporary. This clause refers expressly to the glory of his
countenance, and not to the glory of the law itself. So also the clause
"that which is abolished," does not refer to the Decalogue, but to the
ministration of Moses, including the appended rights and usages, the
priesthood and its sacrifices, which were useful merely for the time
being. It cannot be supposed that the Decalogue was abolished, without
expressly contradicting Christ's testimony, Matt.v,17-19, as well as many
other representations of the Scriptures. The abolishment spoken of,
therefore, evidently respected no other than what the Apostle calls in
another place "the law of commandments contained in ordinances," inclusive
of the entire ministration of Moses. There is unquestionably a reference
in this chapter to the Decalogue, but not as abolished. It was merely the
ministration of it, or the then instituted manner of teaching,
illustrating, and enforcing it, which was abolished, to be succeeded by a
new ministration of the same law by the Spirit. For it is written, "I will
put my law" - (the very law of the ten commandments) - "in their inward
parts, and write it in their hearts." Again, "We are not without law to
God, but under the law of Christ." What law but the Decalogue is here
referred to? Evidently none. For surely we are not under the Mosaic
ritual. Again, "Do we make void the law through faith? . . Yea, we
establish the law." The same, no doubt, which was contained in the
Decalogue. Hence, the Apostle James says, "If ye fulfil the royal law
according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do
well." Here the title "the royal law," is given by way of eminence to the
Decalogue; and its permanent obligation is manifestly recognized; for the
precept alluded to is a summary of the last six commandments of this code,
and the allusion is so made as to imply the continued obligation of the
first four, which are summed up in supreme love to God. Again, the Apostle
John testifies, "Hereby do we know that we know him, if we keep his
commandments." And again, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that
they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the
gates into the city." In both these passages reference is evidently had to
the precepts of the Decalogue, as the essential and permanent rule of
obedience for Christians. The doing away or abolishment, therefore, spoken
of in the above passage, cannot refer to the Decalogue or the moral law
itself, but to the Mosaic dispensation or ritual.
Another of the proofs alleged for the abrogation of the
Decalogue, and consequently of the Sabbath, is Colossians ii,14-17.
"Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which
was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
and, having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them
openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in
meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of
the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of
Christ."
By "the hand-writing of ordinances," is most evidently
meant the ceremonial law - not the Decalogue, or the moral law. This is
never characterized as "the hand-writing of ordinances." Therefore, the
"blotting out," "taking away," and "nailing to the cross," spoken of, have
no reference to this law, but to the Mosaic ritual. This is particularly
distinguished from the Decalogue, and fitly described as "the law of
commandments contained in ordinances." It was this, and this only, which
was "blotted out" and "nailed to the cross." As, therefore, the reference
made by the Apostle is expressly to this law, it follows, by a fair
inference, that "the sabbath days" alluded to, or, strictly rendered
"sabbaths," are those which were contained in this law, or among these
"ordinances," and do not include the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.
There were, besides the weekly Sabbath, various other sabbaths appointed,
which belonged to that ritual, and not to the Decalogue. Accordingly,
these were expressly included in "the hand-writing of ordinances," and
like the rest were "a shadow of things to come," and ceased to be
obligatory at the death of Christ. There is evidently no authority in this
passage for including any sabbaths but what properly belonged to the
Mosaic ritual. This view of the matter is corroborated by a more literal
rendering of the 17th verse, viz: "Let no one therefore judge you in meat,
or in drink, or in a part or division of a festival, or of a new moon, or
of sabbaths." The sabbaths alluded to are obviously those which are found
in the same place with meats and drinks, festivals and new moons, and
which were of the same general character. The weekly Sabbath, therefore,
is not affected at all by their abrogation, but remains in full force, as
does every other precept of the Decalogue.
We find the same distinction as to the law which was
abolished, in Ephesians ii,14,15. "For he is our peace, who hath made both
one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having
abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained
in ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making
peace." Here the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles,
called "the enmity," is expressly defined, as before, to be "the law of
commandments contained in ordinances." This, and this only, therefore, was
abolished, leaving the Decalogue, or the moral law, in its original
character and obligation. This is the language of the whole Bible. There
is no proof in any of these passages, that the law of the ten commandments
was abolished, or that the Sabbath enjoined therein was done away.
Nor is there such proof in Romans xiv,5,6. "One man
esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let
every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day,
regardeth it to the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord
he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth
God thanks: and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth
God thanks." This passage is frequently adduced as proof that the
obligation to keep the ancient Sabbath has ceased, and that under the
Gospel dispensation there is no divinely authorized distinction in the
days of the week; that there is no one constituted holy in distinction
from the rest; and consequently that every one is left at his own liberty
to keep a Sabbath or not. It will be easily perceived, that if this
argument has any weight in reference to the seventh day as the Sabbath, it
operates equally against the obligation to keep the first day, either as a
substitute for the seventh, or as a memorial of the resurrection, seeing
it places all distinctions whatever as to days on the same ground with the
confessedly obsolete rites of the Mosaic ritual. According to this view of
the passage, we have under the Gospel dispensation no Sabbath at all - not
so much as an authorized memorial of the resurrection. He who claims the
least authority for the observance of the first day of the week for any
purpose, takes a course which completely overthrows the argument based
upon this passage. But, in reality, this text has nothing more to do with
the subject before us, than either of those which have been examined. It
respects merely the distinctions which formerly existed in regard to the
six working days of the week - some of them being appointed in the Mosaic
ritual as sabbaths, others as days of atonement and purification, and
others as festivals. Some of the early Christians thought these
distinctions still binding, as also the distinctions in regard to meats
and drinks; others thought they were not. Hence the exhortation which is
subjoined to mutual forbearance. That the distinctions referred to as to
days, were those noted in the Mosaic ritual, and did not include the one
contained in the fourth commandment, is manifest from the whole scope of
the chapter. There is particular reference made to one's freely eating all
things, while another would eat only herbs; and accordingly the following
rule, to be respectively observed, is laid down: "Let not him that eateth,
despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not, judge him
that eateth; for God hath received him." This quotation clearly evinces
that the Apostle was treating of ritual distinctions, and not of that
distinction of days which was constituted by the ancient law of the
Sabbath.
Again, the abrogation of the Decalogue is supposed to
be taught in Romans vii,4,5,6. "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become
dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to
another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring
forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sin
which were by the law, did work in our members, to bring forth fruit unto
death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we
were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the
oldness of the letter." But if the term law here includes the moral as
well as the ceremonial law, it is manifest that believers are not said to
be delivered from it, considered in any other light than as a covenant of
works. Certainly they are not delivered from it as a rule of obedience. To
suppose this, is inconsistent with Christ's sermon on the mount, before
alluded to, and many other decisive proofs of the perpetual obligation of
the Decalogue. It is probable the Apostle had special reference to the
deliverance of believers from the curse of the moral law. This is
reasonably inferred from the clause, "that being dead wherein we were
held." If any thing more pertaining to this law be intended, it must be
its original character when given to Adam as a covenant of works or of
life. For surely we are not and cannot be delivered from it as a rule of
obedience, so long as God is what he is, and we are what we are. Seeing
that as long as the relation constituted by his character as Supreme
Ruler, and by ours as moral subjects, exists, we shall be bound to love
him supremely, and our neighbor as ourselves, which is the fulfilling of
this law. And to suppose that this law, as a rule of obedience, was
actually annulled, and that those precepts only are now to be considered
obligatory, which are enacted or published anew under the Gospel, is to
suppose that God, at a certain time, actually rescinded the rule requiring
supreme love to him, and to our neighbor as ourselves, which is palpably
inconsistent, and contrary both to the current of Scripture and the nature
of things. It would be maintaining that to be changed which is manifestly
unchangeable. It would imply that, for the time being, the obligation
recognized by the law did not exist; that the tie by which God and moral
beings are united, was sundered, not by rebellion on the part of his
subjects, but by his own act of abrogation. Can this be admitted?
But if it were admissible, and if no part of this law
is binding on Christians but what is newly enacted or particularly
recognized under the Gospel dispensation, the Sabbath of the fourth
commandment could not in this way be set aside; because its continued
obligation is plainly taught in the New Testament. It is altogether a
mistake, that we have no express recognition of this precept under the
Christian dispensation. It is plainly recognized by the Saviour in
Matt.v,17-19, where he says, that he "came not to destroy the law, but to
fulfill;" that "one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till
all be fulfilled;" and that "whosoever shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called the least in the
kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, shall be called
great in the kingdom of heaven." If any commandment of this law is
binding, the fourth is binding of course, even if it should be called the
least. It is also recognized in the following declaration of Christ, Mark
ii,27 - "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." The
word man is here obviously used for the entire race - not for a part - not
for the Jews in distinction from the Gentiles - not for those who lived
under the Old Testament dispensation, or till the time of Christ's death;
but for man in his protracted existence during all future periods of time,
i.e. for mankind in general. This is the plain import of the declaration.
And if we render the original with the article, it is still more evident
that the entire race is included. "The Sabbath was made for the man," i.e.
for Adam, the original parent of man, including, of course, his posterity.
But, according to either rendering, the entire human race is manifestly
included in the term. The Sabbath, then, was as truly made for the
Gentiles as for the Jews; and for those who should live after the
crucifixion, as for those who lived before; which is an explicit
recognition of its perpetual obligation.
The same recognition also appears from its continued
observance under the ministry of the Apostles, and there being not the
least hint or stir in reference to its abrogation, or to the substitution
of another day in its room. The weekly Sabbath is frequently mentioned in
the Apostolic records, as a part of practical duty, and it was
unquestionably the seventh day. Thus we have the continued obligation of
the Sabbath sanctioned by Apostolic example. If, therefore, a new edition,
or an express recognition of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment be
considered necessary, to bind the consciences of men under the new
dispensation, the foregoing considerations will show that we have such an
edition or recognition, as truly as we have of the other precepts of the
Decalogue. So that nothing is gained in regard to setting aside the
seventh day of the week, by attempting to show the abrogation of the
Decalogue. If those precepts of that law which require that we should have
no other gods before the Lord - that we should not kill, nor commit
adultery, nor steal - are newly enjoined or expressly recognized under the
present dispensation, and, consequently, universally binding; the same is
true of the fourth commandment, which requires the keeping of the seventh
day.
Again, an attempt is made to prove the abrogation of
the original Sabbath, by showing that the entire Decalogue was peculiar to
the Jewish nation, constituting a national covenant, which, at the coming
of Christ, was annulled, and a new covenant introduced. But admitting that
it was delivered immediately to them, in the form of a national covenant,
this does not in the least imply that it was not equally binding, as a
rule of obedience, upon other portions of the human family. We might as
well argue that the New Testament belonged merely to the primitive
Christians, because it was delivered directly to them, and constituted the
rule of their conduct and the basis of their hopes. Yea, we might as well
suppose that no nation except the Jews were bound not to have any other
gods before the Lord, not to kill, not to commit adultery, not to steal,
not to bear false witness, as to suppose that the Decalogue was purely of
a national character, and binding merely on that people during their
continuance as a national church. And, as the Decalogue was not merely
national as a whole, so there was nothing national in the fourth
commandment. It belonged, equally with the other nine, to the entire
family of man, inasmuch as the essential reasons of all and of either of
the commandments, were of universal obligation.
Again, that the original Sabbath was peculiar to the
Jews, and consequently abrogated by the introduction of the new
dispensation, is argued from its being specially urged upon them by the
consideration of their deliverance from Egypt. But this argument is of no
force, because the same reason is urged in the preface to the entire
Decalogue.
For the same purpose, also, an argument is founded upon
the fact that the fourth commandment was enforced with a deadly penalty.
But this argument also fails; because a similar penalty was annexed to the
breach of the other precepts of this law. The truth of the case is, that
these penalties belonged not to the Decalogue itself as first promulgated,
any more than they belong to it now under the milder dispensation of the
Gospel. They were added in the Mosaic ritual, and constituted a part of
the political arrangements for the time being. Their abrogation,
therefore, affects not the original law. Though there be no civil power
now given to the church to enforce obedience to this precept by temporal
punishments, as formerly, the sacredness and obligation of the institution
are not thereby at all affected. The sin of disobedience will be visited
in God's own time.
Again, some have inferred the abrogation of the former
Sabbath, or at least its change, from our Lord's vindication of the act of
the disciples, in plucking the ears of corn, and rubbing them in their
hands, as they passed through the corn-fields on the Sabbath day, and from
his saying, that "the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath day," Mark
ii,23-28. But there is evidently nothing in this narrative, or in this
declaration, to justify such an inference. It must be admitted on all
hands, that the fourth commandment was obligatory, as originally given,
till the death of Christ, if no further; and therefore Christ, who "was
made under the law," was bound to obey it in its original strictness.
Admitting that he possessed the right, in a given instance, to intermit
its obligation, it is not consistent to maintain that he did it; because
he came to render perfect and universal obedience. Hence he affirmed that
one jot or one tittle should in no wise pass from the law "till all be
fulfilled." His whole life was a perfect comment on the requirements of
the law. Had he failed in the least particular, he would have been
inadequate to the great purposes of our salvation. It is obvious,
therefore, that the transaction alluded to was not, under the
circumstances, a breach of the fourth commandment, but in perfect
accordance with its prescriptions - the labor implied by the act of the
disciples being a matter of urgent necessity. "It is lawful," said he, "to
do well on the Sabbath day." Neither does the declaration, that "the Son
of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath day," imply that he abrogated or
changed it, but rather that he was bound and engaged to protect it as a
divine institution, and to enforce an enlightened and strict obedience to
its requirements.
The foregoing being the principal proofs adduced for
the abrogation of the Decalogue, and the original Sabbath, it is evident
that this view of the subject cannot be sustained. It is not sanctioned by
any plain scriptural evidence. It is, therefore, palpably absurd to rest
so important a matter upon so slender a basis. It is laying violent hands
on a code of moral and immutable precepts, given by God, and promulgated
under peculiar and terrible signs of purity and majesty, to vindicate a
practice which was introduced long after the commencement of the Christian
era. [From Sabbath Tract No. 3.
What day of the week was observed by the Apostles and
Primitive Christians?
The practice of the Apostles and early Christians is
justly admitted to have an influence in determining how we should
understand and discharge our religious duties. For this reason, the
strongest efforts are made to show that they regarded the first day of the
week as the Sabbath. But the Scriptures afford no evidence of this. On the
contrary, there is the fullest proof that they religiously observed the
seventh day - the only day which is called Sabbath in the New Testament.
In confirmation of this statement, we notice the distinction that is
constantly made in the writings of the Apostles between the Sabbath and
the first day of the week. The seventh day is uniformly called the
Sabbath, and the first day is mentioned only as such. Had the writers of
the New Testament adopted any other day for the Sabbath than the one
commonly called by that name, their manner of speaking of these days is
both mysterious and deceptive, as it is directly calculated to mislead us
respecting a religious duty. No person who regards the first day for the
Christian Sabbath, will apply this name to the seventh day; neither will
one observing the seventh day, style the first day of the week the
Sabbath. The reason is obvious. Such a course would be contrary to his
understanding of truth, and it would lead others to misunderstand his
sentiments. For this reason the Apostles would not do it.
In addition to this custom of calling the seventh day
the Sabbath, we find it was the custom of those early Christians to
assemble for divine worship on the Sabbath day. The manner in which the
Sabbath and the first day following our Lord's crucifixion were observed,
sufficiently proves what the sentiments and practice of the disciples were
at that time. It is said of them, that "they rested the Sabbath day
according to the commandment," and on the first day they "traveled and
went into the country." In the 13th chapter of Acts, we are told that Paul
and his company went to a place of worship in Antioch on the Sabbath day;
and we have a sketch of the sermon preached by Paul on that occasion. By
the request of his Gentile hearers, he preached the \next Sabbath, when
nearly the whole city came to hear him. In Philippi, Paul and his company,
on the Sabbath, resorted to the river side where prayer was wont to be
made. At this time Lydia was converted and baptized. In the 18th chapter
of Acts, it is said of Paul, who was associated with certain disciples in
Corinth, that "he reasoned in the synagogues every Sabbath, and persuaded
the Jews and Greeks;" and this practice he continued in their city a year
and a half. At Ephesus, Paul went into the synagogue and reasoned with the
Jews, which is also admitted to have been on the Sabbath day. In
Thessalonica, there was a synagogue of the Jews, and Paul, as his manner
was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of
the Scriptures; Acts xvii,2. - These quotations are sufficient to show
that the Apostles and primitive Christians observed the ancient Sabbath.
In Acts xxviii,17, Paul, in reply to the slanderous reports of his
enemies, declares that he had committed nothing against the customs of the
fathers. Now, was it the custom of the fathers to keep the seventh day for
the Sabbath? And was it contrary to their custom to keep the first day? If
so, then Paul kept the seventh day of the week, and not the first, for the
Sabbath. In this thing there was a perfect agreement among all the
Christians of the apostolic churches. The Jews, who were ever ready to
accuse them, and render them despicable in the eyes of their nation, never
upbraided them with a violation of the weekly Sabbath, which with them was
a crime worthy of death. These facts are sufficient to prove that the
Apostles and their associate Christians religiously observed the Sabbath
of the fourth commandment.
What was the Practice of Christians after the Apostles?
With a consistent Christian, the testimony and practice
of what are called the Christian Fathers, have not authority sufficient to
direct him either in devotion or in duty, when their testimony is not
supported by the Scriptures. It has, however, been generally alleged, by
the advocates of the first day of the week that the united testimony of
the earliest Christian writers prove that they observed this day as the
Christian Sabbath, to the exclusion of the seventh day. This is the more
frequently admitted, on account of so few possessing the means of
investigating the subject for themselves, and from the confidence had in
the integrity of those who have assorted it. But, for the honor of
Christianity, it is to be hoped that this declaration is made more for
want of information and consideration than from a thorough knowledge and
recollection of what the Fathers have written on the subject. To aid the
reader in forming or correcting his opinion on this subject agreeably to
facts, we briefly notice the grounds on which the advocates of the first
day have erred, in stating that those early Christians kept this day as
the Sabbath. As vital piety declined in the church, after the days of the
Apostles, outward ceremonies and unscriptural observances were made to
supply its place; and under a pretence of doing honor to Christ, the
Virgin Mary, the Apostles and Martyrs, a multitude of days were eventually
introduced to religious notice, and urged upon the Christians by their
teachers. Among others were Ash Wednesday, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, &c.
The first day of the week, or Sunday, on which it was supposed Christ rose
from the dead, was urged upon them as a festival in honor of the
resurrection, and as such only it appears to have been used for a long
time; and it appears not to have been originally intended to supersede the
religious regard universally paid by Christians to the weekly Sabbath.
Agreeably to this view of the subject, the learned Morer, though an
advocate for the first day, states that in St. Jerome's time, who was born
as late as A. D. 544, the Christians, after divine worship on the Lord's
day, followed their daily employment; and St. Jerome represents Paula, a
devout lady, with the virgins and widows attending her, after coming home
from worship on the Lord's day, as sitting down to their daily tasks,
which consisted in making garments for themselves and others. Chrysostom,
Gregory, Augustine, and Jerome, not only connived at but recommended and
enjoined this labor upon the Lord's day, from the consideration that only
a small part of the day was occupied in divine worship. The following
authorities will shed more light on the subject.
Athanasius, A. D. 340, says - "We assemble on Saturday,
not that we are infected with Judaism, but only to worship Christ the Lord
of the Sabbath.
Socrates, an ecclesiastical historian, A. D. 412, says,
"Touching the communion there are sundry observations and customs, for
almost all the churches throughout the whole world do celebrate and
receive the holy mysteries every Sabbath; yet the Egyptians adjoining
Alexandria, together with the inhabitants of Thebes, of a tradition, do
celebrate the communion on Sunday." "When the festival meeting throughout
every week was come, I mean the Saturday and the Sunday upon which the
Christians are wont to meet solemnly in the church," &c.
Eusebius, A. D. 325, as quoted by Dr. Chambers, states
that in his time "the Sabbath was observed no less than Sunday."
Gregory expostulates thus - "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 one you affront the other?"
Sozomen says - "Most of the churches carefully observed
the Sabbath."
Grotius, whose learning and candor eminently qualified
him for a witness in this case, observes - "The Christians kept the holy
Sabbath, and had their assemblies on that day, in which the law was read
to them, which custom remained to the time of the council of Laodicea,
about A. D. 355, who then thought meet that the gospel should also be read
on that day. These things considered, refute those who pretend that the
first day of the week, or Lord's day, is substituted in the room of the
Sabbath."
M. de la Roque, a French Protestant - "It evidently
appears, that before any change was introduced, the church religiously
observed the Sabbath for many ages; we of consequence are obliged to keep
it."
The authors here quoted are resorted to by our
opponents, whenever they have occasion for their testimony, and we have
never heard their veracity questioned. From their statements it is very
evident, that the introduction of the first day of the week to religious
notice was the effect of superstition; that it was at first but partially
observed, and that by but few as a festival; afterwards by more; and
finally by the greater part of professing Christians, who still observed
the seventh day as the Sabbath. It was by ecclesiastical councils and
imperial decrees, that it finally superseded the Sabbath as a national and
church holy day in most Christian countries. - Sab. Vindicator.
----------
The reader will observe that some of the historical
facts found on this, and the preceding page, are repeated in the four
following pages. In selecting this matter from different authors, we have
found it difficult to avoid some repetition. W.
HISTORY OF THE SABBATH.
THE SABBATH FROM THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE TO THE
REFORMATION.
WE here see how the matter stood until the commencement
of Constantine's career. The Sabbath was generally observed, while Lord's
day was regarded as a festival of no greater importance or authority than
Good Friday or Holy Thursday. No text of Scripture, or edict of emperor,
or decree of council, could be produced in its favor. But from this time
forth may be found emperors and councils combining to give importance to
the Lord's day and to oppose the Sabbath.
An important change was undoubtedly produced upon the
regard paid to the first day, soon after the accession of Constantine, the
first Christian emperor, in the early part of the fourth century. When he
became master of Rome, he soon gave himself up to the guidance of the
Christian clergy. "He built places of public worship. He encouraged the
meeting of synods and bishops - honored them with his presence, and
employed himself continually in aggrandizing the church. He was
scrupulously attentive to the religious rites and ceremonies which were
prescribed to him by the clergy. He fasted, observed the feasts in
commemoration of the martyrs, and devoutly watched the whole night on the
vigils of the saints,"* and showed great anxiety for uniformity in the
doctrines and observances of religion in the church. He was, therefore,
exactly suited to the wishes of the Roman bishop and clergy, in
establishing, by his imperial authority, what they had no Scripture to
support, and what their influence had hitherto been unable to effect, viz.
a uniformity in the celebration of Easter and the first day. In 321,
Constantine first published his edicts enjoining upon his subjects these
superstitious celebrations which he had been taught to perform.
Eusebius says,+ "He appointed as a suitable time for
prayers the dominical day, which then was an especial day, and now is
undoubtedly the very first. His body guard observed the day, and offered
in it prayers written by the Emperor. The happy prince endeavored to
persuade all to do this, and by degrees to lead all to the worship of God;
wherefore he determined that those obeying Roman power should abstain from
every work upon the days named after the Saviour, that they should
venerate also the day before the Sabbath, in memory, as seems to me, of
the events occurring in those days to our common Saviour."
----------
**Jones' Ch. Hist. p. 164, Am. Ed., 1824.
+Life of Constantine, B. 4, ch. 18. Busle ed.*
He says again, "An edict also, by the will and pleasure
of the emperor, was transmitted to the Prefects of the provinces, that
they thenceforth should venerate the dominical day; that they should honor
the days consecrated to the Martyrs, and should celebrate the solemnities
of the festivals in the churches, all of which was done according to the
will of the emperor." And as quoted by Lucius, he says, that he admonished
his subjects likewise that those days which were Sabbaths should be
honored or worshipped.
Sozomen says,* "He (Constantine) also made a law that
on the dominical day, which the Hebrews call the first day of the week,
the Greeks the day of the Sun, and also on the day of Venus, (i.e.
Friday,) judgments should not be given, or other business transacted, but
that all should worship God with prayer and supplications, and venerate
the dominical day, as in it Christ rose from the dead; but the day of
Venus, as the day in which he was fixed to the cross."
Dr. Chambers says,+ "It was Constantine the Great who
first made a law for the observance of Sunday, and who, according to
Eusebius, appointed that 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." He
adds, "Indeed, some are of opinion that the Lord's day mentioned in the
Apocalypse, is our Sunday; which they will have to have been so early
instituted." "By Constantine's laws, made in 321, it was decreed that for
the future the Sunday should be kept a day of rest in all cities and
towns; but he allowed the country people to follow their work. In 538, the
Council of Orleans prohibited this country labor."
To give the more solemnity to the first day of the
week, Sylvester, who was bishop of Rome while Constantine was Emperor,
changed the name of Sunday, giving it the more imposing title of Lord's
Day.++
It is not to be doubted, that the laws of Constantine
made the first day more conspicuous throughout the empire, as all public
business was forbidden upon it. They changed its character from a special
day, in which, as a weekly festival, all kinds of business and labor were
performed in city and country, to be, as Eusebius says, the very first.
This imperial favor for the first day was oppressive to all who
conscientiously regarded the Sabbath from respect to the fourth
commandment, in obedience to which the seventh day had always been
observed; and if it had produced a general abandonment of its observation,
it would not have been very surprising, considering the influence of court
example and the general ignorance and darkness of the age. Yet this does
not appear to have been the case. The Sabbath was still extensively
observed; and to counteract it the Council of Laodicea, about A. D. 350,
passed a decree saying, "It is not proper for Christians to Judaize and to
cease from labor on the Sabbath, but they ought to work on this day, and
put especial honor upon the Lord's day, as Christians. If any be found
Judaizing let him be anathematized."
----------
**Eccl. Hist. B. 1, ch. 8.
+Encyclop. Art. Sund. Lond. 1791.
++Lucius' Eccl. Hist. Cent. 4, p. 740. Bamp. Enq. p.
98.
Yet this did not produce any material change, for
Socrates, a writer of the fifth century, who resided at Constantinople,
makes the following remarks upon the celebration of the Sabbath, at the
time he wrote, A. D. 440. He says, "There are various customs concerning
assembling; for though all the churches throughout the world celebrate the
sacred mysteries on the Sabbath day, yet the Alexandrians and the Romans,
from an ancient tradition, refuse to do this; but the Egyptians who are in
the neighborhood of Alexandria, and those inhabiting Thebeis, indeed have
assemblies on the Sabbath, but do not participate in the mysteries, as is
the custom of the Christians. At Caesarea, Cappadocia, and in Cyprus, on
the Sabbath and dominical day, at twilight, with lighted lamps, the
Presbyters and Bishops interpret the Scriptures. At Rome they fast every
Sabbath."*
This account of the manner of celebrating the Sabbath
in the fifth century, is corroborated by Sozomen.+ He says, "At
Constantinople, and almost among all, the Christians assemble upon the
Sabbath, and also upon the first day of the week, excepting Rome and
Alexandria; that the ecclesiastical assemblies at Rome were not upon the
Sabbath, as in almost all other churches of the rest of the world; and
that in many cities and villages in Egypt, they used to commune in the
evening of the Sabbath, on which day there were public assemblies."
In regard to fasting on the Sabbath at Rome, here
referred to, it ought to be said, that from the earliest times to the
fourth century, the practice had been to observe the Sabbath as a holiday.
But the Church of Rome, in its opposition to the Jews, made it a fast day,
that the separation might be marked and strong. In the eastern churches
they never fasted upon the Sabbath, excepting one Sabbath in the year,
which was the day before the Passover. But in the western churches they
celebrated a fast every week. It was in reference to this that Ambrose
said, "When I come to Rome, I fast upon the Sabbath; when I am here, I do
not fast." Augustine also said concerning this, "If they say it is sinful
to fast on the Sabbath, then they would condemn the Roman Church, and many
places near to and far from it. And if they should think it a sin not to
fast on the Sabbath, then they would blame many eastern churches, and the
far greater part of the world." This Sabbath fasting was opposed by the
eastern church; and in the sixth general Council held at Constantinople,
it was commanded that the Sabbath and dominical day be kept as festivals,
and that no one fast or mourn upon them. The practice of fasting,
therefore, was chiefly in the western churches, about Rome.
----------
*Socrates' Eccl. Hist. B. 5. ch. 21. Basle ed.
+Eccl. Hist: B. 7, ch. 9.
It is perhaps difficult to determine exactly the
relative importance attached to the seventh and first day of the week, at
this time. Sufficient may be found, however, to assure us, that the
Sabbath was observed, and that no one regarded Sunday as having taken its
place. This is shown by the provision of the Council of Laodicea, A. D.
365, that the Gospels should be read on that day. It is shown by the
action of a Council in 517, (mentioned in Robinson's History of Baptism,)
which regulated and enforced the observance of the Sabbath. It is shown by
the expostulation of Gregory of Nyssa, "How can you look upon the Lord's
day, if you neglect the Sabbath? Do you not know that they are sisters,
and that in despising the one you affront the other?" And as sisters we
find them hand in hand in the Ecclesiastical Canons. Penalties were
inflicted by the councils both of Laodicea and Trull, on clergymen who did
not observe both days as festivals.
How the first day of the week, or Lord's day, was
observed in the early part of the fifth century, we may learn from the
words of St. Jerome. In a funeral oration for the Lady Paula, he says:
"She, with all her virgins and widows who lived at Bethlehem in a cloister
with her, upon the Lord's day, repaired duly to the church, or house of
God, which was nigh to her cell; and after her return from thence to her
own lodgings, she herself and all her company fell to work, and every one
performed their task, which was the making of clothes and garments for
themselves and for others, as they were appointed."
St. Chrysostom, patriarch of Constantinople,
"recommended to his audience, after impressing upon themselves and their
families what they had heard on the Lord's day, to return to their daily
employments."*
Dr. Francis White, Lord Bishop of Ely, speaking of this
matter, says, "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 precepts of the church."
In the sixth century efforts were made to prevent this
labor. The following promulgation of a synod held by command of King
Junthran, of Burgundy, will show the condition of things, and the means
used to improve them: "We see the Christian people, in an unadvised
manner, deliver to contempt the Dominical day, and, as in other days,
indulge in continual labor." Therefore they determined to teach the people
subject to them, to keep the dominical day, which, if not observed by the
lawyer, he should irreparably lose his cause, but if a countryman or
servant did not keep it, he should be beaten with heavier blows of
cudgels.+ The council of Orleans, held 538, prohibited the country labor
on Sunday, which Constantine, by his laws, permitted. This council also
declared, "that to hold it unlawful to travel with horses, cattle and
carriages, to prepare food, or to do anything necessary to the cleanliness
and decency of houses or persons, savors more of Judaism than
Christianity.++ In another council held at Narbonne in France, in the
seventh century, they also forbid this country work.$
Early in the 7th century, in the time of Pope Gregory
I., the subject of the Sabbath attracted considerable attention. There was
one class of persons who declared, "that it was not lawful to do any
manner of work upon the Saturday, or the old Sabbath; another that no man
ought to bathe himself on the Lord's day, or their new Sabbath."# Against
both of these doctrines Pope Gregory wrote a letter to the Roman citizens.
Baronius, in his Councils, says, "This year (603) at Rome, St. Gregory,
the Pope, corrected that error which some preached, by Jewish
superstition, or the Grecian custom, that it was a duty to worship on the
Sabbath, as likewise upon the dominical days; and he calls such preachers
the preachers of Antichrist." Nearly the same doctrine was preached again
in the time of Gregory VII., A. D. 1074, about five hundred years after
what we are now speaking of. This is sufficient to show that the Sabbath
was kept until those times of decline which introduced so many errors in
faith and practice. Indeed, it is sufficient to show, that wherever the
subject has been under discussion, the Sabbath has found its advocates
both in theory and in practice.
*Burnside on the Sabbath, p. 16.
++Chambers' Cyclop. Art. Sunday.
#Dr. Peter Heylyn's Hist. Sab. part 2, p. 135.
+Lucius' Eccl. Hist. p. 323.
$Lucius' Eccl. Hist. p. 103.
According to Lucius, Pope Urban II., in the eleventh
century, dedicated the Sabbath to the Virgin Mary, with a Mass.* Binius
says, "Pope Innocent I., constituted a fast on the Sabbath day, which
seems to be the first constitution of that fast; but dedicating the
Sabbath to the Virgin Mary was by Urban II. in the latter part of the
eleventh century."+ About this time we find Esychius teaching the doctrine
that the precept for the observance of the Sabbath is not one of the
commandments, because it is not at all times to be observed according to
the letter; and Thomas Aquinas, another Romish ecclesiastic, saying, "that
it seems to be inconvenient that the precept for observing the Sabbath
should be put among the precepts of the Decalogue, if it do not at all
belong to it; that the precept, `Thou shalt not make a graven image,' and
the precept for observing the Sabbath, are ceremonial."
The observance of the first day was not so early in
England and in Scotland as in most other parts of the Roman Empire.
According to Heylyn, there were Christian societies established in
Scotland as early as A. D. 435; and it is supposed that the gospel was
preached in England in the first century by St. Paul. For many ages after
Christianity was received in these kingdoms, they paid no respect to the
first day. Binius, a Catholic writer, in the second volume of his works,
gives some account of the bringing into use the Dominical day [Sunday] in
Scotland, as late as A. D. 1203. "This year," he says, "a council was held
in Scotland concerning the introduction of the Lord's day, which council
was held in 1203, in the time of Pope Innocent III.," and quotes as his
authority, Roger Horeden, Matth. Paris, and Lucius' Eccl. Hist. He says,
"By this council it was enacted that it should be holy time from the
twelfth hour on Saturday noon until Monday."
Boethus (de Scottis, p. 344) says, "In A. D. 1203,
William, king of Scotland, called a council of the principal of his
kingdom, by which it was decreed, that Saturday, from the twelfth hour at
noon, should be holy; that they should do no profane work, and this they
should observe until Monday."
Binius says that in A. D. 1201, Eustachius, Abbot of
Flay, came to England, and therein preached from city to city, and from
place to place. He prohibited using markets on Dominical days; for he said
that this command underwritten concerning the observation of the Dominical
day, came from heaven. The history of this singular epistle, entitled A
holy command of the Dominical day, the pious Abbot stated to be this: "It
came from Heaven to Jerusalem, and was found on St. Simon's tomb in
Golgotha. And the Lord commanded this epistle, which for three days and
three nights men looked upon, and falling to the earth, prayed for God's
mercy. And after the third hour, the patriarch stood up; and Akarias the
archbishop stretched out his mitre, and they took the holy epistle of God
and found it thus written."
----------
*Bampfield's Enq. p. 101.
+Eccl. Hist. p. 29.
++Lucius Eccl. Hist. p. 134.
[We will give some extracts from this epistle, partly
as a matter of curiosity, and partly to show the credulity of our
ancestors, and by what means they were awed into what was to them a new
religious observation.]
"I, the Lord, who commanded you that ye should observe
the Dominical day, and ye have not kept it, and ye have not repented of
your sins, as I said by my gospel, heaven and earth shall pass away, but
my word shall not pass away; I have caused repentance unto life to be
preached unto you, and ye have not believed; I sent pagans against you,
who shed your blood, yet ye believed not; and because ye kept not the
Dominical day, for a few days ye had famine; but I soon gave you plenty,
and afterwards ye did worse: I will again, that none from the ninth hour
of the Sabbath until the rising of the sun on Monday, do work any thing
unless what is good, which if any do, let him amend by repentance; and if
ye be not obedient to this command, Amen, I say unto you, and I swear unto
you by my seat, and throne, and cherubim, who keep my holy seat, because I
will not change any thing by another epistle; but I will open the heavens,
and for rain I will rain upon you stones and logs of wood, and hot water
by night, and none may be able to prevent, but that I may destroy all
wicked men. This I say unto you, ye shall die the death, because of the
Dominical holy day, and other festivals of my saints which ye have not
kept. I will send unto you beasts having the heads of lions, the hair of
woman, and tails of camels; and they shall be so hunger-starved that they
shall devour your flesh, and ye shall desire to flee to the sepulchres of
the dead and hide you for fear of the beasts; and I will take away the
light of the sun from your eyes; and I will send upon you darkness, that
without seeing, ye may kill one another; and I will take away my face from
you, and will not show you mercy; for I will burn your bodies and hearts
of all who keep not the Dominical holy day. Hear my voice, lest ye perish
in the land because of the Dominical holy day. Now know ye, that ye are
safe by the prayers of my most holy mother Mary, and of my holy angels who
daily pray for you. I gave you the law from Mount Sinai, which ye have not
kept. For you I was born into the world, and my festivals ye have not
known; the Dominical day of my resurrection ye have not kept; I swear to
you by my right hand, unless ye keep the Dominical day and the festivals
of my saints, I will send pagans to kill you."
Provided with this new command from heaven, "Eustachius
preached in various parts of England against the transgression of the
Dominical day, and other festivals; and gave the people absolution upon
condition that they hereafter reverence the Dominical day, and the
festivals of the saints." The time appointed as holy, was from the ninth
hour on the Sabbath until Monday morning at sunrise. And the people vowed
to God, that hereafter they would neither buy nor sell any thing but food
on Sunday.
"Then," says Binius, "the enemy of man, envying the
admonitions of this holy man, put it into the heart of the king and
nobility of England, to command that all who should keep the aforesaid
traditions, and chiefly all who had cast down the markets for things
vendible upon the Dominical day, should be brought to the king's court to
make satisfaction about observing the Dominical day." Binius relates many
miraculous things that occurred on the Sabbath to those that labored after
the ninth hour - i.e. after three o'clock in the afternoon of the seventh
day, or Saturday. He says, upon a certain Sabbath, after the ninth hour, a
carpenter, for making a wooden pin, was struck with the palsy; and a
woman, for knitting on the Sabbath, after the ninth hour, was also struck
with the palsy. A man baked bread, and when he broke it to eat, blood came
out. Another grinding corn, blood came in a great stream instead of meal,
while the wheel of his mill stood still against a vehement impulse of
water. Heated ovens refused to bake bread, if heated after the ninth hour
of the Sabbath; and dough left unbaked, out of respect to Eustachius's new
doctrine, was found on Monday morning well baked without the aid of fire.
These fables were industriously propagated throughout the kingdom; "yet
the people," says Binius, "fearing kingly and human power, more than
divine, returned as a dog to his own vomit, to keep markets of saleable
things upon the Dominical day."
Mr. Bampfield says,* "The king and princes of England,
in 1203, would not agree to change the Sabbath, and keep the first day, by
this authority. This was in the time of King John, against whom the popish
clergy had a great pique for not honoring their prelacy and the monks, by
one of whom he was finally poisoned."
----------
*Enq. p. 111.
Binius (Councils, Cent. 18) states that King John of
England, in 1208, in the tenth year of his reign, for not submitting to
popish impositions upon his prerogatives, was excommunicated by the Pope,
and his kingdom interdicted, which occasioned so much trouble at home and
abroad, that it forced him at last to lay down his crown at the feet of
Mandulphus, the Pope's agent. After he was thus humbled by that
excommunication and interdiction, the king, in the fifteenth year of his
reign, by writ, removed the market of the city of Exon from Sunday, on
which it was held, to Monday.* The market of Lanceston was removed from
the first to the fifth day of the week. In the second and third years of
Henry III. many other markets were removed from the first to other days of
the week, which King John would not permit to be done. He also issued a
writ which permitted the removal of markets from the first day to other
days without special license.
The parliament of England met on Sundays until the time
of Richard II., who adjourned it from that to the following day.
In A. D. 1203, "A council was held in Scotland to
inaugurate the king, and [concerning] the feast of the Sabbath: and there
came also a legate from the Pope, with a sword and purple hat, indulgences
and privileges to the young king. It was also there decreed, that
Saturday, from the twelfth hour at noon, should be holy."++ The
Magdeburgenses say, this Council was about the observation of the
Dominical day newly brought in, and that they ordained that it should be
holy from the twelfth hour of Saturday even till Monday.$
Binius says, "A synod was held in Oxford, A. D. 1223,
by Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury, where they determined that the
Dominical day be kept with all veneration, and a fast upon the Sabbath.#
The first law of England made for the keeping of
Sunday, was in the time of Edward VI., about 1470. "Parliament then passed
an act, by which Sunday and many holy days, the feasts of all Saints, of
holy Innocents, were established as festivals by law. This provided also,
that it should be lawful for husbandmen,
----------
*Prinn's Hist. Pope's Usurpa. part 3, p. 17.
+Bamp. Enq. p. 116.
++Boethus, B. 13, of Scotland, p. 788. Bamp. Enq. 114.
$Ibid.
#Binius, p. 385.
laborers, fishermen, and all others in harvest, or any
other time of the year when necessity should require, to labor, ride,
fish, or do any other kind of work, at their own free will and pleasure,
upon any of the said days."*
By such means as these, the observation of the first
day was gradually but forcibly urged upon the people, wherever they owned
allegiance to the Pope as head of the church, and in England and Scotland,
as late as the thirteenth century, and the Sabbath was as gradually
brought into contempt and disuse.
The process by which the change was effected appears to
be this: By first obtaining an annual celebration of the first day at the
close of the Passover in honor of the resurrection; then a partial
observation of the day weekly, it being then generally so observed among
the heathen; then obtaining for it the support of civil laws,
ecclesiastical canons, and penalties, and by giving it the title of Lord's
day; then by requiring the consecration of the entire day. To abate and
ultimately eradicate all respect for the Sabbath, it was first turned into
a fast, then it was dedicated to the Virgin Mary, resting upon it
stigmatized as Judaism and heresy, and the preaching of it called
Antichrist; and finally, pronouncing the fourth commandment ceremonial,
and abstracting it from the Decalogue. And thus, so far as the Roman
church was concerned, the point was gained, and thus probably she
performed her part in the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel, (vii,25,)
"He shall think to change TIMES and LAWS; and they shall be given into his
hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."
The cause of the Sabbath must also have been seriously
affected by the rise of the Ottoman empire in the seventh century, and the
success of the Mahometans in conquering the eastern division of the
church. Mahomet, as he professed, formed the plan of establishing a new
religion; or, as he expressed it, of replanting the only true and ancient
one professed by Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the prophets; by
destroying idolatry, and weeding out the corruptions which the later Jews
and Christians had, as he supposed, introduced. He was equally opposed to
both Jews and Christians. To distinguish his disciples the more fully from
both, he selected as their day of weekly celebration, the sixth day, or
Friday. And thus, as a writer of the seventeenth century remarked, "they
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 day
of the week."
----------
*Bamp. p. 118.
We have thus traced the history of the Sabbath in the
Roman church down to the thirteenth century; and we see that through the
whole of this period, the seventh day every where retained at least the
nominal honor of being called the Sabbath, and that no other day had ever
borne that title; and that not until the remarkable letter found on St.
Simon's tomb, had it been asserted by any one that the observation of the
first day, Lord's day, or Sunday, was enjoined by the authority of Jesus
or his apostles, nor any example of theirs plead in its favor. Even then
it was not pretended that the Scriptures suggest its observation.
There are some traces of the Sabbath found among those
Christians who separated from the Catholic communion, or were never
embraced in it. Among these is the Greek church, which separated from them
about the middle of the eleventh century, and had a larger extent of
empire than the papists now have. According to Brerewood's Enquiries, p.
128, this church solemnizes Saturday festivals, and forbids as unlawful to
fast on any Saturday except in Lent; retaining the custom followed before
their separation. The same author states that the Syrian Christians, who
composed a numerous body in the East, celebrate divine worship solemnly on
both the Sabbath and first day, continuing the custom of the Roman church
at the time they separated from that community. Sandy's Travels, p. 173,
speak of a Christian empire in Ethiopia that celebrate both Saturday and
Sunday, "that they have divers errors and many ancient truths." The
Abyssinian Christians are another numerous body, whose principal residence
is in the empire of Abyssinia, in Central Ethiopia. They are represented
as being similar in some respects to the Papists. Purchase speaks of them
as "subject to Peter and Paul, and especially to Christ, as observing the
Saturday Sabbath."* They are also mentioned by Brerewood. Mosheim mentions
a sect of Christians in the twelfth century in Lombardy, called
Pasaginians, charged with circumcising their followers, and keeping the
Jewish Sabbath. Mr. Benedict considers the account of their practicing the
bloody right a slander charged on them on account of their keeping the
Jewish Sabbath.+ Binius says that in 1555 there were Christians in Rome
who kept the Sabbath, and therefore called Sabbatarii, and are represented
as differing in other respects from the Romanists.
----------
*Purchase's Pilgrim, part 2, p. 1176.
+Hist. Bap. v. 2, p. 44.
++Page 877, Bamp. Enq. p. 117.
this. He says, "Their doctrines are, as far as the
author knows, the doctrines of the Bible. Besides this, they maintain the
solemn observation of Christian worship throughout our empire on the
seventh day."* If the author used the phrase in its usual and Scripture
sense, he has added a numerous body of Christians to those who have
retained the ancient Sabbath.
There has probably not existed a class of Christians
since the Apostles' time, who could more justly claim to be apostolic than
the Waldenses, who were formerly a numerous people living in the valleys
of Piedmont, whither they retired, says Mr. Burnside, on the promulgation
of Constantine's laws for the observation of the first day, in the fourth
century; where they remained, according to Scaliger and Brerewood, in the
time of Elizabeth of England, i.e. the latter part of the sixteenth
century.+ They adhered firmly to the apostolic faith, and suffered severe
persecutions from the Catholics, who were their most bitter enemies. Mr.
Robinson, in his History of Baptism, says, "they were called Sabbati and
Sabbatati; so named from the Hebrew word Sabbath, because they kept the
Saturday for the Lord's day." They were also called Insabbatati, because
they rejected all the festivals, or Sabbaths, in the low Latin sense of
the word. The account the Papists gave of their sentiments in 1250, is
briefly this: That they declared themselves to be the apostolic
successors, and to have apostolic authority; that they held the church of
Rome to be the `Whore of Babylon;' that none of the ordinances of the
church which have been introduced since Christ's ascension, ought to be
observed; that baptism is of no advantage to infants, because they cannot
actually believe. They reject the sacrament of confirmation, but instead
of that, their teachers lay their hands upon their disciples. Mr. Jones
says, because they would not observe saints' days, they were falsely
supposed to neglect the Sabbath also. Another of their enemies, an
Inquisitor of Rome, charged them with despising all the feasts of Christ
and his saints. Another, a Commissioner of Charles XII. of France,
reported to him, "that he found among them none of the ceremonies, images
nor signs of the Romish church, much less the crimes with which they were
charged; on the contrary, they kept the Sabbath day, observed the
ordinance of baptism, according to the primitive church, and instructed
their children in the articles of the Christian faith and commandments of
God.
----------
*Researches, p. 160.
+Burnside on the Sab. p. 108.
++Jones's Ch. Hist. p. 986.
the Waldenses, that they rejected all the traditions
and ordinances of the church of Rome as being superstitious and
unprofitable, and that they made light of the whole body of clergy and
prelates; on which account, having been expelled their country, they
dispersed themselves in different places, viz. Piedmont, Calabria,
Dauphiny, Provence, Languedoc, Bohemia, England, and elsewhere."*
----------
*Jones' Church Hist. p. 844.
THE SABBATH SINCE THE REFORMATION.
With the commencement of the Reformation a new spirit
of religious inquiry was awakened. Nearly every item of Christian practice
was brought under consideration, and not dismissed until either approved
or rejected. Among the subjects for discussion we find the Sabbath early
introduced and thoroughly examined. There were three leading views then
maintained by different classes of the Reformers, which deserve particular
notice.
1. One class of Reformers there was, who, dwelling
alone on the sufficiency of faith, and the freeness of the Gospel,
trembled at the thought of imposing rules upon men, and seemed to fear the
term law. These declared that the law of the Sabbath was abolished; that
Sunday was no Sabbath, only a festival of the church, which had been
appointed, and might be altered at her pleasure. That we may not be
thought in error here, as well as to give a fuller understanding of the
opinions of that time, we will present the assertions of some of these
men.
Bishop Cranmar's Catechism, A. D. 1548, says: - "The
Jews were commanded in the Old Testament to keep the Sabbath-day, and they
observed it every seventh day, called the Sabbath, or Saturday; but we
Christian men are not bound to such commandments in Moses' law, and
therefore we now keep no more the Sabbath, or Saturday, as the Jews did,
but we observe the Sunday and some other days, as the magistrates do judge
convenient."
William Tindal says, in his answer to More, chap. 25:
"We be lords over the Sabbath, and may change it into Monday, or any other
day, as we see need. Or may make every tenth day holy-day, only if we see
cause why; we may make two every week, if it were expedient, and one not
enough to teach the people. Neither was there any cause to change it from
the Saturday than to put difference between us and the Jew, and lest we
should become servants to the day after their superstition."
Bullinger, on Rev.i,10, says: - "Christian churches
entertained the Lord's day not upon any commandment from God, but
according to their free choice."
Melanethon says: - "The Lord's day from the Apostles'
age, hath been a solemn day: notwithstanding, we find not the same
commanded by any Apostolic law; but it is collected from hence that the
observation thereof was free, because Epiphanius and St. Augustine testify
that on the fourth and the sixth days of the week church assemblies were
held, as well as upon the Lord's day."
The Augustan Confession, drawn up by Melancthon, and
approved by Luther, says: - "We teach that traditions are not to be
condemned which have a religious end, . . . . . . namely, traditions
concerning holy-days, the Lord's day, the feast of the nativity, Easter,
&c."
These passages distinctly do away with the Sabbath, and
place the observation of Lord's day on the ground of human authority. In
the books of some early authors who adopted these views, may be found
frequent references to a difficulty which drove them to deny the
perpetuity of the Sabbath. Bishop White, in 1635, says: - "If the fourth
commandment, concerning the keeping of the seventh day, is moral and
perpetual, then it is not such in respect to the first and eighth day; for
this precept requireth the observance of that one only day which it
specifieth in that commandment." In speaking of Lord's day, he says: -
"Every day of the week and of the year is the Lord's; and the Sunday is no
more the Lord's by the law of the fourth commandment, than the Friday; for
the Lord's day of that fourth commandment is the Saturday."
In each of these quotations it seems to have been felt
to be inconsistent to allow the perpetuity of the Sabbath, without keeping
the seventh day. But to come back to this ancient day, and keep it in
company with Jews, seemed too great a change. Hence the abrogation of the
institution was asserted, as the easiest way of escaping from the dilemma.
John Milton, speaking of this difficulty, says: - "If we under the Gospel
are to regulate the time of our public worship by the prescriptions of the
Decalogue, it will surely be far safer to observe the seventh day,
according to the express command of God, than on the authority of mere
human conjecture, to adopt the first."
Another influence which led to the rejection of the
Sabbath by these men, was the view of it which was held by the Roman
Church. When the leaders of the Reformation separated from that church, it
was claimed that all her festival days, including Sunday, were holier than
other days, not only in relation to the use made of them, but to a natural
and inherent holiness wherewith they thought them to be invested. In
addition to this, many and hurtful restraints had been imposed upon the
consciences of God's people, until these were days of punishment rather
than holy pleasure and profit. Seeing the days perverted from their real
design, and made the means of strengthening papal power, it is not
surprising that they were discarded together. Anxious to escape one error,
they embraced another equally dangerous.
2. But another class of Reformers, (probably somewhat
fearful of the consequences of those lax notions to which we have just
referred,) considering that the Sabbath was given in Paradise, rehearsed
at Sinai, and placed among the precepts of the Decalogue, declared that it
must be moral in its nature, and perpetually binding. But having allowed
its perpetuity, and having rested its claims upon the fourth commandment,
the way of explaining and enforcing the change of the day, presented an
obstacle to the spread of this view. How this was removed, let their own
words answer. Dr. Bound, in 1595, says, "The fourth commandment is simply
and perpetually moral, and not ceremonial in whole or in part." Richard
Byfield, 1630, says, "The fourth commandment is part of the law of nature,
and thus part of the image of God, and is no more capable of a ceremony to
be in it than God is." Afterwards he says, "The institution of the Lord's
day is clearly in the work of Christ's resurrection; as the institution of
the seventh day was in the work of finishing the creation." "The
resurrection applieth and determineth the Sabbath of the fourth
commandment to the Lord's day." Such was the course of reasoning adopted
by this class of persons. Having established the morality and perpetuity
of the Sabbath by means of Scripture, and brought the sanctions of the
word of God to sustain them, they apply all this to the support of an
institution, the existence and time of keeping which is inferred from
Christ's resurrection. It is easy to see what must have been the
consequence.
3. A third class may be found among the disputants
about the Sabbath, who endeavored, by strict adherence to the Scriptures,
to escape the difficulties and inconsistencies into which others had been
led. They contended for the early institution of the Sabbath, for its
morality and perpetuity as inferred from its being placed in the
Decalogue, and for the seventh day of the week, as an essential and
necessary part of the commandment. Theophilus Brabourne, in 1628, says: -
"1. The fourth commandment of the Decalogue 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 full force and virtue to the world's end. 2. The
Saturday, or seventh day of the 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. 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." These opinions were vindicated by Brabourne, in two
volumes, which appeared, one in 1628, and the other in 1632. They have
never been answered to the satisfaction of many candid minds. It is true,
an answer has been attempted. But this answer, laboring as it did mainly
to prove that such doctrine "is repugnant to the public sentence of the
Church of England, and to the sentence of divines who lived at the
beginning of the Reformation," could not satisfy one who believed the
Scriptures to be a sufficient rule of faith and practice. To these volumes
might be added others, which appeared soon after, and to the results of
which, living witnesses have testified from that day to this. It was while
the discussion just referred to was yet in progress, that King James, in
1618, published his Book of Sports for Sunday, in which is set forth, that
"by the preciseness of some magistrates and ministers in several places in
this kingdom, in hindering people from their recreations on the Sunday;
the papists in this realm being thereby persuaded that no honest mirth or
recreation was tolerable in our religion," wherefore, it pleased his
majesty to set out his declaration, "that for his good people's lawful
recreation, his pleasure was, that after the end of divine service, they
should not be disturbed, letted, or discouraged from any lawful
recreation, such as dancing, either men or women, archery for men,
leaping, vaulting, or any other such harmless recreations; nor from having
of May-games, Whitsun-Ales, or Morrice-dances, and setting up of
May-poles, or other sports therewith used; so as the same be had in due
and convenient time, without impediment or let of divine service." This
was designed in part, probably, to counteract what was then called the
puritan notion, and may be regarded as expressing the opinion of the
English Church at that time in regard to the sacredness of the day. The
same was re-published in 1636, by Charles, with how much real effect upon
the practices of men it is not easy to determine.
It is evident that a reaction in favor of the
institution had already commenced; and the earnestness of Puritanism on
this subject, joined to the influence of Sabbatarianism, has affected
almost the whole body of the English Church. Puritanism and Sabbatarianism
deserve the credit of having preserved to that country a regard for the
day of rest, which raises them infinitely above many other Protestant
countries. Had they taken Scripture ground, the result can hardly be
predicted.
By what has here been said in regard to the observation
of the Sabbath, after the Reformation, it is not to be supposed that there
are no traces of it since the Christian era until that time. It is
believed that there have been Christians in every age who have kept holy
the seventh day. During the first three centuries of the Christian Church,
the Sabbath seems to have been almost universally kept. It was kept
generally in the Eastern Church for six hundred years. And from that time
onward to the present, frequent traces of Sabbath-keepers may be found,
either in the history of individuals, or in the acts of Councils against
those who kept it. These notices extend to the time of the Reformation;
and are as frequent as are the references to the first day of the week
under the title of Lord's day.
When we enter upon that period of Reform, 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 ministers 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 the country. There
were Sabbath-keepers in Transylvania, among whom was Francis Darinis, the
chaplain to the Court of Sigismund, the prince of that kingdom, and
afterwards superintendent of all the Transylvanian countries. In France,
also, there were Christians of this class, among whom was M. de la Roque,
who wrote in defence of the Sabbath, against Bossuet, the Catholic Bishop
of Meaux. But it is difficult to determine to what extent this day was
observed in those countries.
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. They increased considerably in the seventeenth century; and we
find that towards the close of that century there were eleven flourishing
churches in different parts of the country. Among those who held this view
are some names of distinction. Theophilus Brabourne was called before the
Court of High Commission, in 1632, for having written and published books
vindicating the claims of the seventh day. One Traske was about the same
time examined in the Starr Chamber where a long discussion about the
subject seems to have been held. Nearly thirty years after this, John
James, preacher to a Sabbath-keeping congregation in the east of London,
was executed in a barbarous manner, upon a variety of charges, among which
was his keeping of the Sabbath. Twenty years later still, Francis
Bampfield died in Newgate, a martyr to non-conformity - especially as one
who could no