| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: History of the Sabbath and first day of the week
Author: Andrews, John Nevins
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "History of the Sabbath and first day of the week" ***
This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.
FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK ***
HISTORY
OF
THE SABBATH
AND
FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK.
BY J. N. ANDREWS.
SECOND EDITION—ENLARGED.
STEAM PRESS
OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION,
BATTLE CREEK, MICH.:
1873.
PREFACE.
The history of the Sabbath embraces the period of 6000 years. The seventh
day is the Sabbath of the Lord. The acts which constituted it such were,
first, the example of the Creator; secondly, his placing his blessing
upon the day; and thirdly, the sanctification or divine appointment of
the day to a holy use. The Sabbath, therefore, dates from the beginning
of our world’s history. The first who Sabbatized on the seventh day is
God the Creator; and the first seventh day of time is the day which he
thus honored. The highest of all possible honors does, therefore, pertain
to the seventh day. Nor is this honor confined to the first seventh day
of time; for so soon as God had rested upon that day, he appointed the
seventh day to a holy use, that man might hallow it in memory of his
Creator.
This divine appointment grows out of the nature and fitness of things,
and must have been made directly to Adam, for himself and wife were then
the only beings who had the days of the week to use. As it was addressed
to Adam while yet in his uprightness, it must have been given to him
as the head of the human family. The fourth commandment bases all its
authority upon this original mandate of the Creator, and must, therefore,
be in substance what God commanded to Adam and Eve as the representatives
of mankind.
The patriarchs could not possibly have been ignorant of the facts and the
obligation which the fourth commandment shows to have originated in the
beginning, for Adam was present with them for a period equal to more than
half the Christian dispensation. Those, therefore, who walked with God in
the observance of his commandments did certainly hallow his Sabbath.
The observers of the seventh day must therefore include the ancient
godly patriarchs, and none will deny that they include also the prophets
and the apostles. Indeed, the entire church of God embraced within the
records of inspiration were Sabbath-keepers. To this number must be added
the Son of God.
What a history, therefore, has the Sabbath of the Lord! It was instituted
in Paradise, honored by several miracles each week for the space of forty
years, proclaimed by the great Law-giver from Sinai, observed by the
Creator, the patriarchs, the prophets, the apostles, and the Son of God!
It constitutes the very heart of the law of God, and so long as that law
endures, so long shall the authority of this sacred institution stand
fast.
Such being the record of the seventh day, it may well be asked, How came
it to pass that this day has been abased to the dust, and another day
elevated to its sacred honors? The Scriptures nowhere attribute this work
to the Son of God. They do, however, predict the great apostasy in the
Christian church, and that the little horn, or man of sin, the lawless
one, should think to change times and laws.
It is the object of the present volume to show, 1. The Bible record of
the Sabbath; 2. The record of the Sabbath in secular history; 3. The
record of the Sunday festival, and of the several steps by which it has
usurped the place of the ancient Sabbath.
The writer has attempted to ascertain the exact truth in the case by
consulting the original authorities as far as it has been possible to
gain access to them. The margin will show to whom he is mainly indebted
for the facts presented in this work, though it indicates only a very
small part of the works consulted. He has given the exact words of the
historians, and has endeavored, conscientiously, to present them in such
a light as to do justice to the authors quoted.
It is not the fault of the writer that the history of the Sunday festival
presents such an array of frauds and of iniquities in its support. These
are, in the nature of the case, essential to its very existence, for the
claim of a usurper is necessarily based in fraud. The responsibility for
these rests with those who dare commit or uphold such acts. The ancient
Sabbath of the Lord has never needed help of this kind, and never has its
record been stained by fraud or falsehood.
J. N. A.
_Battle Creek, Mich., Nov. 14, 1873._
CONTENTS
PART I.—BIBLE HISTORY.
PAGES.
CHAPTER I.
THE CREATION, 9-13
CHAPTER II.
THE INSTITUTION OF THE SABBATH, 13-32
CHAPTER III.
THE SABBATH COMMITTED TO THE HEBREWS, 33-44
CHAPTER IV.
THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT, 44-50
CHAPTER V.
THE SABBATH WRITTEN BY THE FINGER OF GOD, 51-64
CHAPTER VI.
THE SABBATH DURING THE DAY OF TEMPTATION, 64-82
CHAPTER VII.
THE FEASTS, NEW MOONS, AND SABBATHS, OF THE HEBREWS, 82-92
CHAPTER VIII.
THE SABBATH FROM DAVID TO NEHEMIAH, 92-109
CHAPTER IX.
THE SABBATH FROM NEHEMIAH TO CHRIST, 109-114
CHAPTER X.
THE SABBATH DURING THE LAST OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS, 115-157
CHAPTER XI.
THE SABBATH DURING THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLES, 158-192
PART II.—SECULAR HISTORY.
CHAPTER XII.
EARLY APOSTASY IN THE CHURCH, 193-203
CHAPTER XIII.
THE SUNDAY-LORD’S DAY NOT TRACEABLE TO THE APOSTLES, 204-228
CHAPTER XIV.
THE FIRST WITNESSES FOR SUNDAY, 228-243
CHAPTER XV.
EXAMINATION OF A FAMOUS FALSEHOOD, 243-258
CHAPTER XVI.
ORIGIN OF FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE, 258-281
CHAPTER XVII.
THE NATURE OF EARLY FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE, 282-308
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE SABBATH IN THE RECORD OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 308-331
CHAPTER XIX.
THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY DURING THE FIRST FIVE CENTURIES, 332-368
CHAPTER XX.
SUNDAY DURING THE DARK AGES, 368-398
CHAPTER XXI.
TRACES OF THE SABBATH DURING THE DARK AGES, 398-432
CHAPTER XXII.
POSITION OF THE REFORMERS CONCERNING THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY, 432-446
CHAPTER XXIII.
LUTHER AND CARLSTADT, 446-459
CHAPTER XXIV.
SABBATH-KEEPERS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, 459-470
CHAPTER XXV.
HOW AND WHEN SUNDAY APPROPRIATED THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT, 470-479
CHAPTER XXVI.
ENGLISH SABBATH-KEEPERS, 479-492
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE SABBATH IN AMERICA, 493-512
HISTORY OF THE SABBATH.
PART I—BIBLE HISTORY.
CHAPTER I.
THE CREATION.
Time and eternity—The Creator and his work—Events of the first
day of time—Of the second—Of the third—Of the fourth—Of the
fifth—Of the sixth.
Time, as distinguished from eternity, may be defined as that part of
duration which is measured by the Bible. From the earliest date in the
book of Genesis to the resurrection of the unjust at the end of the
millennium, the period of about 7000 years is measured off.[1] Before the
commencement of this great week of time, duration without beginning fills
the past; and at the expiration of this period, unending duration opens
before the people of God. Eternity is that word which embraces duration
without beginning and without end. And that Being whose existence
comprehends eternity, is he who only hath immortality, the King eternal,
immortal, invisible, the only wise God.[2]
When it pleased this infinite Being, he gave existence to our earth. Out
of nothing God created all things;[3] “so that things which are seen
were not made of things which do appear.” This act of creation is that
event which marks the commencement of the first week of time. He who
could accomplish the whole work with one word chose rather to employ six
days, and to accomplish the result by successive steps. Let us trace the
footsteps of the Creator from the time when he laid the foundation of the
earth until the close of the sixth day, when the heavens and the earth
were finished, “and God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it
was very good.”[4]
On the first day of time God created the heaven and the earth. The earth
thus called into existence was without form, and void; and total darkness
covered the Creator’s work. Then “God said, Let there be light; and there
was light.” “And God divided the light from the darkness,” and called the
one day, and the other night.[5]
On the second day of time “God said, Let there be a firmament [margin,
Heb., expansion] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters
from the waters.” The dry land had not yet appeared; consequently the
earth was covered with water. As no atmosphere existed, thick vapors
rested upon the face of the water; but the atmosphere being now called
into existence by the word of the Creator, causing those elements
to unite which compose the air we breathe, the fogs and vapors that
had rested upon the bosom of the water were borne aloft by it. This
atmosphere or expansion is called heaven.[6]
On the third day of time God gathered the waters together and caused the
dry land to appear. The gathering together of the waters God called seas;
the dry land, thus rescued from the waters, he called earth. “And God
said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the
fruit-tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon
the earth: and it was so.” “And God saw that it was good.”[7]
On the fourth day of time “God said, Let there be lights in the firmament
of the heaven, to divide the day from the night; and let them be for
signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.” “And God made two great
lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule
the night; he made the stars also.” Light had been created on the first
day of the week; and now on the fourth day he causes the sun and moon
to appear as light-bearers, and places the light under their rule. And
they continue unto this day according to his ordinances, for all are his
servants. Such was the work of the fourth day. And the Great Architect,
surveying what he had wrought, pronounced it good.[8]
On the fifth day of time “God created great whales, and every living
creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after
their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was
good.”[9]
On the sixth day of time “God made the beast of the earth after his
kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the
earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” Thus the earth,
having been fitted for the purpose, was filled with every order of
living creature, while the air and waters teemed with animal existence.
To complete this noble work of creation, God next provides a ruler, the
representative of himself, and places all in subjection under him. “And
God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and
over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth.” “And the Lord God formed man of the dust
of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and
man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in
Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground
made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and
good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the
tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Last of all, God created Eve, the
mother of all living. The work of the Creator was now complete. “The
heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.” “And God
saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.” Adam and
Eve were in paradise; the tree of life bloomed on earth; sin had not
entered our world, and death was not here, for there was no sin. “The
morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.”
Thus ended the sixth day.[10]
CHAPTER II.
THE INSTITUTION OF THE SABBATH.
Event on the seventh day—Why the Creator rested—Acts by which
the Sabbath was made—Time and order of their occurrence—Meaning
of the word _sanctified_—The fourth commandment refers the
origin of the Sabbath to creation—The second mention of the
Sabbath confirms this fact—The Saviour’s testimony—When did
God sanctify the seventh day—Object of the Author of the
Sabbath—Testimony of Josephus and of Philo—Negative argument
from the book of Genesis considered—Adam’s knowledge of the
Sabbath not difficult to be known by the patriarchs.
The work of the Creator was finished, but the first week of time was
not yet completed. Each of the six days had been distinguished by the
Creators work upon it; but the seventh was rendered memorable in a very
different manner. “And on the seventh[11] day God ended his work which
he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he
had made.” In yet stronger language it is written: “On the seventh day he
rested, and was REFRESHED.”[12]
Thus the seventh day of the week became the rest-day of the Lord. How
remarkable is this fact! “The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of
the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary.”[13] He needed
no rest; yet it is written, “On the seventh day he rested, and was
refreshed.” Why does not the record simply state the cessation of the
Creator’s work? Why did he at the close of that work employ a day in
rest? The answer will be learned from the next verse. He was laying the
foundation of a divine institution, the memorial of his own great work.
“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.” The fourth
commandment states the same fact: He “rested the seventh day; _wherefore_
the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”[14]
The blessing and sanctification of the seventh day were because that God
had rested upon it. His resting upon it, then, was to lay the foundation
for blessing and sanctifying the day. His being refreshed with this rest,
implies that he delighted in the act which laid the foundation for the
memorial of his great work.
The second act of the Creator in instituting this memorial was to place
his blessing upon the day of his rest. Thenceforward it was the blessed
rest-day of the Lord. A third act completes the sacred institution. The
day already blessed of God is now, last of all, sanctified or hallowed
by him. To sanctify is “to separate, set apart, or appoint to a holy,
sacred, or religious use.” To hallow is “to make holy; to consecrate; to
set apart for a holy or religious use.”[15]
The time when these three acts were performed is worthy of especial
notice. The first act was that of rest. This took place on the seventh
day; for the day was employed in rest. The second and third acts took
place when the seventh day was past. “God blessed the seventh day, and
sanctified it: because that in it he _had_ rested from all his work.”
Hence it was on the first day of the second week of time that God
blessed the seventh day, and set it apart to a holy use. The blessing and
sanctification of the seventh day, therefore, relate not to the first
seventh day of time, but to the seventh day of the week for time to come,
in memory of God’s rest on that day from the work of creation.
With the beginning of time, God began to count days, giving to each an
ordinal number for its _name_. Seven _different_ days receive as many
different _names_. In memory of that which he did on the last of these
days, he sets that day apart by _name_ to a holy use. This act gave
existence to weeks, or periods of seven days. For with the seventh day,
he ceased to count, and, by the divine appointment of that day to a holy
use in memory of his rest thereon, he causes man to begin the count of a
new week so soon as the first seventh day had ceased. And as God has been
pleased to give man, _in all_, but _seven_ different days, and has given
to each one of these days a name which indicates its exact place in the
week, his act of setting apart one of these by name, which act created
weeks and gave man the Sabbath, can never—except by sophistry—be made to
relate to an indefinite or uncertain day.
The days of the week are measured off by the revolution of _our earth_ on
its axis; and hence our seventh day, as such, can come only to dwellers
on this globe. To Adam and Eve, therefore, as inhabitants of this earth,
and not to the inhabitants of some other world, were the days of the week
given to use. Hence, when God set apart one of these days to a holy use
in memory of his own rest on that day of the week, the very essence of
the act consisted in his telling Adam that this day should be used only
for sacred purposes. Adam was then in the garden of God, placed there by
the Creator to dress it and to keep it. He was also commissioned of God
to subdue the earth.[16] When therefore the rest-day of the Lord should
return, from week to week, all this secular employment, however proper
in itself, must be laid aside, and the day observed in memory of the
Creator’s rest.
Dr. Twisse quotes Martin Luther thus:
“And Martin Luther professeth as much (tome vi. in Gen. 2:3).
‘It follows from hence,’ saith he, ‘that, if Adam had stood in
his innocency, yet he should have kept the seventh day holy,
that is, on that day he should have taught his children, and
children’s children, what was the will of God, and wherein his
worship did consist; he should have praised God, given thanks,
and offered. On other days he should have tilled his ground,
looked to his cattle.’”[17]
The Hebrew verb, _kadash_, here rendered _sanctified_, and in the fourth
commandment rendered _hallowed_, is defined by Gesenius, “To pronounce
holy, to sanctify; to institute any holy thing, to appoint.”[18] It
is repeatedly used in the Old Testament for a public appointment or
proclamation. Thus, when the cities of refuge were set apart in Israel,
it is written: “They appointed [margin, Heb., sanctified] Kedesh in
Galilee in Mount Naphtali, and Shechem in Mount Ephraim,” &c. This
sanctification or appointment of the cities of refuge was by a public
announcement to Israel that these cities were set apart for that
purpose. This verb is also used for the appointment of a public fast,
and for the gathering of a solemn assembly. Thus it is written: “Sanctify
[_i. e._, appoint] ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders
and all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the Lord your God.”
“Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify [_i. e._, appoint] a fast, call a
solemn assembly.” “And Jehu said, Proclaim [margin, Heb., sanctify] a
solemn assembly for Baal.”[19] This appointment for Baal was so public
that all the worshipers of Baal in all Israel were gathered together.
These fasts and solemn assemblies were sanctified or set apart by a
public appointment or proclamation of the fact. When therefore God set
apart the seventh day to a holy use, it was necessary that he should
state that fact to those who had the days of the week to use. Without
such announcement the day could not be set apart from the others.
But the most striking illustration of the meaning of this word may be
found in the record of the sanctification of Mount Sinai.[20] When God
was about to speak the ten commandments in the hearing of all Israel, he
sent Moses down from the top of Mount Sinai to restrain the people from
touching the mount. “And Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot
come up to Mount Sinai; for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about
the mount, and _sanctify it_.” Turning back to the verse where God gave
this charge to Moses, we read: “And thou shalt set bounds unto the people
round about, _saying_, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into
the mount or touch the border of it.” Hence to sanctify the mount was to
command the people not to touch even the border of it; for God was about
to descend in majesty upon it. In other words, to sanctify or set apart
to a holy use Mount Sinai, was to tell the people that God would have
them treat the mountain as sacred to himself. And thus also to sanctify
the rest-day of the Lord was to tell Adam that he should treat the day as
holy to the Lord.
The declaration, “God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it,” is not
indeed a commandment for the observance of that day; but it is the record
that such a precept was given to Adam.[21] For how could the Creator “set
apart to a holy use” the day of his rest, when those who were to use the
day knew nothing of his will in the case? Let those answer who are able.
This view of the record in Genesis we shall find to be sustained by all
the testimony in the Bible relative to the rest-day of the Lord. The
facts which we have examined are the basis of the fourth commandment.
Thus spake the great Law-giver from the summit of the flaming mount:
“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 the seventh day:
wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”[22]
The term Sabbath is transferred from the Hebrew language, and signifies
rest.[23] The command, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” is
therefore exactly equivalent to saying, “Remember the rest-day, to keep
it holy.” The explanation which follows sustains this statement: “The
seventh day is the Sabbath [or rest-day] of the Lord thy God.” The origin
of this rest-day is given in these words: “For in six days the Lord
made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the
seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed
it.” That which is enjoined in the fourth commandment is to keep holy
the rest-day of the Lord. And this is defined to be the day on which
he rested from the work of creation. Moreover, the fourth commandment
calls the seventh day the Sabbath day at the time when God blessed and
hallowed that day; therefore the Sabbath is an institution dating from
the foundation of the world. The fourth commandment points back to the
creation for the origin of its obligation; and when we go back to that
point, we find the substance of the fourth commandment given to Adam:
“God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it;” _i. e._, set it apart to
a holy use. And in the commandment itself, the same fact is stated: “The
Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it;” _i. e._, appointed it to
a holy use. The one statement affirms that “God blessed the seventh day,
and sanctified it;” the other, that “the Lord blessed the Sabbath day,
and hallowed it.” These two statements refer to the same acts. Because
the word Sabbath does not occur in the first statement, it has been
contended that the Sabbath did not originate at creation, it being the
seventh day merely which was hallowed. From the second statement, it has
been contended that God did not bless the seventh day at all, but simply
the Sabbath institution. But both statements embody all the truth. God
blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; and this day thus blessed and
hallowed was his holy Sabbath, or rest-day. Thus the fourth commandment
establishes the origin of the Sabbath at creation.
The second mention of the Sabbath in the Bible furnishes a decisive
confirmation of the testimonies already adduced. On the sixth day of the
week, Moses, in the wilderness of Sin, said to Israel, “To-morrow is
the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.”[24] What had been done to
the seventh day since God blessed and sanctified it as his rest-day in
paradise? Nothing. What did Moses do to the seventh day to make it the
rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord? Nothing. Moses on the sixth day
simply states the fact that the morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath
unto the Lord. The seventh day had been such ever since God blessed and
hallowed the day of his rest.
The testimony of our divine Lord relative to the origin and design of the
Sabbath is of peculiar importance. He is competent to testify, for he
was with the Father in the beginning of the creation.[25] “The Sabbath
was made for man,” said he, “not man for the Sabbath.”[26] The following
grammatical rule is worthy of notice: “A noun without an adjective is
invariably taken in its broadest extension, as: Man is accountable.”[27]
The following texts will illustrate this rule, and also this statement of
our Lord’s: “Man lieth down and riseth not: till the heavens be no more,
they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.” “There hath no
temptation taken you but such as is common to man.” “It is appointed unto
men once to die.”[28] In these texts man is used without restriction,
and, therefore, all mankind are necessarily intended. The Sabbath was
therefore made for the whole human family, and consequently originated
with mankind. But the Saviour’s language is even yet more emphatic in
the original: “The Sabbath was made for THE man, not THE man for the
Sabbath.” This language fixes the mind on the man Adam, who was made of
the dust of the ground just before the Sabbath was made for him, of the
seventh day.
This is a striking confirmation of the fact already pointed out that the
Sabbath was given to Adam, the head of the human family.
“The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; yet he made the
Sabbath for man. God made the Sabbath his by solemn appropriation, that
he might convey it back to us under the guarantee of a divine charter,
that none might rob us of it with impunity.”
But is it not possible that God’s act of blessing and sanctifying the
seventh day did not occur at the close of the creation week? May it
not be mentioned then because God designed that the day of his rest
should be afterward observed? Or rather, as Moses wrote the book of
Genesis long after the creation, might he not insert this account of the
sanctification of the seventh day with the record of the first week,
though the day itself was sanctified in his own time?
It is very certain that such an interpretation of the record cannot be
admitted, unless the facts in the case demand it. For it is, to say the
least, a forced explanation of the language. The record in Genesis,
unless this be an exception, is a plain narrative of events. Thus what
God did on each day is recorded in its order down to the seventh. It
is certainly doing violence to the narrative to affirm that the record
respecting the seventh day is of a different character from that
respecting the other six. He rested the seventh day; he sanctified the
seventh day because he had rested upon it. The reason why he should
sanctify the seventh day existed when his rest was closed. To say,
therefore, that God did not sanctify the day at that time, but did it in
the days of Moses, is not only to distort the narrative, but to affirm
that he neglected to do that for which the reason existed at creation,
until twenty-five hundred years after.[29]
But we ask that the facts be brought forward which prove that the Sabbath
was sanctified in the wilderness of Sin, and not at creation. And what
are the facts that show this? It is confessed that such facts are not
upon record. Their existence is assumed in order to sustain the theory
that the Sabbath originated at the fall of the manna, and not in paradise.
Did God sanctify the Sabbath in the wilderness of Sin? There is no
intimation of such fact. On the contrary, it is mentioned at that time
as something already set apart of God. On the sixth day Moses said,
“To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.”[30] Surely
this is not the act of instituting the Sabbath, but the familiar mention
of an existing fact. We pass on to Mount Sinai. Did God sanctify the
Sabbath when he spoke the ten commandments? No one claims that he did.
It is admitted by all that Moses spoke of it familiarly the previous
month.[31] Does the Lord at Sinai speak of the sanctification of the
Sabbath? He does; but in the very language of Genesis he goes back for
the sanctification of the Sabbath, not to the wilderness of Sin, but
to the creation of the world.[32] We ask those who hold the theory
under examination, this question: If the Sabbath was not sanctified at
creation, but was sanctified in the wilderness of Sin, why does the
narrative in each instance[33] record the sanctification of the Sabbath
at creation and omit all mention of such fact in the wilderness of Sin?
Nay, why does the record of events in the wilderness of Sin show that the
holy Sabbath was at that time already in existence? In a word, How can a
theory subversive of all the facts in the record, be maintained as the
truth of God?
We have seen the Sabbath ordained of God at the close of the creation
week. The object of its Author is worthy of especial attention. Why
did the Creator set up this memorial in paradise? Why did he set apart
from the other days of the week that day which he had employed in rest?
“Because that in it,” says the record, “he had rested from all his
work which God created and made.” A _rest_ necessarily implies a _work
performed_. And hence the Sabbath was ordained of God as a memorial
of the work of creation. And therefore that precept of the moral law
which relates to this memorial, unlike every other precept of that law,
begins with the word, “Remember.” The importance of this memorial will
be appreciated when we learn from the Scriptures that it is the work of
creation which is claimed by its Author as the great evidence of his
eternal power and Godhead, and as that great fact which distinguishes him
from all false gods. Thus it is written:
“He that built all things is God.” “The gods that have not
made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from
the earth, and from under these heavens.” “But the Lord is
the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting King.”
“He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the
world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his
discretion.” “For the invisible things of him from the creation
of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.” “For he
spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.” Thus
“the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things
which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”[34]
Such is the estimate which the Scriptures place upon the work of creation
as evincing the eternal power and Godhead of the Creator. The Sabbath
stands as the memorial of this great work. Its observance is an act of
grateful acknowledgment on the part of his intelligent creatures that he
is their Creator, and that they owe all to him; and that for his pleasure
they are and were created. How appropriate this observance for Adam! And
when man had fallen, how important for his well-being that he should
“remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” He would thus have been
preserved from atheism and from idolatry; for he could never forget that
there was a God from whom all things derived their being; nor could he
worship as God any other being than the Creator.
The seventh day, as hallowed by God in Eden, was not Jewish, but divine;
it was not the memorial of the flight of Israel from Egypt, but of
the Creator’s rest. Nor is it true that the most distinguished Jewish
writers deny the primeval origin of the Sabbath, or claim it as a Jewish
memorial We cite the historian Josephus and his learned cotemporary,
Philo Judæus. Josephus, whose “Antiquities of the Jews” run parallel with
the Bible from the beginning, when treating of the wilderness of Sin,
makes no allusion whatever to the Sabbath, a clear proof that he had no
idea that it originated in that wilderness. But when giving the account
of creation, he bears the following testimony:
“Moses says that in just six days the world and all that is
therein was made. And that the seventh day was a rest and a
release from the labor of such operations; WHENCE it is that we
celebrate a rest from our labor on that day, and call it the
Sabbath; which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue.”[35]
And Philo bears an emphatic testimony relative to the character of the
Sabbath as a memorial. Thus he says:
“But after the whole world had been completed according to the
perfect nature of the number six, the Father hallowed the day
following, the seventh, praising it and calling it holy. For
that day is the festival, not of one city or one country, but
of all the earth; a day which alone it is right to call the day
of festival for all people, and the birth-day of the world.”[36]
Nor was the rest-day of the Lord a shadow of man’s rest after his
recovery from the fall. God will ever be worshiped in an understanding
manner by his intelligent creatures. When therefore he set apart his
rest-day to a holy use, if it was not as a memorial of his work, but
as a shadow of man’s redemption from the fall, the real design of the
institution must have been stated, and, as a consequence, man in his
unfallen state could never observe the Sabbath as a delight, but ever
with deep distress, as reminding him that he was soon to apostatize from
God. Nor was the holy of the Lord and honorable, one of the “carnal
ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation;”[37] for there
could be no reformation with unfallen beings.
But man did not continue in his uprightness. Paradise was lost, and Adam
was excluded from the tree of life. The curse of God fell upon the earth,
and death entered by sin, and passed upon all men.[38] After this sad
apostasy, no further mention of the Sabbath occurs until Moses on the
sixth day said, “To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.”
It is objected that there is no precept in the book of Genesis for the
observance of the Sabbath, and consequently no obligation on the part
of the patriarchs to observe it. There is a defect in this argument not
noticed by those who use it. The book of Genesis was not a rule given
to the patriarchs to walk by. On the contrary, it was written by Moses
2500 years after creation, and long after the patriarchs were dead.
Consequently the fact that certain precepts were not found in Genesis
is no evidence that they were not obligatory upon the patriarchs. Thus
the book does not command men to love God with all their hearts, and
their neighbors as themselves; nor does it prohibit idolatry, blasphemy,
disobedience to parents, adultery, theft, false witness or covetousness.
Who will affirm from this that the patriarchs were under no restraint
in these things? As a mere record of events, written long after their
occurrence, it was not necessary that the book should contain a moral
code. But had the book been given to the patriarchs as a rule of life,
it must of necessity have contained such a code. It is a fact worthy of
especial notice that as soon as Moses reaches his own time in the book of
Exodus, the whole moral law is given. The record and the people were then
cotemporary, and ever afterward the written law is in the hands of God’s
people, as a rule of life, and a complete code of moral precepts.
The argument under consideration is unsound, 1. Because based upon
the supposition that the book of Genesis was the rule of life for the
patriarchs; 2. Because if carried out it would release the patriarchs
from every precept of the moral law except the sixth.[39] 3. Because
the act of God in setting apart his rest-day to a holy use, as we have
seen, necessarily involves the fact that he gave a precept concerning
it to Adam, in whose time it was thus set apart. And hence, though the
book of Genesis contains no precept concerning the Sabbath, it does
contain direct evidence that such precept was given to the head and
representative of the human family.
After giving the institution of the Sabbath, the book of Genesis, in its
brief record of 2370 years, does not again mention it. This has been
urged as ample proof that those holy men, who, during this period, were
perfect, and walked with God in the observance of his commandments,
statutes and laws,[40] all lived in open profanation of that day which
God had blessed and set apart to a holy use. But the book of Genesis also
omits any distinct reference to the doctrine of future punishment, the
resurrection of the body, the revelation of the Lord in flaming fire,
and the Judgment of the great day. Does this silence prove that the
patriarchs did not believe these great doctrines? Does it make them any
the less sacred?
But the Sabbath is not mentioned from Moses to David, a period of five
hundred years, during which it was enforced by the penalty of death.
Does this prove that it was not observed during this period?[41] The
jubilee occupied a very prominent place in the typical system, yet in the
whole Bible a single instance of its observance is not recorded. What is
still more remarkable, there is not on record a single instance of the
observance of the great day of atonement, notwithstanding the work in the
holiest on that day was the most important service connected with the
worldly sanctuary. And yet the observance of the other and less important
festivals of the seventh month, which are so intimately connected with
the day of atonement, the one preceding it by ten days, the other
following it in five, is repeatedly and particularly recorded.[42] It
would be sophistry to argue from this silence respecting the day of
atonement, when there were so many instances in which its mention was
almost demanded, that that day was never observed; and yet it is actually
a better argument than the similar one urged against the Sabbath from the
book of Genesis.
The reckoning of time by weeks is derived from nothing in nature, but
owes its existence to the divine appointment of the seventh day to
a holy use in memory of the Lord’s rest from the six days’ work of
creation.[43] This period of time is marked only by the recurrence of the
sanctified rest-day of the Creator. That the patriarchs reckoned time by
weeks and by sevens of days, is evident from several texts.[44] That they
should retain the week and forget the Sabbath by which alone the week is
marked, is not a probable conclusion. That the reckoning of the week was
rightly kept is evident from the fact that in the wilderness of Sin on
the sixth day the people, of their own accord, gathered a double portion
of manna. And Moses said to them, “To-morrow is the rest of the holy
Sabbath unto the Lord.”[45]
The brevity of the record in Genesis causes us to overlook many facts of
the deepest interest. Adam lived 930 years. How deep and absorbing the
interest that must have existed in the human family to see the first man!
To converse with one who had himself talked with God! To hear from his
lips a description of that paradise in which he had lived! To learn from
one created on the sixth day the wondrous events of the creation week! To
hear from his lips the very words of the Creator when he set apart his
rest-day to a holy use! And to learn, alas! the sad story of the loss of
paradise and the tree of life![46]
It was therefore not difficult for the facts respecting the six days of
creation and the sanctification of the rest-day to be diffused among
mankind in the patriarchal age. Nay, it was impossible that it should be
otherwise, especially among the godly. From Adam to Abraham a succession
of men—probably inspired of God—preserved the knowledge of God upon
earth. Thus Adam lived till Lamech, the father of Noah, was 56 years of
age; Lamech lived till Shem, the son of Noah, was 93; Shem lived till
Abraham was 150 years of age. Thus are we brought down to Abraham, the
father of the faithful. Of him it is recorded that he obeyed God’s voice
and kept his charge, his commandments, his statutes, and his laws. And
of him the Most High bears the following testimony: “I know him, that he
will command his children and his household after him, and they shall
keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment.”[47] The knowledge
of God was preserved in the family of Abraham; and we shall next find
the Sabbath familiarly mentioned among his posterity, as an existing
institution.
CHAPTER III.
THE SABBATH COMMITTED TO THE HEBREWS.
Object of this chapter—Total apostasy of the human family in
the antediluvian age—Destruction of mankind—The family of Noah
spared—Second apostasy of mankind in the patriarchal age—The
apostate nations left to their own ways—The family of Abraham
chosen—Separated from the rest of mankind—Their history—Their
relation to God—The Sabbath in existence when they came forth
from Egypt—Analysis of Ex. 16—The Sabbath committed to the
Hebrews.
We are now to trace the history of divine truth for many ages in almost
exclusive connection with the family of Abraham. That we may vindicate
the truth from the reproach of pertaining only to the Hebrews—a reproach
often urged against the Sabbath—and justify the dealings of God with
mankind in leaving to their own ways the apostate nations, let us
carefully examine the Bible for the reasons which directed divine
Providence in the choice of Abraham’s family as the depositaries of
divine truth.
The antediluvian world had been highly favored of God. The period of
life extended to each generation was twelve-fold that of the present age
of man. For almost one thousand years, Adam, who had conversed with God
in paradise, had been with them. Before the death of Adam, Enoch began
his holy walk of three hundred years, and then he was translated that he
should not see death. This testimony to the piety of Enoch was a powerful
testimony to the antediluvians in behalf of truth and righteousness.
Moreover the Spirit of God strove with mankind; but the perversity of
man triumphed over all the gracious restraints of the Holy Spirit. “And
God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Even
the sons of God joined in the general apostasy. At last a single family
was all that remained of the worshipers of the Most High.[48]
Then came the deluge, sweeping the world of its guilty inhabitants with
the besom of destruction.[49] So terrible a display of divine justice
might well be thought sufficient to restrain impiety for ages. Surely the
family of Noah could not soon forget this awful lesson. But alas, revolt
and apostasy speedily followed, and men turned from God to the worship
of idols. Against the divine mandate separating the human family into
nations,[50] mankind united in one great act of rebellion in the plain
of Shinar. “And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower,
whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be
scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” Then God confounded
them in their impiety and scattered them abroad from thence upon the face
of all the earth.[51] Men did not like to retain God in their knowledge;
wherefore God gave them over to a reprobate mind, and suffered them to
change the truth of God into a lie, and to worship and serve the creature
rather than the Creator. Such was the origin of idolatry and of the
apostasy of the Gentiles.[52]
In the midst of this wide-spread apostasy one man was found whose heart
was faithful with God. Abraham was chosen from an idolatrous family, as
the depositary of divine truth, the father of the faithful, the heir of
the world, and the friend of God.[53] When the worshipers of God were
found alone in the family of Noah, God gave up the rest of mankind to
perish in the flood. Now that the worshipers of God are again reduced
almost to a single family, God gives up the idolatrous nations to their
own ways, and takes the family of Abraham as his peculiar heritage.
“For I know him,” said God, “that he will command his children and his
household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do
justice and judgment.”[54] That they might preserve in the earth the
knowledge of divine truth and the memory and worship of the Most High,
they were to be a people walled off from all mankind, and dwelling in a
land of their own. That they might thus be separated from the heathen
around, God gave to Abraham the rite of circumcision, and afterward to
his posterity the whole ceremonial law.[55] But they could not possess
the land designed for them until the iniquity of the Amorites, its
inhabitants, was full, that they should be thrust out before them. The
horror of great darkness, and the smoking furnace seen by Abraham in
vision, foreshadowed the iron furnace and the bitter servitude of Egypt.
The family of Abraham must go down thither. Brief prosperity and long and
terrible oppression follow.[56]
At length the power of the oppressor is broken, and the people of God
are delivered. The expiration of four hundred and thirty years from the
promise to Abraham marks the hour of deliverance to his posterity.[57]
The nation of Israel is brought forth from Egypt as God’s peculiar
treasure, that he may give them his Sabbath, and his law, and himself.
The psalmist testifies that God “brought forth his people with joy, and
his chosen with gladness: and gave them the lands of the heathen: and
they inherited the labor of the people: that they might observe his
statutes, and keep his laws. And the Most High says, “I am the Lord
which hallow you, that brought you out of the land of Egypt, _to be your
God_.”[58] Not that the commandments of God, his Sabbath and himself, had
no prior existence, nor that the people were ignorant of the true God and
his law; for the Sabbath was appointed to a holy use before the fall of
man; and the commandments of God, his statutes and his laws, were kept by
Abraham; and the Israelites themselves, when some of them had violated
the Sabbath, were reproved by the question, “How long refuse ye to keep
my commandments and my laws?”[59] And as to the Most High, the psalmist
exclaims, ”Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst
formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting,
thou art God.”[60] But there must be a formal public espousal of the
people by God, and of his law and Sabbath and himself by the people.[61]
But neither the Sabbath, nor the law, nor the great Law-giver, by their
connection with the Hebrews, became Jewish. The Law-giver indeed became
the God of Israel,[62] and what Gentile shall refuse him adoration for
that reason? but the Sabbath still remained the Sabbath of the Lord,[63]
and the law continued to be the law of the Most High.
In the month following their passage through the Red Sea, the Hebrews
came into the wilderness of Sin. It is at this point in his narrative
that Moses for the second time mentions the sanctified rest-day of the
Creator. The people murmured for bread:
“Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread
from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a
certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they
will walk in my law, or no. And it shall come to pass, that
on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in;
and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.... I have
heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto
them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning
ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the
Lord your God. And it came to pass, that at even the quails
came up, and covered the camp; and in the morning the dew lay
round about the host. And when the dew that lay was gone up,
behold, upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round
thing, as small as the hoar frost on the ground. And when the
children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is
manna; for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them,
This is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat. This is
the thing which the Lord hath commanded, Gather of it every
man according to his eating, an omer for every man, according
to the number of your persons; take ye every man for them
which are in his tents. And the children of Israel did so, and
gathered, some more, some less. And when they did mete it with
an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that
gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according
to his eating. And Moses said, Let no man leave of it till the
morning. Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto Moses; but
some of them left of it until the morning, and it bred worms,
and stank; and Moses was wroth with them. And they gathered
it every morning, every man according to his eating; and when
the sun waxed hot, it melted. And it came to pass, that on the
sixth day they gathered twice as much bread,[64] two omers for
one man; and all the rulers of the congregation came and told
Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath
said,[65] To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the
Lord: bake that which ye will bake to-day, and seethe that ye
will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up to be kept
until the morning. And they laid it up till the morning, as
Moses bade; and it did not stink, neither was there any worm
therein. And Moses said, Eat that to-day; for to-day is a
Sabbath unto the Lord:[66] to-day ye shall not find it in the
field. Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day,
which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none. And it came
to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh
day for 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; abide ye
every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the
seventh day. So the people rested on the seventh day.”[67]
This narrative shows, 1. That God had a law and commandments prior to
the giving of the manna. 2. That God in giving his people bread from
heaven designed to prove them respecting his law. 3. That in this law was
the holy Sabbath; for the test relative to walking in the law pertained
directly to the Sabbath; and when God said, “How long refuse ye to
keep my commandments and my laws?” it was the Sabbath which they had
violated. 4. That in proving the people respecting this existing law,
Moses gave no new precept respecting the Sabbath, but remained silent
relative to the preparation for the Sabbath until after the people, of
their own accord, had gathered a double portion on the sixth day. 5. That
by this act the people proved not only that they were not ignorant of
the Sabbath, but that they were disposed to observe it.[68] 6. That the
reckoning of the week, traces of which appear through the patriarchal
age,[69] had been rightly kept, for the people knew when the sixth day
had arrived. 7. That had there been any doubt existing on that point, the
fall of the manna on the six days, the withholding of it on the seventh,
and the preservation of that needed for the Sabbath over that day, must
have settled that point incontrovertibly.[70] 8. That there was no act
of instituting the Sabbath in the wilderness of Sin; for God did not
then make it his rest-day, nor did he then bless and sanctify the day.
On the contrary, the record shows that the seventh day was already the
sanctified rest-day of the Lord.[71] 9. That the obligation to observe
the Sabbath existed and was known before the fall of the manna. For the
language used implies the existence of such an obligation, but does not
contain a new enactment until after some of the people had violated the
Sabbath. Thus God says to Moses, “On the sixth day they shall prepare
that which they bring in,” but he does not speak of the seventh. And on
the sixth day Moses says, “To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto
the Lord,” but he does not command them to observe it. On the seventh day
he says that it is the Sabbath, and that they should find no manna in the
field. “Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the
Sabbath, in it there shall be none.” But in all this there is no precept
given, yet the existence of such a precept is plainly implied. 10. That
when some of the people violated the Sabbath they were reproved in
language which plainly implies a previous transgression of this precept.
“How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?” 11. And that
this rebuke of the Law-giver restrained for the time the transgression of
the people.
“See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth
you on the sixth day the bread of two days:[72] abide ye every man in
his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.”[73] As a
special trust, God committed the Sabbath to the Hebrews. It was now given
them, not now made for them. It was made for man at the close of the
first week of time; but all other nations having turned from the Creator
to the worship of idols, it is given to the Hebrew people. Nor does this
prove that all the Hebrews had hitherto disregarded it. For Christ uses
the same language respecting circumcision. Thus he says, “Moses therefore
gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the
fathers.”[74] Yet God had enjoined that ordinance upon Abraham and his
family four hundred years previous to this gift of it by Moses, and it
had been retained by them.[75]
The language, “The Lord hath given you the Sabbath,” implies a solemn
act of committing a treasure to their trust. How was this done? No act
of instituting the Sabbath here took place. No precept enjoining its
observance was given until some of the people violated it, when it was
given in the form of a reproof; which evinced a previous obligation, and
that they were transgressing an existing law. And this view is certainly
strengthened by the fact that no explanation of the institution was given
to the people; a fact which indicates that some knowledge of the Sabbath
was already in their possession.
But how then did God give them the Sabbath? He did this, first, by
delivering them from the abject bondage of Egypt, where they were a
nation of slaves. And second, by providing them food in such a manner as
to impose the strongest obligation to keep the Sabbath. Forty years did
he give them bread from heaven, sending it for six days, and withholding
it on the seventh, and preserving food for them over the Sabbath. Thus
was the Sabbath especially intrusted to them.
As a gift to the Hebrews, the Creator’s great memorial became a sign
between God and themselves. “I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign
between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that
sanctify them.” As a sign, its object is stated to be, to make known
the true God; and we are told why it was such a sign. “It is a sign
between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the
Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was
refreshed.”[76] The institution itself signified that God created
the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. Its
observance by the people signified that the Creator was their God. How
full of meaning was this sign!
The Sabbath was a sign between God and the children of Israel, because
they alone were the worshipers of the Creator. All other nations had
turned from him to “the gods that have not made the heavens and the
earth.”[77] For this reason the memorial of the great Creator was
committed to the Hebrews, and it became a sign between the Most High and
themselves. Thus was the Sabbath a golden link uniting the Creator and
his worshipers.
CHAPTER IV.
THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT.
The Holy One upon Mount Sinai—Three great gifts bestowed upon
the Hebrews—The Sabbath proclaimed by the voice of God—Position
assigned it in the moral law—Origin of the Sabbath—Definite
character of the commandment—Revolution of the earth upon
its axis—Name of the Sabbatic institution—Seventh day of the
commandment identical with the seventh day of the New Testament
week—Testimony of Nehemiah—Moral obligation of the fourth
commandment.
And now we approach the record of that sublime event, the personal
descent of the Lord upon Mount Sinai.[78] The sixteenth chapter of
Exodus, as we have seen, is remarkable for the fact that God gave to
Israel the Sabbath; the nineteenth chapter, for the fact that God gave
himself to that people in solemnly espousing them as a holy nation unto
himself; while the twentieth chapter will be found remarkable for the act
of the Most High in giving to Israel his law.
It is customary to speak against the Sabbath and the law as Jewish,
because thus given to Israel. As well might the Creator be spoken
against, who brought them out of Egypt to be _their_ God, and who styles
himself the God of Israel.[79] The Hebrews were honored by being thus
intrusted with the Sabbath and the law, not the Sabbath and the law and
the Creator rendered Jewish by this connection. The sacred writers speak
of the high exaltation of Israel in being thus intrusted with the law of
God.
“He showeth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments
unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for
his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the Lord!”
“What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of
circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them
were committed the oracles of God.” “Who are Israelites; to
whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants,
and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the
promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning
the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever.
Amen.”[80]
After the Most High had solemnly espoused the people unto himself, as
his peculiar treasure in the earth,[81] they were brought forth out of
the camp to meet with God. “And Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke,
because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof
ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.”
Out of the midst of this fire did God proclaim the ten words of his
law.[82] The fourth of these precepts is the grand law of the Sabbath.
Thus spake the great Law-giver:—
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt
thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the
Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work,
thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy
maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within
thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:
wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
The estimate which the Law-giver placed upon his Sabbath is seen in that
he deemed it worthy of a place in his code of ten commandments, thus
causing it to stand in the midst of nine immutable moral precepts. Nor
is this to be thought a small honor that the Most High, naming one by
one the great principles of morality until all are given, and he adds no
more,[83] should include in their number the observance of his hallowed
rest-day. This precept is expressly given to enforce the observance of
the Creator’s great memorial; and unlike all the others, this one traces
its obligation back to the creation, where that memorial was ordained.
The Sabbath is to be remembered and kept holy because that God hallowed
it, _i.e._, appointed it to a holy use, at the close of the first week.
And this sanctification or hallowing of the rest-day, when the first
seventh day of time was past, was the solemn act of setting apart the
seventh day for time to come in memory of the Creator’s rest. Thus
the fourth commandment reaches back and embraces the institution of
the Sabbath in paradise, while the sanctification of the Sabbath in
paradise extends forward to all coming time. The narrative respecting
the wilderness of Sin admirably cements the union of the two. Thus in
the wilderness of Sin, before the fourth commandment was given, stands
the Sabbath, holy to the Lord, with an existing obligation to observe
it, though no commandment in that narrative creates the obligation. This
obligation is derived from the same source as the fourth commandment,
namely, the sanctification of the Sabbath in paradise, showing that it
was an existing duty, and not a new precept. For it should never be
forgotten that the fourth commandment does not trace its obligation to
the wilderness of Sin, but to the creation; a decisive proof that the
Sabbath did not originate in the wilderness of Sin.
The fourth commandment is remarkably definite. It embraces, first,
a precept: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy;” second, an
explanation of this precept: “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy
work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that
is within thy gates;” third, the reasons on which the precept is based,
embracing the origin of the institution, and the very acts by which it
was made, and enforcing all by the example[84] of the Law-giver himself:
“for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the
Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
The rest-day of the Lord is thus distinguished from the six days on
which he labored. The blessing and sanctification pertain to the day of
the Creator’s rest. There can be, therefore, no indefiniteness in the
precept. It is not merely one day in seven, but that day in the seven on
which the Creator rested, and upon which he placed his blessing, namely,
the seventh day.[85] And this day is definitely pointed out in the name
given it by God: “The seventh day is the Sabbath [_i. e._, the rest-day]
of the Lord thy God.”
That the seventh day in the fourth commandment is the seventh day of the
New-Testament week may be plainly proved. In the record of our Lord’s
burial, Luke writes thus:—
“And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on.
And the women also which came with him from Galilee, followed
after, and beheld the sepulcher, and how his body was laid.
And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and
rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon
the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they
came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had
prepared, and certain others with them.”[86]
Luke testifies that these women kept “the Sabbath day according to the
commandment.” The commandment says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of
the Lord thy God.” This day thus observed was the last or seventh day
of the week, for the following[87] day was the first day of the week.
Hence the seventh day of the commandment is the seventh day of the
New-Testament week.
The testimony of Nehemiah is deeply interesting. “Thou camest down also
upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them
right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: and
madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath, and commandedst them precepts,
statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant.”[88] It is
remarkable that God is said to have made known the Sabbath when he thus
came down upon the mount; for the children of Israel had the Sabbath in
possession when they came to Sinai. This language must therefore refer
to that complete unfolding of the Sabbatic institution which is given in
the fourth commandment. And mark the expression: “Madest known[89] unto
them thy holy Sabbath;” not madest the Sabbath for them: language which
plainly implies its previous existence, and which cites the mind back to
the Creator’s rest for the origin of the institution.[90]
The moral obligation of the fourth commandment which is so often denied
may be clearly shown by reference to the origin of all things. God
created the world and gave existence to man upon it. To him he gave life
and breath, and all things. Man therefore owes everything to God. Every
faculty of his mind, every power of his being, all his strength and all
his time belong of right to the Creator. It was therefore the benevolence
of the Creator that gave to man six days for his own wants. And in
setting apart the seventh day to a holy use in memory of his own rest,
the Most High was reserving unto himself one of the seven days, when he
could rightly claim all as his. The six days therefore are the gift of
God to man, to be rightly employed in secular affairs, not the seventh
day, the gift of man to God. The fourth commandment, therefore, does not
require man to give something of his own to God, but it does require that
man should not appropriate to himself that which God has reserved for his
own worship. To observe this day then is to render to God of the things
that are his; to appropriate it to ourselves is simply to rob God.
CHAPTER V.
THE SABBATH WRITTEN BY THE FINGER OF GOD.
Classification of the precepts given through Moses—The Sabbath
renewed—Solemn ratification of the covenant between God and
Israel—Moses called up to receive the law which God had written
upon stone—The ten commandments probably proclaimed upon the
Sabbath—Events of the forty days—The Sabbath becomes a sign
between God and Israel—The penalty of death—The tables of
testimony given to Moses—And broken when he saw the idolatry of
the people—The idolaters punished—Moses goes up to renew the
tables—The Sabbath again enjoined—The tables given again—The
ten commandments were the testimony of God—Who wrote them—Three
distinguished honors which pertain to the Sabbath—The ten
commandments a complete code—Relation of the fourth commandment
to the atonement—Valid reason why God himself should write that
law which was placed beneath the mercy-seat.
When the voice of the Holy One had ceased, “the people stood afar off,
and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.” A brief
interview follows[91] in which God gives to Moses a series of precepts,
which, as a sample of the statutes given through him, may be classified
thus: Ceremonial precepts, pointing to the good things to come; judicial
precepts, intended for the civil government of the nation; and moral
precepts, stating anew in other forms the ten commandments. In this brief
interview the Sabbath is not forgotten:—
“Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou
shalt rest; that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son
of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.”[92]
This scripture furnishes incidental proof that the Sabbath was made
for mankind, and for those creatures that share the labors of man.
The stranger and the foreigner must keep it, and it was for their
refreshment.[93] But the same persons could not partake of the passover
until they were made members of the Hebrew church by circumcision.[94]
When Moses had returned unto the people, he repeated all the words of
the Lord. With one voice all the people exclaim, “All the words which
the Lord hath said will we do.” Then Moses wrote all the words of the
Lord. “And he took the book of the covenant and read in the audience of
the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and
be obedient.” Then Moses “sprinkled both the book and all the people,
saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto
you.”[95]
The way was thus prepared for God to bestow a second signal honor upon
his law:—
“And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount,
and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law,
and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach
them.... And Moses went up into the mount, and a cloud covered
the mount. And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai,
and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he
called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.[96] And the
sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the
top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel. And
Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into
the mount; and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty
nights.”[97]
During this forty days God gave to Moses a pattern of the ark in which to
place the law that he had written upon stone, and of the mercy-seat to
place over that law, and of the sanctuary in which to deposit the ark.
He also ordained the priesthood, which was to minister in the sanctuary
before the ark.[98] These things being ordained, and the Law-giver about
to commit his law as written by himself into the hands of Moses, he again
enjoins the Sabbath:—
“And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Speak thou also unto
the children of Israel, saying, Verily my Sabbaths ye shall
keep; for it is a sign between me and you throughout your
generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth
sanctify you. Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is
holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put
to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall
be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done;
but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord:
whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be
put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the
Sabbath to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations,
for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the
children of Israel forever: for in six days the Lord made
heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was
refreshed. And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of
communing with him upon Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables
of stone, written with the finger of God.”[99]
This should be compared with the testimony of Ezekiel, speaking in the
name of God:—
“I gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments, which
if a man do, he shall even live in them. Moreover also I gave
them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they
might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.... I am the
Lord your God: walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments,
and do them; and hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign
between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your
God.”[100]
It will be observed that neither of these scriptures teach that the
Sabbath was made _for_ Israel, nor yet do they teach that it was made
_after_ the Hebrews came out of Egypt. In neither of these particulars
do they even _seem_ to contradict those texts that place the institution
of the Sabbath at creation. But we do learn, 1. That it was God’s act
of giving to the Hebrews his Sabbath that made it a sign between _them_
and himself. “I gave them my Sabbaths TO BE a sign between me and them.”
This act of committing to them the Sabbath has been noticed already.[101]
2. That it was to be a sign between God and the Hebrews, “that they
might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.” Wherever the word
LORD in the Old Testament is in small capitals, as in the texts under
consideration, it is in the Hebrew, Jehovah. The Sabbath then as a sign
signified that it was Jehovah, _i. e._, the infinite, self-existent
God, who had sanctified them. To sanctify is to separate, set apart, or
appoint, to a holy, sacred or religious use.[102] That the Hebrew nation
had thus been set apart in the most remarkable manner from all mankind,
was sufficiently evident. But who was it that had thus separated them
from all other people? As a gracious answer to this important question,
God gave to the Hebrews his own hallowed rest-day. But how could the
great memorial of the Creator determine such a question? Listen to the
words of the Most High: “Verily my Sabbaths,” _i. e._, my rest-days, “ye
shall keep; for it is a sign between me and you.... It is a sign between
me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made
heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”
The Sabbath as a sign between God and Israel, was a perpetual testimony
that he who had separated them from all mankind as his peculiar treasure
in the earth, was that Being who had created the heavens and the earth
in six days and rested on the seventh. It was therefore the strongest
possible assurance that he who sanctified them was indeed Jehovah.
From the days of Abraham God had set apart the Hebrews. He who had
previously borne no local, national or family name, did from that time
until the end of his covenant relation with the Hebrew race, take to
himself such titles as seemed to show him to be their God alone. From
his choice of Abraham and his family forward he designates himself as
the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; the God of the Hebrews,
and the God of Israel.[103] He brought Israel out of Egypt to be _their
God_,[104] and at Sinai did join himself to them in solemn espousal. He
did thus set apart or sanctify unto himself the Hebrews, because that
all other nations had given themselves to idolatry. Thus the God of
Heaven and earth condescended to give himself to a single race, and to
set them apart from all mankind. It should be observed that it was not
the Sabbath which had set Israel apart from all other nations, but it
was the idolatry of all other nations that caused God to set the Hebrews
apart for himself; and that God gave to Israel the Sabbath which he had
hallowed for mankind at creation as the most expressive sign that he who
thus sanctified them was indeed the living God.
It was the act of God in giving his Sabbath to the Israelites that
rendered it a sign _between them and himself_. But the Sabbath did not
derive its existence from being thus given to the Hebrews; for it was the
ancient Sabbath of the Lord when given to them, and we have seen[105]
that it was not given by a new commandment. On the contrary, it rested at
that time upon existing obligation. But it was the providence of God in
behalf of the Hebrews, first in rescuing them from abject servitude, and
second, in sending them bread from heaven for six days, and preserving
food for the Sabbath, that constituted the Sabbath a gift to that
people. And mark the significancy of the _manner_ in which this gift was
bestowed, as showing who it was that sanctified them. It became a gift
to the Hebrews by the wonderful providence of the manna: a miracle that
ceased not openly to declare the Sabbath every week for the space of
forty years; thus showing incontrovertibly that He who led them was the
author of the Sabbath, and therefore the Creator of heaven and earth.
That the Sabbath which was made for man should thus be given to the
Hebrews is certainly not more remarkable than that the God of the whole
earth should give his oracles and himself to that people. The Most High
and his law and Sabbath did not become Jewish; but the Hebrews were made
the honored depositaries of divine truth; and the knowledge of God and of
his commandments was preserved in the earth.
The reason on which this sign is based, points unmistakably to the true
origin of the Sabbath. It did not originate from the fall of the manna
for six days and its cessation on the seventh—for the manna was given
thus because the Sabbath was in existence—but because that “in six days
the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was
refreshed.” Thus the Sabbath is shown to have originated with the rest
and refreshment of the Creator, and not at the fall of the manna. As an
INSTITUTION, the Sabbath declared its Author to be the Creator of heaven
and earth; as a _sign[106] between God and Israel_, it declared that he
who had set them apart was indeed Jehovah.
The last act of the Law-giver in this memorable interview was to place in
the hands of Moses the “two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written
with the finger of God.” Then he revealed to Moses the sad apostasy of
the people of Israel, and hastened him down to them.
“And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two
tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were
written on both their sides: on the one side and on the other
were they written. And the tables were the work of God, and the
writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.... And
it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he
saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and
he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the
mount.”
Then Moses inflicted retribution upon the idolaters, “and there fell of
the people that day about three thousand men.” And Moses returned unto
God and interceded in behalf of the people. Then God promised that his
angel should go with them, but that he himself would not go up in their
midst lest he should consume them.[107] Then Moses presented an earnest
supplication to the Most High that he might see his glory. This petition
was granted, saving that the face of God should not be seen.[108]
But before Moses ascended that he might behold the majesty of the
infinite Law-giver, the Lord said unto him:—
“Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will
write upon these tables the words that were in the first
tables, which thou brakest.... And he hewed two tables of stone
like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning,
and went up unto Mount Sinai, as the Lord had commanded
him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone. And the
Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and
proclaimed the name of the Lord. And the Lord passed by before
him.”
Then Moses beheld the glory of the Lord, and he “made haste and bowed his
head toward the earth and worshiped.” This interview lasted forty days
and forty nights, as did the first, and seems to have been spent by Moses
in intercession that God would not destroy the people for their sin.[109]
The record of this period is very brief, but in this record the Sabbath
is mentioned. “Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou
shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.”[110] Thus
admonishing them not to forget in their busiest season the Sabbath of
the Lord.
This second period of forty days ends like the first with the act of
God in placing the tables of stone in the hands of Moses. “And he was
there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat
bread, nor drink water. And he[111] wrote upon the tables the words of
the covenant, the ten commandments.” Thus it appears that the tables of
testimony were two tables of stone with the ten commandments written upon
them by the finger of God. Thus the testimony of God is shown to be the
ten commandments. The writing on the second tables was an exact copy of
that on the first. “Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first; and
I will write,” said God, “upon these tables the words that were in the
first tables, which thou brakest.” And of the first tables Moses says:
“He declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform,
even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.”[112]
Thus did God commit to his people the ten commandments. Without human
or angelic agency he proclaimed them himself; and not trusting his most
honored servant Moses, or even an angel of his presence, himself wrote
them with his own finger. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,”
is one of the ten words thus honored by the Most High. Nor are these two
high honors the only ones conferred upon this precept. While it shares
them in common with the other nine commandments, it stands in advance of
them in that it is established by the EXAMPLE of the Law-giver himself.
These precepts were given upon two tables with evident reference to the
two-fold division of the law of God; supreme love to God, and the love
of our neighbor as ourselves. The Sabbath commandment, placed at the
close of the first table, forms the golden clasp that binds together both
divisions of the moral law. It guards and enforces that day which God
claims as his; it follows man through the six days which God has given
him to be properly spent in the various relations of life, thus extending
over the whole of human life, and embracing in its loan of six days to
man all the duties of the second table, while itself belonging to the
first.
That these ten commandments form a complete code of moral law is proved
by the language of the Law-giver when he called Moses up to himself
to receive them. “Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I
will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I
have written.”[113] This law and commandments was the testimony of God
engraven upon stone. The same great fact is presented by Moses in his
blessing pronounced upon Israel: “And he said, The Lord came from Sinai,
and rose up from Seir unto them: he shined forth from Mount Paran, and
he came with ten thousands of saints: _from his right hand_ went a fiery
law for them.”[114] There can be no dispute that in this language the
Most High is represented as personally present with ten thousands of his
holy ones, or angels. And that which he wrote with his own right hand is
called by Moses “a fiery law,” or as the margin has it, “a fire of law.”
And now the man of God completes his sacred trust. And thus he rehearses
what God did in committing his law to him, and what he himself did in its
final disposition: “And he wrote on the tables, according to the first
writing, the ten commandments, which the Lord spake unto you in the mount
out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the Lord
gave them unto me. And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and
put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the
Lord commanded me.” Thus was the law of God deposited in the ark beneath
the mercy-seat.[115] Nor should this chapter close without pointing out
the important relation of the fourth commandment to the atonement.
The top of the ark was called the mercy-seat, because all those who had
broken the law contained in the ark beneath the mercy-seat, could find
pardon by the sprinkling of the blood of atonement upon it.
The law within the ark was that which demanded an atonement; the
ceremonial law which ordained the Levitical priesthood and the sacrifices
for sin, was that which taught men how the atonement could be made. The
broken law was beneath the mercy-seat; the blood of sin-offering was
sprinkled upon its top, and pardon was extended to the penitent sinner.
There was actual sin, and hence a real law which man had broken; but
there was not a real atonement, and hence the need of the great antitype
to the Levitical sacrifices. The real atonement when it is made must
relate to that law respecting which an atonement had been shadowed forth.
In other words, the shadowy atonement related to that law which was shut
up in the ark, indicating that a real atonement was demanded by that
law. It is necessary that the law which demands atonement, in order that
its transgressor may be spared, should itself be perfect, else the fault
would in part at least rest with the Law-giver, and not wholly with the
sinner. Hence, the atonement when made does not take away the broken
law, for that is perfect, but is expressly designed to take away the
guilt of the transgressor.[116] Let it be remembered then that the fourth
commandment is one of the ten precepts of God’s broken law; one of the
immutable holy principles that made the death of God’s only Son necessary
before pardon could be extended to guilty man. These facts being borne
in mind, it will not be thought strange that the Law-giver should reserve
the proclamation of such a law to himself; and that he should intrust
to no created being the writing of that law which should demand as its
atonement the death of the Son of God.
CHAPTER VI.
THE SABBATH DURING THE DAY OF TEMPTATION.
General history of the Sabbath in the wilderness—Its violation
one cause of excluding that generation from the promised
land—Its violation by their children in the wilderness one of
the causes of their final dispersion from their own land—The
statute respecting fires upon the Sabbath—Various precepts
relative to the Sabbath—The Sabbath not a Jewish feast—The man
who gathered sticks upon the Sabbath—Appeal of Moses in behalf
of the decalogue—The Sabbath not derived from the covenant
at Horeb—Final appeal of Moses in behalf of the Sabbath—The
original fourth commandment—The Sabbath not a memorial of the
flight from Egypt—What words were engraven upon stone—General
summary from the books of Moses.
The history of the Sabbath during the provocation in the day of
temptation in the wilderness when God was grieved for forty years with
his people may be stated in few words. Even under the eye of Moses,
and with the most stupendous miracles in their memory and before their
eyes, they were idolaters,[117] neglecters of sacrifices, neglecters of
circumcision,[118] murmurers against God, despisers of his law[119] and
violators of his Sabbath. Of their treatment of the Sabbath while in the
wilderness, Ezekiel gives us the following graphic description:—
“But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness:
they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments,
which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my Sabbaths
they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury
upon them in the wilderness, to consume them. But I wrought
for my name’s sake, that it should not be polluted before the
heathen, in whose sight I brought them out.”[120]
This language shows a general violation of the Sabbath, and evidently
refers to the apostasy of Israel during the first forty days that Moses
was absent from them. God did then purpose their destruction; but at the
intercession of Moses, spared them for the very reason assigned by the
prophet.[121] A further probation being granted them they signally failed
a second time, so that God lifted up his hand to them that they should
not enter the promised land. Thus the prophet continues:—
“Yet also I lifted up my hand unto them in the wilderness,
that I would not bring them into the land which I had given
them, flowing with milk and honey, which is the glory of all
lands; BECAUSE they despised my judgments, and walked not in my
statutes, but polluted my Sabbaths: for their heart went after
their idols. Nevertheless mine eye spared them from destroying
them, neither did I make an end of them in the wilderness.”
This language has undoubted reference to the act of God in excluding all
that were over twenty years of age from entering the promised land.[122]
It is to be noticed that the violation of the Sabbath is distinctly
stated as one of the reasons for which that generation were excluded from
the land of promise. God spared the people so that the nation was not
utterly cut off; for he extended to the younger part a further probation.
Thus the prophet continues:—
“But I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye
not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their
judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols: I am the
Lord your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments,
and do them; and hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a
sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord
your God. Notwithstanding the children rebelled against me:
they walked not in my statutes, neither kept my judgments
to do them, which if a man do, he shall even live in them;
they polluted my Sabbaths: then I said, I would pour out my
fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the
wilderness. Nevertheless I withdrew mine hand, and wrought for
my name’s sake, that it should not be polluted in the sight
of the heathen, in whose sight I brought them forth. I lifted
up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would
scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the
countries; because they had not executed my judgments, but had
despised my statutes, and had polluted my Sabbaths, and their
eyes were after their father’s idols.”
Thus it appears that the younger generation, which God spared when he
excluded their fathers from the land of promise, did, like their fathers,
transgress God’s law, pollute his Sabbath, and cleave to idolatry. God
did not see fit to exclude them from the land of Canaan, but he did
lift up his hand to them in the wilderness, that he would give them up
to dispersion among their enemies after they had entered the land of
promise. Thus it is seen that the Hebrews while in the wilderness laid
the foundation for their subsequent dispersion from their own land; and
that one of the acts which led to their final ruin as a nation was the
violation of the Sabbath before they had entered the promised land. Well
might Moses say to them in the last month of his life: “Ye have been
rebellious against the Lord from the day that I knew you.”[123] In Caleb
and Joshua was another spirit, for they followed the Lord fully.[124]
Such is the general history of Sabbatic observance in the wilderness.
Even the miracle of the manna, which every week for forty years bore
public testimony to the Sabbath,[125] became to the body of the Hebrews
a mere ordinary event, so that they dared to murmur against the bread
thus sent from heaven;[126] and we may well believe that those who were
thus hardened through the deceitfulness of sin, had little regard for
the testimony of the manna in behalf of the Sabbath.[127] In the Mosaic
record we next read of the Sabbath as follows:—
“And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of
Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which
the Lord hath commanded, that ye should do them. Six days shall
work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an
holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work
therein shall be put to death.[128] Ye shall kindle no fire
throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day.”[129]
The chief feature of interest in this text relates to the prohibition
of fires on the Sabbath. As this is the only prohibition of the kind in
the Bible, and as it is often urged as a reason why the Sabbath should
not be kept, a brief examination of the difficulty will not be out of
place. It should be observed, 1. That this language does not form part
of the fourth commandment, the grand law of the Sabbath. 2. That as there
were laws pertaining to the Sabbath, that were no part of the Sabbatic
institution, but that grew out of its being intrusted to the Hebrews,
such as the law respecting the presentation of the shew-bread on the
Sabbath; and that respecting the burnt-offering for the Sabbath:[130] so
it is at least possible that this is a precept pertaining only to that
nation, and not a part of the original institution. 3. That as there were
laws peculiar only to the Hebrews, so there were many that pertained to
them only while they were in the wilderness. Such were all those precepts
that related to the manna, the building of the tabernacle and the setting
of it up, the manner of encamping about it, &c. 4. That of this class
were all the statutes given from the time that Moses brought down the
second tables of stone until the close of the book of Exodus, unless the
words under consideration form an exception. 5. That the prohibition
of fires was a law of this class, _i. e._, a law designed only for the
wilderness, is evident from several decisive facts.
1. That the land of Palestine during a part of the year is so cold that
fires are necessary to prevent suffering.[131]
2. That the Sabbath was not designed to be a cause of distress and
suffering, but of refreshment, of delight, and of blessing.[132]
3. That in the wilderness of Sinai, where this precept respecting fires
on the Sabbath was given, it was not a cause of suffering, as they were
two hundred miles south of Jerusalem, in the warm climate of Arabia.
4. That this precept was of a temporary character, is further implied
in that while other laws are said to be perpetual statutes and precepts
to be kept after they should enter the land,[133] no hint of this kind
here appears. On the contrary, this seems to be similar in character to
the precept respecting the manna,[134] and to be co-existent with, and
adapted to, it.
5. If the prohibition respecting fires did indeed pertain to the promised
land, and not merely to the wilderness, it would every few years conflict
directly with the law of the passover. For the passover was to be roasted
by each family of the children of Israel on the evening following the
fourteenth day of the first month,[135] which would fall occasionally
upon the Sabbath. The prohibition of fires upon the Sabbath would not
conflict with the passover while the Hebrews were in the wilderness; for
the passover was not to be observed until they reached that land.[136]
But if that prohibition did extend forward to the promised land, where
the passover was to be regularly observed, these two statutes would often
come in direct conflict. This is certainly a strong confirmation of the
view that the prohibition of fires upon the Sabbath was a temporary
statute, relating only to the wilderness.[137]
From these facts it follows that the favorite argument drawn from the
prohibition of fires, that the Sabbath was a local institution, adapted
only to the land of Canaan, must be abandoned; for it is evident that
that prohibition was a temporary statute not even adapted to the land of
promise, and not designed for that land. We next read of the Sabbath as
follows:—
“And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto all the
congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye
shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy. Ye shall fear
every man his mother, and his father, and keep my Sabbaths:
I am the Lord your God.... Ye shall keep my Sabbaths, and
reverence my sanctuary: I am the Lord.”[138]
These constant references to the Sabbath contrast strikingly with the
general disobedience of the people. And thus God speaks again:—
“Six days shall work be done; but the seventh day is the
Sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no
work therein: it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your
dwellings.”[139]
Thus does God solemnly designate his rest-day as a season of holy
worship, and as the day of weekly religious assemblies. Again the great
Law-giver sets forth his Sabbath:—
“Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you
up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone
in your land, to bow down unto it; for I am the Lord your God.
Ye shall keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the
Lord.”[140]
Happy would it have been for the people of God had they thus refrained
from idolatry and sacredly regarded the rest-day of the Creator. Yet
idolatry and Sabbath-breaking were so general in the wilderness that the
generation which came forth from Egypt were excluded from the promised
land.[141] After God had thus cut off from the inheritance of the land
the men who had rebelled against him,[142] we next read of the Sabbath as
follows:—
“And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they
found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day. And they
that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and
Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward,
because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the
Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death;
all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the
camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp,
and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded
Moses.”[143]
The following facts should be considered in explaining this text: 1. That
this was a case of peculiar guilt; for the whole congregation before
whom this man stood in judgment, and by whom he was put to death, were
themselves guilty of violating the Sabbath, and had just been excluded
from the promised land for this and other sins.[144] 2. That this was
not a case which came under the existing penalty of death for work upon
the Sabbath; for the man was put in confinement that the mind of the
Lord respecting his guilt might be obtained. The peculiarity of his
transgression may be learned from the context. The verses which next
precede the case in question read thus:—
“But the soul that doeth aught presumptuously, whether he be
born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord;
and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because
he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his
commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity
shall be upon him.”[145]
These words being followed by this remarkable case were evidently
designed to be illustrated by it. It is manifest, therefore, that this
was an instance of presumptuous sin, in which the transgressor intended
despite to the Spirit of grace and to the statutes of the Most High. This
case cannot therefore be quoted as evidence of extraordinary strictness
on the part of the Hebrews in observing the Sabbath; for we have direct
evidence that they did greatly pollute it during the whole forty
years of their sojourn in the wilderness.[146] It stands therefore as
an instance of transgression in which the sinner intended to show his
contempt for the Law-giver, and in this consisted his peculiar guilt.[147]
In the last month of his long and eventful life Moses rehearsed all the
great acts of God in behalf of his people, with the statutes and precepts
that he had given them. This rehearsal is contained in the book of
Deuteronomy, a name which signifies second law, and which is applied to
that book, because it is a second writing of the law. It is the farewell
of Moses to a disobedient and rebellious people; and he endeavors to
fasten upon them the strongest possible sense of personal obligation to
obey. Thus, when he is about to rehearse the ten commandments, he uses
language evidently designed to impress upon the minds of the Hebrews a
sense of their individual obligation to do what God had commanded. Thus
he says:—
“Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in
your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do
them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The
Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even
us, who are all of us here alive this day.”[148]
It was not the act of your fathers that placed this responsibility upon
you, but your own individual acts that brought you into the bond of this
covenant. You have personally pledged yourselves to the Most High to
keep these precepts.[149] Such is the obvious import of this language;
yet it has been gravely adduced as proof that the Sabbath of the Lord
was made for the Hebrews, and was not obligatory upon the patriarchs.
The singularity of this deduction appears in that it is brought to bear
against the fourth commandment alone; whereas, if it is a just and
logical argument, it would show that the ancient patriarchs were under no
obligation in respect to any precept of the moral law. But it is certain
that the covenant at Horeb was simply an embodiment of the precepts of
the moral law, with mutual pledges respecting them between God and the
people, and that that covenant did not give existence to either of the
ten commandments. At all events, we find the Sabbath ordained of God
at the close of creation[150] and obligatory upon the Hebrews in the
wilderness before God had given them a new precept on the subject.[151]
As this was before the covenant at Horeb it is conclusive proof that the
Sabbath did no more originate from that covenant than did the prohibition
of idolatry, theft or murder.
The man of God then repeats the ten commandments. And thus he gives the
fourth:—
“Keep the Sabbath day, to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God
hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labor and do all thy
work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God:
in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy
daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine
ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that
is within thy gates; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant
may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant
in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee
out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm:
therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath
day.”[152]
It is a singular fact that this scripture is uniformly quoted by those
who write against the Sabbath, as the original fourth commandment;
while the original precept itself is carefully left out. Yet there is
the strongest evidence that this is not the original precept; for Moses
rehearses these words at the end of the forty years’ sojourn, whereas the
original commandment was given in the third month after the departure
from Egypt.[153] The commandment itself, as here given, contains direct
proof on the point. Thus it reads: “Keep the Sabbath day, to sanctify
it, As the Lord thy God HATH COMMANDED thee;” thus citing elsewhere for
the original statute. Moreover the precept as here given is evidently
incomplete. It contains no clue to the origin of the Sabbath of the Lord,
nor does it show the acts by which the Sabbath came into existence.
This is why those who represent the Sabbath as made in the wilderness
and not at creation quote this as the fourth commandment, and omit the
original precept, which God himself proclaimed, where all these facts are
distinctly stated.[154]
But while Moses in this rehearsal omits a large part of the fourth
commandment, he refers to the original precept for the whole matter, and
then appends to this rehearsal a powerful plea of obligation on the part
of the Hebrews to keep the Sabbath. It should be remembered that many of
the people had steadily persisted in the violation of the Sabbath, and
that this is the last time that Moses speaks in its behalf. Thus he says:—
“And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt,
and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a
mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm: therefore the Lord thy
God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.”
These words are often cited as proof that the Sabbath originated at the
departure of Israel from Egypt, and that it was ordained at that time as
a memorial of their deliverance from thence. But it will be observed, 1.
That this text says not one word respecting the origin of the Sabbath
or rest-day of the Lord. 2. That the facts on this point are all given
in the original fourth commandment, and are there referred to creation.
3. That there is no reason to believe that God rested upon the seventh
day at the time of this flight from Egypt; nor did he then bless and
hallow the day. 4. That the Sabbath has nothing in it of a kind to
commemorate the deliverance from Egypt, as that was a flight and this
is a rest; and that flight was upon the fifteenth of the first month,
and this rest, upon the seventh day of each week. Thus one would occur
annually; the other, weekly. 5. But God did ordain a fitting memorial
of that deliverance to be observed by the Hebrews: the passover, on the
fourteenth day of the first month, in memory of God’s passing over them
when he smote the Egyptians; and the feast of unleavened bread, in memory
of their eating this bread when they fled out of Egypt.[155]
But what then do these words imply? Perhaps their meaning may be more
readily perceived by comparing them with an exact parallel found in the
same book and from the pen of the same writer:—
“Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of
the fatherless; nor take a widow’s raiment to pledge; but thou
shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the Lord
thy God redeemed thee thence; therefore I command thee to do
this thing.”[156]
It will be seen at a glance that this precept was not given to
commemorate the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage; nor could
that deliverance give existence to the moral obligation expressed in
it. If the language in the one case proves that men were not under
obligation to keep the Sabbath before the deliverance of Israel from
Egypt, it proves with equal conclusiveness in the other that before that
deliverance they were not under obligation to treat with justice and
mercy the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. And if the Sabbath
is shown in the one case to be Jewish, in the other, the statute of the
great Law-giver in behalf of the needy and the helpless must share the
same fate. It is manifest that this language is in each case an appeal
to their sense of gratitude. You were slaves in Egypt, and God rescued
you; therefore remember others who are in distress, and oppress them not.
You were bondmen in Egypt, and God redeemed you; therefore sanctify unto
the Lord the day which he has reserved unto himself; a most powerful
appeal to those who had hitherto persisted in polluting it. Deliverance
from abject servitude was necessary, indeed, in each case, in order that
the things enjoined might be fully observed; but that deliverance did not
give existence to either of these duties. It was indeed one of the acts
by which the Sabbath of the Lord was given to that nation, but it was
not one of the acts by which God made the Sabbath, nor did it render the
rest-day of the Lord a Jewish institution.
That the words engraven upon stone were simply the ten commandments is
evident.
1. It is said of the first tables:—
“And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye
heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye
heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant, which he
commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote
them upon two tables of stone.”[157]
2. Thus the first tables of stone contained the ten commandments alone.
That the second tables were an exact copy of what was written upon the
first, is plainly stated:—
“And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone
like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the
words that were in the first tables, which thou breakest.” “And
I will write on the tables the words that were in the first
tables which thou breakest, and thou shalt put them in the
ark.”[158]
3. This is confirmed by the following decisive testimony:—
“And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the
ten commandments,” margin, Heb., “words.” “And he wrote on the
tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments
[margin, words], which the Lord spake unto you in the mount,
out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and
the Lord gave them unto me.”[159]
These texts will explain the following language: “And the Lord delivered
unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them
was written according to all the words which the Lord spake with you in
the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.”[160]
Thus God is said to have written upon the tables according to all the
words which he spoke in the day of the assembly; and these words which
he thus wrote, are said to have been TEN WORDS. But the preface to the
decalogue was not one of these ten words, and hence was not written by
the finger of God upon stone. That this distinction must be attended to,
will be seen by examining the following text and its connection:—
“THESE WORDS the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the
mount, out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the
thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And
he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto
me.”[161]
THESE WORDS here brought to view as written by the finger of God after
having been uttered by him in the hearing of all the people, must be
understood as one of two things. 1. They are simply the ten words of
the law of God; or, 2. They are all the words used by Moses in this
rehearsal of the decalogue. But they cannot refer to the words used in
this rehearsal; for, 1. Moses omits an important part of the fourth
precept as given by God in its proclamation from the mount. 2. In this
rehearsal of that precept he cites back to the original for that which
is omitted.[162] 3. He appends to this precept an appeal in its behalf
to their gratitude which was not made by God in giving it. 4. This
language only purports to be a rehearsal and not the original itself;
and this is further evinced by many verbal deviations from the original
decalogue.[163] These facts are decisive as to what was placed upon the
tables of stone. It was not an incomplete copy, citing elsewhere for the
original, but the original code itself. And hence when Moses speaks of
THESE WORDS as engraven upon the tables, he refers not to the words used
by himself in this rehearsal, but to the TEN WORDS of the law of God, and
excludes all else.
Thus have we traced the Sabbath through the books of Moses. We have found
its origin in paradise when man was in his uprightness; we have seen the
Hebrews set apart from all mankind as the depositaries of divine truth;
we have seen the Sabbath and the whole moral law committed as a sacred
trust to them; we have seen the Sabbath proclaimed by God as one of the
ten commandments; we have seen it written by the finger of God upon
stone in the bosom of the moral law; we have seen that law possessing
no Jewish, but simply moral and divine, features, placed beneath the
mercy-seat in the ark of God’s testament; we have seen that various
precepts pertaining to the Sabbath were given to the Hebrews and designed
only for them; we have seen that the Hebrews did greatly pollute the
Sabbath during their sojourn in the wilderness; and we have heard the
final appeal made in its behalf by Moses to that rebellious people.
We rest the foundation of the Sabbatic institution upon its
sanctification before the fall of man; the fourth commandment is its
great citadel of defense; its place in the midst of the moral law beneath
the mercy-seat shows its relation to the atonement and its immutable
obligation.
CHAPTER VII.
THE FEASTS, NEW MOONS AND SABBATHS OF THE HEBREWS.
Enumeration of the Hebrew festivals—The passover—The
pentecost—The feast of tabernacles—The new moons—The first and
second annual sabbaths—The third—The fourth—The fifth—The sixth
and seventh—The sabbath of the land—The jubilee—None of these
festivals in force until the Hebrews entered their own land—The
contrast between the Sabbath of the Lord and the sabbaths of
the Hebrews—Testimony of Isaiah—Of Hosea—Of Jeremiah—Final
cessation of these festivals.
We have followed the Sabbath of the Lord through the books of Moses. A
brief survey of the Jewish festivals is necessary to the complete view of
the subject before us. Of these there were three feasts: the passover,
the Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles; each new moon, that is,
the first day of each month throughout the year; then there were seven
annual sabbaths, namely, 1. The first day of unleavened bread. 2. The
seventh day of that feast. 3. The day of Pentecost. 4. The first day of
the seventh month. 5. The tenth day of that month. 6. The fifteenth day
of that month. 7. The twenty-second day of the same. In addition to all
these, every seventh year was to be the sabbath of the land, and every
fiftieth year the year of jubilee.
The passover takes its name from the fact that the angel of the Lord
passed over the houses of the Hebrews on that eventful night when the
firstborn in every Egyptian family was slain. This feast was ordained in
commemoration of the deliverance of that people from Egyptian bondage.
It began with the slaying of the paschal lamb on the fourteenth day of
the first month, and extended through a period of seven days, in which
nothing but unleavened bread was to be eaten. Its great antitype was
reached when Christ our passover was sacrificed for us.[164]
The Pentecost was the second of the Jewish feasts, and occupied but a
single day. It was celebrated on the fiftieth day after the first-fruits
of barley harvest had been waved before the Lord. At the time of this
feast the first-fruits of wheat harvest were offered unto God. The
antitype of this festival was reached on the fiftieth day after the
resurrection of Christ, when the great outpouring of the Holy Ghost took
place.[165]
The feast of tabernacles was the last of the Jewish feasts. It was
celebrated in the seventh month when they had gathered in the fruit
of the land, and extended from the fifteenth to the twenty-first day
of that month. It was ordained as a festival of rejoicing before the
Lord; and during this period the children of Israel dwelt in booths
in commemoration of their dwelling thus during their sojourn in the
wilderness. It probably typifies the great rejoicing after the final
gathering of all the people of God into his kingdom.[166]
In connection with these feasts it was ordained that each new moon,
that is, the first day of every month, should be observed with certain
specified offerings, and with tokens of rejoicing.[167] The annual
sabbaths of the Hebrews have been already enumerated. The first two of
these sabbaths were the first and seventh days of the feast of unleavened
bread, that is, the fifteenth and twenty-first days of the first month.
They were thus ordained by God:—
“Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first
day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses.... And in
the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the
seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no
manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man
must eat, that only may be done of you.”[168]
The third in order of the annual sabbaths was the day of Pentecost. This
festival was ordained as a rest-day in the following language:—
“And ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may be an
holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein;
it shall be a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout
your generations.”[169]
The first day of the seventh month was the fourth annual sabbath of the
Hebrews. It was thus ordained:—
“Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh
month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath,
a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation. Ye
shall do no servile work therein; but ye shall offer an
offering made by fire unto the Lord.”[170]
The great day of atonement was the fifth of these sabbaths. Thus spake
the Lord unto Moses:—
“Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a
day of atonement; it shall be an holy convocation unto you....
Ye shall do no manner of work; it shall be a statute forever
throughout your generations in all your dwellings. It shall be
unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in
the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall
ye celebrate your sabbath.”[171]
The sixth and seventh of these annual sabbaths were the fifteenth and
twenty-second days of the seventh month, that is, the first day of the
feast of tabernacles, and the day after its conclusion. Thus were they
enjoined by God:—
“Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have
gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto
the Lord seven days; on the first day shall be a sabbath, and
on the eighth day shall be a sabbath.”[172]
Besides all these, every seventh year was a sabbath of rest unto the
land. The people might labor as usual in other business, but they were
forbidden to till the land, that the land itself might rest.[173]
After seven of these sabbaths, the following or fiftieth year was to
be the year of jubilee, in which every man was to be restored unto
his inheritance.[174] There is no evidence that the jubilee was ever
observed, and it is certain that the sabbatical year was almost entirely
disregarded.[175]
Such were the feasts, new moons, and sabbaths, of the Hebrews. A few
words will suffice to point out the broad distinction between them and
the Sabbath of the Lord. The first of the three feasts was ordained in
memory of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage, and was to be observed
when they should enter their own land.[176] The second feast, as we have
seen, could not be observed until after the settlement of the Hebrews
in Canaan; for it was to be celebrated when the first fruits of wheat
harvest should be offered before the Lord. The third feast was ordained
in memory of their sojourn in the wilderness, and was to be celebrated
by them each year after the ingathering of the entire harvest. Of course
this feast, like the others, could not be observed until the settlement
of the people in their own land. The new moons, as has been already
seen, were not ordained until after these feasts had been instituted.
The annual sabbaths were part and parcel of these feasts, and could
have no existence until after the feasts to which they belonged had
been instituted. Thus the first and second of these sabbaths were the
first and seventh days of the paschal feast. The third annual sabbath
was identical with the feast of Pentecost. The fourth of these sabbaths
was the same as the new moon in the seventh month. The fifth one was
the great day of atonement. The sixth and the seventh of these annual
sabbaths were the fifteenth and twenty-second days of the seventh month,
that is, the first day of the feast of tabernacles, and the next day
after the close of that feast. As these feasts were not to be observed
until the Hebrews should possess their own land, the annual sabbaths
could have no existence until that time. And so of the sabbaths of the
land. These could have no existence until after the Hebrews should
possess and cultivate their own land; after six years of cultivation, the
land should rest the seventh year, and remain untilled. After seven of
these sabbaths of the land came the year of jubilee.
The contrast between the Sabbath of the Lord and these sabbaths of
the Hebrews[177] is strongly marked. 1. The Sabbath of the Lord was
instituted at the close of the first week of time; while these were
ordained in connection with the Jewish feasts. 2. The one was blessed
and hallowed by God, because that he had rested upon it from the work
of creation; the others have no such claim to our regard. 3. When the
children of Israel came into the wilderness, the Sabbath of the Lord
was an existing institution, obligatory upon them; but the annual
sabbaths then came into existence. It is easy to point to the very
act of God, while leading that people, that gave existence to these
sabbaths; while every reference to the Sabbath of the Lord shows that
it had been ordained before God chose that people. 4. The children of
Israel were excluded from the promised land for violating the Sabbath
of the Lord in the wilderness; but the annual sabbaths were not to
be observed until they should enter that land. This contrast would
be strange indeed were it true that the Sabbath of the Lord was not
instituted until the children of Israel came into the wilderness of
Sin; for it is certain that two of the annual sabbaths were instituted
before they left the land of Egypt.[178] 5. The Sabbath of the Lord was
made for man; but the annual sabbaths were designed only for residents
in the land of Palestine. 6. The one was weekly, a memorial of the
Creator’s rest; the others were annual, connected with the memorials
of the deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt. 7. The one is termed
“the Sabbath of the Lord,” “my Sabbaths,” “my holy day,” and the like;
while the others are designated as “your sabbaths,” “her sabbaths,” and
similar expressions.[179] 8. The one was proclaimed by God as one of
the ten commandments, and was written with his finger in the midst of
the moral law upon the tables of stone, and was deposited in the ark
beneath the mercy-seat; the others did not pertain to the moral law, but
were embodied in that handwriting of ordinances that was a shadow of
good things to come. 9. The distinction between these festivals and the
Sabbaths of the Lord was carefully marked by God when he ordained the
festivals and their associated sabbaths. Thus he said: “These are the
feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, ...
BESIDE the Sabbaths of the Lord.”[180]
The annual sabbaths are presented by Isaiah in a very different light
from that in which he presents the Sabbath of the Lord. Of the one he
says:—
“Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto
me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I
cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your
new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a
trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.”[181]
In striking contrast with this, the same prophet speaks of the Lord’s
Sabbath:—
“Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my
salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.
Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that
layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it,
and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. Neither let the son
of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak,
saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people;
neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus
saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and
choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a
place and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I will
give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Also
the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord,
to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his
servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting
it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to
my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted
upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called a house of
prayer for all people.”[182]
Hosea carefully designates the annual sabbaths in the following
prediction:—
“I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast-days, her
new moons, and HER sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.”[183]
This prediction was uttered about B. C. 785. It was fulfilled in part
about two hundred years after this, when Jerusalem was destroyed by
Nebuchadnezzar. Of this event, Jeremiah, about B. C. 588, speaks as
follows:—
“Her people fell into the hand of the enemy, and none did help
her: the adversaries saw her, and did mock at HER sabbaths....
The Lord was as an enemy; he hath swallowed up Israel, he
hath swallowed up all her palaces; he hath destroyed his
strongholds, and hath increased in the daughter of Judah
mourning and lamentation. And he hath violently taken away his
tabernacle, as if it were of a garden; he hath destroyed his
places of the assembly; the Lord hath caused the solemn feasts
and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the
indignation of his anger the king and the priest. The Lord hath
cast off his altar, he hath abhorred his sanctuary, he hath
given up into the hand of the enemy the walls of her palaces;
they have made a noise in the house of the Lord, as in the day
of a solemn feast.”[184]
The feasts of the Lord were to be holden in the place which the Lord
should choose, namely, Jerusalem;[185] and when that city, the place
of their solemn assemblies, was destroyed and the people themselves
carried into captivity, the complete cessation of their feasts, and, as a
consequence, of the annual sabbaths, which were specified days in those
feasts, must occur. The adversaries mocked at her sabbaths, by making a
“noise in the house of the Lord as in the day of a solemn feast.” But
the observance of the Lord’s Sabbath did not cease with the dispersion of
the Hebrews from their own land; for it was not a local institution, like
the annual sabbaths. Its violation was one chief cause of the Babylonish
captivity;[186] and their final restoration to their own land was made
conditional upon their observing it in their dispersion.[187] The feasts,
new moons, and annual sabbaths, were restored when the Hebrews returned
from captivity, and with some interruptions, were kept up until the
final destruction of their city and nation by the Romans. But ere the
providence of God thus struck out of existence these Jewish festivals,
the whole typical system was abolished, having reached the commencement
of its antitype, when our Lord Jesus Christ expired upon the cross. The
handwriting of ordinances being thus abolished, no one is to be judged
respecting its meats, or drinks, or holy days, or new moons, or sabbaths,
“which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” But
the Sabbath of the Lord did not form a part of this handwriting of
ordinances; for it was instituted before sin had entered the world, and
consequently before there was any shadow of redemption; it was written
by the finger of God, not in the midst of types and shadows, but in the
bosom of the moral law; and the day following that on which the typical
sabbaths were nailed to the cross, the Sabbath commandment of the moral
law is expressly recognized. Moreover, when the Jewish festivals were
utterly extinguished with the final destruction of Jerusalem, even then
was the Sabbath of the Lord brought to the minds of his people.[188]
Thus have we traced the annual sabbaths until their final cessation, as
predicted by Hosea. It remains that we trace the Sabbath of the Lord
until we reach the endless ages of the new earth, when we shall find the
whole multitude of the redeemed assembling before God for worship on each
successive Sabbath.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE SABBATH FROM DAVID TO NEHEMIAH.
Silence of six successive books of the Bible relative to
the Sabbath—This silence compared to that of the book of
Genesis—The siege of Jericho—The standing still of the
sun—David’s act of eating the shew-bread—The Sabbath of the
Lord, how connected with and how distinguished from the annual
sabbaths—Earliest reference to the Sabbath after the days of
Moses—Incidental allusions to the Sabbath—Testimony of Amos—Of
Isaiah—The Sabbath a blessing to MANKIND—The condition of being
gathered to the holy land—Not a local institution—Commentary
on the fourth commandment—Testimony of Jeremiah—Jerusalem to
be saved if she would keep the Sabbath—This gracious offer
despised—The Sabbath distinguished from the other days of the
week—The Sabbath after the Babylonish captivity—Time for the
commencing of the Sabbath—The violation of the Sabbath caused
the destruction of Jerusalem.
When we leave the books of Moses there is a long-continued break in the
history of the Sabbath. No mention of it is found in the book of Joshua,
nor in that of Judges, nor in the book of Ruth, nor in that of first
Samuel, nor in the book of second Samuel, nor in that of first Kings.
It is not until we reach the book of second Kings[189] that the Sabbath
is even mentioned. In the book of first Chronicles, however, which as
a narrative is parallel to the two books of Samuel, the Sabbath is
mentioned[190] with reference to the events of David’s life. Yet this
leaves a period of five hundred years, which the Bible passes in silence
respecting the Sabbath.
During this period we have a circumstantial history of the Hebrew people
from their entrance into the promised land forward to the establishment
of David as their king, embracing many particulars in the life of Joshua,
of the elders and judges of Israel, of Gideon, of Barak, of Jephthah,
of Samson, of Eli, of Naomi and Ruth, of Hannah and Samuel, of Saul, of
Jonathan and of David. Yet in all this minute record we have no direct
mention of the Sabbath.
It is a favorite argument with anti-Sabbatarians in proof of the total
neglect of the Sabbath in the patriarchal age, that the book of Genesis,
which does give a distinct view of the origin of the Sabbath in Paradise,
at the close of the first week of time, does not in recording the lives
of the patriarchs, say anything relative to its observance. Yet in that
one book are crowded the events of two thousand three hundred and seventy
years. What then should they say of the fact that six successive books
of the Bible, relating with comparative minuteness the events of five
hundred years, and involving many circumstances that would call out a
mention of the Sabbath, do not mention it at all? Does the silence of
one book, which nevertheless does give the institution of the Sabbath
at its very commencement, and which brings into its record almost
twenty-four hundred years, prove that there were no Sabbath-keepers prior
to Moses? What then is proved by the fact that six successive books of
the Bible, confining themselves to the events of five hundred years, an
average of less than one hundred years apiece, the whole period covered
by them being about one-fifth that embraced in the book of Genesis, do
nevertheless preserve total silence respecting the Sabbath?
No one will adduce this silence as evidence of total neglect of the
Sabbath during this period; yet why should they not? Is it because that
when the narrative after this long silence brings in the Sabbath again,
it does this incidentally and not as a new institution? Precisely such
is the case with the second mention of the Sabbath in the Mosaic record,
that is, with its mention after the silence in Genesis.[191] Is it
because the fourth commandment had been given to the Hebrews whereas no
such precept had previously been given to mankind? This answer cannot be
admitted, for we have seen that the substance of the fourth commandment
was given to the head of the human family; and it is certain that when
the Hebrews came out of Egypt they were under obligation to keep the
Sabbath in consequence of existing law.[192] The argument therefore is
certainly more conclusive that there were no Sabbath-keepers from Moses
to David, than that there were none from Adam to Moses; yet no one will
attempt to maintain the first position, however many there will be to
affirm the latter.
Several facts are narrated in the history of this period of five
centuries that have a claim to our notice. The first of these is found
in the record of the siege of Jericho.[193] By the command of God the
city was encompassed by the Hebrews each day for seven days; on the
last day of the seven they encompassed it seven times, when by divine
interposition the walls were thrown down before them and the city taken
by assault. One day of this seven must have been the Sabbath of the
Lord. Did not the people of God therefore violate the Sabbath in their
acting thus? Let the following facts answer: 1. That which they did in
this case was by direct command of God. 2. That which is forbidden in
the fourth commandment is OUR OWN work: “Six days shalt thou labor, and
do ALL THY WORK; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy
God.” He who reserved the seventh day unto himself, had the right to
require its appropriation to his service as he saw fit. 3. The act of
encompassing the city was strictly as a _religious_ procession. The ark
of the covenant of the Lord was borne before the people; and before the
ark went seven priests blowing with trumpets of rams’ horns. 4. Nor could
the city have been very extensive, else the going round it seven times on
the last day, and their having time left for its complete destruction,
would have been impossible. 5. Nor can it be believed that the Hebrews,
by God’s command carrying the ark before them, which contained simply the
ten words of the Most High, were violating the fourth of those words,
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” It is certain that one of
those seven days on which they encompassed Jericho was the Sabbath; but
there is no necessity for supposing this to have been the day in which
the city was taken. Nor is this a reasonable conjecture when all the
facts in the case are considered. On this incident Dr. Clarke remarks as
follows:—
“It does not appear that there could be any breach in the
Sabbath by the people simply going round the city, the ark in
company, and the priests sounding the sacred trumpets. This was
a mere religious procession, performed at the command of God,
in which no servile work was done.”[194]
At the word of Joshua it pleased God to arrest the earth in its
revolution, and thus to cause the sun to remain stationary for a season,
that the Canaanites might be overthrown before Israel.[195] Did not this
great miracle derange the Sabbath? Not at all; for the lengthening of
one of the six days by God’s intervention could not prevent the actual
arrival of the seventh day, though it would delay it; nor could it
destroy its identity. The case involves a difficulty for those who hold
the theory that God sanctified the seventh part of time, and not the
seventh day; for in this case the seventh part of time was not allotted
to the Sabbath; but there is no difficulty involved for those who believe
that God set apart the seventh day to be kept as it arrives, in memory
of his own rest. One of the six days was allotted a greater length than
ever before or since; yet this did not in the slightest degree conflict
with the seventh day, which nevertheless did come. Moreover all this
was while inspired men were upon the stage of action; and it was by the
direct providence of God; and what is also to be particularly remembered,
it was at a time when no one will deny that the fourth commandment was in
full force.
The case of David’s eating the shew-bread is worthy of notice, as it
probably took place upon the Sabbath, and because it is cited by our
Lord in a memorable conversation with the Pharisees.[196] The law of the
shew-bread enjoined the setting forth of twelve loaves in the sanctuary
upon the pure table before the Lord EVERY Sabbath.[197] When new bread
was thus placed before the Lord each Sabbath, the old was taken away to
be eaten by the priests.[198] It appears that the shew-bread which was
given to David had that day been taken from before the Lord to put hot
bread in its place, and consequently that day was the Sabbath. Thus,
when David asked bread, the priest said, “There is no common bread under
mine hand, but there is hallowed bread.” And David said, “The bread is
in a manner common, especially [as the margin has it] when THIS DAY
there is other sanctified in the vessel.” And so the sacred writer adds:
“The priest gave him hallowed bread; for there was no bread there but
the shew-bread, that was taken from before the Lord, to put hot bread
in the day when it was taken away.” The circumstances of this case all
favor the view that this was upon the Sabbath. 1. There was NO COMMON
bread with the priest. This is not strange when it is remembered that
the shew-bread was to be taken from before the Lord each Sabbath and
eaten by the priests. 2. That the priest did not offer to _prepare_ other
bread is not singular if it be understood that this was the Sabbath. 3.
The surprise of the priest in meeting David may have been in part owing
to the fact that it was the Sabbath. 4. This also may account for the
detention of Doeg that day before the Lord. 5. When our Lord was called
upon to pronounce upon the conduct of his disciples who had plucked and
eaten the ears of corn upon the Sabbath to satisfy their hunger, he cited
this case of David, and that of the priests offering sacrifices in the
temple upon the Sabbath as justifying the disciples. There is a wonderful
propriety and fitness in this citation, if it be understood that this act
of David’s took place upon the Sabbath. It will be found to present the
matter in a very different light from that in which anti-Sabbatarians
present it.[199]
A distinction may be here pointed out, which should never be lost
sight of. The presentation of the shew-bread and the offering of burnt
sacrifices upon the Sabbath as ordained in the ceremonial law, formed
no part of the original Sabbatic institution. For the Sabbath was made
before the fall of man; while burnt-offerings and ceremonial rites in the
sanctuary were introduced in consequence of the fall. While these rites
were in force they necessarily, to some extent, connected the Sabbath
with the festivals of the Jews in which the like offerings were made.
This is seen only in those scriptures which record the provision made for
these offerings.[200] When the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross,
all the Jewish festivals ceased to exist; for they were ordained by
it;[201] but the abrogation of that law could only take away those rites
which it had appended to the Sabbath, leaving the original institution
precisely as it came at first from its author.
The earliest reference to the Sabbath after the days of Moses is found in
what David and Samuel ordained respecting the offices of the priests and
Levites at the house of God. It is as follows:—
“And other of their brethren, of the sons of the Kohathites,
were over the shew-bread, to prepare it every Sabbath.”[202]
It will be observed that this is only an incidental mention of the
Sabbath. Such an allusion, occurring after so long a silence, is decisive
proof that the Sabbath had not been forgotten or lost during the five
centuries in which it had not been mentioned by the sacred historians.
After this no direct mention of the Sabbath is found from the days of
David to those of Elisha the prophet, a period of about one hundred and
fifty years. Perhaps the ninety-second psalm is an exception to this
statement, as its title, both in Hebrew and English, declares that it was
written for the Sabbath day;[203] and it is not improbable that it was
composed by David, the sweet singer of Israel.
The son of the Shunammite woman being dead, she sought the prophet
Elisha. Her husband not knowing that the child was dead said to her:—
“Wherefore wilt thou go to him to-day? It is neither new moon,
nor Sabbath. And she said, It shall be well.”[204]
It is probable that the Sabbath of the Lord is here intended, as it is
thrice used in a like connection.[205] If this be correct, it shows
that the Hebrews were accustomed to visit the prophets of God upon that
day for divine instruction; a very good commentary upon the words used
relative to gathering the manna: “Let no man go out of his place on the
seventh day.”[206] Incidental allusion is made to the Sabbath at the
accession of Jehoash to the throne of Judah,[207] about B. C. 778. In the
reign of Uzziah, the grandson of Jehoash, the prophet Amos, B. C. 787,
uses the following language:—
“Hear this, O ye that swallow up the needy, even to make the
poor of the land to fail, saying, When will the new moon be
gone, that we may sell corn? and the Sabbath, that we may set
forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and
falsifying the balances by deceit? that we may buy the poor for
silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes; yea, and sell the
refuse of the wheat?”[208]
These words were spoken more directly concerning the ten tribes, and
indicate the sad state of apostasy which soon after resulted in their
overthrow as a people. About fifty years after this, at the close of the
reign of Ahaz, another allusion to the Sabbath is found.[209] In the
days of Hezekiah, about B. C. 712, the prophet Isaiah uses the following
language in enforcing the Sabbath:—
“Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment and do justice; for my
salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.
Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that
layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it,
and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. Neither let the son
of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak,
saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people;
neither let the eunuch say, Behold I am a dry tree. For thus
saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and
choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant,
even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls,
a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I
will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut
off. Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to
the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord,
to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from
polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will
I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house
of prayer; their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall
be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called a
house of prayer for all people. The Lord God which gathereth
the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him,
beside those that are gathered unto him.”[210]
This prophecy presents several features of peculiar interest. 1. It
pertains to a time when the salvation of God is near at hand.[211] 2. It
most distinctly shows that the Sabbath is not a Jewish institution; for
it pronounces a blessing upon that man without respect of nationality
who shall keep the Sabbath; and it then particularizes the son of the
stranger, that is, the Gentile,[212] and makes a peculiar promise to him
if he will keep the Sabbath. 3. And this prophecy relates to Israel when
they are outcasts, that is, when they are in their dispersion, promising
to gather them, and _others_, that is, the Gentiles, with them. Of course
the condition of being gathered to God’s holy mountain must be complied
with, namely, to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, and to
keep the Sabbath from polluting it. 4. And hence it follows that the
Sabbath is not a local institution, susceptible of being observed in the
promised land alone, like the annual sabbaths,[213] but one made for
mankind and capable of being observed by the outcasts of Israel when
scattered in every land under heaven.[214]
Isaiah again presents the Sabbath; and this he does in language most
emphatically distinguishing it from all ceremonial institutions. Thus he
says:—
“If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy
pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the
holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing
thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking
thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord;
and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the
earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father;
for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”[215]
This language is an evangelical commentary upon the fourth commandment.
It appends to it an exceeding great and precious promise that takes hold
upon the land promised to Jacob, even the new earth.[216]
In the year B. C. 601, thirteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem
by Nebuchadnezzar, God made to the Jewish people through Jeremiah the
gracious offer, that if they would keep his Sabbath, their city should
stand forever. At the same time he testified unto them that if they
would not do this, their city should be utterly destroyed. Thus said the
prophet:—
“Hear ye the word of the Lord, ye kings of Judah, and all
Judah, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that enter in by
these gates: Thus saith the Lord: Take heed to yourselves,
and bear no burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the
gates of Jerusalem;[217] neither carry forth a burden[218]
out of your houses on the Sabbath day, neither do ye any
work, but hallow ye the Sabbath day, as I commanded your
fathers. But they obeyed not, neither inclined their ears,
but made their necks stiff, that they might not hear, nor
receive instruction.[219] And it shall come to pass, if ye
diligently hearken unto me, saith the Lord, to bring in no
burden through the gates of this city on the Sabbath day, but
hallow the Sabbath day, to do no work therein; then shall
there enter into the gates of this city kings and princes
sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots and on
horses, they, and their princes, the men of Judah, and the
inhabitants of Jerusalem; and this city shall REMAIN FOREVER.
And they shall come from the cities of Judah, and from the
places about Jerusalem, and from the land of Benjamin, and
from the plain, and from the mountains, and from the south,
bringing burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and meat-offerings,
and incense, and bringing sacrifices of praise, unto the house
of the Lord. But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the
Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the
gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; then will I kindle a
fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of
Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.”[220]
This gracious offer of the Most High to his rebellious people was not
regarded by them; for eight years after this Ezekiel testifies thus:—
“In thee have they set light by father and mother: in the midst
of thee have they dealt by oppression with the stranger: in
thee have they vexed the fatherless and the widow. Thou hast
despised mine holy things, and hast profaned my Sabbaths....
Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine
holy things: they have put no difference between the holy
and profane, neither have they showed difference between
the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my
Sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.... Moreover this they
have done unto me: they have defiled my sanctuary in the same
day, and have profaned my Sabbaths. For when they had slain
their children to their idols, then they came the same day into
my sanctuary to profane it; and, lo, thus have they done in the
midst of mine house.”[221]
Idolatry and Sabbath-breaking, which were besetting sins with the
Hebrews in the wilderness, and which there laid the foundation for their
dispersion from their own land,[222] had ever cleaved unto them. And now
when their destruction was impending from the overwhelming power of the
king of Babylon, they were so deeply attached to these and kindred sins,
that they would not regard the voice of warning. Before entering the
sanctuary of God upon his Sabbath, they first slew their own children in
sacrifice to their idols![223] Thus iniquity came to its hight, and wrath
came upon them to the uttermost.
“They mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and
misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against
his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought
upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men
with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no
compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that
stooped for age: he gave them all into his hand. And all the
vessels of the house of God, great and small, and the treasures
of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king, and of
his princes; all these he brought to Babylon, and they burnt
the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and
burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the
goodly vessels thereof. And them that had escaped from the
sword carried he away to Babylon; where they were servants to
him and his sons until the reign of the king of Persia.”[224]
While the Hebrews were in captivity at Babylon, God made to them an offer
of restoring them to their own land and giving them again a city and a
temple under circumstances of wonderful glory.[225] The condition of that
offer being disregarded,[226] the offered glory was never inherited by
them. In this offer were several allusions to the Sabbath of the Lord,
and also to the festivals of the Hebrews.[227] One of these allusions
is worthy of particular notice for the distinctness with which it
discriminates between the Sabbath and the other days of the week:—
“Thus saith the Lord God: The gate of the inner court that
looketh toward the east, shall be shut THE SIX WORKING DAYS;
but on the Sabbath it shall be opened, and in the day of the
new moon it shall be opened.”[228]
Six days of the week are by divine inspiration called “the six working
days;” the seventh is called the Sabbath of the Lord. Who shall dare
confound this marked distinction?
After the Jews had returned from their captivity in Babylon, and had
restored their temple and city, in a solemn assembly of the whole people
they recount in an address to the Most High all the great events of
God’s providence in their past history. Thus they testify respecting the
Sabbath:—
“Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them
from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws,
good statutes and commandments: and madest known unto them thy
holy Sabbath, and commandest them precepts, statutes, and laws,
by the hand of Moses thy servant.”[229]
Thus were all the people reminded of the great events of Mount Sinai—the
giving of the ten words of the law of God, and the making known of his
holy Sabbath. So deeply impressed was the whole congregation with the
effect of their former disobedience, that they entered into a solemn
covenant to obey God.[230] They pledged themselves to each other thus:—
“And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on
the Sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on
the Sabbath, or on the holy day; and that we would leave the
seventh year, and the exaction of every debt.”[231]
In the absence of Nehemiah at the Persian court, this covenant was in
part, at least, forgotten. Eleven years having elapsed, Nehemiah thus
testifies concerning things at his return about B. C. 434:—
“In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine-presses on the
Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also
wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they
brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; and I testified
against them in the day wherein they sold victuals. There dwelt
men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all manner
of ware, and sold on the Sabbath unto the children of Judah,
and in Jerusalem. Then I contended with the nobles of Judah,
and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and
profane the Sabbath day? Did not your fathers thus, and did
not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city?
yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the Sabbath.
And it came to pass, that, when the gates of Jerusalem began
to be dark before the Sabbath,[232] I commanded that the gates
should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened
till after the Sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the
gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the Sabbath
day. So the merchants and sellers of all kind of ware lodged
without Jerusalem once or twice. Then I testified against them,
and said unto them, Why lodge ye about the wall? if ye do so
again, I will lay hands on you. From that time forth came they
no more on the Sabbath. And I commanded the Levites that they
should cleanse themselves, and that they should come and keep
the gates, to sanctify the Sabbath day. Remember me, O my God,
concerning this also, and spare me according to the greatness
of thy mercy.”[233]
This scripture is an explicit testimony that the destruction of Jerusalem
and the captivity of the Jews at Babylon were in consequence of their
profanation of the Sabbath. It is a striking confirmation of the language
of Jeremiah, already noticed, in which he testified to the Jews that if
they would hallow the Sabbath their city should stand forever; but that
it should be utterly destroyed if they persisted in its profanation.
Nehemiah bears testimony to the accomplishment of Jeremiah’s prediction
concerning the violation of the Sabbath; and with his solemn appeal in
its behalf ends the history of the Sabbath in the Old Testament.
CHAPTER IX.
THE SABBATH FROM NEHEMIAH TO CHRIST.
Great change in the Jewish people respecting idolatry and
Sabbath-breaking after their return from Babylon—Decree
of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Sabbath—Massacre of a
thousand Sabbath-keepers in the wilderness—Similar massacre at
Jerusalem—Decree of the Jewish elders relative to resisting
attacks upon the Sabbath—Other martyrdoms—Victories of Judas
Maccabeus—How Pompey captured Jerusalem—Teaching of the
Jewish doctors respecting the Sabbath—State of the Sabbatic
institution at the first advent of the Saviour.
The period of almost five centuries intervenes between the time
of Nehemiah and the commencement of the ministry of the Redeemer.
During this time an extraordinary change came over the Jewish people.
Previously, they had been to an alarming extent idolaters, and
outbreaking violators of the Sabbath. But after their return from Babylon
they were never guilty of idolatry to any extent, the chastisement of
that captivity effecting a cure of this evil.[234] In like manner did
they change their conduct relative to the Sabbath; and during this
period they loaded the Sabbatic institution with the most burdensome and
rigorous ordinances. A brief survey of this period must suffice. Under
the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, the king of Syria, B. C. 170, the Jews
were greatly oppressed.
“King Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom, that all should be
one people, and every one should leave his laws: so all the
heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king. Yea,
many also of the Israelites consented to his religion, and
sacrificed unto idols, and profaned the Sabbath.”[235]
The greater part of the Hebrews remained faithful to God, and, as a
consequence, were obliged to flee for their lives. Thus the historian
continues:—
“Then many that sought after justice and judgment went
down into the wilderness, to dwell there: both they, and
their children, and their wives, and their cattle; because
afflictions increased sore upon them. Now when it was told
the king’s servants, and the host that was at Jerusalem,
in the city of David, that certain men, who had broken the
king’s commandment, were gone down into the secret places in
the wilderness, they pursued after them a great number, and
having overtaken them, they camped against them, and made war
against them on the Sabbath day. And they said unto them, Let
that which ye have done hitherto suffice; come forth, and do
according to the commandment of the king, and ye shall live.
But they said, We will not come forth, neither will we do the
king’s commandment, to profane the Sabbath day. So then they
gave them the battle with all speed. Howbeit they answered them
not, neither cast they a stone at them, nor stopped the places
where they lay hid. But said, Let us die all in our innocency:
heaven and earth shall testify for us, that ye put us to death
wrongfully. So they rose up against them in battle on the
Sabbath, and they slew them, with their wives and children, and
their cattle, to the number of a thousand people.”[236]
In Jerusalem itself a like massacre took place. King Antiochus sent
Appollonius with an army of twenty-two thousand,
“Who, coming to Jerusalem, and pretending peace, did forbear
till the holy day of the Sabbath, when taking the Jews keeping
holy day, he commanded his men to arm themselves. And so
he slew all them that were gone to the celebrating of the
Sabbath, and running through the city with weapons, slew great
multitudes.”[237]
In view of these dreadful acts of slaughter, Mattathias, “an honorable
and great man,” the father of Judas Maccabeus, with his friends decreed
thus:—
“Whosoever shall come to make battle with us on the Sabbath
day we will fight against him; neither will we die all, as our
brethren that were murdered in the secret places.”[238]
Yet were some martyred after this for observing the Sabbath. Thus we
read:—
“And others, that had run together into caves near by, to keep
the Sabbath day secretly, being discovered to Philip, were
all burnt together, because they made a conscience to help
themselves for the honor of the most sacred day.”[239]
After this, Judas Maccabeus did great exploits in defense of the Hebrews,
and in resisting the dreadful oppression of the Syrian government. Of one
of these battles we read:—
“When he had given them this watchword, _The help of God_,
himself leading the first band, he joined battle with Nicanor.
And by the help of the Almighty they slew above nine thousand
of their enemies, and wounded and maimed the most part of
Nicanor’s host, and so put all to flight; and took their money
that came to buy them, and pursued them far; but lacking
time, they returned: for it was the day before the Sabbath,
and therefore they would no longer pursue them. So when they
had gathered their armor together, and spoiled their enemies,
they occupied themselves about the Sabbath, yielding exceeding
praise and thanks to the Lord, who had preserved them unto that
day, which was the beginning of mercy distilling upon them.
And after the Sabbath, when they had given part of the spoils
to the maimed, and the widows, and orphans, the residue they
divided among themselves and their servants.”[240]
After this the Hebrews being attacked upon the Sabbath by their enemies,
defeated them with much slaughter.[241]
About B. C. 63, Jerusalem was besieged and taken by Pompey, the general
of the Romans. To do this, it was necessary to fill an immense ditch,
and to raise against the city a bank on which to place the engines of
assault. Thus Josephus relates the event:—
“And had it not been our practice, from the days of our
forefathers, to rest on the seventh day, this bank could
never have been perfected, by reason of the opposition the
Jews would have made; for though our law gives us leave then
to defend ourselves against those that begin to fight with
us, and assault us, yet does it not permit us to meddle with
our enemies while they do anything else. Which thing when the
Romans understood, on those days which we call Sabbaths, they
threw nothing at the Jews, nor came to any pitched battle with
them, but raised up their earthen banks, and brought their
engines into such forwardness, that they might do execution the
next days.”[242]
From this it is seen that Pompey carefully refrained from any attack upon
the Jews on each Sabbath during the siege, but spent that day in filling
the ditch and raising the bank, that he might attack them on the day
following each Sabbath, that is, upon Sunday. Josephus further relates
that the priests were not at all hindered from their sacred ministrations
by the stones thrown among them from the engines of Pompey, even “if
any melancholy accident happened;” and that when the city was taken and
the enemy fell upon them, and cut the throats of those that were in the
temples, yet did not the priests run away or desist from the offering of
the accustomed sacrifices.
These quotations from Jewish history are sufficient to indicate the
extraordinary change that came over that people concerning the Sabbath,
after the Babylonish captivity. A brief view of the teaching of the
Jewish doctors respecting the Sabbath at the time when our Lord began his
ministry will conclude this chapter:—
“They enumerated about forty primary works, which they said
were forbidden to be done on the Sabbath. Under each of these
were numerous secondary works, which they said were also
forbidden.... Among the primary works which were forbidden,
were ploughing, sowing, reaping, winnowing, cleaning, grinding,
etc. Under the head of grinding, was included the breaking
or dividing of things which were before united.... Another
of their traditions was, that, as threshing on the Sabbath
was forbidden, the bruising of things, which was a species of
threshing, was also forbidden. Of course, it was violation of
the Sabbath to walk on green grass, for that would bruise or
thresh it. So, as a man might not hunt on the Sabbath, he
might not catch a flea; for that was a species of hunting. As a
man might not carry a burden on the Sabbath, he might not carry
water to a thirsty animal, for that was a species of burden;
but he might pour water into a trough, and lead the animal to
it.... Yet should a sheep fall into a pit, they would readily
lift him out, and bear him to a place of safety.... They said
a man might minister to the sick for the purpose of relieving
their distress, but not for the purpose of healing their
diseases. He might put a covering on a diseased eye, or anoint
it with eye-salve for the purpose of easing the pain, but not
to cure the eye.”[243]
Such was the remarkable change in the conduct of the Jewish people toward
the Sabbath; and such was the teaching of their doctors respecting it.
The most merciful institution of God for mankind had become a source
of distress; that which God ordained as a delight and a source of
refreshment had become a yoke of bondage; the Sabbath, made for man in
paradise, was now a most oppressive and burdensome institution. It was
time that God should interfere. Next upon the scene of action appears the
Lord of the Sabbath.
CHAPTER X.
THE SABBATH DURING THE LAST OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS.
Mission of the Saviour—His qualifications as a judge of
Sabbatic observance—State of the institution at his advent—The
Saviour at Nazareth—At Capernaum—His discourse in the
corn-field—Case of the man with a withered arm—The Saviour
among his relatives—Case of the impotent man—Of the man born
blind—Of the woman bound by Satan—Of the man who had the
dropsy—Object of our Lord’s teaching and miracles relative to
the Sabbath—Unfairness of many anti-Sabbatarians—Examination of
Matt. 24:20—The Sabbath not abrogated at the crucifixion—Fourth
commandment after that event—Sabbath not changed at the
resurrection of Christ—Examination of John 20:26—Of Acts
2:1, 2—Redemption furnishes no argument for the change of
the Sabbath—Examination of Ps. 118:22-24—The Sabbath neither
abolished nor changed as late as the close of the seventy weeks.
In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son to be the Saviour of the
world. He who fulfilled this mission of infinite benevolence was both the
Son of God and the Son of man. He was with the Father before the world
was, and by him God created all things.[244] The Sabbath being ordained
at the close of that great work as a memorial to keep it in lasting
remembrance, the Son of God, by whom all things were created, could not
be otherwise than a perfect judge of its true design, and of its proper
observance. The sixty-nine weeks of Daniel’s prophecy being accomplished,
the Redeemer began to preach, saying, “The time is fulfilled.”[245] The
ministry of the Saviour was at a time when the Sabbath of the Lord had
become utterly perverted from its gracious design, by the teaching of
the Jewish doctors. As we have seen in the previous chapter, it was to
the people no longer a source of refreshment and delight, but a cause of
suffering and distress. It had been loaded down with traditions by the
doctors of the law until its merciful and beneficent design was utterly
hidden beneath the rubbish of men’s inventions. It being impracticable
for Satan, after the Babylonish captivity, to cause the Jewish people,
even by bloody edicts, to relinquish the Sabbath and openly to profane
it as before that time, he turned their doctors so to pervert it, that
its real character should be utterly changed and its observance entirely
unlike that which would please God. We shall find that the Saviour never
missed an opportunity to correct their false notions respecting the
Sabbath; and that he selected, with evident design, the Sabbath as the
day on which to perform many of his merciful works. It will be found that
no small share of his teaching through his whole ministry was devoted
to a determination of what was lawful on the Sabbath, a singular fact
for those to explain who think that he designed its abrogation. At the
opening of our Lord’s ministry, we read thus:—
“And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee;
and there went out a fame of him through all the region round
about. And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of
all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up;
and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the
Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.”[246]
Such was the manner of the Saviour relative to the Sabbath. It is evident
that in this he designed to show his regard for that day; for it was not
necessary thus to do in order to gain a congregation, as vast multitudes
were ever ready to throng his steps. His testimony being rejected, our
Lord left Nazareth for Capernaum. Thus the sacred historian says:—
“But he, passing through the midst of them, went his way, and
came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on
the Sabbath days. And they were astonished at his doctrine; for
his word was with power. And in the synagogue there was a man
which had a spirit of an unclean devil; and he cried out with
a loud voice, saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with
thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth; art thou come to destroy us? I
know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God. And Jesus rebuked
him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the
devil had thrown him in the midst, he came out of him, and hurt
him not. And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves,
saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power he
commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out. And the fame
of him went out into every place of the country round about.
And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon’s
house. And Simon’s wife’s mother was taken with a great fever;
and they besought him for her. And he stood over her, and
rebuked the fever; and it left her; and immediately she arose
and ministered unto them.”[247]
These miracles are the first which stand upon record as performed by the
Saviour upon the Sabbath. But the strictness of Jewish views relative to
the Sabbath is seen in that they waited till sunset, that is, till the
Sabbath was passed,[248] before they brought the sick to be healed. Thus
it is added:—
“And at even when the sun did set, they brought unto him all
that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils.
And all the city was gathered together at the door. And he
healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out
many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they
knew him.”[249]
The next mention of the Sabbath is of peculiar interest:—
“At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn;
and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears
of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said
unto him, Behold thy disciples do that which is not lawful
to do upon the Sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye
not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they
that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and
did eat the shew-bread, which was not lawful for him to eat,
neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath day the
priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?
But I say unto you that in this place is one greater than
the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will
have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the
guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath
day.”[250]
The parallel text in Mark has an important addition to the conclusion as
stated by Matthew:—
“And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not
man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is Lord also of
the Sabbath.”[251]
The following points should be noted in examining this text:—
1. That the question at issue did not relate to the act of passing
through the corn on the Sabbath; for the Pharisees themselves were in the
company; and hence it may be concluded that the Saviour and those with
him were either going to, or returning from, the synagogue.
2. That the question raised by the Pharisees was this: Whether the
disciples, in satisfying their hunger from the corn through which they
were passing, were not violating the law of the Sabbath.
3. That he to whom this question was proposed was in the highest degree
competent to answer it; for he was with the Father when the Sabbath was
made.[252]
4. That the Saviour was pleased to appeal to scriptural precedents for
the decision of this question, rather than to assert his own independent
judgment.
5. That the first case cited by the Saviour was peculiarly appropriate.
David, fleeing for his life, entered the house of God upon the
Sabbath,[253] and ate the shew-bread to satisfy his hunger. The
disciples, to relieve their hunger, simply ate of the corn through which
they were passing upon the Sabbath. If David did right, though eating
in his necessity of that which belonged only to the priests, how little
of blame could be attached to the disciples who had not even violated a
precept of the ceremonial law? Thus much for the disciples’ satisfying
their hunger as they did upon the Sabbath. Our Lord’s next example is
designed to show what labor upon the Sabbath is not a violation of its
sacredness.
6. And hence the case of the priests is cited. The same God who had said
in the fourth commandment, “Six days shalt thou labor and do all THY
work,” had commanded that the priests upon the Sabbath should offer
certain sacrifices in his temple.[254]
Herein was no contradiction; for the labor performed by the priests upon
the Sabbath was simply the maintenance of the appointed worship of God
in his temple, and was not doing what the commandment calls “THY WORK.”
Labor of this kind, therefore, the Saviour being judge, was not, and
never had been, a violation of the Sabbath.
7. But it is highly probable that the Saviour, in this reference to the
priests, had his mind not merely upon the sacrifices which they offered
upon the Sabbath, but upon the fact that they were required to prepare
new shew-bread every Sabbath; when the old was to be removed from the
table before the Lord and eaten by them.[255] This view of the matter
would connect the case of the priests with that of David, and both would
bear with wonderful distinctness upon the act of the disciples. Then
our Lord’s argument could be appreciated when he adds: “But I say unto
you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.” So that if the
shew-bread was to be prepared each Sabbath for the use of those who
ministered in the temple, and those who did this were guiltless, how free
from guilt also must be the disciples who, in following HIM that was
greater than the temple, but who had not where to lay his head, had eaten
of the standing corn upon the Sabbath to relieve their hunger?
8. But our Lord next lays down a principle worthy of the most serious
attention. Thus he adds: “But if ye had known what this meaneth, I
will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the
guiltless.” The Most High had ordained certain labor to be performed upon
the Sabbath, in order that sacrifices might be offered to himself. But
Christ affirms upon the authority of the Scriptures,[256] that there is
something far more acceptable to God than sacrifices, and that this is
acts of mercy. If God held those guiltless who offered sacrifices upon
the Sabbath, how much less would he condemn those who extend mercy and
relief to the distressed and suffering, upon that day.
9. Nor does the Saviour even leave the subject here; for he adds: “The
Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son
of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” If the Sabbath was _made_, certain
acts were necessary in order to give existence to it. What were those
acts? (1) God rested upon the seventh day. This made the seventh day the
rest-day or Sabbath of the Lord. (2) He blessed the day; thus it became
his holy day. (3) He sanctified it, or set it apart to a holy use; thus
its observance became a part of man’s duty toward God. There must be a
time when these acts were performed. And on this point there is really
no room for controversy. They were not performed at Sinai, nor in the
wilderness of Sin, but in paradise. And this is strikingly confirmed by
the language here used by the Saviour: “The Sabbath was made for THE man,
not THE man for the Sabbath;”[257] thus citing our minds to the man Adam
that was made of the dust of the ground, and affirming that the Sabbath
was made for him; a conclusive testimony that the Sabbath originated in
paradise. This fact is happily illustrated by a statement of the apostle
Paul: “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the
man.”[258] It will not be denied that this language has direct reference
to the creation of Adam and Eve. If then we turn back to the beginning,
we shall find Adam made of the dust of the ground, Eve taken from his
side, and the Sabbath made of the seventh day.[259] Thus the Saviour,
to complete the solution of the question raised by the Pharisees,
traces the Sabbath back to the beginning, as he does the institution of
marriage when the same class proposed for his decision the lawfulness of
divorce.[260] His careful statement of the design of the Sabbath and of
marriage, tracing each to the beginning, in the one case striking down
their perversion of the Sabbath, in the other, that of marriage, is the
most powerful testimony in behalf of the sacredness of each institution.
The argument in the one case stands thus: In the beginning God created
_one_ man and _one_ woman, designing that they two should be one flesh.
The marriage relation therefore was designed to unite simply two persons,
and this union _should_ be sacred and indissoluble. Such was the bearing
of his argument upon the question of divorce. In relation to the Sabbath,
his argument is this: God made the Sabbath for the man that he made of
the dust of the ground; and being thus made for an unfallen race, it can
only be a merciful and beneficent institution. He who made the Sabbath
for man before the fall saw what man needed, and knew how to supply that
want. It was given to him for rest, refreshment, and delight; a character
that it sustained after the fall,[261] but which the Jews had wholly lost
sight of.[262] And thus our Lord lays open his whole heart concerning
the Sabbath. He carefully determines what works are not a violation of
the Sabbath; and this he does by Old-Testament examples, that it may be
evident that he is introducing no change in the institution; he sets
aside their rigorous and burdensome traditions concerning the Sabbath,
by tracing it back to its merciful origin in paradise; and having thus
disencumbered the Sabbath of Pharisaic rigor, he leaves it upon its
paradisiacal foundation, enforced by all the authority and sacredness
of that law which he came not to destroy, but to magnify and make
honorable.[263]
10. Having thus divested the Sabbath of all Pharisaic additions, our Lord
concludes with this remarkable declaration: “Therefore the Son of man is
Lord also of the Sabbath.” (1) It was not a disparagement to the Sabbath,
but an honor, that God’s only Son should claim to be its Lord. (2) Nor
was it derogatory to the character of the Redeemer to be the Lord of the
Sabbath; with all the high honors pertaining to his messiahship he is
ALSO Lord of the Sabbath. Or, if we take the expression in Matthew, he is
“Lord EVEN of the Sabbath day,” it implies that it is not a small honor
to possess such a title. (3) This title implies that the Messiah should
be the _protector_, and not the _destroyer_, of the Sabbath. And hence
that he was the rightful being to decide the proper nature of Sabbatic
observance. With these memorable words ends our Lord’s first discourse
concerning the Sabbath.
From this time the Pharisees watched the Saviour to find an accusation
against him of violating the Sabbath. The next example will show the
malignity of their hearts, their utter perversion of the Sabbath, the
urgent need of an authoritative correction of their false teachings
respecting it, and the Saviour’s unanswerable defense:—
“And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
and behold there was a man which had his hand withered. And
they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath
days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What
man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and
if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold
on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than
a sheep? Wherefore, it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath
days. Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And
he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the
other. Then the Pharisees went out and held a council against
him, how they might destroy him.”[264]
What was the act that caused this madness of the Pharisees? On the part
of the Saviour, it was a word; on the part of the man, it was the act of
stretching out his arm. Did the law of the Sabbath forbid either of these
things? No one can affirm such a thing. But the Saviour had publicly
transgressed that tradition of the Pharisees that forbade the doing
of anything whatever toward the healing of the sick upon the Sabbath.
And how necessary that such a wicked tradition should be swept away,
if the Sabbath itself was to be preserved for man. But the Pharisees
were filled with such madness that they went out of the synagogue and
consulted how they might destroy the Saviour. Yet Jesus only acted in
behalf of the Sabbath in setting aside those traditions by which they had
perverted it.
After this, our Lord returned into his own country, and thus we read of
him:—
“And when the Sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the
synagogue; and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From
whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this
which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are
wrought by his hands?”[265]
Not far from this time we find the Saviour at Jerusalem, and the
following miracle was performed upon the Sabbath:—
“And a certain man was there which had an infirmity thirty
and eight years. When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had
been there now a long time in that case, he saith unto him,
Wilt thou be made whole? The impotent man answered him, Sir,
I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the
pool; but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. And
immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed and
walked; and on the same day was the Sabbath. The Jews therefore
said unto him that was cured, It is the Sabbath day: It is
not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. He answered them, He
that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed,
and walk. Then asked they him, What man is that which said
unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?... The man departed and
told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. And
therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay
him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath day. But
Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not
only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his
Father, making himself equal with God.”[266]
Our Lord here stands charged with two crimes: 1. He had broken the
Sabbath. 2. He had made himself equal with God. The first accusation is
based on these particulars: (1) By his word he had healed the impotent
man. But this violated no law of God; it only set at naught that
tradition which forbade anything to be done for curing diseases upon the
Sabbath. (2) He had directed the man to carry his bed. But this as a
burden was a mere trifle,[267] like a cloak or mat, and was designed to
show the reality of his cure, and thus to honor the Lord of the Sabbath
who had healed him. Moreover, it was not such a burden as the Scriptures
forbid upon the Sabbath.[268] (3) Jesus justified what he had done by
comparing his present act of healing to that work which his Father had
done HITHERTO, _i. e._, from the beginning of the creation. Ever since
the Sabbath was sanctified in paradise, the Father, by his providence,
had continued to mankind, even upon the Sabbath, all the merciful acts
by which the human race has been preserved. This work of the Father was
of precisely the same nature as that which Jesus had now done. These
acts did not argue that the Father had _hitherto_ lightly esteemed the
Sabbath, for he had most solemnly enjoined its observance in the law
and in the prophets;[269] and as our Lord had most expressly recognized
their authority,[270] there was no ground to accuse him of disregarding
the Sabbath, when he had only followed the example of the Father from
the beginning. The Saviour’s answer to these two charges will remove all
difficulty:—
“Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say
unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth
the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also
doeth the Son likewise.”[271]
This answer involves two points: 1. That he was following his Father’s
perfect example, who had ever laid open to him all his works; and hence
as he was doing that only which had ever been the pleasure of the Father
to do, he was not engaged in the overthrow of the Sabbath. 2. And by the
meek humility of this answer—“The Son can do nothing of himself, but what
he seeth the Father do”—he showed the groundlessness of their charge of
self-exaltation. Thus, in nothing was there left a chance to answer him
again.
Several months after this, the same case of healing was under discussion:
“Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and
ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision
(not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and ye on
the Sabbath-day circumcise a man. If a man on the Sabbath day
receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be
broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every
whit whole on the Sabbath day?”[272]
This Scripture contains our Lord’s second answer relative to healing the
impotent man upon the Sabbath. In his first answer he rested his defense
upon the fact that what he had done was precisely the same as that which
his Father had done _hitherto_, that is, from the beginning of the
world; which implies that the Sabbath had existed from the same point,
else the example of the Father during this time would not be relevant.
In this, his second answer, a similar point is involved relative to the
origin of the Sabbath. His defense this time rests upon the fact that
his act of healing no more violated the Sabbath than did the act of
circumcising upon the Sabbath. But if circumcision, which was ordained
in the time of Abraham, was older than the Sabbath—as it certainly was
if the Sabbath originated in the wilderness of Sin—there would be an
impropriety in the allusion; for circumcision would be entitled to the
priority as the more ancient institution. It would be strictly proper
to speak of the more recent institution as involving no violation of an
older one; but it would be otherwise to speak of an ancient institution
as involving no violation of one more recent. The language therefore
implies that the Sabbath was older than circumcision; in other words,
more ancient than the days of Abraham. These two answers of the Saviour
are certainly in harmony with the unanimous testimony of the sacred
writers, that the Sabbath originated with the sanctification of the
rest-day of the Lord in Eden.
What had the Saviour done to justify the hatred of the Jewish people
toward him? He had healed upon the Sabbath, with one word, a man who had
been helpless thirty-eight years. Was not this act in strict accordance
with the Sabbatic institution? Our Lord has settled this point in the
affirmative by weighty and unanswerable arguments,[273] not in this case
alone, but in others already noticed, and also in those which remain to
be noticed. Had he left the man in his wretchedness because it was the
Sabbath, when a word would have healed him, he would have dishonored the
Sabbath, and thrown reproach upon its Author. We shall find the Lord of
the Sabbath still further at work in its behalf in rescuing it from the
hands of those who had so utterly perverted its design; a work quite
unnecessary, had he designed to nail the institution to his cross.
The next incident to be noticed is the case of the man that was born
blind. Jesus seeing him said:—
“I must work the works of him that sent me whilst it is day;
the night cometh when no man can work. As long as I am in the
world, I am the light of the world. When he had thus spoken
he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he
anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, and said unto
him, Go wash in the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation,
Sent). He went his way therefore, and washed, and came
seeing.... And it was the Sabbath day when Jesus made the clay
and opened his eyes.”[274]
Here is the record of another of our Lord’s merciful acts upon the
Sabbath day. He saw a man blind from his birth; moved with compassion
toward him, he moistened clay and anointed his eyes, and sent him to
the pool to wash; and when he had washed he received sight. The act was
alike worthy of the Sabbath and of its Lord: and it pertains only to
the opponents of the Sabbath _now_, as it pertained only to the enemies
of its Lord _then_, to see in this even the slightest violation of the
Sabbath.
After this we read as follows:—
“And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath.
And behold there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity
eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise
lift up herself. And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him,
and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.
And he laid his hands on her; and immediately she was made
straight, and glorified God. And the ruler of the synagogue
answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on
the Sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days
in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be
healed, and not on the Sabbath day. The Lord then answered
him and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the
Sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him
away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of
Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be
loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day? And when he had said
these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the
people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by
him.”[275]
This time a daughter of Abraham, that is, a pious woman,[276] who had
been bound by Satan eighteen years, was loosed from that bond upon the
Sabbath day. Jesus silenced the clamor of his enemies by an appeal
to their own course of action in loosing the ox and leading him to
water upon the Sabbath. With this answer our Lord made ashamed all his
adversaries, and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things
that were done by him. The last of these glorious acts with which Jesus
honored the Sabbath is thus narrated:—
“And it came to pass as he went into the house of one of
the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath day, that
they watched him. And, behold, there was a certain man before
him which had the dropsy. And Jesus answering spake unto the
lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the
Sabbath day? And they held their peace. And he took him, and
healed him, and let him go; and answered them, saying, Which of
you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not
straightway pull him out on the Sabbath day? And they could not
answer him again to these things.”[277]
It is evident that the Pharisees and lawyers durst not answer the
question, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day? If they said, “Yes,”
they condemned their own tradition. If they said, “No,” they were unable
to sustain their answer by fair argument. Hence they remained silent.
And when Jesus had healed the man, he asked a second question equally
embarrassing: Which of you shall have an ox fall into a pit and will
not straightway pull him out on the Sabbath? They could not answer him
again to these things. It is apparent that our Lord’s argument with the
Pharisees from time to time relative to the Sabbath had satisfied them
at last that silence relative to their traditions was wiser than speech.
In his public teaching the Saviour declared that the weightier matters
of the law were judgment, MERCY, and faith;[278] and his long-continued
and powerful effort in behalf of the Sabbath, was to vindicate it as a
MERCIFUL institution, and to rid it of Pharisaic traditions, by which it
was perverted from its original purpose. Those who oppose the Sabbath are
here guilty of unfairness in two particulars: 1. They represent these
Pharisaic rigors as actually belonging to the Sabbatic institution. By
this means they turn the minds of men against the Sabbath. 2. And having
done this they represent the effort of the Saviour to set aside those
traditions as directed to the overthrow of the Sabbath itself.
And now we come to the Saviour’s memorable discourse upon the mount of
Olives, on the very eve of his crucifixion, in which for the last time he
mentions the Sabbath:—
“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso
readeth, let him understand), then let them which be in Judea
flee into the mountains: let him which is on the house-top
not come down to take anything out of his house; neither let
him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give
suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the
winter, neither on the Sabbath day; for then shall be great
tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world
to this time, no, nor ever shall be.”[279]
In this language our Lord brings to view the dreadful calamities of the
Jewish people, and the destruction of their city and temple as predicted
by Daniel the prophet;[280] and his watchful care over his people as
their Lord leads him to point out their means of escape.
1. He gives them a token by which they should know when this terrible
overthrow was immediately impending. It was “the abomination of
desolation” standing “in the holy place;” or, as expressed by Luke, the
token was “Jerusalem compassed with armies.”[281] The fulfillment of this
sign is recorded by the historian Josephus. After stating that Cestius,
the Roman commander, at the commencement of the contest between the Jews
and the Romans, encompassed the city of Jerusalem with an army, he adds:—
“Who, had he but continued the siege a little longer, had
certainly taken the city; but it was, I suppose, owing to the
aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that
he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day.
It then happened that Cestius was not conscious either how the
besieged despaired of success, nor how courageous the people
were for him; and so he recalled his soldiers from the place,
and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without
having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, without
any reason in the world.”[282]
2. This sign being seen, the disciples were to know that the desolation
of Jerusalem was nigh. “Then,” says Christ, “let them which be in Judea
flee into the mountains.” Josephus records the fulfillment of this
injunction:—
“After this calamity had befallen Cestius, many of the most
eminent of the Jews swam away from the city, as from a ship
when it was going to sink.”[283]
Eusebius also relates its fulfillment:—
“The whole body, however, of the church at Jerusalem, having
been commanded by a divine revelation, given to men of approved
piety there before the war, removed from the city, and dwelt
at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella. Here, those
that believed in Christ, having removed from Jerusalem, as if
holy men had entirely abandoned the royal city itself, and
the whole land of Judea; the divine justice for their crimes
against Christ and his apostles, finally overtook them, totally
destroying the whole generation of these evil-doers from the
earth.”[284]
3. So imminent was the danger when this sign should be seen that not a
moment was to be lost. He that was upon the house-top could not even
come down to take a single article from his house. The man that was in
the field was forbidden to return to the house for his clothes. Not a
moment was to be lost; they must flee as they were, and flee for life.
And pitiable indeed was the case of those who could not flee.
4. In view of the fact that the disciples must flee the moment that the
promised token should appear, our Lord directed them to pray for two
things: 1. That their flight should not be in the winter. 2. That it
should not be upon the Sabbath day. Their pitiable situation should they
be compelled to flee to the mountains in the depth of winter, without
time to even take their clothes, sufficiently attests the importance
of the first of these petitions, and the tender care of Jesus as the
Lord of his people. The second of these petitions will be found equally
expressive of his care as Lord of the Sabbath.
5. But it is replied that this last petition has reference only to the
fact that the Jews would then be keeping the Sabbath strictly, and as
a consequence the city gates would be closed that day, and those be
punished with death who should attempt to flee; and hence this petition
indicates nothing in proof of Christ’s regard for the Sabbath. An
assertion so often and so confidently uttered should be well founded in
truth; yet a brief examination will show that such is not the case. 1.
The Saviour’s language has reference to the whole land of Judea, and not
to Jerusalem only: “Let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains.”
The closing of the city gates could not therefore affect the flight of
but a part of the disciples. 2. Josephus states the remarkable fact that
when Cestius was marching upon Jerusalem in fulfillment of the Saviour’s
token, and had reached Lydda, not many miles from Jerusalem, “he found
the city empty of its men; for the whole multitude were gone up to
Jerusalem to the feast of tabernacles.”[285] The law of Moses required
the presence of every male in Israel at this feast in Jerusalem;[286]
and thus, in the providence of God, the disciples had no Jewish enemies
left in the country to hinder their flight. 3. The Jewish nation being
thus assembled at Jerusalem did most openly violate the Sabbath a few
days prior to the flight of the disciples; a singular commentary on their
supposed strictness in keeping it at that time.[287] Thus Josephus says
of the march of Cestius upon Jerusalem that,
“He pitched his camp at a certain place called Gabao, fifty
furlongs distant from Jerusalem. But as for the Jews, when they
saw the war approaching to their metropolis, they left the
feast, and betook themselves to their arms; and taking courage
greatly from their multitude, went in a sudden and disorderly
manner to the fight, with a great noise, and without any
consideration had of the rest of the seventh day, although the
Sabbath was the day to which they had the greatest regard; but
that rage which made them forget the religious observation [of
the Sabbath] made them too hard for their enemies in the fight;
with such violence therefore did they fall upon the Romans, as
to break into their ranks, and to march through the midst of
them, making a great slaughter as they went,”[288] etc.
Thus it is seen that on the eve of the disciples’ flight the rage of the
Jews toward their enemies made them utterly disregard the Sabbath! 4.
But after Cestius encompassed the city with his army, thus giving the
Saviour’s signal, he suddenly withdrew it, as Josephus says, “without any
reason in the world.” This was the moment of flight for the disciples,
and mark how the providence of God opened the way for those in Jerusalem:—
“But when the robbers perceived this unexpected retreat of his,
they resumed their courage, and ran after the hinder parts of
his army, and destroyed a considerable number of both their
horsemen and footmen: and now Cestius lay all night at the camp
which was at Scopus, and as he went off farther next day, he
thereby invited the enemy to follow him, who still fell upon
the hindmost and destroyed them.”[289]
This sally of the excited multitude in pursuit of the Romans was at the
very moment when the disciples were commanded to flee, and could not but
afford them the needed facility of escape. Had the flight of Cestius
happened upon the Sabbath, undoubtedly the Jews would have pursued him
upon that day, as under less exciting circumstances they had a few days
before gone out several miles to attack him upon the Sabbath. It is seen,
therefore, that whether in city or country, the disciples were not in
danger of being attacked by their enemies, even had their flight been
upon the Sabbath day.
6. There is therefore but one view that can be taken relative to the
meaning of these words of our Lord, and that is that he thus spake,
out of sacred regard for the Sabbath. For in his tender care for his
people he had given them a precept that would require them to violate
the Sabbath, should the moment for flight happen upon that day. For the
command to flee was imperative the instant the promised signal should
be seen, and the distance to Pella, where they found a place of refuge,
was at least sixty miles. This prayer which the Saviour left with the
disciples would cause them to remember the Sabbath whenever they should
come before God. It was therefore impossible that the apostolic church
should forget the day of sacred rest. Such a prayer, that they might not
at a future time be compelled to violate the Sabbath, was a sure and
certain means of perpetuating its sacred observance for the coming forty
years, until the final destruction of Jerusalem, and was never forgotten
by that early church, as we shall hereafter see.[290] The Saviour, who
had taken unwearied pains during his whole ministry to show that the
Sabbath was a merciful institution and to set aside those traditions by
which it had been perverted from its true design, did, in this his last
discourse, most tenderly commend the Sabbath to his people, uniting in
the same petition their own safety and the sacredness of the rest-day of
the Lord.[291]
A few days after this discourse, the Lord of the Sabbath was nailed to
the cross as the great sacrifice for the sins of men.[292] The Messiah
was thus cut off in the midst of the seventieth week; and by his death he
caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease.[293]
Paul thus describes the abrogation of the typical system at the
crucifixion of the Lord Jesus:—
“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against
us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way,
nailing it to his cross.... 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.”[294]
The object of this action is declared to be the handwriting of
ordinances. The manner of its abrogation is thus stated: 1. Blotted out;
2. Nailed to the cross; 3. Taken out of the way. Its nature is shown in
these words: “Against us” and “contrary to us.” The things contained in
it were meats, drinks, holy days [Gr. ἑορτης a feast day], new moons and
sabbaths.[295] The whole is declared a shadow of good things to come;
and the body which casts this shadow is of Christ. That law which was
proclaimed by the voice of God and written by his own finger upon the
tables of stone, and deposited beneath the mercy-seat, was altogether
unlike that system of carnal ordinances that was written by Moses in a
book, and placed in the side of the ark.[296] It would be absurd to speak
of the tables of STONE as NAILED to the cross; or to speak of BLOTTING
out what was ENGRAVED in STONE. It would be blasphemous to represent
the Son of God as pouring out his blood to blot out what the finger
of his Father had written. It would be to confound all the immutable
principles of morality, to represent the ten commandments as “contrary”
to man’s moral nature. It would be to make Christ the minister of sin, to
represent him as dying to utterly destroy the moral law. Nor does that
man keep truth on his side who represents the ten commandments as among
the things contained in Paul’s enumeration of what was abolished. Nor is
there any excuse for those who would destroy the ten commandments with
this statement of Paul; for he shows, last of all, that what was thus
abrogated was a shadow of good things to come—an absurdity if applied to
the moral law. The feasts, new moons, and sabbaths, of the ceremonial
law, which Paul declared to be abolished in consequence of the abrogation
of that code, have been particularly noticed already.[297] That the
Sabbath of the Lord is not included in their number, the following facts
evince:—
1. The Sabbath of the Lord was made before sin entered our world. It is
not therefore one of those things that shadow redemption from sin.[298]
2. Being made FOR man before the fall it is not one of those things that
are AGAINST him and CONTRARY to him.[299]
3. When the ceremonial sabbaths were ordained they were carefully
distinguished from the Sabbath of the Lord.[300]
4. The Sabbath of the Lord does not owe its existence to the handwriting
of ordinances, but is found in the very bosom of that law which Jesus
came not to destroy. The abrogation of the ceremonial law could not
therefore abolish the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.[301]
5. The effort of our Lord through his whole ministry to redeem the
Sabbath from the thralldom of the Jewish doctors, and to vindicate it as
a merciful institution, is utterly inconsistent with the idea that he
nailed it to his cross, as one of those things against man and contrary
to him.
6. Our Lord’s petition respecting the flight of the disciples from Judea,
recognizes the sacredness of the Sabbath many years after the crucifixion
of the Saviour.
7. The perpetuity of the Sabbath in the new earth is not easily
reconciled with the idea that it was blotted out and nailed to our
Lord’s cross as one of those things that were contrary to man.[302]
8. Because the authority of the fourth commandment is expressly
recognized after the Saviour’s crucifixion.[303]
9. And finally, because the royal law which is unabolished embodies the
ten commandments, and consequently embraces and enforces the Sabbath of
the Lord.[304]
When the Saviour died upon the cross the whole typical system which
had pointed forward to that event as the commencement of its antitype,
expired with him. The Saviour being dead, Joseph of Arimathea went in
unto Pilate and begged the body of Jesus, and with the assistance of
Nicodemus, buried it in his own new tomb.[305]
“And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on.
And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed
after, and beheld the sepulcher, and how his body was laid.
And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and
rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon
the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they
came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had
prepared, and certain others with them.”[306]
This text is worthy of special attention. 1. Because it is an express
recognition of the fourth commandment after the crucifixion of the Lord
Jesus. 2. Because it is the most remarkable case of Sabbatic observance
in the whole Bible. The Lord of the Sabbath was dead; preparation being
made for his embalming, when the Sabbath drew on it was suspended, and
they rested, says the sacred historian, according to the commandment. 3.
Because it shows that the Sabbath day according to the commandment is the
day before the first day of the week; thus identifying the seventh day
in the commandment with the seventh day of the New-Testament week. 4.
Because it is a direct testimony that the knowledge of the true seventh
day was preserved as late as the crucifixion; for they observed the day
enjoined in the commandment; and that was the day on which the Most High
had rested from the work of creation.
In the course of the day following this Sabbath, that is, upon the first
day of the week, it was ascertained that Jesus was risen from the dead.
It appears that this event must have taken place upon that day, though it
is not thus stated in express terms. At this point of time it is supposed
by many that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day of
the week; and that the sacredness of the seventh day was then transferred
to the first day of the week, which thenceforth was the Christian
Sabbath, enforced by all the authority of the fourth commandment. To
judge of the truthfulness of these positions, let us read with care each
mention of the first day found in the four evangelists. Thus writes
Matthew:—
“In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the
first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
to see the sepulcher.”
Thus also Mark writes:—
“And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the
mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that
they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning,
the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the
rising of the sun.... Now when Jesus was risen early the first
day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene.”
Luke uses the following language:—
“And they returned and prepared spices and ointments, and
rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon
the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they
came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had
prepared, and certain others with them.”
John bears the following testimony:—
“The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when
it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken
away from the sepulcher.... Then the same day at evening, being
the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the
disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus
and stood in their midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto
you.”[307]
In these texts the foundation of the “Christian Sabbath” must be
sought—if indeed such an institution actually exists—for there are no
other records of the first day which relate to the time when it is
supposed to have become sacred. These texts are supposed to prove that at
the resurrection of the Saviour, the first day absorbed the sacredness
of the seventh, elevating itself from the rank of a secular to that of
a sacred day, and abasing the Sabbath of the Lord to the rank of “the
six working days.”[308] Yet the following facts must be regarded as very
extraordinary indeed if this supposed change of the Sabbath here took
place:—
1. That these texts should contain no mention of this change of the
Sabbath. 2. That they should carefully discriminate between the Sabbath
of the fourth commandment and the first day of the week. 3. That they
should apply no sacred title to that day; particularly that they should
omit the title of Christian Sabbath. 4. That they should not mention the
fact that Christ rested upon that day; an act essential to its becoming
his Sabbath.[309] 5. That they do not relate the act of taking the
blessing of God from the seventh day, and placing it upon the first;
and indeed that they do not mention any act whatever of blessing and
hallowing the day. 6. That they omit to mention anything that Christ did
to the first day; and that they even neglect to inform us that Christ so
much as took up the first day of the week into his lips! 7. That they
give no precept in support of first-day observance, nor do they contain a
hint of the manner in which the first day of the week can be enforced by
the authority of the fourth commandment.
Should it be asserted, however, from the words of John, that the
disciples were on this occasion convened for the purpose of honoring the
day of the resurrection, and that Jesus sanctioned this act by meeting
with them, thus accomplishing the change of the Sabbath, it is sufficient
to cite in reply the words of Mark in which the same interview is
narrated:—
“Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat,
and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart,
because they believed not them which had seen him after he was
risen.”[310]
This testimony of Mark shows that the inference so often drawn from the
words of John is utterly unfounded. 1. The disciples were assembled
for the purpose of eating supper. 2. Jesus came into their midst and
upbraided them for their unbelief respecting his resurrection.
The Scriptures declare that “with God all things are possible;” yet this
statement is limited by the declaration that God cannot lie.[311] Does
the change of the Sabbath pertain to those things that are possible with
God, or is it excluded by that important limitation, _God cannot lie_?
The Law-giver is the God of truth, and his law is the truth.[312] Whether
it would still remain the truth if changed to something else, and whether
the Law-giver would still continue to be the God of truth after he had
thus changed it, remains to be seen. The fourth commandment, which is
affirmed to have been changed, is thus expressed:—
“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 the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath
day, and hallowed it.”
If now we insert “first day” in place of the seventh, we shall bring the
matter to a test:—
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.... The first 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 the first day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath
day, and hallowed it.”
This changes the truth of God into a lie;[313] for it is false that God
rested upon the first day of the week and blessed and hallowed it. Nor
is it possible to change the rest-day of the Creator from that day on
which he rested to one of the six days on which he did not rest.[314] To
change a part of the commandment, and to leave the rest unchanged, will
not therefore answer, as the truth which is left is still sufficient to
expose the falsehood which is inserted. A more radical change is needed,
like the following:—
“Remember the Christian Sabbath, to keep it holy. The first day
is the Sabbath of the Lord Jesus Christ. For on that day he
arose from the dead; wherefore he blessed the first day of the
week, and hallowed it.”
After such a change, no part of the original Sabbatic institution
remains. Not only is the rest-day of the Lord left out, but even the
reasons on which the fourth commandment is based are of necessity
omitted also. But does such an edition of the fourth commandment as
this exist? Not in the Bible, certainly. Is it true that such titles
as these are applied to the first day? Never, in the Holy Scriptures.
Did the Law-giver bless and hallow that day? Most assuredly not. He did
not even take the name of it into his lips. Such a change of the fourth
commandment on the part of the God of truth is impossible; for it not
merely affirms that which is false and denies that which is true, but it
turns the truth of God itself into a lie. It is simply the act of setting
up a rival to the Sabbath of the Lord, which, having neither sacredness
nor authority of its own, has contrived to absorb that of the Bible
Sabbath itself. Such is the FOUNDATION of the first-day Sabbath. The
texts which are employed in rearing the institution upon this foundation
will be noticed in their proper order and place. Several of these texts
properly pertain to this chapter:—
“And after eight days again his disciples were within, and
Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and
stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.”[315]
It is not asserted that on this occasion our Lord hallowed the first
day of the week; for that act is affirmed to date from the resurrection
itself on the authority of the texts already quoted. But the sacredness
of the first day being assumed as the foundation, this text furnishes the
first stone for the superstructure; the first pillar in the first-day
temple. The argument drawn from it may be thus stated: Jesus selected
this day as the one in which to manifest himself to his disciples; and
by this act strongly attested his regard for the day. But it is no small
defect in this argument that his next meeting with them was on a fishing
occasion,[316] and his last and most important manifestation, when he
ascended into Heaven, was upon Thursday.[317] The act of the Saviour in
meeting with his disciples must therefore be yielded as insufficient
of itself to show that any day is sacred; for it would otherwise prove
the sacredness of several of the working days. But a still more serious
defect in this argument is found in the fact that this meeting of Jesus
with his disciples does not appear to have been upon the first day of
the week. It was “after eight days” from the previous meeting of Jesus
and the disciples, which, coming at the very close of the resurrection
day, could not but have extended into the second day of the week.[318]
“After eight days” from this meeting, if made to signify only one week,
necessarily carries us to the second day of the week. But a different
expression is used by the Spirit of inspiration when simply one week is
intended. “After seven days” is the chosen term of the Holy Spirit when
designating just one week.[319] “After eight days” most naturally implies
the ninth or tenth day;[320] but allowing it to mean the eighth day, it
fails to prove that this appearance of the Saviour was upon the first
day of the week. To sum up the argument: The first meeting of Jesus
with his disciples in the evening at the close of the first day of the
week was mainly if not wholly upon the second day of the week;[321] the
second meeting could not have been earlier in the week than the second or
third day, and the day seems to have been selected simply because that
Thomas was present; the third meeting was upon a fishing occasion; and
the fourth, was upon Thursday, when he ascended into Heaven. The argument
for first-day sacredness drawn from this text is eminently fitted to
the foundation of that sacredness already examined; and the institution
of the first-day Sabbath itself, unless formed of more substantial
frame-work than enters into its foundation, is at best only a castle in
the air.
The text which next enters into the fabric of first-day sacredness is the
following:—
“And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all
with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound
from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the
house where they were sitting.”[322]
This text is supposed to contribute an important pillar for the first-day
temple. On this wise it is furnished: The disciples were convened on this
occasion to celebrate the first-day Sabbath, and the Holy Spirit was
poured out at that time in honor of that day. To this deduction there
are, however, the most serious objections. 1. That there is no evidence
that a first-day Sabbath was then in existence. 2. That there is no
intimation that the disciples came together on this occasion for its
celebration. 3. Nor that the Holy Spirit was then poured out in honor of
the first day of the week. 4. That from the ascension of Jesus until the
day of the Spirit’s outpouring, the disciples had continued in prayer
and supplication, so that their being convened on this day was nothing
materially different from what had been the case for the past ten or more
days.[323] 5. That had the sacred writer designed to show that a certain
day of the week was honored by the events narrated, he would doubtless
have stated that fact, and named that day. 6. That Luke was so far from
naming the day of the week that it is even now a disputed point; eminent
first-day authors[324] even asserting that the day of Pentecost that year
came upon the _seventh_ day. 7. That the one great event which the Holy
Spirit designed to mark was the antitype of the feast of Pentecost; the
day of the week on which that should occur being wholly immaterial. How
widely, therefore, do those err who reverse this order, making the day
of the week, which the Holy Spirit has not even named, but which they
assume to be the first day, the thing of chief importance, and passing in
silence over that fact which the Holy Spirit has so carefully noted, that
this event took place upon the day of Pentecost. The conclusion to which
these facts lead is inevitable; viz., that the pillar furnished from this
text for the first-day temple is like the foundation of that edifice,
simply a thing of the imagination, and quite worthy of a place beside
the pillar furnished from the record of our Lord’s second appearance to
his disciples.
A third pillar for the first-day edifice is the following: Redemption
is greater than creation; therefore the day of Christ’s resurrection
should be observed instead of the day of the Creator’s rest. But this
proposition is open to the fatal objection that the Bible says nothing
of the kind.[325] Who then knows that it is true? When the Creator
gave existence to our world, did he not foresee the fall of man? And,
foreseeing that fall, did he not entertain the purpose of redeeming man?
And does it not follow that the purpose of redemption was entertained in
that of creation? Who then can affirm that redemption is greater than
creation?
But as the Scriptures do not decide this point, let it be assumed that
redemption is the greater. Who knows that a day should be set apart for
its commemoration? The Bible says nothing on the point. But granting
that a day should be set apart for this purpose, what day should have
the preference? Is it said, That day on which redemption was finished?
It is not true that redemption is finished; the resurrection of the
saints and the redemption of our earth from the curse are included in
that work.[326] But granting that redemption should be commemorated
before it is finished, by setting apart a day in its honor, the question
again arises, What day shall it be? The Bible is silent in reply. If
the most memorable day in the history of redemption should be selected,
undoubtedly the day of the crucifixion, on which the price of human
redemption was paid, must have the preference. Which is the more
memorable day, that on which the infinite Law-giver gave up his only and
well-beloved Son to die an ignominious death for a race of rebels who
had broken his law, or that day on which he restored that beloved Son to
life? The latter event, though of thrilling interest, is the most natural
thing in the world; the crucifixion of the Son of God for sinful men may
be safely pronounced the most wonderful event in the annals of eternity.
The crucifixion day is therefore beyond all comparison the more memorable
day. And that redemption itself is asserted of the crucifixion rather
than of the resurrection is an undoubted fact. Thus it is written:—
“In whom we have redemption through his blood;” “Christ hath
redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for
us, for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a
tree;” “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy
blood.”[327]
If, therefore, any day should be observed in memory of redemption,
unquestionably the day of the crucifixion should have the preference.
But it is needless to pursue this point further. Whether the day of the
crucifixion or the day of the resurrection should be preferred is quite
immaterial. The Holy Spirit has said nothing in behalf of either of these
days, but it has taken care that the _event_ in each case should have
its own appropriate memorial. Would you commemorate the crucifixion of
the Redeemer? You need not change the Sabbath to the crucifixion day.
It would be a presumptuous sin in you to do this. Here is the divinely
appointed memorial of the crucifixion:—
“The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took
bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said,
Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in
remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup,
when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my
blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do
shew the Lord’s death till he come.”[328]
It is the death of the Redeemer, therefore, and not the day of his death
that the Holy Spirit has thought worthy of commemoration. Would you also
commemorate the resurrection of the Redeemer? You need not change the
Sabbath of the Bible for that purpose. The great Law-giver has never
authorized such an act. But an appropriate memorial of that event has
been ordained:—
“Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried
with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised
up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also
should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted
together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the
likeness of his resurrection.”[329]
To be buried in the watery grave as our Lord was buried in the tomb,
and to be raised from the water to walk in newness of life, as our Lord
was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, is the divinely
authorized memorial of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And let it be
observed, it is not the day of the resurrection, but the resurrection
itself, that was thought worthy of commemoration. The events which lie at
the foundation of redemption are the death, burial, and resurrection, of
the Redeemer. Each of these has its appropriate memorial; while the days
on which they severally occurred have no importance attached to them. It
was the death of the Redeemer, and not the day of his death, that was
worthy of commemoration; and hence the Lord’s supper was appointed for
that purpose. It was the resurrection of the Saviour, and not the day of
the resurrection, that was worthy of commemoration; and hence burial in
baptism was ordained as its memorial. It is the change of this memorial
to sprinkling that has furnished so plausible a plea for first-day
observance in memory of the resurrection.
To celebrate the work of redemption by resting from labor on the first
day of the week after six days of toil, it should be true that our
Lord accomplished the work of human redemption in the six days prior
to that of his resurrection, and that he rested on that day from the
work, blessing it, and setting it apart for that reason. Yet not one of
these particulars is true. Our Lord’s whole life was devoted to this
work. He rested temporarily from it indeed over the Sabbath following
his crucifixion, but resumed the work on the morning of the first day of
the week, which he has never since relinquished, and never will, until
its perfect accomplishment in the resurrection of the saints and the
redemption of the purchased possession. Redemption, therefore, furnishes
no plea for a change of the Sabbath; its own memorials being quite
sufficient, without destroying that of the great Creator. And thus the
third pillar in the temple of first-day sacredness, like the other parts
of that structure which have been already examined, is found to be a
thing of the imagination only.
A fourth pillar in this temple is taken from an ancient prophecy in which
it is claimed that the Christian Sabbath was foretold:—
“The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone
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.”[330]
This text is considered one of the strongest testimonies in support of
the Christian Sabbath. Yet it is necessary to assume the very points
that this text is supposed to prove. 1. It is assumed that the Saviour
became the head of the corner by his resurrection. 2. That the day of
his resurrection was made the Christian Sabbath in commemoration of
that event. 3. And that this day thus ordained should be celebrated by
abstinence from labor, and attendance upon divine worship.
To these extraordinary assumptions it is proper to reply: 1. There is
no proof that Jesus became the head of the corner on the day of his
resurrection. The Scriptures do not mark the day when this event took
place. His being made head of the corner has reference to his becoming
the chief corner stone of that spiritual temple composed of his people;
in other words, it has reference to his becoming head of that living
body, the saints of the Most High. It does not appear that he assumed
this position until his ascension on high, where he became the chief
corner stone in Zion above, elect and precious.[331] And hence there
is no evidence that the first day of the week is even referred to in
this text. 2. Nor is there the slightest evidence that that day or any
other day was set apart as the Christian Sabbath in memory of Christ’s
resurrection. 3. Nor can there well be found a more extraordinary
assumption than that this text enjoins the Sabbatic observance of the
first day of the week!
This scripture has manifest reference to the Saviour’s act of becoming
the head of the New-Testament church; and consequently it pertains to
the opening of the gospel dispensation. The day in which the people of
God rejoice, in view of this relation to the Redeemer, can therefore be
understood of no one day of the week; for they are commanded to “rejoice
EVERMORE;”[332] but of the whole period of the gospel dispensation. Our
Lord uses the word day in the same manner when he says:—
“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and
was glad.”[333]
To assert the existence of what is termed the Christian Sabbath on the
ground that this text is the prediction of such an institution, is to
furnish a fourth pillar for the first-day temple quite as substantial as
those already tested.
The seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy extends three and a half years
beyond the death of the Redeemer, to the commencement of the great work
for the Gentiles. This period of seven years through which we have been
passing is the most eventful period in the history of the Sabbath. It
embraces the whole history of the Lord of the Sabbath as connected with
that institution: His miracles and teaching, by which it is affirmed
that he weakened its authority; his death, at which many affirm that
he abrogated it; and his resurrection, at which a still larger number
declare that he changed it to the first day of the week. We have had the
most ample evidence, however, that each of these positions is false; and
that the opening of the great work for the Gentiles witnessed the Sabbath
of the fourth commandment neither weakened, abrogated, nor changed.
CHAPTER XI.
THE SABBATH DURING THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLES.
The knowledge of God preserved in the family of Abraham—The
call of the Gentiles—The new covenant puts the law of God into
the heart of each Christian—The new covenant has a temple in
Heaven; and an ark containing the great original of that law
which was in the ark upon earth—And before that ark a priest
whose offering can take away sin—The Old and New Testaments
compared—The human family in all ages amenable to the law of
God—The good olive tree shows the intimate relation between the
church of the New Testament and the Hebrew church—The apostolic
church observed the Sabbath—Examination of Acts 13—The assembly
of the apostles at Jerusalem—Sabbatarian origin of the church
at Philippi—Of the church of the Thessalonians—Of the church
of Corinth—The churches in Judea and in many cases among the
Gentiles began with Sabbath-keepers—Examination of 1 Cor. 16:1,
2—Self-contradiction of Dr. Edwards—Paul at Troas—Examination
of Rom. 14:1-6—Flight of the disciples from Judea—The Sabbath
of the Bible at the close of the first century.
We have now traced the Sabbath through the period of its especial
connection with the family of Abraham. The termination of the seventy
weeks brings us to the call of the Gentiles, and to their admission to
equal privileges with the Hebrew race. We have seen that with God there
was no injustice in conferring especial blessings upon the Hebrews, and
at the same time leaving the Gentiles to their own chosen ways.[334]
Twice had he given the human family, as a whole, the most ample means
of grace that their age of the world admitted, and each time did it
result in the almost total apostasy of mankind. Then God selected as
his heritage the family of Abraham, his friend; and by means of that
family preserved in the earth the knowledge of his law, his Sabbath, and
himself, until the coming of the great Messiah. During his ministry, the
Messiah solemnly affirmed the perpetuity of his Father’s law, enjoining
obedience, even to its least commandment;[335] at his death he broke
down that middle wall of partition[336] by which the Hebrews had so long
been preserved a separate people in the earth; and when about to ascend
into Heaven commanded his disciples to go into all the world and preach
the gospel to every creature; teaching them to observe all things which
he had commanded them.[337] With the expiration of the seventieth week,
the apostles enter upon the execution of this great commission to the
Gentiles.[338] Several facts of deep interest should here be noticed:—
1. The new covenant or testament dates from the death of the Redeemer.
In accordance with the prediction of Jeremiah, it began with the Hebrews
alone, and was confined exclusively to them until the expiration of the
seventieth week. Then the Gentiles were admitted to a full participation
with the Hebrews in its blessings, being no longer aliens and foreigners,
but fellow-citizens with the saints.[339] God entered into covenant this
time with his people as individuals and not as a nation. The promises of
this covenant embrace two points of great interest: (1) That God will
put his law into the hearts of his people. (2) That he will forgive their
sins. These promises being made six hundred years before the birth of
Christ, there can be no question relative to what was meant by the law
of God. It was the law of God then in existence that should be put into
the heart of each new-covenant saint. The new covenant, then, is based
upon the perpetuity of the law of God; it does not abrogate that law, but
takes away sin, the transgression of the law, from the heart, and puts
the law of God in its place.[340] The perpetuity of each precept of the
moral law lies, therefore, at the very foundation of the new covenant.
2. As the first covenant had a sanctuary, and within that sanctuary an
ark containing the law of God in ten commandments,[341] and had also
a priesthood to minister before that ark, to make atonement for the
sins of men,[342] even thus is it with the new covenant. Instead of the
tabernacle erected by Moses as the pattern of the true, the new covenant
has the greater and more perfect tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and
not man—the temple of God in Heaven.[343] As the great central point
in the earthly sanctuary was the ark containing that law which man had
broken, even thus it is with the heavenly sanctuary. “The temple of God
was opened in Heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his
testament.”[344] Our Lord Jesus Christ as a great High Priest presents
his own blood before the ark of God’s testament in the temple in Heaven.
Respecting this object before which he ministers, let the following
points be noted:—
1. The ark in the heavenly temple is not empty; it contains the testament
of God; and hence it is the great center of the sanctuary above, as the
ark of God’s testament was the center of the sanctuary on earth.[345]
2. The death of the Redeemer for the sins of men, and his work as High
Priest before the ark in Heaven, have direct reference to the fact that
within that ark is the law which mankind have broken.
3. As the atonement and priesthood of Christ have reference to the law
within that ark before which he ministers, it follows that this law
existed and was transgressed before the Saviour came down to die for men.
4. And hence, the law contained in the ark above is not a law which
originated in the New Testament; for it necessarily existed long anterior
to it.
5. If, therefore, God has revealed this law to mankind, that revelation
must be sought in the Old Testament. For while the New Testament makes
many references to that law which caused the Saviour to lay down his life
for sinful men, and even quotes from it, it never publishes a second
edition, but cites us to the Old Testament for the original code.[346]
6. It follows, therefore, that this law is revealed, and that this
revelation is to be found in the Old Testament.
7. In that volume will be found, (1) The descent of the Holy One upon
Mount Sinai; (2) The proclamation of his law in ten commandments; (3) The
ten commandments written by the finger of God upon two tables of stone;
(4) These tables placed beneath the mercy-seat in the ark of the earthly
sanctuary.[347]
8. That this remarkable Old-Testament law which was shut up in the ark
of the earthly sanctuary was identical with that in the ark in Heaven,
may be thus shown: (1) The mercy-seat which was placed over the ten
commandments was the place from which pardon was expected, the great
central point in the work of atonement;[348] (2) The law beneath the
mercy-seat was that which made the work of atonement necessary; (3)
There was no atonement that could take away sins; it was only a shadowy
or typical atonement; (4) But there was actual sin, and hence a real
law which man had broken; (5) There must therefore be an atonement that
can take away sins; and that real atonement must pertain to that law
which was broken, and respecting which an atonement had been shadowed
forth.[349] (6) The ten commandments are thus set forth in the Old
Testament as that law which demanded an atonement; while the fact is ever
kept in view that those sacrifices there provided could not avail to
take away sins.[350] (7) But the death of Jesus as the antitype of those
sacrifices, was designed to accomplish precisely what they shadowed
forth, but which they could not effect, viz., to make atonement for
the transgression of that law which was placed in the ark beneath the
mercy-seat.[351]
We are thus brought to the conclusion that the law of God contained in
the ark in Heaven is identical with that law which was contained in the
ark upon earth; and that both are identical with that law which the new
covenant puts in the heart of each believer.[352] The Old Testament,
therefore, gives us the law of God and pronounces it perfect; it also
provides a typical atonement, but pronounces it inadequate to take away
sins.[353] Hence what was needed was not a new edition of the law of God;
for that which was given already was perfect; but a real atonement to
take away the guilt of the transgressor. So the New Testament responds
precisely to this want, providing a real atonement in the death and
intercession of the Redeemer, but giving no new edition of the law of
God,[354] though it fails not to cite us to the perfect code given long
before. But although the New Testament does not give a new edition of the
law of God, it does show that the Christian dispensation has the great
original of that law in the sanctuary in Heaven.
9. We have seen that the new covenant places the law of God in the heart
of each believer, and that the original of that law is preserved in the
temple in Heaven. That all mankind are amenable to the law of God, and
that they ever have been, is clearly shown by Paul’s epistle to the
Romans. In the first chapter, he traces the origin of idolatry to the
willful apostasy of the Gentiles, which took place soon after the flood.
In the second chapter, he shows that although God gave them up to their
own ways, and as a consequence left them without his written law, yet
they were not left in utter darkness; for they had by nature the work
of the law written in their hearts; and dim as was this light, their
salvation would be secured by living up to it, or their ruin accomplished
by sinning against it. In the third chapter, he shows what advantage
the family of Abraham had in being taken as the heritage of God, while
all other nations were left to their own ways. It was that the oracles
of God, the written law, was given them in addition to that work of the
law written in the heart, which they had by nature in common with the
Gentiles. He then shows that they were no better than the Gentiles,
because that both classes were transgressors of the law. This he proves
by quotations from the Old Testament. Then he shows that the law of God
has jurisdiction over all mankind:—
“Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to
them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped,
and all the world may become guilty before God.”[355]
He then shows that the law cannot save the guilty, but must condemn them,
and that justly. Next, he reveals the great fact that redemption through
the death of Jesus is the only means by which God can justify those who
seek pardon, and at the same time remain just himself. And finally he
exclaims:—
“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea,
we establish the law.”[356]
It follows, therefore, that the law of God is unabolished; that the
sentence of condemnation which it pronounces upon the guilty is as
extensive as is the offer of pardon through the gospel; that its work
exists in the hearts of men by nature; from which we may conclude
that man in his uprightness possessed it in perfection, as is further
proved by the fact that the new covenant, after delivering men from
the condemnation of the law of God, puts that law perfectly into their
hearts. From all of which it follows that the law of God is the great
standard by which sin is shown,[357] and hence the rule of life, by which
all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, should walk.
That the church in the present dispensation is really a continuation of
the ancient Hebrew church, is shown by the illustration of the good olive
tree. That ancient church was God’s olive tree, and that olive tree has
never been destroyed.[358] Because of unbelief, _some_ of its branches
were broken off; but the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles does
not create a new olive tree; it only grafts into the good olive tree
such of the Gentiles as believe; giving them a place among the original
branches, that with them they may partake of its root and fatness.
This olive tree must date from the call of Abraham after the apostasy
of the Gentiles; its trunk representing the patriarchs, beginning with
the father of the faithful;[359] its branches, the Hebrew people. The
ingrafting of the wild olive into the place of those branches which were
broken off, represents the admission of the Gentiles to equal privileges
with the Hebrews after the expiration of the seventy weeks. The
Old-Testament church, the original olive tree, was a kingdom of priests
and an holy nation; the New-Testament church, the olive tree after the
ingrafting of the Gentiles, is described in the same terms.[360]
When God gave up the Gentiles to apostasy before the call of Abraham, he
confounded their language, that they should not understand one another,
and thus scattered them abroad upon the face of the earth. Standing over
against this is the gift of tongues on the day of Pentecost, preparatory
to the call of the Gentiles, and their ingrafting into the good olive
tree.[361]
We have followed the Sabbath to the call of the Gentiles, and the opening
events of the gospel dispensation. We find the law of God, of which the
Sabbath is a part, to be that which made our Lord’s death as an atoning
sacrifice necessary; and that the great original of that law is in the
ark above, before which our Lord ministers as high priest; while a copy
of that law is by the new covenant written within the heart of each
believer. It is seen, therefore, that the law of God is more intimately
connected with the people of God since the death of the Redeemer than
before that event.
That the apostolic church did sacredly regard the Sabbath, as well as
all the other precepts of the moral law, admits of no doubt. The fact
is proved, not merely because the early Christians were not accused of
its violation by their most inveterate enemies; nor wholly by the fact
that they held sin to be the transgression of the law, and that the
law was the great standard by which sin is shown, and that by which sin
becomes exceeding sinful.[362] These points are certainly very decisive
evidence that the apostolic church did keep the fourth commandment. The
testimony of James relative to the ten commandments, that he who violates
one of them becomes guilty of all, is yet another strong evidence that
the primitive church did sacredly regard the whole law of God.[363] But
besides these facts we have a peculiar guaranty that the Sabbath of the
Lord was not forgotten by the apostolic church. The prayer which our Lord
taught his disciples, that their flight from Judea should not be upon the
Sabbath was, as we have seen, designed to impress its sacredness deeply
upon their minds, and could not but have secured that result.[364] In the
history of the primitive church we have several important references to
the Sabbath. The first of these is as follows:—
“But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in
Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and
sat down.”[365]
By invitation of the rulers of the synagogue, Paul delivered an extended
address, proving that Jesus was the Christ. In the course of these
remarks he used the following language:—
“For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because
they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are
read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning
him.”[366]
When Paul’s discourse was concluded, we read:—
“And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles
besought that these words might be preached to them the next
Sabbath.[367] Now when the congregation was broken up, many of
the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas:
who speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace
of God. And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city
together to hear the word of God.”[368]
These texts show, 1. That by the term Sabbath in the book of Acts is
meant that day on which the Jewish people assembled in the synagogue
to listen to the voices of the prophets. 2. That as this discourse was
fourteen years after the resurrection of Christ, and the record of it
by Luke was some thirty years after that event, it follows that the
alleged change of the Sabbath at the resurrection of Christ had not,
even after many years, come to the knowledge of either Luke or Paul.
3. That here was a remarkable opportunity to mention the change of the
Sabbath, had it been true that the Sabbath had been changed in honor of
Christ’s resurrection. For when Paul was asked to preach the same words
the next Sabbath, he might have answered that the following day was now
the proper day for divine worship. And Luke, in placing this incident
upon record, could not well avoid the mention of this new day, had it
been true that another day had become the Sabbath of the Lord. 4. That
as this second meeting pertained almost wholly to Gentiles, it cannot be
said in this case that Paul preached upon the Sabbath out of regard to
the Jews. On the contrary, the narrative strongly indicates Paul’s regard
for the Sabbath as the proper day for divine worship. 5. Nor can it be
denied that the Sabbath was well understood by the Gentiles in this city,
and that they had some degree of regard for it, a fact which will be
corroborated by other texts.
Several years after these things, the apostles assembled at Jerusalem
to consider the question of circumcision.[369] “Certain men which came
down from Judea,” finding the Gentiles uncircumcised, had “taught the
brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses
ye cannot be saved.” Had they found the Gentiles neglecting the Sabbath;
unquestionably this would have first called out their rebuke. It is
indeed worthy of notice that no dispute at this time existed in the
church relative to the observance of the Sabbath; for none was brought
before this apostolic assembly. Yet had it been true that the change of
the Sabbath was then advocated, or that Paul had taught the Gentiles to
neglect the Sabbath, without doubt those who brought up the question
of circumcision would have urged that of the Sabbath with even greater
earnestness. That the law of Moses, the observance of which was under
discussion in this assembly, is not the ten commandments, is evident
from several decisive facts. 1. Because that Peter calls the code under
consideration a _yoke_ which neither their fathers nor themselves were
able to bear. But James expressly calls that royal law, which, on his
own showing, embodies the ten commandments, a law of liberty. 2. Because
that this assembly did decide against the authority of the law of Moses;
and yet James, who was a member of this body, did some years afterward
solemnly enjoin obedience to the commandments, affirming that he who
violated one was guilty of all.[370] 3. Because the chief feature in the
law of Moses as here presented was circumcision.[371] But circumcision
was not in the ten commandments; and were it true that the law of Moses
includes these commandments, circumcision would not in that case be a
chief feature of that law. 4. Finally, because that the precepts still
declared obligatory are not properly either of the ten commandments.
These were, first, the prohibition of meats offered to idols; second,
of blood; third, of things strangled; and fourth, of fornication.[372]
Each of these precepts may be often found in the books of Moses,[373] and
the first and last ones come under the second and seventh commandments
respectively; but neither of these cover but a part of that which is
forbidden in either commandment. It is evident, therefore, that the
authority of the ten commandments was not under consideration in this
assembly, and that the decision of that assembly had no relation to
those precepts. For otherwise the apostles released the Gentiles from
all obligation to eight of the ten commandments, and from the greater
prohibitions contained in the other two.
It is evident that those greatly err who represent the Gentiles as
released from the obligation of the Sabbath by this assembly. The
question did not come before the apostles on this occasion; a strong
proof that the Gentiles had not been taught to neglect the Sabbath,
as they had to omit circumcision, which was the occasion of its being
brought before the apostles at Jerusalem. Yet the Sabbath was referred
to in this very assembly as an existing institution, and that, too,
in connection with the Gentile Christians. Thus when James pronounced
sentence upon the question, he used the following language:—
“Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which
from among the Gentiles are turned to God; but that we write
unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and
from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him,
being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.”[374]
This last fact is given by James as a reason for the course proposed
toward the brethren among the Gentiles. “For Moses of old time hath in
every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every
Sabbath day.” From this it is apparent that the ancient custom of divine
worship upon the Sabbath was not only preserved by the Jewish people and
carried with them into every city of the Gentiles, but that the Gentile
Christians did attend these meetings. Otherwise the reason assigned by
James would lose all its force, as having no application to this case.
That they did attend them strongly attests the Sabbath as the day of
divine worship with the Gentile churches.
That the ancient Sabbath of the Lord had neither been abrogated nor
changed prior to this meeting of the apostles, is strongly attested by
the nature of the dispute here adjusted. And the close of their assembly
beheld the Bible Sabbath still sacredly enthroned within the citadel of
the fourth commandment. After this, in a vision of the night, Paul was
called to visit Macedonia. In obedience to this call he came to Philippi,
which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia. Thus Luke records the
visit:—
“And we were in that city abiding certain days. And on the
Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer
was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women
which resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a
seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshiped God,
heard us; whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto
the things which were spoken of Paul.”[375]
This does not appear to have been a gathering of Jews, but of Gentiles,
who, like Cornelius, were worshipers of the true God. Thus it is seen
that the church of the Philippians originated with a pious assembly of
Sabbath-keeping Gentiles. And it is likely that Lydia and those employed
by her in business, who were evidently observers of the Sabbath, were the
means of introducing the gospel into their own city of Thyatira.
“Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia,
they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews.
And Paul, as his manner was,[376] went in unto them, and three
Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.... And
some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and
of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women
not a few.”[377]
Such was the origin of the Thessalonian church. That it was an assembly
of Sabbath-keepers at its beginning admits of no doubt. For besides the
few Jews who received the gospel through the labors of Paul, there was
a great multitude of devout Greeks; that is, of Gentiles who had united
themselves with the Jews in the worship of God upon the Sabbath. We have
a strong proof of the fact that they continued to observe the Sabbath
after their reception of the gospel in the following words of Paul
addressed to them as a church of Christ:—
“For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God
which in Judea are in Christ Jesus.”[378]
The churches in Judea, as we have seen, were observers of the Sabbath
of the Lord. The first Thessalonian converts, before they received the
gospel, were Sabbath-keepers, and when they became a Christian church
they adopted the churches in Judea as their proper examples. And this
church was adopted as an example by the churches of Macedonia and Achaia.
In this number were included the churches of Philippi and of Corinth.
Thus writes Paul:—
“And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having
received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy
Ghost; so that ye were ensamples to all that believe in
Macedonia and Achaia. For from you sounded out the word of the
Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every
place your faith to Godward is spread abroad.”[379]
After these things, Paul came to Corinth. Here, he first found Aquila and
Priscilla.
“And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them and
wrought; for by their occupation they were tent-makers. And he
reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews
and the Greeks.”[380]
At this place also Paul found Gentiles as well as Jews in attendance
upon the worship of God on the Sabbath. The first members of the church
at Corinth were therefore observers of the Sabbath at the time when they
received the gospel; and, as we have seen, they adopted as their pattern
the Sabbath-keeping church of Thessalonica, who in turn patterned after
the churches in Judea.
The first churches were founded in the land of Judea. All their members
had from childhood been familiar with the law of God, and well understood
the precept, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Besides this
precept, all these churches had a peculiar memento of the Sabbath. They
knew from our Lord himself that the time was coming when they must all
suddenly flee from that land. And in view of this fact, they were to pray
that the moment of their sudden flight might not be upon the Sabbath; a
prayer which was designed, as we have seen, to preserve the sacredness of
the Sabbath. That the churches in Judea were composed of Sabbath-keeping
members, admits therefore of no doubt.
Of the churches founded outside the land of Judea, whose origin is
given in the book of Acts, nearly all began with Jewish converts.
These were Sabbath-keepers when they received the gospel. Among these,
the Gentile converts were engrafted. And it is worthy of notice that
in a large number of cases, those Gentiles are termed “devout Greeks,”
“religious proselytes,” persons that “worshiped God,” that feared God and
that “prayed to God alway.”[381] These Gentiles, at the time of their
conversion to the gospel, were, as we have seen, worshipers of God upon
the Sabbath with the Jewish people. When James had proposed the kind of
letter that should be addressed by the apostles to the Gentile converts,
he assigned a reason for its adoption, the force of which can now be
appreciated: “For Moses,” said he, “of old time hath in EVERY CITY them
that preach him, being read in the synagogue every Sabbath day.” The
Sabbatarian character of the apostolic churches is thus clearly shown.
In a letter addressed to the Corinthians, about five years after they had
received the gospel, Paul is supposed to contribute a fifth pillar to the
first-day temple. Thus he wrote them:—
“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given
order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 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.”[382]
From this text it is argued in behalf of the first-day Sabbath, 1. That
this was a public collection. 2. That hence the first day of the week
was the day of public worship in the churches of Corinth and Galatia. 3.
And therefore that the Sabbath had been changed to that day. Thus the
change of the Sabbath is inferred from the public assemblies for divine
worship on the first day at Corinth and Galatia; and the existence of
these assemblies on that day is inferred from the words of Paul, “Upon
the first day of the week, let every one of you lay _by him_ in store.”
What, then, do these words ordain? But one answer can be returned:
They ordain precisely the _reverse_ of a public collection. Each one
should lay by himself on each first day of the week according as God had
prospered him, that when Paul should arrive, they might have their bounty
ready. Mr. J. W. Morton, late Presbyterian missionary to Hayti, bears the
following testimony:—
“The whole question turns upon the meaning of the expression,
‘by him;’ and I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it
means ‘in the collection box of the congregation.’ Greenfield,
in his Lexicon, translates the Greek term, ‘_With one’s self,
i. e., at home_.’ Two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that
of Castellio, render it, ‘_apud se_,’ with one’s self; at
home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald,
and De Sacy, ‘_chez soi_,’ at his own house; at home. The
German of Luther, ‘_bei sich selbst_,’ by himself; at home.
The Dutch, ‘_by hemselven_,’ same as the German. The Italian
of Diodati, ‘_appresso di se_,’ in his own presence; at home.
The Spanish of Felippe Scio, ‘_en su casa_,’ in his own house.
The Portuguese of Ferreira, ‘_para isso_,’ with himself. The
Swedish, ‘_nær sig self_,’ near himself.”[383]
Dr. Bloomfield thus comments on the original: “παρ ἑαυτῶ, ‘by him.’
French, _chez lui_, ‘at home.’”[384]
The Douay Bible reads: “Let every one of you put apart with himself.”
Mr. Sawyer thus translates: “Let each one of you lay aside by himself.”
Theodore Beza’s Latin version has it: “_Apud se_,” _i.e._, at home. The
Syriac reads thus: “Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at home.”
It is true that an eminent first-day writer, Justin Edwards, D. D., in a
labored effort to prove the change of the Sabbath, brings forward this
text to show that Sunday was the day of religious worship with the early
church. Thus he says:—
“This laying by in store was NOT laying by AT HOME; for that
would not prevent gatherings when he should come.”[385]
Such is his language as a theologian upon whom has fallen the difficult
task of proving the change of the Sabbath by the authority of the
Scriptures. But in his Notes on the New Testament, in which he feels at
liberty to speak the truth, he thus squarely contradicts his own language
already quoted. Thus he comments on this text:—
“Lay by him in store; AT HOME. That there be no gatherings;
that their gifts might be ready when the apostle should
come.”[386]
Thus even Dr. Edwards confesses that the idea of a public collection
is not found in this scripture. On the contrary, it appears that each
individual, in obedience to this precept, would, at the opening of each
new week, be found AT HOME laying aside something for the cause of
God, according as his worldly affairs would warrant. The change of the
Sabbath, as proved by this text, rests wholly upon an idea which Dr.
Edwards confesses is not found in it. We have seen that the church at
Corinth was a Sabbath-keeping church. It is evident that the change of
the Sabbath could never have been suggested to them by this text.
This is the only scripture in which Paul even mentions the first day of
the week. It was written nearly thirty years after the alleged change of
the Sabbath. Yet Paul omits all titles of sacredness, simply designating
it as first day of the week; a name to which it was entitled as one of
“the six working days.”[387] It is also worthy of notice that this is the
only precept in the Bible in which the first day is even named; and that
this precept says nothing relative to the sacredness of the day to which
it pertains; even the duty which it enjoins being more appropriate to a
secular than to a sacred day.
Soon after writing his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul visited
Troas. In the record of this visit occurs the last instance in which the
first day of the week is mentioned in the New Testament:—
“And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened
bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days;[388] where
we abode seven days. 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. And there were many lights in the upper
chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in
a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into
a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down
with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken
up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing
him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When
he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and
eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he
departed. And they brought the young man alive, and were not
a little comforted. And we went before to ship, and sailed
unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so had he
appointed, minding himself to go afoot.”[389]
This scripture is supposed to furnish a sixth pillar for the first-day
temple. The argument may be concisely stated thus: This testimony shows
that the first day of the week was appropriated by the apostolic church
to meetings for the breaking of bread in honor of Christ’s resurrection
upon that day; from which it is reasonable to conclude that this day had
become the Christian Sabbath.
If this proposition could be established as an undoubted truth, the
change of the Sabbath would not follow as a necessary conclusion; it
would even then amount only to a plausible conjecture. The following
facts will aid us in judging of the truthfulness of this argument for the
change of the Sabbath. 1. That this is the only instance of a religious
meeting upon the first day of the week recorded in the New Testament. 2.
That no stress can be laid upon the expression, “_when_ the disciples
came together,” as proving that meetings for the purpose of breaking
bread were held on each first day of the week; for there is nothing in
the original answering to the word “_when_;” the whole phrase being
translated from three words, the perfect passive participle συνηγμένων,
“being assembled,” and τῶν μαθητῶν, “the disciples;” the sacred writer
simply stating the gathering of the disciples on this occasion.[390] 3.
That the ordinance of breaking bread was not appointed to commemorate
the resurrection of Christ, but to keep in memory his death upon the
cross.[391] The act of breaking bread therefore upon the first day of the
week, is not a commemoration of Christ’s resurrection. 4. That as the
breaking of bread commemorates our Lord’s crucifixion, and was instituted
on the evening with which the crucifixion day began, on which occasion
Jesus himself and all the apostles were present,[392] it is evident that
the day of the crucifixion presents greater claims to the celebration
of this ordinance than does the day of the resurrection. 5. But as our
Lord designated no day for this ordinance, and as the apostolic church
at Jerusalem are recorded to have celebrated it daily,[393] it is
evidently presumption to argue the change of the Sabbath from a single
instance of its celebration upon the first day of the week. 6. That this
instance of breaking bread upon first-day, was with evident reference
to the immediate and final departure of Paul. 7. For it is a remarkable
fact that this, the only instance of a religious meeting on the first
day recorded in the New Testament, was a night meeting. This is proved
by the fact that many lights were burning in that assembly, and that
Paul preached till midnight. 8. And from this fact follows the important
consequence that this first-day meeting was upon Saturday night.[394]
For the days of the week being reckoned from evening to evening, and
evening being at sunset,[395] it is seen that the first day of the week
begins Saturday night at sunset, and ends at sunset on Sunday. A night
meeting, therefore, upon the first day of the week could be only upon
Saturday night. 9. Paul therefore preached until midnight of Saturday
night—for the disciples held a night meeting at the close of the Sabbath,
because he was to leave in the morning—then being interrupted by the fall
of the young man, he went down and healed him, then went up and attended
to the breaking of bread; and at break of day, on Sunday morning, he
departed. 10. Thus are we furnished with conclusive evidence that Paul
and his companions resumed their journey toward Jerusalem on the morning
of the first day of the week; they taking ship to Assos, and he being
pleased to go on foot. This fact is an incidental proof of Paul’s regard
for the Sabbath, in that he waited till it was past before resuming his
journey; and it is a positive proof that he knew nothing of what in
modern times is called the Christian Sabbath. 11. This narrative was
written by Luke at least thirty years after the alleged change of the
Sabbath. It is worthy of note that Luke omits all titles of sacredness,
simply designating the day in question as the first day of the week.
This is in admirable keeping with the fact that in his gospel, when
recording the very event which is said to have changed the Sabbath,
he not only omits the slightest hint of that fact, but designates the
day itself by its secular title of first day of the week, and at the
same time designates the previous day as the Sabbath according to the
commandment.[396]
The same year that Paul visited Troas, he wrote as follows to the church
at Rome:—
“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful
disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things:
another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth
despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not
judge him that eateth; for God hath received him. Who art
thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master
he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up, for God
is able to make him stand. 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 unto 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.”[397]
These words have often been quoted to show that the observance of the
fourth commandment is now a matter of indifference; each individual being
at liberty to act his pleasure in the matter. So extraordinary a doctrine
should be thoroughly tested before being adopted. For as it pleased God
to ordain the Sabbath before the fall of man, and to give it a place in
his code of ten commandments, thus making it a part of that law to which
the great atonement relates; and as the Lord Jesus, during his ministry,
spent much time in explaining its merciful design, and took care to
provide against its desecration at the flight of his people from the land
of Judea, which was ten years in the future when these words were written
by Paul; and as the fourth commandment itself is expressly recognized
after the crucifixion of Christ; if, under these circumstances, we could
suppose it to be consistent with truth that the Most High should abrogate
the Sabbath, we certainly should expect that abrogation to be stated in
explicit language. Yet neither the Sabbath nor the fourth commandment are
here named. That they are not referred to in this language of Paul, the
following reasons will show:—
1. Such a view would make the observance of one of the ten commandments
a matter of indifference; whereas James shows that to violate one of
them is to transgress the whole.[398] 2. It directly contradicts what
Paul had previously written in this epistle; for in treating of the law
of ten commandments, he styles it holy, spiritual, just, and good; and
states that sin—the transgression of the law—by the commandment becomes
“EXCEEDING SINFUL.”[399] 3. Because that Paul in the same epistle affirms
the perpetuity of that law which caused our Lord to lay down his life for
sinful men;[400] which we have seen before was the ten commandments. 4.
Because that Paul in this case not only did not name the Sabbath and the
fourth commandment, but certainly was not treating of the moral law. 5.
Because that the topic under consideration which leads him to speak as he
does of the days in question was that of eating all kinds of food, or of
refraining from certain things. 6. Because that the fourth commandment
did not stand associated with precepts of such a kind, but with moral
laws exclusively.[401] 7. Because that in the ceremonial law, associated
with the precepts concerning meats, was a large number of festivals,
entirely distinct from the Sabbath of the Lord.[402] 8. Because that
the church of Rome, which began probably with those Jews that were
present from Rome on the day of Pentecost, had many Jewish members in its
communion, as may be gathered from the epistle itself;[403] and would
therefore be deeply interested in the decision of this question relative
to the ceremonial law; the Jewish members feeling conscientious in
observing its distinctions, the Gentile members feeling no such scruples:
hence the admirable counsel of Paul exactly meeting the case of both
classes. 9. Nor can the expression, “every day,” be claimed as decisive
proof that the Sabbath of the Lord is included. At the very time when
the Sabbath was formally committed to the Hebrews, just such expressions
were used, although only the six working days were intended. Thus it was
said: “The people shall go out and gather a certain rate _every_ day;”
and the narrative says, “They gathered it _every_ morning.” Yet when some
of them went out to gather on the Sabbath, God says, “How long refuse
ye to keep my commandments and my laws?”[404] The Sabbath being a great
truth, plainly stated and many times repeated, it is manifest that Paul,
in the expression, “every day,” speaks of the six working days, among
which a distinction had existed precisely coeval with that respecting
meats; and that he manifestly excepts that day which from the beginning
God had reserved unto himself. Just as when Paul quotes and applies to
Jesus the words of David, “All things are put under him,” he adds: “It
is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him.”[405]
10. And lastly, in the words of John, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s
day,”[406] written many years after this epistle of Paul, we have an
absolute proof that in the gospel dispensation one day is still claimed
by the Most High as his own.[407]
About ten years after this epistle was written, occurred the memorable
flight of all the people of God that were in the land of Judea. It was
not in the winter; for it occurred just after the feast of tabernacles,
some time in October. And it was not upon the Sabbath; for Josephus,
who speaks of the sudden withdrawal of the Roman army after it had,
by encompassing the city, given the very signal for flight which our
Lord promised his people, tells us that the Jews rushed out of the city
in pursuit of the retreating Romans, which was at the very time when
our Lord’s injunction of instant flight became imperative upon the
disciples. The historian does not intimate that the Jews thus pursued
the Romans upon the Sabbath, although he carefully notes the fact that a
few days previous to this event they did, in their rage, utterly forget
the Sabbath and rush out to fight the Romans upon that day. These
providential circumstances in the flight of the disciples being made
dependent upon their asking such interposition at the hand of God, it is
evident that the disciples did not forget the prayer which the Saviour
taught them relative to this event; and that, as a consequence, the
Sabbath of the Lord was not forgotten by them. And thus the Lord Jesus in
his tender care for his people and in his watchful care in behalf of the
Sabbath, showed that he was alike the Lord of his people and the Lord of
the Sabbath.[408]
Twenty-six years after the destruction of Jerusalem, the book of
Revelation was committed to the beloved disciple. It bears the following
deeply interesting date as to place and time:—
“I John, who also am your brother, and companion in
tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ,
was in THE ISLE that is called PATMOS, for the word of God, and
for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on THE
LORD’S DAY, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last; and, What
thou seest, write in a book.”[409]
This book is dated in the isle of Patmos, and upon the Lord’s day. The
place, the day, and the individual, have each a real existence, and not
merely a symbolical or mystical one. Thus John, almost at the close of
the first century, and long after those texts were written which are
now adduced to prove that no distinction in days exists, shows that the
Lord’s day has as real an existence, as has the isle of Patmos, or as had
the beloved disciple himself.
What day, then, is intended by this designation? Several answers have
been returned to this question. 1. It is the gospel dispensation. 2. It
is the day of Judgment. 3. It is the first day of the week. 4. It is the
Sabbath of the Lord. The first answer cannot be the true one; for it not
only renders the day a mystical term, but it involves the absurdity of
representing John as writing to Christians sixty-five years after the
death of Christ, that the vision which he had just had, was seen by him
in the gospel dispensation; as though it were possible for them to be
ignorant of the fact that if he had a vision at all he must have it in
the existing dispensation.
Nor can the second answer be admitted as the truth. For while it is
true that John might have a vision CONCERNING the day of Judgment, it
is impossible that he should have a vision ON that day when it was yet
future. If it be no more than an absurdity to represent John as dating
his vision in the isle of Patmos, on the gospel dispensation, it becomes
a positive untruth, if he is made to say that he was in vision at Patmos
on the day of Judgment.
The third answer, that the Lord’s day is the first day of the week, is
now almost universally received as the truth. The text under examination
is brought forward with an air of triumph as completing the temple of
first-day sacredness, and proving beyond all doubt that that day is
indeed the Christian Sabbath. Yet as we have examined this temple with
peculiar carefulness, we have discovered that the foundation on which it
rests is a thing of the imagination only; and that the pillars by which
it is supported exist only in the minds of those who worship at its
shrine. It remains to be seen whether the dome which is supposed to be
furnished by this text is more real than the pillars on which it rests.
That the first day of the week has no claim to the title of Lord’s day,
the following facts will show: 1. That, as this text does not define the
term Lord’s day, we must look elsewhere in the Bible for the evidence
that shows the first day to be entitled to such a designation. 2. That
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, the other sacred writers who mention the
day, use no other designation for it than first day of the week, a name
to which it was entitled as one of the six working days. Yet three of
these writers mention it at the very time when it is said to have become
the Lord’s day; and two of them mention it also some thirty years after
that event. 3. That while it is claimed that the Spirit of inspiration,
by simply leading John to use the term Lord’s day, though he did in no
wise connect the first day of the week therewith, did design to fix this
as the proper title of the first day of the week, it is a remarkable
fact that after John returned from the isle of Patmos he wrote his
gospel;[410] and in that gospel he twice mentioned the first day of the
week; yet in each of these instances where it is certain that first-day
is intended, no other designation is used than plain first day of the
week. This is a most convincing proof that John did not regard the first
day of the week as entitled to this name, or any other, expressive of
sacredness. 4. What still further decides the point against the first
day of the week is the fact that neither the Father nor the Son have
ever claimed the first day in any higher sense than they have each of
the six days given to man for labor. 5. And what completes the chain of
evidence against the claim of first day to this title is the fact that
the testimony adduced by first-day advocates to prove that it has been
adopted by the Most High in place of that day which he once claimed as
his, having been examined, is found to have no such meaning or intent.
In setting aside the third answer, also, as not being in accordance with
truth, the first day of the week may be properly dismissed with it, as
having no claim to our regard as a scriptural institution.[411]
That the Lord’s day is the Bible Sabbath, admits of clear and certain
proof. The argument stands thus: When God gave to man six days of the
week for labor, he did expressly reserve unto himself the seventh, on
which he placed his blessing in memory of his own act of resting upon
that day, and thenceforward, through the Bible, has ever claimed it
as his holy day. As he has never put away this sacred day and chosen
another, the Sabbath of the Lord is still his holy day. These facts may
be traced in the following scriptures. At the close of the Creator’s
rest, it is said:—
“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.”[412]
After the children of Israel had reached the wilderness of Sin, Moses
said to them on the sixth day:—
“To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.”[413]
In giving the ten commandments, the Law-giver thus stated his claim to
this day:—
“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 the seventh day: wherefore the Lord
blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”[414]
He gives to man the six days on which himself had labored; he reserves
as his own that day upon which he had rested from all his work. About
eight hundred years after this, God spoke by Isaiah as follows:—
“If thou turn away thy foot from THE SABBATH, from doing thy
pleasure on MY HOLY DAY, ... then shalt thou delight thyself in
the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of
the earth.”[415]
This testimony is perfectly explicit; the Lord’s day is the ancient
Sabbath of the Bible. The Lord Jesus puts forth the following claim:—
“The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.”[416]
Thus, whether it be the Father or the Son whose title is involved, the
only day that can be called “the Lord’s day” is the Sabbath of the
great Creator.[417] And here, at the close of the Bible history of the
Sabbath, two facts of deep interest are presented: 1. That John expressly
recognizes the existence of the Lord’s day at the very close of the first
century. 2. That it pleased the Lord of the Sabbath to place a signal
honor upon his own day in that he selected it as the one on which to give
that revelation to John, which himself alone had been worthy to receive
from the Father.
PART II—SECULAR HISTORY.
CHAPTER XII.
EARLY APOSTASY IN THE CHURCH.
General purity of the apostolic churches—Early decline of their
piety—False teachers arose in the church immediately after
the apostles—The great Romish apostasy began before the death
of Paul—An evil thing not rendered good by beginning in the
apostolic age—How to decide between truth and error—Age cannot
change the fables of men into the truth of God—Historical
testimony concerning the early development of the great
apostasy—Such an age no standard by which to correct the
Bible—Testimony of Bower relative to the traditions of this
age—Testimony of Dowling—Dr. Cumming’s opinion of the authority
of the fathers—Testimony of Adam Clarke—The church of Rome
has corrupted the writings of the fathers—Nature of tradition
illustrated—The two rules of faith which divide Christendom—The
first-day Sabbath can only be sustained by adopting the rule of
the Romanists.
The book of Acts is an inspired history of the church. During the period
which is embraced in its record, the apostles and their fellow-laborers
were upon the stage of action, and under their watchcare the churches of
Christ preserved, to a great extent, their purity of life and doctrine.
These apostolic churches are thus set forth as the proper examples for
all coming time. This book fitly connects the narratives of the four
evangelists with the apostolic epistles, and thus joins together the
whole New Testament. But when we leave the period embraced in this
inspired history, and the churches which were founded and governed
by inspired men, we enter upon altogether different times. There is,
unfortunately, great truth in the severe language of Gibbon:—
“The theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing
religion as she descended from Heaven, arrayed in her native
purity. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He
must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption,
which she contracted in a long residence upon earth, among a
weak and degenerate race of beings.”[418]
What says the book of Acts respecting the time immediately following the
labors of Paul? In addressing the elders of the Ephesian church, Paul
said:—
“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves
enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own
selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away
disciples after them.”[419]
It follows from this testimony that we are not authorized to receive
the teaching of any man simply because he lived immediately after the
apostolic age, or even in the days of the apostles themselves. Grievous
wolves were to enter the midst of the people of God, and of their own
selves were men to arise, speaking perverse things. If it be asked how
these are to be distinguished from the true servants of God, this is the
proper answer: Those who spoke and acted in accordance with the teachings
of the apostles were men of God; those who taught otherwise were of that
class who should speak perverse things to draw away disciples after them.
What say the apostolic epistles relative to this apostasy? To the
Thessalonians, it is written:—
“Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall
not come, except there come a falling away first, and that
man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth
and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that
is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of
God, showing himself that he is God.... For the mystery of
iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth will let,
until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked
be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit
of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his
coming.”[420]
To Timothy, in like manner, it is said:—
“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove,
rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine. For the
time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but
after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers,
having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from
the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”[421]
These texts are most explicit in predicting a great apostasy in the
church, and in stating the fact that that apostasy had already commenced.
The Romish church, the eldest in apostasy, prides itself upon its
apostolic character. In the language of Paul to the Thessalonians,
already quoted, that great Antichristian body may indeed find its claim
to an origin in apostolic times vindicated, but its apostolic character
most emphatically denied. And herein is found a striking illustration
of the fact that an evil thing is not rendered good by the accidental
circumstance of its originating in the days of the apostles. Every
thing, at its commencement, is either right or wrong. If right, it may be
known by its agreement with the divine standard. If wrong at its origin,
it can never cease to be such. Satan’s great falsehood which involved our
race in ruin has not yet become the truth, although six thousand years
have elapsed since it was uttered. Think of this, ye who worship at the
shrine of venerable error. When the fables of men obtained the place of
the truth of God, he was thereby dishonored. How, then, can he accept
obedience to them as any part of that pure devotion which he requires at
our hands? They that worship God must worship him in Spirit and in truth.
How many ages must pass over the fables of men before they become changed
into divine truth? That these predictions of the New Testament respecting
the great apostasy in the church were fully realized, the pages of
ecclesiastical history present ample proof. Mr. Dowling, in his History
of Romanism, bears the following testimony:—
“There is scarcely anything which strikes the mind of the
careful student of ancient ecclesiastical history with greater
surprise than the comparatively early period at which many of
the corruptions of Christianity, which are embodied in the
Romish system, took their rise; yet it is not to be supposed
that when the first originators of many of these unscriptural
notions and practices planted those germs of corruption, they
anticipated or even imagined they would ever grow into such a
vast and hideous system of superstition and error, as is that
of popery.... Each of the great corruptions of the latter ages
took its rise in a manner which it would be harsh to say was
deserving of strong reprehension.... The worship of images, the
invocation of saints, and the superstition of relics, were but
expansions of the natural feelings of veneration and affection
cherished toward the memory of those who had suffered and died
for the truth.”[422]
Robinson, author of the “History of Baptism,” bears the following
testimony:—
“Toward the latter end of the second century most of the
churches assumed a new form, the first simplicity disappeared;
and insensibly, as the old disciples retired to their graves,
their children along with new converts, both Jews and Gentiles,
came forward and new modeled the cause.”[423]
The working of the mystery of iniquity in the first centuries of the
Christian church is thus described by a recent writer:—
“During these centuries the chief corruptions of popery were
either introduced in principle, or the seeds of them so
effectually sown as naturally to produce those baneful fruits
which appeared so plentifully at a later period. In Justin
Martyr’s time, within fifty years of the apostolic age, the
cup was mixed with water, and a portion of the elements sent
to the absent. The bread, which at first was sent only to the
sick, was, in the time of Tertullian and Cyprian, carried home
by the people and locked up as a divine treasure for their
private use. At this time, too, the ordinance of the supper
was given to infants of the tenderest age, and was styled the
sacrifice of the body of Christ. The custom of praying for the
dead, Tertullian states, was common in the second century, and
became the universal practice of the following ages; so that it
came in the fourth century to be reckoned a kind of heresy to
deny the efficacy of it. By this time the invocation of saints,
the superstitious use of images, of the sign of the cross, and
of consecrated oil, were become established practices, and
pretended miracles were confidently adduced in proof of their
supposed efficacy. Thus did that mystery of iniquity, which was
already working in the time of the apostles, speedily after
their departure, spread its corruptions among the professors of
Christianity.”[424]
Neander speaks thus of the early introduction of image worship:—
“And yet, perhaps, religious images made their way from
domestic life into the churches, as early as the end of the
third century; and the walls of the churches were painted in
the same way.”[425]
The early apostasy of the professed church is a fact which rests upon
the authority of inspiration, not less than upon that of ecclesiastical
history. “The mystery of iniquity,” said Paul, “doth already work.” We
are constrained to marvel that so large a portion of the people of God
were _so soon_ removed from the grace of God unto another gospel.
What shall be said of those who go to this period of church history, and
even to later times, to correct their Bibles? Paul said that men would
rise in the very midst of the elders of the apostolic church, who would
speak perverse things, and that men would turn away their ears from the
truth, and would be turned unto fables. Are the traditions of this period
of sufficient importance to make void God’s word? The learned historian
of the popes, Archibald Bower, uses the following emphatic language:—
“To avoid being imposed upon, we ought to treat tradition as
we do a notorious and known liar, to whom we give no credit,
unless what he says is confirmed to us by some person of
undoubted veracity.... False and lying traditions are of
an early date, and the greatest men have, out of a pious
credulity, suffered themselves to be imposed upon by them.”[426]
Mr. Dowling bears a similar testimony:—
“‘The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of
Protestants!’ Nor is it of any account in the estimation of
the genuine Protestant _how early_ a doctrine originated, if
it is not found in the Bible. He learns from the New Testament
itself that there were errors in the time of the apostles, and
that their pens were frequently employed in combating those
errors. Hence, if a doctrine be propounded for his acceptance,
he asks, Is it to be found in the inspired word? Was it taught
by the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles?... More than this,
we will add, that though Cyprian, or Jerome, or Augustine,
or even the fathers of an earlier age, Tertullian, Ignatius,
or Irenæus, could be plainly shown to teach the unscriptural
doctrines and dogmas of Popery, which, however, is by no means
admitted, still the consistent Protestant would simply ask, Is
the doctrine to be found in the Bible? Was it taught by Christ
and his apostles?... He who receives a single doctrine upon the
mere authority of tradition, let him be called by what name he
will, by so doing steps down from the Protestant rock, passes
over the line which separates Protestantism from Popery, and
can give no valid reason why he should not receive all the
earlier doctrines and ceremonies of Romanism upon the same
authority.”[427]
Dr. Cumming of London thus speaks of the authority of the fathers of the
early church:—
“Some of these were distinguished for their genius, some for
their eloquence, a few for their piety, and too many for
their fanaticism and superstition. It is recorded by Dr.
Delahogue (who was Professor in the Roman Catholic College of
Maynooth), on the authority of Eusebius, that the fathers who
were really most fitted to be the luminaries of the age in
which they lived, were too busy in preparing their flocks for
martyrdom to commit anything to writing; and, therefore, by
the admission of this Roman Catholic divine, we have not the
full and fair exponent of the views of all the fathers of the
earlier centuries, but only of those who were most ambitious of
literary distinction, and least attentive to their charges....
The most devoted and pious of the fathers were busy teaching
their flocks; the more vain and ambitious occupied their time
in preparing treatises. If all the fathers who signalized
the age had committed their sentiments to writing, we might
have had a fair representation of the theology of the church
of the fathers; but as only a few have done so (many even of
their writings being mutilated or lost), and these not the
most devoted and spiritually minded, I contend that it is as
unjust to judge of the theology of the early centuries by
the writings of the few fathers who are its only surviving
representatives, as it would be to judge of the theology of the
nineteenth century by the sermons of Mr. Newman, the speeches
of Dr. Candlish, or the various productions of the late Edward
Irving.”[428]
Dr. Adam Clarke bears the following decisive testimony on the same
subject:—
“But of these we may safely state that there is not a _truth_
in the most orthodox creed that cannot be proved by their
authority; nor a _heresy_ that has disgraced the Romish church,
that may not challenge them as its abettors. In points of
_doctrine_, their authority is, _with me_, nothing. The WORD of
God alone contains my creed. On a number of points I can go to
the Greek and Latin fathers of the church to know what _they
believed_; and what the people of their respective communions
believed: but after all this, I must return to God’s word to
know what he would have _me_ to believe.”[429]
In his life, he uses the following strong language:—
“We should take heed how we quote the fathers in proof of the
doctrines of the gospel; because he who knows them best, knows
that on many of those subjects they blow hot and cold.”[430]
The following testimonies will in part explain the unreliable nature of
the fathers. Thus Ephraim Pagitt testifies:—
“The church of Rome having been conscious of their errors and
corruptions, both in faith and manners, have sundry times,
pretended reformations; yet their great pride and infinite
profit, arising from purgatory, pardons, and such like, hath
hindered all such reformations. Therefore, to maintain their
greatness, errors, and new articles of faith, 1. They have
corrupted many of the ancient fathers, and reprinting them,
make them speak as they would have them.... 2. They have
written many books in the names of these ancient writers,
and forged many decrees, canons, and councils, to bear false
witness to them.”[431]
And Wm. Reeves testifies to the same fact:—
“The church of Rome has had all the opportunities of time,
place, and power, to establish the kingdom of darkness; and
that in coining, clipping, and washing, the primitive records
to their own good liking, they have not been wanting to
themselves, is notoriously evident.”[432]
The traditions of the early church are considered by many quite as
reliable as the language of the Holy Scriptures. A single instance taken
from the Bible will illustrate the character of tradition, and show the
amount of reliance that can be placed upon it:—
“Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus
loved, following (which also leaned on his breast at supper,
and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?); Peter seeing
him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus
saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is
that to thee? Follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad
among the brethren, that that disciple should not die; yet
Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that
he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”[433]
Here is the account of a tradition which actually originated in the very
bosom of the apostolic church, which nevertheless handed down to the
following generations an entire mistake. Observe how carefully the word
of God corrects this error.
Two rules of faith really embrace the whole Christian world. One of these
is the word of God alone; the other is the word of God and the traditions
of the church. Here they are:—
I. THE RULE OF THE MAN OF GOD, THE BIBLE ALONE.
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be
perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”[434]
II. THE RULE OF THE ROMANIST, THE BIBLE AND TRADITION.
“If we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and
practice, we must not be content with those scriptures which
Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament
alone; nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along
with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation
of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book
and the true meaning of it.”[435]
It is certain that the first-day Sabbath cannot be sustained by the
first of these rules; for the word of God says nothing respecting such
an institution. The second of these rules is necessarily adopted by all
those who advocate the sacredness of the first day of the week. For the
writings of the fathers and the traditions of the church furnish all the
testimony which can be adduced in support of that day. To adopt the first
rule is to condemn the first-day Sabbath as a human institution. To adopt
the second is virtually to acknowledge that the Romanists are right; for
it is by this rule that they are able to sustain their unscriptural
dogmas. Mr. W. B. Taylor, an able anti-Sabbatarian writer, states this
point with great clearness:—
“The triumph of the consistent Roman Catholic over all
observers of Sunday, calling themselves Protestants, is indeed
complete and unanswerable.... It should present a subject
of very grave reflection to Christians of the reformed and
evangelical denominations, to find that no single argument or
suggestion can be offered in favor of Sunday observance, that
will not apply with equal force and to its fullest extent in
sustaining the various other ‘holy days’ appointed by ‘the
church.’”[436]
Listen to the argument of a Roman Catholic:—
“The word of God commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath
of our Lord, and to be kept holy: you [Protestants] without any
precept of Scripture, change it to the first day of the week,
only authorized by our traditions. Divers English Puritans
oppose against this point, that the observation of the first
day is proved out of Scripture, where it is said ‘the first day
of the week.’[437] Have they not spun a fair thread in quoting
these places? If we should produce no better for purgatory
and prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints, and the
like, they might have good cause indeed to laugh us to scorn;
for where is it written that these were Sabbath days in which
those meetings were kept? Or where is it ordained they should
be always observed? Or, which is the sum of all, where is it
decreed that the observation of the first day should abrogate
or abolish the sanctifying of the seventh day, which God
commanded everlastingly to be kept holy? Not one of those is
expressed in the written word of God.”[438]
Whoever therefore enters the lists in behalf of the first-day Sabbath,
must of necessity do this—though perhaps not aware of the fact—under the
banner of the church of Rome.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE SUNDAY-LORD’S DAY NOT TRACEABLE TO THE APOSTLES.
General statement respecting the Ante-Nicene fathers—The
change of the Sabbath never mentioned by one of these
fathers—Examination of the historical argument for Sunday as
the Lord’s day—This argument compared with the like argument
for the Catholic festival of the Passover.
The Ante-Nicene fathers[439] are those Christian writers who flourished
after the time of the apostles, and before the Council of Nice, A. D.
325. Those who govern their lives by the volume of Inspiration do not
recognize any authority in these fathers to change any precept of that
book, nor any authority in them to add any new precepts to it. But
those whose rule of life is the Bible as modified by tradition, regard
the early fathers of the church as nearly or quite equal in authority
with the inspired writers. They declare that the fathers conversed with
the apostles; or if they did not do this, they conversed with some who
had seen some of the apostles; or at least they lived within a few
generations of the apostles, and so learned by tradition, which involved
only a few transitions from father to son, what was the true doctrine of
the apostles.
Thus with perfect assurance they supply the lack of inspired testimony
in behalf of the so-called Christian Sabbath by plentiful quotations
from the early fathers. What if there be no mention of the change of the
Sabbath in the New Testament? And what if there be no commandment for
resting from labor on the first day of the week? Or, what if there be no
method revealed in the Bible by which the first day of the week can be
enforced by the fourth commandment? They supply these serious omissions
in the Scriptures by testimonies which they say were written by men who
lived during the first three hundred years after the apostles.
On such authority as this the multitude dare to change the Sabbath of the
fourth commandment. But next to the deception under which men fall when
they are made to believe that the Bible may be corrected by the fathers,
is the deception practiced upon them as to what the fathers actually
teach. It is asserted that the fathers bear explicit testimony to the
change of the Sabbath by Christ as a historical fact, and that they knew
that this was so because they had conversed with the apostles, or with
some who had conversed with them. It is also asserted that the fathers
called the first day of the week the Christian Sabbath, and that they
refrained from labor on that day as an act of obedience to the fourth
commandment.
Now it is a most remarkable fact that every one of these assertions
is false. The people who trust in the fathers as their authority for
departing from God’s commandment are miserably deceived as to what the
fathers teach.
1. The fathers are so far from testifying that the apostles told them
Christ changed the Sabbath, that not even one of them ever alludes to the
idea of such a change.
2. No one of them ever calls the first day the Christian Sabbath, nor
indeed ever calls it a Sabbath of any kind.
3. They never represent it as a day on which ordinary labor was sinful;
nor do they represent the observance of Sunday as an act of obedience to
the fourth commandment.
4. The modern doctrine of the change of the Sabbath was therefore
absolutely unknown in the first centuries of the Christian church.[440]
But though no statement asserting the change of the Sabbath can be
produced from the writings of the fathers of the first three hundred
years, it is claimed that their testimony furnishes decisive proof that
the first day of the week is the Lord’s day of Rev. 1:10. The biblical
argument that the Lord’s day is the seventh day and no other, because
that day alone is in the Holy Scriptures claimed by the Father and the
Son as belonging in a peculiar sense to each, is given in chapter eleven,
and is absolutely decisive. But this is set aside without answer, and the
claim of the first day to this honorable distinction is substantiated out
of the fathers as follows:—
The term Lord’s day as a name for the first day of the week can be traced
back through the first three centuries, from the fathers who lived
toward their close, to the ones next preceding who mention the first day,
and so backward by successive steps till we come to one who lived in
John’s time, and was his disciple; and this disciple of John calls the
first day of the week the Lord’s day. It follows therefore that John must
have intended the first day of the week by the term Lord’s day, but did
not define his meaning because it was familiarly known by that name in
his time. Thus by history we prove the first day of the week to be the
Lord’s day of Rev. 1:10; and then by Rev. 1:10, we prove the first day
of the week to be the sacred day of this dispensation; for the spirit of
inspiration by which John wrote would not have called the first day by
this name if it were only a human institution, and if the seventh day was
still by divine appointment the Lord’s holy day.
This is a concise statement of the strongest argument for first-day
sacredness which can be drawn from ecclesiastical history. It is the
argument by which first-day writers prove Sunday to be the day called by
John the Lord’s day. This argument rests upon the statement that Lord’s
day as a name for Sunday can be traced back to the disciples of John, and
that it is the name by which that day was familiarly known in John’s time.
But this entire statement is false. The truth is, no writer of the first
century, and no one of the second, prior to A. D. 194, who is known to
speak of the first day of the week, ever calls it the Lord’s day! Yet the
first day is seven times mentioned by the sacred writers _before_ John’s
vision upon Patmos on the Lord’s day, and is twice mentioned by John
in his gospel which he wrote _after_ his return from that island, and
is mentioned some sixteen times by ecclesiastical writers of the second
century prior to A. D. 194, and never in a single instance is it called
the Lord’s day! We give all the instances of its mention in the Bible.
Moses, in the beginning, by divine inspiration, gave to the day its name,
and though the resurrection of Christ is said to have made it the Lord’s
day, yet every sacred writer who mentions the day after that event still
adheres to the plain name of first day of the week. Here are all the
instances in which the inspired writers mention the day:—
Moses, B. C. 1490. “The evening and the morning were the first day.” Gen.
1:5.
Matthew, A. D. 41. “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward
the first day of the week.” Matt. 28:1.
Paul, A. D. 57. “Upon the first day of the week.” 1 Cor. 16:2.
Luke, A. D. 60. “Now upon the first day of the week.” Luke 24:1.
Luke, A. D. 63. “And upon the first day of the week.” Acts 20:7.
Mark, A. D. 64. “And very early in the morning, the first day of the
week.” Mark 16:2. “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the
week.” Verse 9.
After the resurrection of Christ, and before John’s vision, A. D. 96, the
day is six times mentioned by inspired men, and every time as plain first
day of the week. It certainly was not familiarly known as Lord’s day
before the time of John’s vision. To speak the exact truth, it was not
called by that name at all, nor by any other name equivalent to that,
nor is there any record of its being set apart by divine authority as
such.
But in the year 96, John says, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.”
Rev. 1:10. Now it is evident that this must be a day which the Lord had
set apart for himself, and which he claimed as his. This was all true in
the case of the seventh day, but was not in any respect true in that of
the first day. He could not therefore call the first day by this name,
for it was not such. But if the Spirit of God designed at this point to
create a new institution and to call a certain day the Lord’s day which
before had never been claimed by him as such, it was necessary that he
should specify that new day. He did not define the term, which proves
that he was not giving a sacred name to some new institution, but was
speaking of a well-known, divinely appointed day. But _after_ John’s
return from Patmos, he wrote his gospel,[441] and in that gospel he twice
had occasion to mention the first day of the week. Let us see whether he
adheres to the manner of the other sacred writers, or whether, when we
know he means the first day, he gives to it a sacred name.
John, A. D. 97. “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early.”
John 20:1. “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the
week.” Verse 19.
These texts complete the Bible record of the first day of the week. They
furnish conclusive evidence that John did not receive new light in vision
at Patmos, bidding him call the first day of the week the Lord’s day, and
when taken with all the instances preceding, they constitute a complete
demonstration that the first day was not familiarly known as the Lord’s
day in John’s time, nor indeed known at all by that name then. Let us now
see whether Lord’s day as a title for the first day can be traced back to
John by means of the writings of the fathers.
The following is a concise statement of the testimony by which the
fathers are made to prove that John used the term Lord’s day as a name
for the first day of the week. A chain of seven successive witnesses,
commencing with one who was the disciple of John, and extending forward
through several generations, is made to connect and identify the Lord’s
day of John with the Sunday-Lord’s day of a later age. Thus, Ignatius,
the disciple of John, is made to speak familiarly of the first day
as the Lord’s day. This is directly connecting the fathers and the
apostles. Then the epistle of Pliny, A. D. 104, in connection with the
Acts of the Martyrs, is adduced to prove that the martyrs in his time
and forward were tested as to their observance of Sunday, the question
being, “Have you kept the Lord’s day?” Next, Justin Martyr, A. D. 140,
is made to speak of Sunday as the Lord’s day. After this, Theophilus of
Antioch, A. D. 168, is brought forward to bear a powerful testimony to
the Sunday-Lord’s day. Then Dionysius of Corinth, A. D. 170, is made to
speak to the same effect. Next Melito of Sardis, A. D. 177, is produced
to confirm what the others have said. And finally, Irenæus, A. D. 178,
who had been the disciple of Polycarp, who had been the disciple of John
the apostle, is brought forward to bear a decisive testimony in behalf of
Sunday as the Lord’s day and the Christian Sabbath.
These are the first seven witnesses who are cited to prove Sunday the
Lord’s day. They bring us nearly to the close of the second century. They
constitute the chain of testimony by which the Lord’s day of the apostle
John is identified with the Sunday-Lord’s day of later times. First-day
writers present these witnesses as proving positively that Sunday is
the Lord’s day of the Scriptures, and the Christian church accepts this
testimony in the absence of that of the inspired writers. But the folly
of the people, and the wickedness of those who lead them, may be set
forth in one sentence:—
The first, second, third, fourth, and seventh, of these testimonies are
inexcusable frauds, while the fifth and sixth have no decisive bearing
upon the case.
1. Ignatius, the first of these witnesses, it is said, must have known
Sunday to be the Lord’s day, for he calls it such, and he had conversed
with the apostle John. But in the entire writings of this father the term
Lord’s day does not once occur, nor is there in them all a single mention
of the first day of the week! The reader will find a critical examination
of the epistles of Ignatius in chapter fourteen of this history.
2. It is a pure fabrication that the martyrs in Pliny’s time, about A. D.
104, and thence onward, were tested by the question whether they had kept
the Sunday-Lord’s day. No question at all resembling this is to be found
in the words of the martyrs till we come to the fourth century, and then
the reference is not at all to the first day of the week. This is fully
shown in chapter fifteen.
3. The Bible Dictionary of the American Tract Society, page 379, brings
forward the third of these Sunday-Lord’s day witnesses in the person of
Justin Martyr, A. D. 140. It makes him call Sunday the Lord’s day by
quoting him as follows:—
“Justin Martyr observes that ‘on the Lord’s day all Christians
in the city or country meet together, because that is the day
of our Lord’s resurrection.’”
But Justin never gave to Sunday the title of Lord’s day, nor indeed any
other sacred title. Here are his words correctly quoted:—
“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the
country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the
apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read, as long as
time permits,” etc.[442]
Justin speaks of the day called Sunday. But that he may be made to help
establish its title to the name of Lord’s day, his words are deliberately
changed. Thus the third witness to Sunday as the Lord’s day, like the
first and the second, is made such by fraud. But the fourth fraud is even
worse than the three which precede.
4. The fourth testimony to the Sunday-Lord’s day is furnished in Dr.
Justin Edwards’ Sabbath Manual, p. 114:—
“Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, about A. D. 162, says: ‘Both
custom and reason challenge from us that we should honor _the
Lord’s day_, seeing on that day it was that our Lord Jesus
completed his resurrection from the dead.’”
Dr. Edwards does not pretend to give the place in Theophilus where these
words are to be found. Having carefully and minutely examined every
paragraph of the writings of Theophilus several times over, I state
emphatically that nothing of the kind is to be found in that writer. He
never uses the term Lord’s day, and he does not even speak of the first
day of the week. These words which are so well adapted to create the
impression that the Sunday-Lord’s day is of apostolic institution, are
put into his mouth by the falsehood of some one.
Here are four frauds, constituting the first four instances of the
alleged use of Lord’s day as a name for Sunday. Yet it is by means of
these very frauds that the Sunday-Lord’s day of later ages is identified
with the Lord’s day of the Bible. Somebody invented these frauds. The use
to which they are put plainly indicates the purpose for which they were
framed. The title of Lord’s day must be proved to pertain to Sunday by
apostolic authority. For this purpose these frauds were a necessity. The
case of the Sunday-Lord’s day may be fitly illustrated by that of the
long line of popes. Their apostolic authority as head of the Catholic
church depends on their being able to identify the apostle Peter as the
first of their line, and to prove that his authority was transmitted to
them. There is no difficulty in tracing back their line to the early
ages, though the earliest Roman bishops were modest, unassuming men,
wholly unlike the popes of after times. But when they come to make Peter
the head of their line, and to identify his authority and theirs, they
can do it only by fraudulent testimonials. And such is the case with
first-day observance. It may be traced back as a festival to the time of
Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, but the day had then no sacred name, and at
that time claimed no apostolic authority. But these must be secured at
any cost, and so its title of Lord’s day is by a series of fraudulent
testimonials traced to the apostle John, as in like manner the authority
of the popes is traced to the apostle Peter.
5. The fifth witness of this series is Dionysius of Corinth, A. D. 170.
Unlike the four which have been already examined, Dionysius actually uses
the term Lord’s day, though he says nothing identifying it with the first
day of the week. His words are these:—
“To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have
read your epistle; in reading which we shall always have our
minds stored with admonition, as we shall, also, from that
written to us before by Clement.”[443]
The epistle of Dionysius to Soter, bishop of Rome, from which this
sentence is taken, has perished. Eusebius, who wrote in the fourth
century, has preserved to us this sentence, but we have no knowledge of
its connection. First-day writers quote Dionysius as the fifth of their
witnesses that Sunday is the Lord’s day. They say that Sunday was so
familiarly known as Lord’s day in the time of Dionysius, that he calls it
by that name without even stopping to tell what day he meant.
But it is not honest to present Dionysius as a witness to the
Sunday-Lord’s day, for he makes no application of the term. But it is
said he certainly meant Sunday because that was the familiar name of the
day in his time, even as is indicated by the fact that he did not define
the term. And how is it known that Lord’s day was the familiar name of
Sunday in the time of Dionysius? The four witnesses already examined
furnish all the evidence in proof of this, for there is no writer this
side of Dionysius who calls Sunday the Lord’s day until almost the entire
period of a generation has elapsed. So Dionysius constitutes the fifth
witness of the series by virtue of the fact that the first four witnesses
prove that in his time, Lord’s day was the common name for first day of
the week. But the first four testify to nothing of the kind until the
words are by fraud put into their mouths! Dionysius is a witness for the
Sunday-Lord’s day because that four fraudulent testimonials from the
generations preceding him fix this as the meaning of his words! And the
name Lord’s day must have been a very common one for first day of the
week because Dionysius does not define the term! And yet those who say
this know that this _one_ sentence of his epistle remains, while the
connection, which doubtless fixed his meaning, has perished.
But Dionysius does not merely use the term Lord’s day. He uses a stronger
term than this—“the Lord’s _holy_ day.” Even for a long period after
Dionysius, no writer gives to Sunday so sacred a title as “the Lord’s
holy day.” Yet this is the very title given to the Sabbath in the Holy
Scriptures, and it is a well-ascertained fact that at this very time it
was extensively observed, especially in Greece, the country of Dionysius,
and that, too, as an act of obedience to the fourth commandment.[444]
6. The sixth witness in this remarkable series is Melito of Sardis, A.
D. 177. The first four, who never use the term Lord’s day, are by direct
fraud made to call Sunday by that name; the fifth, who speaks of the
Lord’s holy day, is claimed on the strength of these frauds to have meant
by it Sunday; while the sixth is not certainly proved to have spoken of
any day! Melito wrote several books now lost, the titles of which have
been preserved to us by Eusebius.[445] One of these, as given in the
English version of Eusebius, is “On the Lord’s Day.” Of course, first-day
writers claim that this was a treatise concerning Sunday, though down to
this point no writer calls Sunday by this name. But it is an important
fact that the word _day_ formed no part of the title of Melito’s book. It
was a discourse on something pertaining to the Lord—ὁ περι τῆς κυριακῆς
λόγος—but the essential word ἡμερας, _day_, is wanting. It may have been
a treatise on the life of Christ, for Ignatius thus uses these words
in connection: κυριακὴν ζωὴν, _Lord’s life_. Like the sentence from
Dionysius, it would not even seem to help the claim of Sunday to the
title of Lord’s day were it not for the series of frauds in which it
stands.
7. The seventh witness summoned to prove that Lord’s day was the
apostolic title of Sunday, is Irenæus. Dr. Justin Edwards professes to
quote him as follows:—[446]
“Hence Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, who
had been the companion of the apostles, A. D. 167 [it should be
A. D. 178], says that the Lord’s day was the Christian Sabbath.
His words are, ‘On the Lord’s day every one of us Christians
keeps the Sabbath, meditating on the law, and rejoicing in the
works of God.’”
This witness is brought forward in a manner to give the utmost weight and
authority to his words. He was the disciple of that eminent Christian
martyr, Polycarp, and Polycarp was the companion of the apostles. What
Irenæus says is therefore in the estimation of many as worthy of our
confidence as though we could read it in the writings of the apostles.
Does not Irenæus call Sunday the Christian Sabbath and the Lord’s day?
Did he not learn these things from Polycarp? And did not Polycarp get
them from the fountain head? What need have we of further witness that
Lord’s day is the apostolic name for Sunday? What if the six earlier
witnesses have failed us? Here is one that says all that can be asked,
and he had his doctrine from a man who had his from the apostles!
Why then does not this establish the authority of Sunday as the Lord’s
day? The first reason is that neither Irenæus nor any other man can add
to or change one precept of the word of God, on any pretense whatever.
We are never authorized to depart from the words of the inspired writers
on the testimony of men who conversed with the apostles, or rather who
conversed with some who had conversed with them. But the second reason is
that every word of this pretended testimony of Irenæus is a fraud! Nor
is there a single instance in which the term Lord’s day is to be found
in any of his works, nor in any fragment of his works preserved in other
authors![447] And this completes the seven witnesses by whom the Lord’s
day of the Catholic church is traced back to and identified with the
Lord’s day of the Bible! It is not till A. D. 194, sixteen years after
the latest of these witnesses, that we meet the first instance in which
Sunday is called the Lord’s day. In other words, Sunday is not called the
Lord’s day till ninety-eight years after John was upon Patmos, and one
hundred and sixty-three years after the resurrection of Christ!
But is not this owing to the fact that the records of that period have
perished? By no means; for the day is six times mentioned by the inspired
writers between the resurrection of Christ, A. D. 31, and John’s vision
upon Patmos, A. D. 96; namely, by Matthew, A. D. 41; by Paul, A. D. 57;
by Luke, A. D. 60, and A. D. 63; and by Mark, A. D. 64; and always as
first day of the week. John, after his return from Patmos, A. D. 97,
twice mentions the day, still calling it first day of the week.
After John’s time, the day is next mentioned in the so-called epistle of
Barnabas, written probably as early as A. D. 140, and is there called
“the eighth day.” Next it is mentioned by Justin Martyr in his Apology,
A. D. 140, once as “the day on which we all hold our common assembly;”
once as “the first day on which God ... made the world;” once as “the
same day [on which Christ] rose from the dead;” once as “the day after
that of Saturn;” and three times as “Sunday,” or “the day of the sun.”
Next the day is mentioned by Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho,
A. D. 155, in which he twice calls it the “eighth day;” once “the first
of all the days;” once as “the first” “of all the days of the [weekly]
cycle;” and twice as “the first day after the Sabbath.” Next it is once
mentioned by Irenæus, A. D. 178, who calls it simply “the first day of
the week.” And next it is mentioned once by Bardesanes, who calls it
simply “the first of the week.” The variety of names by which the day is
mentioned during this time is remarkable; but it is _never_ called Lord’s
day, nor ever called by _any sacred_ name.
Though Sunday is mentioned in so many different ways during the second
century, it is not till we come almost to the close of that century that
we find the first instance in which it is called Lord’s day. Clement,
of Alexandria, A. D. 194, uses this title with reference to “the eighth
day.” If he speaks of a natural day, he no doubt means Sunday. It is not
certain, however, that he speaks of a natural day, for his explanation
gives to the term an entirely different sense. Here are his words:—
“And the Lord’s day Plato prophetically speaks of in the tenth
book of the _Republic_, in these words: ‘And when seven days
have passed to each of them in the meadow, on the eighth they
are to set out and arrive in four days.’ By the meadow is to be
understood the fixed sphere, as being a mild and genial spot,
and the locality of the pious; and by the seven days, each
motion of the seven planets, and the whole practical art which
speeds to the end of rest. But after the wandering orbs, the
journey leads to Heaven, that is, to the eighth motion and day.
And he says that souls are gone on the fourth day, pointing out
the passage through the four elements. But the seventh day is
recognized as sacred, not by the Hebrews only, but also by the
Greeks; according to which the whole world of all animals and
plants revolve.”[448]
Clement was originally a heathen philosopher, and these strange
mysticisms which he here puts forth upon the words of Plato are only
modifications of his former heathen notions. Though Clement says
that Plato speaks of the Lord’s day, it is certain that he does not
understand him to speak of literal days nor of a literal meadow. On the
contrary, he interprets the meadow to represent “the fixed sphere, as
being a mild and genial spot, and the locality of the pious;” which must
refer to their future inheritance. The seven days are not so many literal
days, but they represent “each motion of the seven planets, and the whole
practical art which speeds to the end of rest.” This seems to represent
the present period of labor which is to end in the rest of the saints.
For he adds: “But after the wandering orbs [represented by Plato’s seven
days] the journey leads to _Heaven_, that is, to _the eighth_ motion and
_day_.” The seven days, therefore, do here represent the period of the
Christian’s pilgrimage, and the eighth day of which Clement here speaks
is not Sunday, but Heaven itself! Here is the first instance of Lord’s
day as a name for the eighth day, but this eighth day is a mystical one,
and means Heaven!
But Clement uses the term Lord’s day once more, and this time clearly, as
representing, not a literal day, but the whole period of our regenerate
life. For he speaks of it in treating of fasting, and he sets forth
fasting as consisting in abstinence from sinful pleasures, not only in
deeds, to use his distinction, as forbidden by the law, but in thoughts,
as forbidden by the gospel. Such fasting pertains to the entire life of
the Christian. And thus Clement sets forth what is involved in observing
this duty in the gospel sense:—
“He, in fulfillment of the precept, according to the gospel,
keeps the Lord’s day, when he abandons an evil disposition,
and assumes that of the Gnostic, glorifying the Lord’s
resurrection in himself.”[449]
From this statement we learn, not merely his idea of fasting, but also
that of celebrating the Lord’s day, and glorifying the resurrection of
Christ. This, according to Clement, does not consist in paying special
honors to Sunday, but in abandoning an evil disposition, and in assuming
that of the Gnostic, a Christian sect to which he belonged. Now it is
plain that this kind of Lord’s-day observance pertains to no one day
of the week, but embraces the entire life of the Christian. Clement’s
Lord’s day was not a literal, but a mystical, day, embracing, according
to this, his second use of the term, the entire regenerate life of the
Christian; and according to his first use of the term, embracing also the
future life in Heaven. And this view is confirmed by Clement’s statement
of the contrast between the Gnostic sect to which he belonged and other
Christians. He says of their worship that it was “NOT ON SPECIAL DAYS,
as some others, but _doing this continually_ in our whole life.” And
he speaks further of the worship of the Gnostic that it was “_not_ in
a specified place, or selected temple, or at certain festivals, and on
appointed days, _but during his whole life_.”[450]
It is certainly a very remarkable fact that the first writer who speaks
of the Lord’s day as the eighth day uses the term, not with reference to
a literal, but a mystical, day. It is not Sunday, but the Christian’s
life, or Heaven itself! This doctrine of a perpetual Lord’s day, we
shall find alluded to in Tertullian, and expressly stated in Origen, who
are the next two writers that use the term Lord’s day. But Clement’s
mystical or perpetual Lord’s day shows that he had no idea that John, by
Lord’s day, meant Sunday; for in that case, he must have recognized that
as the true Lord’s day, and the Gnostics’ special day of worship.
Tertullian, A. D. 200, is the next writer who uses the term Lord’s day.
He defines his meaning, and fixes the name upon the day of Christ’s
resurrection. Kitto[451] says this is “the earliest authentic instance”
in which the name is thus applied, and we have proved this true by
actual examination of every writer, unless the reader can discover some
reference to Sunday in Clement’s mystical eighth day. Tertullian’s words
are these:—
“We, however (just as we have received), only on the Lord’s
day of the resurrection [_solo die dominico resurrexionis_]
ought to guard, not only against kneeling, but every posture
and office of solicitude; deferring even our business, lest we
give any place to the devil. Similarly, too, in the period of
Pentecost; which period we distinguish by the same solemnity of
exultation.”[452]
Twice more does Tertullian use the term Lord’s day, and once more does he
define it, this time calling it the “eighth day.” And in each of these
two cases does he place the day which he calls Lord’s day in the same
rank with the Catholic festival of Pentecost, even as he does in the
instance already quoted. As the second instance of Tertullian’s use of
Lord’s day, we quote a portion of the rebuke which he addressed to his
brethren for mingling with the heathen in their festivals. He says:—
“Oh! better fidelity of the nations to their own sects, which
claims no solemnity of the Christians for itself! Not the
Lord’s day, not Pentecost, _even if they had known them_, would
they have shared with us; for they would fear lest they should
seem to be Christians. _We_ are not apprehensive lest we seem
to be _heathens_! If any indulgence is to be granted to the
flesh, you have it. I will not say your own days, but more
too; for to the _heathens_ each festive day occurs but once
annually; _you_ have a festive day every eighth day.”[453]
The festival which Tertullian here represents as coming every eighth day
was no doubt the one which he has just called the Lord’s day. Though he
elsewhere[454] speaks of the Sunday festival as observed at least by some
portion of the heathen, he here speaks of the Lord’s day as unknown to
those heathen of whom he now writes. This strongly indicates that the
Sunday festival had but recently begun to be called by the name of Lord’s
day. But he once more speaks of the Lord’s day:—
“As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings
for the dead as birth-day honors. We count fasting or kneeling
in worship on the Lord’s day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the
same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday [the Pentecost].
We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own,
be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at
every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes,
when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps,
on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life,
we trace upon the forehead the sign [of the cross].
“If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having
positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition
will be held forth to you as the _originator_ of them, custom
as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason
will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either
yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has.”[455]
This completes the instances in which Tertullian uses the term Lord’s
day, except a mere allusion to it in his discourse on Fasting. It is very
remarkable that in each of the three cases, he puts it on a level with
the festival of Whitsunday, or Pentecost. He also associates it directly
with “offerings for the dead” and with the use of “the sign of the
cross.” When asked for authority from the Bible for these things, he does
not answer, “We have the authority of John for the Lord’s day, though we
have nothing but tradition for the sign of the cross and offerings for
the dead.” On the contrary, he said there was no Scripture injunction for
any of them. If it be asked, How could the title of Lord’s day be given
to Sunday except by tradition derived from the apostles? the answer will
be properly returned, What was the origin of offerings for the dead?
And how did the sign of the cross come into use among Christians? The
title of Lord’s day as a name for Sunday is no nearer apostolic than is
the sign of the cross, and offerings for the dead; for it can be traced
no nearer to apostolic times than can these most palpable errors of the
great apostasy.
Clement taught a perpetual Lord’s day; Tertullian held a similar view,
asserting that Christians should celebrate a perpetual Sabbath, not by
abstinence from labor, but from sin.[456] Tertullian’s method of Sunday
observance will be noticed hereafter.
Origen, A. D. 231, is the third of the ancient writers who call “the
eighth day” the Lord’s day. He was the disciple of Clement, the first
writer who makes this application. It is not strange, therefore, that he
should teach Clement’s doctrine of a perpetual Lord’s day, nor that he
should state it even more distinctly than did Clement himself. Origen,
having represented Paul as teaching that all days are alike, continues
thus:—
“If it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are
accustomed to observe certain days, as for example the Lord’s
day, the Preparation, the Passover, or Pentecost, I have to
answer, that to the perfect Christian, who is ever in his
thoughts, words, and deeds, serving his natural Lord, God the
Word, all his days are the Lord’s, and he is always keeping the
Lord’s day.”[457]
This was written some forty years after Clement had propounded his
doctrine of the Lord’s day. The imperfect Christian might honor a Lord’s
day which stood in the same rank with the Preparation, the Passover,
and the Pentecost. But the perfect Christian observed the true Lord’s
day, which embraced all the days of his regenerate life. Origen uses
the term Lord’s day for two different days. 1. For a natural day, which
in his judgment stood in the same rank with the Preparation day, the
Passover, and the Pentecost. 2. For a mystical day, as did Clement, which
is the entire period of the Christian’s life. The mystical day, in his
estimation, was the true Lord’s day. It therefore follows that he did not
believe Sunday to be the Lord’s day by apostolic appointment. But, after
Origen’s time, Lord’s day becomes a common name for the so-called eighth
day. Yet these three men, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen, who first
make this application, not only do not claim that this name was given to
the day by the apostles, but do plainly indicate that they had no such
idea. Offerings for the dead and the use of the sign of the cross are
found as near to apostolic times as is the use of Lord’s day as a name
for Sunday. The three have a common origin, as shown by Tertullian’s own
words. Origen’s views of the Sabbath, and of the Sunday festival, will be
noticed hereafter.
Such is the case with the claim of Sunday to the title of Lord’s day. The
first instance of its use, if Clement be supposed to refer to Sunday, is
not till almost one century after John was in vision upon Patmos. Those
who first call it by that name had no idea that it was such by divine or
apostolic appointment, as they plainly show. In marked contrast with this
is the Catholic festival of the Passover. Though never commanded in the
New Testament, it can be traced back to men who say that they had it from
the apostles!
Thus the churches of Asia Minor had the festival from Polycarp who,
as Eusebius states the claim of Polycarp, had “observed it with John
the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles with whom he
associated.”[458] Socrates says of them that they maintain that this
observance “was delivered to them by the apostle John.”[459] Anatolius
says of these Asiatic Christians that they received “the rule from an
unimpeachable authority, to wit, the evangelist John.”[460]
Nor was this all. The western churches also, with the church of Rome
at their head, were strenuous observers of the Passover festival. They
also traced the festival to the apostles. Thus Socrates says of them:
“The Romans and those in the western parts assure us that their usage
originated with the apostles Peter and Paul.”[461] But he says these
parties cannot prove this by written testimony. Sozomen says of the
Romans, with respect to the Passover festival, that they “have never
deviated from their original usage in this particular; the custom having
been handed down to them by the holy apostles Peter and Paul.”[462]
If the Sunday-Lord’s day could be traced to a man who claimed to have
celebrated it with John and other of the apostles, how confidently
would this be cited as proving positively that it is an apostolic
institution! And yet this can be done in the case of the Passover
festival! Nevertheless, a single fact in the case of this very festival
is sufficient to teach us the folly of trusting in tradition. Polycarp
claimed that John and other of the apostles taught him to observe the
festival on the fourteenth day of the first month, whatever day of
the week it might be; while the elders of the Roman church asserted
that Peter and Paul taught them that it must be observed on the Sunday
following Good Friday![463]
The Lord’s day of the Catholic church can be traced no nearer to John
than A. D. 194, or perhaps in strict truth to A. D. 200, and those
who then use the name show plainly that they did not believe it to be
the Lord’s day by apostolic appointment. To hide these fatal facts by
seeming to trace the title back to Ignatius the disciple of John, and
thus to identify Sunday with the Lord’s day of that apostle, a series
of remarkable frauds has been committed which we have had occasion to
examine. But even could the Sunday-Lord’s day be traced to Ignatius,
the disciple of John, it would then come no nearer being an apostolic
institution than does the Catholic festival of the Passover, which can
be traced to Polycarp, another of John’s disciples, who claimed to have
received it from John himself!
CHAPTER XIV.
THE FIRST WITNESSES FOR SUNDAY.
Origin of Sunday observance the subject of present
inquiry—Contradictory statements of Mosheim and Neander—The
question between them stated, and the true data for deciding
that question—The New Testament furnishes no support for
Mosheim’s statement—Epistle of Barnabas a forgery—The testimony
of Pliny determines nothing in the case—The epistle of Ignatius
probably spurious, and certainly interpolated so far as it is
made to sustain Sunday—Decision of the question.
The first day of the week is now almost universally observed as the
Christian Sabbath. The origin of this institution is still before us
as the subject of inquiry. This is presented by two eminent church
historians; but so directly do they contradict each other, that it is a
question of curious interest to determine which of them states the truth.
Thus Mosheim writes respecting the first century:—
“All Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day
of the week, on which the triumphant Saviour arose from the
dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship. This pious
custom, which was derived from the example of the church of
Jerusalem, was founded upon the express appointment of the
apostles, who consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose,
and was observed universally throughout the Christian churches,
as appears from the united testimonies of the most credible
writers.”[464]
Now let us read what Neander, the most distinguished of church
historians, says of this apostolic authority for Sunday observance:—
“The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always
only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of
the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect,
far from them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer
the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the
second century a false application of this kind had begun to
take place; for men appear by that time to have considered
laboring on Sunday as a sin.”[465]
How shall we determine which of these historians is in the right? Neither
of them lived in the apostolic age of the church. Mosheim was a writer
of the eighteenth century, and Neander, of the nineteenth. Of necessity
therefore they must learn the facts in the case from the writings of
that period which have come down to us. These contain all the testimony
which can have any claim to be admitted in deciding this case. These are,
first, the inspired writings of the New Testament; second, the reputed
productions of such writers of that age as are supposed to mention the
first day, viz., the epistle of Barnabas; the letter of Pliny, governor
of Bythinia, to the emperor Trajan; and the epistle of Ignatius. These
are all the writings prior to the middle of the second century—and this
is late enough to amply cover the ground of Mosheim’s statement—which can
be introduced as even referring to the first day of the week.
The questions to be decided by this testimony are these: Did the apostles
set apart Sunday for divine worship (as Mosheim affirms)? or does the
evidence in the case show that the festival of Sunday, like all other
festivals, was always only a human ordinance (as is affirmed by Neander)?
It is certain that the New Testament contains no appointment of Sunday
for the solemn celebration of public worship. And it is equally true that
there is no example of the church of Jerusalem on which to found such
observance. The New Testament therefore furnishes no support[466] for the
statement of Mosheim.
The three epistles which have come down to us purporting to have been
written in the apostolic age, or immediately subsequent to that age, next
come under examination. These are all that remain to us of a period more
extended than that embraced in the statement of Mosheim. He speaks of the
first century only; but we summon all the writers of that century, and
of the following one prior to the time of Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, who
are even supposed to mention the first day of the week. Thus the reader
is furnished with all the data in the case. The epistle of Barnabas
speaks as follows in behalf of first-day observance:—
“Lastly he saith unto them, Your new-moons and your sabbaths I
cannot bear them. Consider what he means by it; the sabbaths,
says he, which ye now keep, are not acceptable unto me, but
those which I have made; when resting from all things, I shall
begin the eighth day, that is, the beginning of the other
world; for which cause we observe the eighth day with gladness,
in which Jesus arose from the dead, and having manifested
himself to his disciples, ascended into Heaven.”[467]
It might be reasonably concluded that Mosheim would place great reliance
upon this testimony as coming from an apostle, and as being somewhat
better suited to sustain the sacredness of Sunday than anything
previously examined by us. Yet he frankly acknowledges that this epistle
is spurious. Thus he says:—
“The epistle of Barnabas was the production of some Jew,
who, most probably, lived in this century, and whose mean
abilities and superstitious attachment to Jewish fables, show,
notwithstanding the uprightness of his intentions, that he must
have been a very different person from the true Barnabas, who
was St. Paul’s companion.”[468]
In another work, Mosheim says of this epistle:—
“As to what is suggested by some, of its having been written by
that Barnabas who was the friend and companion of St. Paul, the
futility of such a notion is easily to be made apparent from
the letter itself; several of the opinions and interpretations
of Scripture which it contains, having in them so little of
either truth, dignity or force, as to render it impossible that
they could ever have proceeded from the pen of a man divinely
instructed.”[469]
Neander speaks thus of this epistle:—
“It is impossible that we should acknowledge this epistle to
belong to that Barnabas who was worthy to be the companion of
the apostolic labors of St. Paul.”[470]
Prof. Stuart bears a similar testimony:—
“That a man by the name of Barnabas wrote this epistle I doubt
not; that the chosen associate of Paul wrote it, I with many
others must doubt.”[471]
Dr. Killen, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, to the General Assembly
of the Presbyterian church of Ireland, uses the following language:—
“The tract known as the Epistle of Barnabas was probably
composed in A. D. 135. It is the production apparently of a
convert from Judaism who took special pleasure in allegorical
interpretation of Scripture.”[472]
Prof. Hackett bears the following testimony:—
“The letter still extant, which was known as that of Barnabas
even in the second century, cannot be defended as genuine.”[473]
Mr. Milner speaks of the reputed epistle of Barnabas as follows:—
“It is a great injury to him to apprehend the epistle, which
goes by his name, to be his.”[474]
Kitto speaks of this production as,
“The so-called epistle of Barnabas, probably a forgery of the
second century.”[475]
Says the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, speaking of the Barnabas of
the New Testament:—
“He could not be the author of a work so full of forced
allegories, extravagant and unwarrantable explications of
Scripture, together with stories concerning beasts, and such
like conceits, as make up the first part of this epistle.”[476]
Eusebius, the earliest of church historians, places this epistle in the
catalogue of spurious books. Thus he says:—
“Among the spurious must be numbered both the books called,
‘The Acts of Paul,’ and that called, ‘Pastor,’ and ‘The
Revelation of Peter.’ Besides these the books called ‘The
Epistle of Barnabas,’ and what are called, ‘The Institutions of
the Apostles.’”[477]
Sir Wm. Domville speaks as follows:—
“But the epistle was not written by Barnabas; it was not merely
unworthy of him,—it would be a disgrace to him, and what is of
much more consequence, it would be a disgrace to the Christian
religion, as being the production of one of the authorized
teachers of that religion in the times of the apostles, which
circumstance would seriously damage the evidence of its divine
origin. Not being the epistle of Barnabas, the document is, as
regards the Sabbath question, nothing more than the testimony
of some unknown writer to the practice of Sunday observance by
some Christians of some unknown community, at some uncertain
period of the Christian era, with no sufficient ground for
believing that period to have been the first century.”[478]
Coleman bears the following testimony:—
“The epistle of Barnabas, bearing the honored name of the
companion of Paul in his missionary labors, is evidently
spurious. It abounds in fabulous narratives, mystic,
allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament, and fanciful
conceits, and is generally agreed by the learned to be of no
authority.”[479]
As a specimen of the unreasonable and absurd things contained in this
epistle, the following passage is quoted:—
“Neither shalt thou eat of the hyena: that is, again, be not an
adulterer; nor a corrupter of others; neither be like to such.
And wherefore so? Because that creature every year changes its
kind, and is sometimes male, and sometimes female.”[480]
Thus first-day historians being allowed to decide the case, we are
authorized to treat this epistle as a forgery. And whoever will read
its ninth chapter—for it will not bear quoting—will acknowledge the
justice of this conclusion. This epistle is the only writing purporting
to come from the first century except the New Testament, in which the
first day is even referred to. That this furnishes no support for Sunday
observance, even Mosheim acknowledges.
The next document that claims our attention is the letter of Pliny, the
Roman governor of Bythinia, to the emperor Trajan. It was written about
A. D. 104. He says of the Christians of his province:—
“They affirmed that the whole of their guilt or error was, that
they met on a certain stated day, before it was light, and
addressed themselves in a form of prayer to Christ, as to some
god, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes
of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or
adultery; never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when
they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was
their custom to separate, and then re-assemble to eat in common
a harmless meal.”[481]
This epistle of Pliny certainly furnishes no support for Sunday
observance. The case is presented in a candid manner by Coleman. He says
of this extract:—
“This statement is evidence that these Christians kept a day as
holy time, but whether it was the last or the first day of the
week, does not appear.”[482]
Charles Buck, an eminent first-day writer, saw no evidence in this
epistle of first-day observance, as is manifest from the indefinite
translation which he gives it. Thus he cites the epistle:—
“These persons declare that their whole crime, if they are
guilty, consists in this: that on certain days they assemble
before sunrise to sing alternately the praises of Christ as of
God.”[483]
Tertullian, who wrote A. D. 200, speaks of this very statement of Pliny
thus:—
“He found in their religious services nothing but meetings _at
early morning_ for singing hymns to Christ and God, and sealing
home their way of life by a united pledge to be faithful to
their religion, forbidding murder, adultery, dishonesty, and
other crimes.”[484]
Tertullian certainly found in this no reference to the festival of Sunday.
Mr. W. B. Taylor speaks of this stated day as follows:—
“As the Sabbath day appears to have been quite as commonly
observed at this date as the sun’s day (if not even more so),
it is just as probable that this ‘stated day’ referred to by
Pliny was the seventh day, as that it was the first day; though
the latter is generally _taken for granted_.”[485]
Taking for granted the very point that should be proved, is no new
feature in the evidence thus far examined in support of first-day
observance. Although Mosheim relies on this expression of Pliny as a
chief support of Sunday, yet he speaks thus of the opinion of another
learned man:—
“B. Just. Hen. Boehmer, would indeed have us to understand this
day to have been the same with the Jewish Sabbath.”[486]
This testimony of Pliny was written a few years subsequent to the time
of the apostles. It relates to a church which probably had been founded
by the apostle Peter.[487] It is certainly far more probable that this
church, only forty years after the death of Peter, was keeping the fourth
commandment, than that it was observing a day never enjoined by divine
authority. It must be conceded that this testimony from Pliny proves
nothing in support of Sunday observance; for it does not designate what
day of the week was thus observed.
The epistles of Ignatius of Antioch so often quoted in behalf of
first-day observance, next claim our attention. He is represented as
saying:—
“Wherefore if they who are brought up in these ancient laws
came nevertheless to the newness of hope; no longer observing
sabbaths, but keeping the Lord’s day, in which also our life
is sprung up by him, and through his death, whom yet some
deny (by which mystery we have been brought to believe,
and therefore wait that we may be found the disciples of
Jesus Christ, our only master): how shall we be able to
live different from him; whose disciples the very prophets
themselves being, did by the Spirit expect him as their
master.”[488]
Two important facts relative to this quotation are worthy of particular
notice: 1. That the epistles of Ignatius are acknowledged to be spurious
by first-day writers of high authority; and those epistles which some
of them except as possibly genuine, do not include in their number the
epistle to the Magnesians from which the above quotation is made, nor do
they say anything relative to first-day observance. 2. That the epistle
to the Magnesians would say nothing of any day, were it not that the
word day had been fraudulently inserted by the translator! In support of
the first of these propositions the following testimony is adduced. Dr.
Killen speaks as follows:—
“In the sixteenth century, fifteen letters were brought out
from beneath the mantle of a hoary antiquity, and offered
to the world as the productions of the pastor of Antioch.
Scholars refused to receive them on the terms required, and
forthwith eight of them were admitted to be forgeries. In
the seventeenth century, the seven remaining letters, in a
somewhat altered form, again came forth from obscurity, and
claimed to be the works of Ignatius. Again discerning critics
refused to acknowledge their pretensions; but curiosity was
roused by this second apparition, and many expressed an earnest
desire to obtain a sight of the real epistles. Greece, Syria,
Palestine, and Egypt, were ransacked in search of them, and
at length three letters are found. The discovery creates
general gratulation; it is confessed that four of the epistles
so lately asserted to be genuine, are apocryphal; and it is
boldly said that the three now forthcoming are above challenge.
But truth still refuses to be compromised, and sternly disowns
these claimants for her approbation. The internal evidence of
these three epistles abundantly attests that, like the last
three books of the Sibyl, they are only the last shifts of a
grave imposture.”[489]
The same writer thus states the opinion of Calvin:—
“It is no mean proof of the sagacity of the great Calvin,
that, upwards of three hundred years ago, he passed a sweeping
sentence of condemnation on these Ignatian epistles.”[490]
Of the three epistles of Ignatius still claimed as genuine, Prof. C. F.
Hudson speaks as follows:—
“Ignatius of Antioch was martyred probably A. D. 115. Of the
eight epistles ascribed to him, three are genuine; viz., those
addressed to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans.”[491]
It will be observed that the three epistles which are here mentioned as
genuine do not include that epistle from which the quotation in behalf of
Sunday is taken, and it is a fact also that they contain no allusion to
Sunday. Sir Wm. Domville, an anti-Sabbatarian writer, uses the following
language:—
“Every one at all conversant with such matters is aware that
the works of Ignatius have been more interpolated and corrupted
than those of any other of the ancient fathers; and also that
some writings have been attributed to him which are wholly
spurious.”[492]
Robinson, an eminent English Baptist writer of the last century,
expresses the following opinion of the epistles ascribed to Ignatius,
Barnabas, and others:—
“If any of the writings attributed to those who are called
apostolical fathers, as Ignatius, teacher at Antioch, Polycarp,
at Smyrna, Barnabas, who was half a Jew, and Hermas, who was
brother to Pius, teacher at Rome, if any of these be genuine,
of which there is great reason to doubt, they only prove the
piety and illiteracy of the good men. Some are worse, and
the best not better, than the godly epistles of the lower
sort of Baptists and Quakers in the time of the civil war in
England. Barnabas and Hermas both mention baptism; but both of
these books are contemptible reveries of wild and irregular
geniuses.”[493]
The doubtful character of these Ignatian epistles is thus sufficiently
attested. The quotation in behalf of Sunday is not taken from one of
the three epistles that are still claimed as genuine; and what is still
further to be observed, it would say nothing in behalf of any day were it
not for an extraordinary license, not to say fraud, which the translator
has used in inserting the word _day_. This fact is shown with critical
accuracy by Kitto, whose Cyclopedia is in high repute among first-day
scholars. Thus he presents the original of Ignatius with comments and a
translation as follows:—
“We must here notice one other passage ... as bearing on the
subject of the Lord’s day, though it certainly contains no
mention of it. It occurs in the epistle of Ignatius to the
Magnesians (about A. D. 100.) The whole passage is confessedly
obscure, and the text may be corrupt.... The passage is as
follows:—
Εἰ οὖν ὁι ἐν πἀλαιοῖς πράγμασιν ἀναστραφέντες, εἰς καινότητα
ἐλπίδος ἤλθον—μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες, ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν ζωὴν
ζῶντες—(ἐν ἡ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν δὶ’ ἀυτοῦ, etc.)[494]
“Now many commentators assume (on what ground does not appear),
that after κυριακὴν [Lord’s] the word ἡμέραν [day] is to be
understood.... Let us now look at the passage simply as it
stands. The defect of the sentence is the want of a substantive
to which ἀυτοῦ can refer. This defect, so far from being
remedied, is rendered still more glaring by the introduction of
ἡμέρα. Now if we take κυριακὴ ζωὴ as simply ‘the life of the
Lord,’ having a more personal meaning, it certainly goes nearer
to supplying the substantive to ἀυτοῦ.... Thus upon the whole
the meaning might be given thus:—
“If those who lived under the old dispensation have come to
the newness of hope, no longer keeping sabbaths, but living
according to our Lord’s life (in which, as it were, our life
has risen again through him, &c.)....
“On this view the passage does not refer at all to the Lord’s
day; but even on the opposite supposition it cannot be regarded
as affording any positive evidence to the early use of the term
‘Lord’s day’ (for which it is often cited), since the material
word ἡμέρα [day] is purely conjectural.”[495]
The learned Morer, a clergyman of the church of England, confirms this
statement of Kitto. He renders Ignatius thus:—
“If therefore they who were well versed in the works of ancient
days came to newness of hope, not sabbatizing, but living
according to the dominical life, &c.... The Medicean copy, the
best and most like that of Eusebius, leaves no scruple, because
ζωὴν is expressed and determines the word dominical to the
person of Christ, and not to the day of his resurrection.”[496]
Sir Wm. Domville speaks on this point as follows:—
“Judging therefore by the tenor of the epistle itself, the
literal translation of the passage in discussion, ‘no longer
observing sabbaths, but living according to the Lord’s life,’
appears to give its true and proper meaning; and if this be
so, Ignatius, whom Mr. Gurney[497] puts forward as a material
witness to prove the observance of the Lord’s day in the
beginning of the second century, fails to prove any such fact,
it appearing on a thorough examination of his testimony that he
does not even mention the Lord’s day, nor in any way allude to
the religious observance of it, whether by that name or by any
other.”[498]
It is manifest, therefore, that this famous quotation has no reference
whatever to the first day of the week, and that it furnishes no evidence
that that day was known in the time of Ignatius by the title of Lord’s
day.[499] The evidence is now before the reader which must determine
whether Mosheim or Neander spoke in accordance with the facts in
the case. And thus it appears that in the New Testament, and in the
uninspired writers of the period referred to, there is absolutely nothing
to sustain the strong Sunday statement of Mosheim. When we come to the
fourth century, we shall find a statement by him which essentially
modifies what he has here said. Of the epistles ascribed to Barnabas,
Pliny, and Ignatius, we have found that the first is a forgery; that the
second speaks of a stated day without defining what one; and that the
third, which is probably a spurious document, would say nothing relative
to Sunday, if the advocates of first-day sacredness had not interpolated
the word _day_ into the document! We can hardly avoid the conclusion
that Mosheim spoke on this subject as a doctor of divinity, and not as
a historian; and with the firmest conviction that we speak the truth,
we say with Neander, “The festival of Sunday was always only a human
ordinance.”
CHAPTER XV.
EXAMINATION OF A FAMOUS FALSEHOOD.
Were the martyrs in Pliny’s time and afterward tested by the
question whether they had kept Sunday or not?—Argument in the
affirmative quoted from Edwards—Its origin—No facts to sustain
such an argument prior to the fourth century—A single instance
at the opening of that century all that can be claimed in
support of the assertion—Sunday not even alluded to in that
instance—Testimony of Mosheim relative to the work in which
this is found.
Certain doctors of divinity have made a special effort to show that
the “stated day” of Pliny’s epistle is the first day of the week. For
this purpose they adduce a fabulous narrative which the more reliable
historians of the church have not deemed worthy of record. The argument
is this: That in Pliny’s time and afterward, that is, from the close of
the first century and onward, whenever the Christians were brought before
their persecutors for examination, they were asked whether they had kept
the Lord’s day, this term being used to designate the first day of the
week. And hence two facts are asserted to be established: 1. That when
Pliny says that the Christians who were examined by him were accustomed
to meet on a stated day, that day was undoubtedly the first day of the
week. 2. That the observance of the first day of the week was the grand
test by which Christians were known to their heathen persecutors. 3. That
Lord’s day was the name by which the first day of the week was known in
the time of Pliny, a few years after the death of John. To prove these
points, Dr. Edwards makes the following statement:—
“Hence the fact that their persecutors, when they wished to
know whether men were Christians, were accustomed to put to
them this question, viz., ‘_Dominicum servasti?_’—‘Hast thou
kept the Lord’s day?’ If they had they were Christians. This
was the badge of their Christianity, in distinction from Jews
and pagans. And if they said they had, and would not recant,
they must be put to death. And what, when they continued
steadfast, was their answer? ‘_Christianus sum; intermittere
non possum_;’—‘I am a Christian; I cannot omit it.’ It is
a badge of my religion, and the man who assumes it must of
course keep the Lord’s day, because it is the will of his Lord;
and should he abandon it, he would be an apostate from his
religion.”[500]
Mr. Gurney, an English first-day writer of some note, uses the same
argument and for the same purpose.[501] The importance attached to this
statement, and the prominence given to it by the advocates of first-day
sacredness, render it proper that its merits should be examined. Dr.
Edwards gives no authority for his statement; but Mr. Gurney traces the
story to Dr. Andrews, bishop of Winchester, who claimed to have taken
it from the _Acta Martyrum_, an ancient collection of the acts of the
martyrs. It was in the early part of the seventeenth century that Bishop
Andrews first brought this forward in his speech in the court of Star
Chamber, against Thraske, who was accused before that arbitrary tribunal
of maintaining the heretical opinion that Christians are bound to keep
the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. The story was first produced,
therefore, for the purpose of confounding an observer of the Sabbath when
on trial by his enemies for keeping that day. Sir Wm. Domville, an able
anti-Sabbatarian writer, thus traces out the matter:—
“The bishop, as we have seen, refers to the _Acta_ of the
martyrs as justifying his assertion respecting the question,
_Dominicum servasti?_ but he does not cite a single instance
from them in which that question was put. We are left therefore
to hunt out the instances for ourselves, wherever, if anywhere,
they are to be found. The most complete collection of the
memoirs and legends still extant, relative to the lives and
sufferings of the Christian martyrs, is that by Ruinart,
entitled, ‘_Acta primorum Martyrum sincera et selecta_.’ I have
carefully consulted that work, and I take upon myself to affirm
that among the questions there stated to have been put to the
martyrs in and before the time of Pliny, and for nearly two
hundred years afterwards, the question, _Dominicum servasti?_
does not once occur; nor any equivalent question.”[502]
This shows at once that no proof can be obtained from this quarter,
either that the “stated day” of Pliny was the first day of the week, or
that the martyrs of the early church were tested by the question whether
they had observed it or not. It also shows the statement to be false
that the martyrs of Pliny’s time called Sunday the Lord’s day and kept
it as such. After quoting all the questions put to martyrs in and before
Pliny’s time, and thus proving that no such question as is alleged, was
put to them, Domville says:—
“This much may suffice to show that _Dominicum servasti?_
was no question in Pliny’s time, as Mr. Gurney intends us to
believe it was. I have, however, still other proof of Mr.
Gurney’s unfair dealing with the subject, but I defer stating
it for the present, that I may proceed in the inquiry, What may
have been the authority on which Bishop Andrews relied when
stating that _Dominicum servasti?_ was ever a usual question
put by the heathen persecutors? I shall with this view pass
over the martyrdoms which intervened between Pliny’s time and
the fourth century, as they contain nothing to the purpose,
and shall come at once to that martyrdom the narrative of
which was, I have no doubt, the source from which Bishop
Andrews derived his question, _Dominicum servasti?_ ‘Hold you
the Lord’s day?’ This martyrdom happened A. D. 304.[503] The
sufferers were Saturninus and his four sons, and several other
persons. They were taken to Carthage, and brought before the
proconsul Amulinus. In the account given of their examinations
by him, the phrases, ‘CELEBRARE _Dominicum_,’ and ‘AGERE
_Dominicum_,’ frequently occur, but in no instance is the verb
‘_servare_’ used in reference to _Dominicum_. I mention this
chiefly to show that when Bishop Andrews, alluding, as no doubt
he does, to the narrative of this martyrdom, says the question
was, _Dominicum servasti?_ it is very clear he had not his
author at hand, and that in trusting to his memory, he coined a
phrase of his own.”[504]
Domville quotes at length the conversation between the proconsul and the
martyrs, which is quite similar in most respects to Gurney’s and Edward’s
quotation from Andrews. He then adds:—
“The narrative of the martyrdom of Saturninus being the only
one which has the appearance of supporting the assertion of
Bishop Andrews that, ‘Hold you the Lord’s day?’ was the usual
question to the martyrs, what if I should prove that even this
narrative affords no support to that assertion? yet nothing
is more easy than this proof; for Bishop Andrews has quite
mistaken the meaning of the word _Dominicum_ in translating it
‘the Lord’s day.’ It had no such meaning. It was a barbarous
word in use among some of the ecclesiastical writers in, and
subsequent to, the fourth century, to express sometimes a
church, and at other times the Lord’s supper, but NEVER the
Lord’s day.[505] My authorities on this point are—
“1. Ruinart, who, upon the word _Dominicum_, in the narrative
of the martyrdom of Saturninus, has a note, in which he says it
is a word signifying the Lord’s supper[506] (‘_Dominicum vero
desinat sacra mysteria_’), and he quotes Tertullian and Cyprian
in support of this interpretation.
“2. The editors of the Benedictine edition of St. Augustine’s
works. They state that the word _Dominicum_ has the two
meanings of a church and the Lord’s supper. For the former they
quote among other authorities, a canon of the council of Neo
Cesarea. For the latter meaning they quote Cyprian, and refer
also to St. Augustine’s account of his conference with the
Donatists, in which allusion is made to the narrative of the
martyrdom of Saturninus.[507]
“3. Gesner, who, in his Latin Thesaurus published in 1749,
gives both meanings to the word _Dominicum_. For that of the
Lord’s supper he quotes Cyprian; for that of a church he quotes
Cyprian and also Hillary.”[508]
Domville states other facts of interest bearing on this point, and then
pays his respects to Mr. Gurney as follows:—
“It thus appearing that the reference made by Bishop Andrews
to the ‘Acts of Martyrs’ completely fails to establish his
dictum respecting the question alleged to have been put to the
martyrs, and it also appearing that there existed strong and
obvious reasons for not placing implicit reliance upon that
dictum, what are we to think of Mr. Gurney’s regard for truth,
when we find he does not scruple to tell his readers that the
‘stated day’ mentioned in Pliny’s letter as that on which the
Christians held their religious assemblies, was ‘clearly the
first day of the week,’ is proved by the very question which
it was customary for the Roman persecutors to address to the
martyrs, _Dominicum servasti?_—‘Hast thou kept the Lord’s day?’
For this unqualified assertion, prefixed as it is by the word
‘clearly,’ in order to make it the more impressive, Mr. Gurney
is without any excuse.”[509]
The justice of Domville’s language cannot be questioned when he
characterizes this favorite first-day argument as—
“One of those daring misstatements of facts so frequent in
theological writings, and which, from the confident tone so
generally assumed by the writers on such occasions, are usually
received without examination, and allowed, in consequence, to
pass current for truth.”[510]
The investigation to which this statement has been subjected, shows,
1. That no such question as, Hast thou kept the Lord’s day? is upon
record as proposed to the martyrs in the time of Pliny. 2. That no such
question was asked to any martyr prior to the commencement of the fourth
century. 3. That a single instance of martyrdom in which any question
of the kind was asked, is all that can be claimed. 4. That in this one
case, which is all that has even the slightest appearance of sustaining
the story under examination, a correct translation of the original Latin
shows that the question had no relation whatever to the observance of
Sunday! All this has been upon the assumption that the _Acta Martyrum_,
in which this story is found, is an authentic work. Let Mosheim testify
relative to the character of this work for veracity:—
“As to those accounts which have come down to us under the
title of _Acta Martyrum_, or, the Acts of the Martyrs, their
authority is certainly for the most part of a very questionable
nature; indeed, speaking generally, it might be coming nearer
to the truth, perhaps, were we to say that they are entitled to
no sort of credit whatever.”[511]
Such is the authority of the work from which this story is taken. It is
not strange that first-day historians should leave the repetition of it
to theologians.
Such are the facts respecting this extraordinary falsehood. They
constitute so complete an exposure of this famous historical argument for
Sunday as to consign it to the just contempt of all honest men. But this
is too valuable an argument to be lightly surrendered, and moreover it is
as truthful as are certain other of the historical arguments for Sunday.
It will not do to give up this argument because of its dishonesty; for
others will have to go with it for possessing the same character.
Since the publication of Domville’s elaborate work, James Gilfillan
of Scotland has written a large volume entitled, “The Sabbath,” which
has been extensively circulated both in Europe and in America, and is
esteemed a standard work by the American Tract Society and by first-day
denominations in general. Gilfillan had read Domville as appears from his
statements on pages 10, 142, 143, 616, of his volume. He was therefore
acquainted with Domville’s exposure of the fraud respecting “_Dominicum
servasti?_” But though he was acquainted with this exposure, he offers
not one word in reply. On the contrary, he repeats the story with as much
assurance as though it had not been proved a falsehood. But as Domville
had shown up the matter from the _Acta Martyrum_, it was necessary for
Gilfillan to trace it to some other authority, and so he assigns it to
Cardinal Baronius. Here are Gilfillan’s words:—
“From the days of the apostles downwards for many years, the
followers of Christ had no enemies more fierce and unrelenting
than that people [the Jews], who cursed them in the synagogue,
sent out emissaries into all countries to calumniate their
Master and them, and were abettors wherever they could, of the
martyrdom of men, such as Polycarp, of whom the world was not
worthy. Among the reasons of this deadly enmity was the change
of the Sabbatic day. The Romans, though they had no objection
on this score, punished the Christians for the faithful
observance of their day of rest, one of the testing questions
put to the martyrs being, _Dominicum servasti?_—Have you kept
the Lord’s day?—_Baron. An. Eccles._, A. D. 303, Num. 35,
etc.”[512]
Gilfillan having reproduced this statement and assigned as his authority
the annalist Baronius, more recent first-day writers take courage and
repeat the story after him. Now they are all right, as they think. What
if the _Acta Martyrum_ has failed them? Domville ought to have gone to
Baronius, who, in their judgment, is the true source of information in
this matter. Had he done this, they say, he would have been saved from
misleading his readers. But let us ascertain what evil Domville has done
in this case. It all consists in the assertion of two things out of the
_Acta Martyrum_.[513]
1. That no such question as “_Dominicum servasti?_” was addressed to any
martyr till the early part of the fourth century, some two hundred years
after the time of Pliny.
2. That the question even then did not relate to what is called the
Lord’s day, but to the Lord’s supper.
Now it is a remarkable fact that Gilfillan has virtually admitted the
truth of the first of these statements, for the earliest instance which
he could find in Baronius is A. D. 303, as his reference plainly shows.
It differs only one year from the date assigned in Ruinart’s _Acta
Martyrum_, and relates to the very case which Domville has quoted from
that work! Domville’s first and most important statement is therefore
vindicated by Gilfillan himself, though he has not the frankness to say
this in so many words.
Domville’s second point is that _Dominicum_, when used as a noun, as in
the present case, signifies either a church or the Lord’s supper, but
never signifies Lord’s day. He establishes the fact by incontestible
evidence. Gilfillan was acquainted with all this. He could not answer
Domville, and yet he was not willing to abandon the falsehood which
Domville had exposed. So he turns from the _Acta Martyrum_ in which the
compiler expressly defines the word to mean precisely what Domville
asserts, and brings forward the great Romish annalist, Cardinal Baronius.
Now, say our first-day friends, we are to have the truth from a high
authority. Gilfillan has found in Baronius an express statement that the
martyrs were tested by the question, “Have you kept the Lord’s day?” No
matter then as to the _Acta Martyrum_ from which Bishop Andrews first
produced this story. That, indeed, has failed us, but we have in its
stead the weighty testimony of the great Baronius. To be sure he fixes
this test no earlier than the fourth century, which renders it of no
avail as proof that Pliny’s stated day was Sunday; but it is worth much
to have Baronius bear witness that certain martyrs in the fourth century
were put to death because they observed the Sunday-Lord’s day.
But these exultant thoughts are vain. I must state a grave fact in
plain language: Gilfillan has deliberately falsified the testimony
of Baronius! That historian records at length the martyrdom of
Saturninus and his company in northern Africa in A. D. 303. It is the
very story which Domville has cited from the _Acta Martyrum_, and
Baronius repeatedly indicates that he himself copied it from that work.
He gives the various questions propounded by the proconsul, and the
several answers which were returned by each of the martyrs. I copy from
Baronius the most important of these. They were arrested while they
were celebrating the Lord’s sacrament according to custom.[514] The
following is the charge on which they were arrested: They had celebrated
the _Collectam Dominicam_ against the command of the emperors.[515] The
proconsul asked the first whether he had celebrated the _Collectam_,
and he replied that he was a Christian, and had done this.[516] Another
says, “I have not only been in the _Collecta_, but I have celebrated the
_Dominicum_ with the brethren because I am a Christian.”[517] Another
says we have celebrated the _Dominicum_, because the _Dominicum_ cannot
be neglected.[518] Another said that the Collecta was made (or observed)
at his house.[519] The proconsul questioning again one of those already
examined, received this answer: “The _Dominicum_ cannot be disregarded,
the law so commands.”[520] When one was asked whether the _Collecta_
was made (or observed) at his house, he answered, “In my house we have
celebrated the _Dominicum_.” He added, “Without the _Dominicum_ we cannot
be,” or live.[521] To another, the proconsul said that he did not wish
to know whether he was a Christian, but whether he participated in the
_Collecta_. His reply was: “As if one could be a Christian without the
_Dominicum_, or as if the _Dominicum_ can be celebrated without the
Christian.”[522] And he said further to the proconsul: “We have observed
the _Collecta_ most sacredly; we have always convened in the _Dominicum_
for reading the Lord’s word.”[523] Another said: “I have been in
[literally, have made] the _Collecta_ with my brethren, I have celebrated
the _Dominicum_.”[524] After him another proclaimed the _Dominicum_
to be the hope and safety of the Christian, and when tortured as the
others, he exclaimed, ”I have celebrated the _Dominicum_ with a devoted
heart, and with my brethren I have made the _Collecta_ because I am a
Christian.”[525] When the proconsul again asked one of these whether he
had conducted the _Dominicum_, he replied that he had because Christ was
his Saviour.[526]
I have thus given the substance of this famous examination, and have set
before the reader the references therein made to the _Dominicum_. It is
to be observed that _Collecta_ is used as another name for _Dominicum_.
Now does Baronius use either of these words to signify Lord’s day? It
so happens that he has defined these words with direct reference to
this very case no less than seven times. Now let us read these seven
definitions:—
When Baronius records the first question addressed to these martyrs,
he there defines these words as follows: “By the words _Collectam_,
_Collectionem_, and _Dominicum_, the author always understands the
sacrifice of the Mass.”[527] After recording the words of that martyr who
said that the law commanded the observance of the _Dominicum_, Baronius
defines his statement thus: “Evidently the Christian law concerning the
_Dominicum_, no doubt about celebrating the sacrifice.”[528] Baronius,
by the Romish words sacrifice and Mass refers to the celebration of the
Lord’s supper by these martyrs. At the conclusion of the examination,
he again defines the celebration of the _Dominicum_. He says: “It
has been shown above in relating these things that the Christians
were moved, even in the time of severe persecution, to celebrate the
_Dominicum_. Evidently, as we have declared elsewhere in many places, it
was a sacrifice without bloodshed, and of divine appointment.”[529] He
presently defines _Dominicum_ again, saying, “Though it is a fact that
the same expression was employed at times with reference to the _temple_
of God, yet since all the churches upon the earth have united in this
matter, and from other things related above, it has been sufficiently
shown concerning the celebration of the _Dominicum_, _that only the
sacrifice of the Mass can be understood_.”[530] Observe this last
statement. He says though the word has been employed to designate the
temple of the Lord, yet in the things here related it can _only_ signify
the sacrifice of the Mass. These testimonies are exceedingly explicit.
But Baronius has not yet finished. In the index to Tome 3, he explains
these words again with direct reference to this very martyrdom. Thus
under _Collecta_ is this statement: “The _Collecta_, the _Dominicum_, the
Mass, the same [A. D.] 303, xxxix.”[531] Under _Missa_: “The Mass is the
same as the _Collecta_, or _Dominicum_ [A. D.], 303, xxxix.”[532] Under
_Dominicum_: “To celebrate the _Dominicum_ is the same as to conduct the
Mass [A. D.], 303, xxxix.; xlix.; li.”[533]
It is not possible to mistake the meaning of Baronius. He says that
_Dominicum_ signifies the Mass! The celebration of the supper by these
martyrs was doubtless very different from the pompous ceremony which
the church of Rome now observes under the name of Mass. But it was the
sacrament of the Lord’s supper, concerning which they were tested, and
for observing which they were put to a cruel death. The word _Dominicum_
signifies “the sacred mysteries,” as Ruinart defines it; and Baronius, in
_seven_ times affirming _this_ definition, though acknowledging that it
has sometimes been used to signify temple of God, plainly declares that
in this record, it can have _no other meaning_ than that service which
the Romanists call the sacrifice of the Mass. Gilfillan had read all
this, yet he dares to quote Baronius as saying that these martyrs were
tested by the question, “Have you kept Lord’s day?” He could not but know
that he was writing a direct falsehood; but he thought the honor of God,
and the advancement of the cause of truth, demanded this act at his hands.
Before Gilfillan wrote his work, Domville had called attention to the
fact that the sentence, “_Dominicum servasti?_” does not occur in the
_Acta Martyrum_, a different verb being used every time. But this is the
popular form of this question, and must not be given up. So Gilfillan
declares that Baronius uses it in his record of the martyrdoms in A.
D. 303. But we have cited the different forms of question recorded by
Baronius, and find them to be precisely the same with those of the _Acta
Martyrum_. “_Dominicum servasti?_” does not occur in that historian, and
Gilfillan, in stating that it does, is guilty of untruth. This, however,
is comparatively unimportant. But for asserting that Baronius speaks of
Lord’s day under the name of _Dominicum_, Gilfillan stands convicted of
inexcusable falsehood in matters of serious importance.
CHAPTER XVI.
ORIGIN OF FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE.
Sunday a heathen festival from remote antiquity—Origin of the
name—Reasons which induced the leaders of the church to adopt
this festival—It was the day generally observed by the Gentiles
in the first centuries of the Christian era—To have taken a
different day would have been exceedingly inconvenient—They
hoped to facilitate the conversion of the Gentiles by keeping
the same day that they observed—Three voluntary weekly
festivals in the church in memory of the Redeemer—Sunday soon
elevated above the other two—Justin Martyr—Sunday observance
first found in the church of Rome—Irenæus—First act of papal
usurpation was in behalf of Sunday—Tertullian—Earliest trace of
abstinence from labor on Sunday—General statement of facts—The
Roman church made its first great attack upon the Sabbath by
turning it into a fast.
The festival of Sunday is more ancient than the Christian religion, its
origin being lost in remote antiquity. It did not originate, however,
from any divine command nor from piety toward God: on the contrary, it
was set apart as a sacred day by the heathen world in honor of their
chief god, the sun. It is from this fact that the first day of the week
has obtained the name of Sunday, a name by which it is known in many
languages. Webster thus defines the word:—
“Sunday; so called because this day was anciently dedicated
to the sun or to its worship. The first day of the week; the
Christian Sabbath; a day consecrated to rest from secular
employments, and to religious worship; the Lord’s day.”
And Worcester, in his large dictionary, uses similar language:—
“Sunday; so named because anciently dedicated to the sun or to
its worship. The first day of the week; the Christian Sabbath,
consecrated to rest from labor and to religious worship; the
Lord’s day.”
These lexicographers call Sunday the Christian Sabbath, etc., because
in the general theological literature of our language, it is thus
designated, though never thus in the Bible. Lexicographers do not
undertake to settle theological questions, but simply to define terms as
currently used in a particular language. Though all the other days of the
week have heathen names, Sunday alone was a conspicuous heathen festival
in the days of the early church. The _North British Review_, in a labored
attempt to justify the observance of Sunday by the Christian world,
styles that day, “THE WILD SOLAR HOLIDAY [_i. e._, festival in honor of
the sun] OF ALL PAGAN TIMES.”[534]
Verstegan says:—
“The most ancient Germans being pagans, and having appropriated
their first day of the week to the peculiar adoration of the
sun, whereof that day doth yet in our English tongue retain the
name of Sunday, and appropriated the next day unto it unto the
especial adoration of the moon, whereof it yet retaineth with
us, the name of Monday; they ordained the next day to these
most heavenly planets to the particular adoration of their
great reputed god, Tuisco, whereof we do yet retain in our
language the name of Tuesday.”[535]
The same author thus speaks concerning the idols of our Saxon ancestors:—
“Of these, though they had many, yet seven among the rest they
especially appropriated unto the seven days of the week....
Unto the day dedicated unto the especial adoration of the idol
of the sun, they gave the name of Sunday, as much as to say
the sun’s day or the day of the sun. This idol was placed in
a temple, and there adored and sacrificed unto, for that they
believed that the sun in the firmament did with or in this idol
correspond and co-operate.”[536]
Jennings makes this adoration of the sun more ancient than the
deliverance of Israel from Egypt. For, in speaking of the time of that
deliverance, he speaks of the Gentiles as,
“The idolatrous nations who in honor to their chief god, the
sun, began their day at his rising.”[537]
He represents them also as setting apart Sunday in honor of the same
object of adoration:—
“The day which the heathens in general consecrated to the
worship and honor of their chief god, the sun, which, according
to our computation, was the first day of the week.”[538]
The _North British Review_ thus defends the introduction of this ancient
heathen festival into the Christian church:—
“That very day was the Sunday of their heathen neighbors and
respective countrymen; and patriotism gladly united with
expediency in making it at once their Lord’s day and their
Sabbath.... If the authority of the church is to be ignored
altogether by Protestants, there is no matter; because
opportunity and common expediency are surely argument enough
for so ceremonial a change as the mere day of the week for
the observance of the rest and holy convocation of the Jewish
Sabbath. That primitive church, in fact, was shut up to the
adoption of the Sunday, until it became established and
supreme, when it was too late to make another alteration;
and it was no irreverent nor undelightful thing to adopt it,
inasmuch as the first day of the week was their own high day at
any rate; so that their compliance and civility were rewarded
by the redoubled sanctity of their quiet festival.”[539]
It would seem that something more potent than “patriotism” and
“expediency” would be requisite to transform this heathen festival into
the Christian Sabbath, or even to justify its introduction into the
Christian church. A further statement of the reasons which prompted its
introduction, and a brief notice of the earlier steps toward transforming
it into a Christian institution, will occupy the remainder of this
chapter. Chafie, a clergyman of the English Church, in 1652, published a
work in vindication of first-day observance, entitled, “The Seventh-day
Sabbath.” After showing the general observance of Sunday by the heathen
world in the early ages of the church, Chafie thus states the reasons
which forbid the Christians attempting to keep any other day:—
“1. Because of the contempt, scorn, and derision they thereby
should be had in, among all the Gentiles with whom they
lived.... How grievous would be their taunts and reproaches
against the poor Christians living with them and under their
power for their new set sacred day, had the Christians chosen
any other than the Sunday.... 2. Most Christians then were
either servants or of the poorer sort of people; and the
Gentiles, most probably, would not give their servants liberty
to cease from working on any other set day constantly, except
on their Sunday.... 3. Because had they assayed such a change
it would have been but labor in vain; ... they could never have
brought it to pass.”[540]
Thus it is seen that at the time when the early church began to
apostatize from God and to foster in its bosom human ordinances, the
heathen world—as they had long done—very generally observed the first day
of the week in honor of the sun. Many of the early fathers of the church
had been heathen philosophers. Unfortunately they brought with them into
the church many of their old notions and principles. Particularly did
it occur to them that by uniting with the heathen in the day of weekly
celebration they should greatly facilitate their conversion. The reasons
which induced the church to adopt the ancient festival of the heathen as
something made ready to hand, are thus stated by Morer:—
“It is not to be denied but we borrow the name of this day
from the ancient Greeks and Romans, and we allow that the old
Egyptians worshiped the sun, and as a standing _memorial_ of
their veneration, dedicated this day to him. And we find by the
influence of their examples, _other_ nations, and among them
the Jews themselves, doing him homage;[541] yet these abuses
did not hinder the fathers of the Christian church simply to
repeal, or altogether lay by, the day or its name, but only to
sanctify and improve both, as they did also the pagan temples
polluted before with idolatrous services, and other instances
wherein those good men were always tender to work any other
change than what was evidently necessary, and in such things
as were plainly inconsistent with the Christian religion; so
that Sunday being the day on which the Gentiles solemnly adored
that planet, and called it Sunday, partly from its influence on
that day especially, and partly in respect to its divine body
(as they conceived it), the Christians thought fit to keep the
same day and the same name of it, that they might not appear
causelessly peevish, and by that means hinder the conversion
of the Gentiles, and bring a greater prejudice than might be
otherwise taken against the gospel.”[542]
In the time of Justin Martyr, Sunday was a weekly festival, widely
celebrated by the heathen in honor of their god, the sun. And so, in
presenting to the heathen emperor of Rome an “Apology” for his brethren,
Justin takes care to tell him thrice that the Christians held their
assemblies on this day of general observance.[543] Sunday therefore makes
its first appearance in the Christian church as an institution identical
in time with the weekly festival of the heathen, and Justin, who first
mentions this festival, had been a heathen philosopher. Sixty years
later, Tertullian acknowledges that it was not without an appearance of
truth that men declared the sun to be the god of the Christians. But he
answered that though they worshiped toward the east like the heathen,
and devoted Sunday to rejoicing, it was for a reason far different from
sun-worship.[544] And on another occasion, in defending his brethren
from the charge of sun-worship, he acknowledges that these acts, prayer
toward the east, and making Sunday a day of festivity, did give men a
chance to think the sun was the God of the Christians.[545] Tertullian is
therefore a witness to the fact that Sunday was a heathen festival when
it obtained a foothold in the Christian church, and that the Christians,
in consequence of observing it, were taunted with being sun-worshipers.
It is remarkable that in his replies he never claims for their observance
any divine precept or apostolic example. His principal point was that
they had as good a right to do it as the heathen had. One hundred and
twenty one years after Tertullian, Constantine, while yet a heathen, put
forth his famous edict in behalf of the heathen festival of the sun,
which day he pronounced “venerable.” And this heathen law caused the
day to be observed everywhere throughout the Roman Empire, and firmly
established it both in Church and State. It is certain, therefore, that
at the time of its entrance into the Christian church, Sunday was an
ancient weekly festival of the heathen world.
That this heathen festival was upon the day of Christ’s resurrection
doubtless powerfully contributed to aid “patriotism” and “expediency” in
transforming it into the Lord’s day or Christian Sabbath. For, with pious
motives, as we may reasonably conclude, the professed people of God early
paid a voluntary regard to several days, memorable in the history of the
Redeemer. Mosheim, whose testimony in behalf of Sunday has been presented
already, uses the following language relative to the crucifixion day:—
“It is also probable that Friday, the day of Christ’s
crucifixion, was early distinguished by particular honors from
the other days of the week.”[546]
And of the second century, he says:—
“Many also observed the fourth day of the week, on which
Christ was betrayed; and the sixth, which was the day of his
crucifixion.”[547]
Dr. Peter Heylyn says of those who chose Sunday:—
“Because our Saviour rose that day from amongst the dead, so
chose they Friday for another, by reason of our Saviour’s
passion; and Wednesday on the which he had been betrayed: the
Saturday, or ancient Sabbath, being meanwhile retained in the
eastern churches.”[548]
Of the comparative sacredness of these three voluntary festivals, the
same writer testifies:—
“If we consider either the preaching of the word, the
ministration of the sacraments, or the public prayers: the
Sunday in the eastern churches had no great prerogative above
other days, especially above the Wednesday and the Friday, save
that the meetings were more solemn, and the concourse of people
greater than at other times, as is most likely.”[549]
And besides these three weekly festivals, there were also two annual
festivals of great sacredness. These were the Passover and the Pentecost.
And it is worthy of special notice that although the Sunday festival can
be traced no higher in the church than Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, the
Passover can be traced to a man who claimed to have received it from
the apostles. See chapter thirteen. Among these festivals, considered
simply as voluntary memorials of the Redeemer, Sunday had very little
pre-eminence. For it is well stated by Heylyn:—
“Take which you will, either the fathers or the moderns, and
we shall find no Lord’s day instituted by any apostolical
mandate; no Sabbath set on foot by them upon the first day of
the week.”[550]
Domville bears the following testimony, which is worthy of lasting
remembrance:—
“Not any ecclesiastical writer of the first three centuries
attributed the origin of Sunday observance either to Christ or
to his apostles.”[551]
“Patriotism” and “expediency,” however, erelong elevated immeasurably
above its fellows that one of these voluntary festivals which
corresponded to “the wild solar holiday” of the heathen world, making
that day at last “the Lord’s day” of the Christian church. The earliest
testimony in behalf of first-day observance that has _any_ claim to be
regarded as genuine is that of Justin Martyr, written about A. D. 140.
Before his conversion, he was a heathen philosopher. The time, place, and
occasion of his first Apology or Defense of the Christians, addressed to
the Roman Emperor, is thus stated by an eminent Roman Catholic historian.
He says that Justin Martyr
“Was at Rome when the persecution that was raised under the
reign of Antoninus Pius, the successor of Adrian, began to
break forth, where he composed an excellent apology in behalf
of the Christians.”[552]
Of the works ascribed to Justin Martyr, Milner says:—
“Like many of the ancient fathers he appears to us under the
greatest disadvantage. Works really his have been lost; and
others have been ascribed to him, part of which are not his;
and the rest, at least, of ambiguous authority.”[553]
If the writings ascribed to him are genuine, there is little propriety
in the use made of his name by the advocates of the first-day Sabbath.
He taught the abrogation of the Sabbatic institution; and there is no
intimation in his words that the Sunday festival which he mentions was
other than a voluntary observance. Thus he addresses the emperor of Rome:—
“And upon the day called Sunday, all that live either in city
or country meet together at the same place, where the writings
of the apostles and prophets are read, as much as time will
give leave; when the reader has done, the bishop makes a
sermon, wherein he instructs the people, and animates them
to the practice of such lovely precepts: at the conclusion
of this discourse, we all rise up together and pray; and
prayers being over, as I now said, there is bread and wine and
water offered, and the bishop, as before, sends up prayers
and thanksgivings, with all the fervency he is able, and the
people conclude all with the joyful acclamation of Amen. Then
the consecrated elements are distributed to, and partaken of,
by all that are present, and sent to the absent by the hands
of the deacons. But the wealthy and the willing, for every
one is at liberty, contribute as they think fitting; and this
collection is deposited with the bishop, and out of this he
relieves the orphan and the widow, and such as are reduced to
want by sickness or any other cause, and such as are in bonds,
and strangers that come from far; and, in a word, he is the
guardian and almoner to all the indigent. Upon Sunday we all
assemble, that being the first day in which God set himself
to work upon the dark void, in order to make the world, and
in which Jesus Christ our Saviour rose again from the dead;
for the day before Saturday he was crucified, and the day
after, which is Sunday, he appeared unto his apostles and
disciples, and taught them what I have now proposed to your
consideration.”[554]
This passage, if genuine, furnishes the earliest reference to the
observance of Sunday as a religious festival in the Christian church.
It should be remembered that this language was written at Rome, and
addressed directly to the emperor. It shows therefore what was the
practice of the church in that city and vicinity, but does not determine
how extensive this observance was. It contains strong incidental proof
that apostasy had made progress at Rome; the institution of the Lord’s
supper being changed in part already to a human ordinance; water being
now as essential to the Lord’s supper as the wine or the bread. And
what is still more dangerous as perverting the institution of Christ,
the consecrated elements were sent to the absent, a step which speedily
resulted in their becoming objects of superstitious veneration, and
finally of worship. Justin tells the emperor that Christ thus ordained;
but such a statement is a grave departure from the truth of the New
Testament.
This statement of reasons for Sunday observance is particularly worthy
of attention. He tells the emperor that they assembled upon the day
called Sunday. This was equivalent to saying to him, We observe the day
on which our fellow-citizens offer their adoration to the sun. Here
both “patriotism” and “expediency” discover themselves in the words
of Justin, which were addressed to a persecuting emperor in behalf of
the Christians. But as if conscious that the observance of a heathen
festival as the day of Christian worship was not consistent with their
profession as worshipers of the Most High, Justin bethinks himself for
reasons in defense of this observance. He assigns no divine precept nor
apostolic example for this festival. For his reference to what Christ
taught his disciples, as appears from the connection, was to the general
system of the Christian religion, and not to the observance of Sunday.
If it be said that Justin might have learned from tradition what is
not to be found in the New Testament relative to Sunday observance,
and that after all Sunday may be a divinely-appointed festival, it is
sufficient to answer, 1. That this plea would show only tradition in
favor of the Sunday festival. 2. That Justin Martyr is a very unsafe
guide; his testimony relative to the Lord’s supper differs from that of
the New Testament. 3. That the American Tract Society, in a work which it
publishes against Romanism, bears the following testimony relative to the
point before us:—
“Justin Martyr appears indeed peculiarly unfitted to lay claim
to authority. It is notorious that he supposed a pillar erected
on the island of the Tiber to Semo Sanchus, an old Sabine
deity, to be a monument erected by the Roman people in honor of
the impostor Simon Magus. Were so gross a mistake to be made by
a modern writer in relating a historical fact, exposure would
immediately take place, and his testimony would thenceforward
be suspected. And assuredly the same measure should be meted to
Justin Martyr, who so egregiously errs in reference to a fact
alluded to by Livy the historian.”[555]
Justin assigns the following reasons in support of Sunday observance:
“That being the first day in which God set himself to work upon the dark
void in order to make the world, and in which Jesus Christ our Saviour
rose again from the dead.” Bishop Jeremy Taylor most fittingly replies to
this:—
“The first of these looks more like an excuse than a just
reason; for if anything of the creation were made the cause of
a Sabbath, it ought to be the end, not the beginning; it ought
to be the rest, not the first part of the work; it ought to be
that which God assigned, not [that] which man should take by
way of after justification.”[556]
It is to be observed, therefore, that the first trace of Sunday as a
Christian festival is found in the church of Rome. Soon after this time,
and thenceforward, we shall find “the bishop” of that church making
vigorous efforts to suppress the Sabbath of the Lord, and to elevate in
its stead the festival of Sunday.
It is proper to note the fact also that Justin was a decided opponent
of the ancient Sabbath. In his “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” he thus
addressed him:—
“This new law teaches you to observe a perpetual Sabbath; and
you, when you have spent one day in idleness, think you have
discharged the duties of religion.... If any one is guilty
of adultery, let him repent, then he hath kept the true and
delightful Sabbath unto God.... For we really should observe
that circumcision which is in the flesh, and the Sabbath,
and all the feasts, if we had not known the reason why they
were imposed upon you, namely, upon the account of your
iniquities.... It was because of your iniquities, and the
iniquities of your fathers, that God appointed you to observe
the Sabbath.... You see that the heavens are not idle, nor do
they observe the Sabbath. Continue as ye were born. For if
before Abraham there was no need of circumcision, nor of the
sabbaths, nor of feasts, nor of offerings before Moses; so now
in like manner there is no need of them, since Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, was by the determinate counsel of God, born of
a virgin of the seed of Abraham without sin.”[557]
This reasoning of Justin deserves no reply. It shows, however, the
unfairness of Dr. Edwards, who quotes Justin Martyr as a witness for the
change of the Sabbath;[558] whereas Justin held that God made the Sabbath
on account of the wickedness of the Jews, and that he totally abrogated
it in consequence of the first advent of Christ; the Sunday festival of
the heathen being evidently adopted by the church at Rome from motives
of “expediency” and perhaps of “patriotism.” The testimony of Justin, if
genuine, is peculiarly valuable in one respect. It shows that as late as
A. D. 140 the first day of the week had acquired no title of sacredness;
for Justin several times mentions the day: thrice as “the day called
Sunday” and twice as “the eighth day;” and by other terms also, but never
by any sacred name.[559]
The next important witness in behalf of first-day sacredness is thus
presented by Dr. Edwards:—
“Hence Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, who
had been the companion of the apostles, A. D. 167, says that
the Lord’s day was the Christian Sabbath. His words are, ‘On
the Lord’s day every one of us Christians keeps the Sabbath,
meditating on the law and rejoicing in the works of God.’”[560]
This testimony is highly valued by first-day writers, and is often and
prominently set forth in their publications. Sir Wm. Domville, whose
elaborate treatise on the Sabbath has been several times quoted, states
the following important fact relative to this quotation:—
“I have carefully searched through all the extant works of
Irenæus and can with certainty state that no such passage, or
any one at all resembling it, is there to be found. The edition
I consulted was that by Massuet (Paris, 1710); but to assure
myself still further, I have since looked to the editions by
Erasmus (Paris, 1563), and Grabe (Oxford, 1702), and in neither
do I find the passage in question.”[561]
It is a remarkable fact that those who quote this as the language of
Irenæus, if they give any reference, cite their readers to Dwight’s
Theology instead of referring them to the place in the works of Irenæus
where it is to be found. It was Dr. Dwight who first enriched the
theological world with this invaluable quotation. Where, then, did Dwight
obtain this testimony which has so many times been given as that of
Irenæus? On this point Domville remarks:—
“He had the misfortune to be afflicted with a disease in his
eyes from the early age of twenty-three, a calamity (says
his biographer) by which he was deprived of the capacity for
reading and study.... The knowledge which he gained from books
after the period above mentioned [by which the editor must mean
his age of twenty-three] was almost exclusively at second hand,
by the aid of others.”[562]
Domville states another fact which gives us unquestionably the origin of
this quotation:—
“But although not to be found in Irenæus, there are in
the writings ascribed to another father, namely, in the
interpolated epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, and in one
of its interpolated passages, expressions so clearly resembling
those of Dr. Dwight’s quotation as to leave no doubt of the
source from which he quoted.”[563]
Such, then, is the end of this famous testimony of Irenæus, who had
it from Polycarp, who had it from the apostles! It was furnished the
world by a man whose eyesight was impaired; who in consequence of this
infirmity took at second hand an interpolated passage from an epistle
falsely ascribed to Ignatius, and published it to the world as the
genuine testimony of Irenæus. Loss of eyesight, as we may charitably
believe, led Dr. Dwight into the serious error which he has committed;
but by the publication of this spurious testimony, which seemed to
come in a direct line from the apostles, he has rendered multitudes as
incapable of reading aright the fourth commandment, as he, by loss of
natural eyesight, was of reading Irenæus for himself. This case admirably
illustrates tradition as a religious guide; it is the blind leading the
blind until both fall into the ditch.
Nor is this all that should be said in the case of Irenæus. In all his
writings there is _no instance_ in which he calls Sunday the Lord’s day!
And what is also very remarkable, there is no sentence extant written
by him in which he even mentions the first day of the week![564] It
appears, however, from several statements in ancient writers, that he did
mention the day, though no sentence of _his_ in which it is mentioned
is in existence. He held that the Sabbath was a typical institution,
which pointed to the seventh thousand years as the great day of rest
to the church;[565] he said that Abraham was “without observance of
Sabbaths;”[566] and yet he makes the origin of the Sabbath to be the
sanctification of the seventh day.[567] But he expressly asserts the
perpetuity and authority of the ten commandments, declaring that they
are identical with the law of nature implanted from the beginning in
mankind, that they remain permanently with us, and that if any one does
not observe them he has no salvation.[568]
It is a remarkable fact that the first instance upon record in which the
bishop of Rome attempted to rule the Christian church was by AN EDICT IN
BEHALF OF SUNDAY. It had been the custom of all the churches to celebrate
the passover, but with this difference: that while the eastern churches
observed it upon the fourteenth day of the first month, no matter what
day of the week this might be, the western churches kept it upon the
Sunday following that day; or rather, upon the Sunday following Good
Friday. Victor, bishop of Rome, in the year 196,[569] took upon him to
impose the Roman custom upon all the churches; that is, to compel them to
observe the passover upon Sunday. “This bold attempt,” says Bower, “we
may call the first essay of papal usurpation.”[570] And Dowling terms it
the “earliest instance of Romish assumption.”[571] The churches of Asia
Minor informed Victor that they could not comply with his lordly mandate.
Then, says Bower:—
“Upon the receipt of this letter, Victor, giving the reins
to an impotent and ungovernable passion, published bitter
invectives against all the churches of Asia, declared them cut
off from his communion, sent letters of excommunication to
their respective bishops; and, at the same time, in order to
have them cut off from the communion of the whole church, wrote
to the other bishops, exhorting them to follow his example,
and forbear communicating with their refractory brethren of
Asia.”[572]
The historian informs us that “not one followed his example or advice;
not one paid any sort of regard to his letters, or showed the least
inclination to second him in such a rash and uncharitable attempt.” He
further says:—
“Victor being thus baffled in his attempt, his successors
took care not to revive the controversy; so that the Asiatics
peaceably followed their ancient practice till the Council
of Nice, which out of complaisance to Constantine the Great,
ordered the solemnity of Easter to be kept everywhere on the
same day, after the custom of Rome.”[573]
The victory was not obtained for Sunday in this struggle, as Heylyn
testifies,
“Till the great Council of Nice [A. D. 325] backed by the
authority of as great an emperor [Constantine] settled it
better than before; none but some scattered schismatics, now
and then appearing, that durst oppose the resolution of that
famous synod.”[574]
Constantine, by whose powerful influence the Council of Nice was induced
to decide this question in favor of the Roman bishop, that is, to fix the
passover upon Sunday, urged the following strong reason for the measure:—
“Let us then have nothing in common with the most hostile
rabble of the Jews.”[575]
This sentence is worthy of notice. A determination to have nothing in
common with the Jews had very much to do with the suppression of the
Sabbath in the Christian church. Those who rejected the Sabbath of the
Lord and chose in its stead the more popular and more convenient Sunday
festival of the heathen, were so infatuated with the idea of having
nothing in common with the Jews, that they never even questioned the
propriety of a festival in common with the heathen.
This festival was not weekly, but annual; but the removal of it from the
fourteenth of the first month to the Sunday following Good Friday was the
first legislation attempted in honor of Sunday as a Christian festival;
and as Heylyn quaintly expresses it, “The Lord’s day found it no small
matter to obtain the victory.”[576] In a brief period after the Council
of Nice, by the laws of Theodosius, capital punishment was inflicted upon
those who should celebrate the feast of the passover upon any other day
than Sunday.[577] The Britons of Wales were long able to maintain their
ground against this favorite project of the Roman church, and as late as
the sixth century “obstinately resisted the imperious mandates of the
Roman pontiffs.”[578]
Four years after the commencement of the struggle just narrated, bring
us to the testimony of Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, who
wrote about A. D. 200. Dr. Clarke tells us that the fathers “blow hot
and cold.” Tertullian is a fair example of this. He places the origin
of the Sabbath at the creation, but elsewhere says that the patriarchs
did not keep it. He says that Joshua broke the Sabbath at Jericho, and
afterward shows that he did not break it. He says that Christ broke the
Sabbath, and in another place proves that he did not. He represents the
eighth day as more honorable than the seventh, and elsewhere states the
reverse. He states that the law is abolished, and in other places teaches
its perpetuity and authority. He declares that the Sabbath was abrogated
by Christ, and afterward asserts that “Christ did not at all rescind
the Sabbath,” but imparted “an additional sanctity” to “the Sabbath day
itself, which from the beginning had been consecrated by the benediction
of the Father.” And he goes on to say that Christ “furnished to this day
divine safeguards—a course which his adversary would have pursued for
some other days, to avoid honoring the Creator’s Sabbath.”
This last statement is very remarkable. The Saviour furnished additional
safeguards to the Creator’s Sabbath. But “his adversary” would have done
this to some other days. Now it is plain, first, that Tertullian did
not believe that Christ sanctified some other day to take the place of
the Sabbath; and second, that he believed the consecration of another
day to be the work of the adversary of God! When he wrote these words
he certainly did not believe in the sanctification of Sunday by Christ.
But Tertullian and his brethren found themselves observing as a festival
that day on which the sun was worshiped, and they were, in consequence,
taunted with being worshipers of the sun. Tertullian denies the charge,
though he acknowledges that there was some appearance of truth to it. He
says:—
“Others, again, certainly with more information and greater
verisimilitude, believe that the sun is our God. We shall be
counted Persians, perhaps, though we do not worship the orb
of day painted on a piece of linen cloth, having himself
everywhere in his own disk. The idea, no doubt, has originated
from our being known to turn to the east in prayer. But you,
many of you, also, under pretense sometimes of worshiping
the heavenly bodies, move your lips in the direction of the
sunrise. In the same way, if we devote Sunday to rejoicing,
from a far different reason than sun-worship, we have some
resemblance to those of you who devote the day of Saturn to
ease and luxury, though they, too, go far away from Jewish
ways, of which they are ignorant.”[579]
Tertullian pleads no divine command nor apostolic example for this
practice. In fact, he offers no reason for the practice, though he
intimates that he had one to offer. But he finds it necessary in another
work to repel this same charge of sun-worship, because of Sunday
observance. In this second answer to this charge he states the ground of
defense more distinctly, and here we shall find his best reason. These
are his words:—
“Others, with greater regard to good manners, it must be
confessed, suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians,
because it is a well-known fact that we pray toward the east,
or because we make Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you
do less than this? Do not many among you, with an affectation
of sometimes worshiping the heavenly bodies likewise, move
your lips in the direction of the sunrise? It is you, at all
events, who have even admitted the sun into the calendar of the
week; and you have selected its day [Sunday], in preference to
the preceding day, as the most suitable in the week for either
an entire abstinence from the bath, or for its postponement
until the evening, or for taking rest, and for banqueting. By
resorting to these customs, you deliberately deviate from your
own religious rites to those of strangers.”[580]
Tertullian, in this discourse, addresses himself to the nations still
in idolatry. With some of these, Sunday was an ancient festival; with
others, it was of comparatively recent date. But some of these heathen
reproached the Sunday Christians with being sun-worshipers. And now
observe the answer. He does not say, “We Christians are commanded to
celebrate the first day of the week in honor of Christ’s resurrection.”
His answer is doubtless the best that he knew how to frame. It is a mere
retort, and consists in asserting, first, that the Christians had done no
more than their accusers, the heathen; and second, that they had as good
a right to make Sunday a day of festivity as had the heathen!
The origin of first-day observance has been the subject of inquiry in
this chapter. We have found that Sunday from remote antiquity was a
heathen festival in honor of the sun, and that in the first centuries
of the Christian era this ancient festival was in general veneration in
the heathen world. We have learned that patriotism and expediency, and a
tender regard for the conversion of the Gentile world, caused the leaders
of the church to adopt as their religious festival the day observed by
the heathen, and to retain the same name which the heathen had given
it. We have seen that the earliest instance upon record of the actual
observance of Sunday in the Christian church, is found in the church of
Rome about A. D. 140. The first great effort in its behalf, A. D. 196,
is by a singular coincidence the first act of papal usurpation. The
first instance of a sacred title being applied to this festival, and the
earliest trace of abstinence from labor on that day, are found in the
writings of Tertullian at the close of the second century. The origin of
the festival of Sunday is now before the reader; the steps by which it
has ascended to supreme power will be pointed out in their proper order
and place.
One fact of deep interest will conclude this chapter. The first great
effort made to put down the Sabbath was the act of the church of Rome in
turning it into a fast while Sunday was made a joyful festival. While the
eastern churches retained the Sabbath, a portion of the western churches,
with the church of Rome at their head, turned it into a fast. As a part
of the western churches refused to comply with this ordinance, a long
struggle ensued, the result of which is thus stated by Heylyn:—
“In this difference it stood a long time together, till in the
end the Roman church obtained the cause, and Saturday became
a fast almost through all the parts of the western world. I
say the western world, and of that alone: the eastern churches
being so far from altering their ancient custom that in the
sixth council of Constantinople, A. D. 692, they did admonish
those of Rome to forbear fasting on that day upon pain of
censure.”[581]
Wm. James, in a sermon before the University of Oxford, thus states the
time when this fast originated:—
“The western church began to fast on Saturday at the beginning
of the third century.”[582]
Thus it is seen that this struggle began with the third century, that is,
immediately after the year 200. Neander thus states the motive of the
Roman church:—
“In the western churches, particularly the Roman, where
opposition to Judaism was the prevailing tendency, this very
opposition produced the custom of celebrating the Saturday in
particular as a fast day.”[583]
By Judaism, Neander meant the observance of the seventh day as the
Sabbath. Dr. Charles Hase, of Germany, states the object of the Roman
church in very explicit language:—
“The Roman church regarded Saturday as a fast day in direct
opposition to those who regarded it as a Sabbath. Sunday
remained a joyful festival in which all fasting and worldly
business was avoided as much as possible, but the original
commandment of the decalogue respecting the Sabbath was not
then applied to that day.”[584]
Lord King attests this fact in the following words:—
“Some of the western churches, that they might not seem to
Judaize, fasted on Saturday, as Victorinus Petavionensis
writes: We use to fast on the seventh day. And it is our custom
then to fast, that we may not seem, with the Jews, to observe
the Sabbath.”[585]
Thus the Sabbath of the Lord was turned into a fast in order to render
it despicable before men. Such was the first great effort of the Roman
church toward the suppression of the ancient Sabbath of the Bible.
CHAPTER XVII.
THE NATURE OF EARLY FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE.
The history of first-day observance compared with that of the
popes—First-day observance defined in the very words of each of
the early fathers who mention it—The reasons which each had for
its observance stated in his own words—Sunday in their judgment
of no higher sacredness than Easter or Whitsunday, or even than
the fifty days between those festivals—Sunday not a day of
abstinence from labor—The reasons which are offered by those of
them who rejected the Sabbath stated in their own words.
The history of first-day observance in the Christian church may be fitly
illustrated by that of the bishops of Rome. The Roman bishop now claims
supreme power over all the churches of Christ. He asserts that this power
was given to Peter, and by him was transmitted to the bishops of Rome; or
rather that Peter was the first Roman bishop, and that a succession of
such bishops from his time to the present have exercised this absolute
power in the church. They are able to trace back their line to apostolic
times, and they assert that the power now claimed by the pope was claimed
and exercised by the first pastors of the church of the Romans. Those who
now acknowledge the supremacy of the pope believe this assertion, and
with them it is a conclusive evidence that the pope is by divine right
possessed of supreme power. But the assertion is absolutely false. The
early pastors, or bishops, or elders, of the church of the Romans were
modest, unassuming ministers of Christ, wholly unlike the arrogant bishop
of Rome, who now usurps the place of Christ as the head of the Christian
church.
The first day of the week now claims to be the Christian Sabbath, and
enforces its authority by means of the fourth commandment, having set
aside the seventh day, which that commandment enjoins, and usurped
its place. Its advocates assert that this position and this authority
were given to it by Christ. As no record of such gift is found in the
Scriptures, the principal argument in its support is furnished by tracing
first-day observance back to the early Christians, who, it is said, would
not have hallowed the day if they had not been instructed to do it by the
apostles; and the apostles would not have taught them to do it if Christ
had not, in their presence, changed the Sabbath.
But first-day observance can be traced no nearer to apostolic times than
A. D. 140, while the bishops of Rome can trace their line to the very
times of the apostles. Herein is the papal claim to apostolic authority
better than is that of the first-day Sabbath. But with this exception,
the historical argument in behalf of each is the same. Both began with
very moderate pretensions, and gradually gaining in power and sacredness,
grew up in strength together.
Let us now go to those who were the earliest observers of Sunday and
learn from them the nature of that observance at its commencement.
We shall find, first, that no one claimed for first-day observance
any divine authority; second, that none of them had ever heard of the
change of the Sabbath, and none believed the first-day festival to be a
continuation of the Sabbatic institution; third, that labor on that day
is never set forth as sinful, and that abstinence from labor is never
mentioned as a feature of its observance, nor even implied, only so far
as necessary in order to spend a portion of the day in worship; fourth,
that if we put together all the hints respecting Sunday observance, which
are scattered through the fathers of the first three centuries, for no
one of them gives more than two of these, and generally a single hint is
all that is found in one writer, we shall find just four items: (1) an
assembly on that day in which the Bible was read and expounded, and the
supper celebrated, and money collected; (2) that the day must be one of
rejoicing; (3) that it must not be a day of fasting; (4) that the knee
must not be bent in prayer on that day.
The following are all the hints respecting the nature of first-day
observance during the first three centuries. The epistle falsely ascribed
to Barnabas simply says: “We keep the eighth day with joyfulness.”[586]
Justin Martyr, in words already quoted at full length, describes the
kind of meeting which they held at Rome and in that vicinity on that
day, and this is all that he connects with its observance.[587] Irenæus
taught that to commemorate the resurrection, the knee must not be bent
on that day, and mentions nothing else as essential to its honor. This
act of standing in prayer was a symbol of the resurrection, which was to
be celebrated only on that day, as he held.[588] Bardesanes the Gnostic
represents the Christians as everywhere meeting for worship on that day,
but he does not describe that worship, and he gives no other honor to
the day.[589] Tertullian describes Sunday observance as follows: “We
devote Sunday to rejoicing,” and he adds, “We have some resemblance to
those of you who devote the day of Saturn to _ease_ and _luxury_.”[590]
In another work he gives us a further idea of the festive character
of Sunday. Thus he says to his brethren: “If any _indulgence is to be
granted to the flesh_, you have it. I will not say your own days, but
more too; for to the heathens each festive day occurs but once annually;
you have _a festive_ day _every eighth day_.”[591] Dr. Heylyn spoke the
truth when he said:—
“Tertullian tells us that they did devote the Sunday partly
unto mirth and recreation, not to devotion altogether; when
in a hundred years after Tertullian’s time there was no law
or constitution to restrain men from labor on this day in the
Christian church.”[592]
The Sunday festival in Tertullian’s time was not like the modern
first-day Sabbath, but was essentially the German festival of Sunday,
a day for worship and for recreation, and one on which labor was not
sinful. But Tertullian speaks further respecting Sunday observance, and
the words now to be quoted have been used as proof that labor on that day
was counted sinful. This is the only statement that can be found prior to
Constantine’s Sunday law that has such an appearance, and the proof is
decisive that such was not its meaning. Here are his words:—
“We, however (just as we have received), only on the day of the
Lord’s resurrection, ought to guard, not only against kneeling,
but every posture and office of solicitude, deferring even our
businesses, lest we give any place to the devil. Similarly,
too, in the period of Pentecost; which period we distinguish by
the same solemnity of exultation.”[593]
He speaks of “deferring even our businesses;” but this does not
necessarily imply anything more than its postponement during the hours
devoted to religious services. It falls very far short of saying that
labor on Sunday is a sin. But we will quote Tertullian’s next mention of
Sunday observance before noticing further the words last quoted. Thus he
says:—
“We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day to
be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter
to Whitsunday.”[594]
These two things, fasting and kneeling, are the only acts which the
fathers set down as unlawful on Sunday, unless, indeed, mourning may be
included by some in the list. It is certain that labor is never thus
mentioned. And observe that Tertullian repeats the important statement
of the previous quotation that the honor due to Sunday pertains also to
the “period of Pentecost,” that is, to the fifty days between Easter or
Passover and Whitsunday or Pentecost. If, therefore, labor on Sunday
was in Tertullian’s estimation sinful, the same was true for the period
of Pentecost, a space of fifty days! But this is not possible. We can
conceive of the deferral of business for one religious assembly each
day for fifty days, and also that men should neither fast nor kneel
during that time, which was precisely what the religious celebration of
Sunday actually was. But to make Tertullian assert that labor on Sunday
was a sin is to make him declare that such was the case for fifty days
together, which no one will venture to say was the doctrine of Tertullian.
In another work Tertullian gives us one more statement respecting the
nature of Sunday observance: “We make Sunday a day of festivity. What
then? Do you do less than this?”[595] His language is very extraordinary
when it is considered that he was addressing heathen. It seems that
Sunday as a Christian festival was so similar to the festival which
these heathen observed that he could challenge them to show wherein the
Christians went further than did these heathen whom he here addressed.
The next father who gives us the nature of early Sunday observance is
Peter of Alexandria. He says: “But the Lord’s day we celebrate as a day
of joy, because on it he rose again, on which day we have received it for
a custom not even to bow the knee.”[596] He marks two things essential.
It must be a day of joy, and Christians must not kneel on that day.
Zonaras, an ancient commentator on these words of Peter, explains the day
of joy by saying, “We ought not to fast; for it is a day of joy for the
resurrection of the Lord.”[597] Next in order, we quote the so-called
Apostolical Constitutions. These command Christians to assemble for
worship every day, “but principally on the Sabbath day. And on the day of
our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently,
sending praise to God,” etc. The object of assembling was “to hear the
saving word concerning the resurrection,” to “pray thrice standing,” to
have the prophets read, to have preaching and also the supper.[598]
These “Constitutions” not only give the nature of the worship on Sunday
as just set forth, but they also give us an idea of Sunday as a day of
festivity:—
“Now we exhort you, brethren and fellow-servants, to avoid
vain talk and obscene discourses, and jestings, drunkenness,
lasciviousness, luxury, unbounded passions, with foolish
discourses, _since we do not permit you so much as on the
Lord’s days_, which are days of joy, to speak or act anything
unseemly.”[599]
This language plainly implies that the so-called Lord’s day was a day of
greater mirth than the other days of the week. Even on the Lord’s day
they must not speak or act anything unseemly, though it is evident that
their license on that day was greater than on other days. Once more these
“Constitutions” give us the nature of Sunday observance: “Every Sabbath
day excepting one, and every Lord’s day hold your solemn assemblies, and
rejoice; for he will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord’s day.”[600]
But no one can read so much as once that “he is guilty of sin who
performs work on this day.”
Next, we quote the epistle to the Magnesians in its longer form, which
though not written by Ignatius was actually written about the time that
the Apostolical Constitutions were committed to writing. Here are the
words of this epistle:—
“And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of
Christ keep the Lord’s day as a festival, the resurrection day,
the queen and chief of all the days.”[601]
The writer of the Syriac Documents concerning Edessa comes last, and he
defines the services of Sunday as follows: “On the first [day] of the
week, let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and
the oblation.”[602] These are all the passages in the writings of the
first three centuries which describe early first-day observance. Let
the reader judge whether we have correctly stated the nature of that
observance. Next we invite attention to the several reasons offered by
these fathers for celebrating the festival of Sunday.
The reputed epistle of Barnabas supports the Sunday festival by saying
that it was the day “on which Jesus rose again from the dead,” and it
intimates that it prefigures the eighth thousand years, when God shall
create the world anew.[603]
Justin Martyr has four reasons:—
1. “It is the first day on which God having wrought a change in the
darkness and matter, made the world.”[604]
2. “Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead.”[605]
3. “It is possible for us to show how the eighth day possessed a certain
mysterious import, which the seventh day did not possess, and which
was promulgated by God through these rites,”[606] _i. e._, through
circumcision.
4. “The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise
the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by
which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose
from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath.”[607]
Clement, of Alexandria, appears to treat solely of a mystical eighth
day or Lord’s day. It is perhaps possible that he has some reference to
Sunday. We therefore quote what he says in behalf of this day, calling
attention to the fact that he produces his testimony, not from the Bible,
but from a heathen philosopher. Thus he says:—
“And the Lord’s day Plato prophetically speaks of in the tenth
book of the _Republic_, in these words: ‘And when seven days
have passed to each of them in the meadow on the eighth day
they are to set out and arrive in four days.’”[608]
Clement’s reasons for Sunday are found outside the Scriptures. The next
father will give us a good reason for Clement’s action in this case.
Tertullian is the next writer who gives reasons for the Sunday festival.
He is speaking of “offerings for the dead,” the manner of Sunday
observance, and the use of the sign of the cross upon the forehead. Here
is the ground on which these observances rest:—
“If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having
positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition
will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom, as
their strengthener, and faith, as their observer. That reason
will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either
yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has.”[609]
Tertullian’s frankness is to be commended. He had no Scripture to offer,
and he acknowledges the fact. He depended on tradition, and he was not
ashamed to confess it. The next of the fathers who gives Scripture
evidence in support of the Sunday festival, is Origen. Here are his
words:—
“The manna fell on the Lord’s day, and not on the Sabbath to
show the Jews that even then the Lord’s day was preferred
before it.”[610]
Origen seems to have been of Tertullian’s judgment as to the
inconclusiveness of the arguments adduced by his predecessors. He
therefore coined an original argument which seems to have been very
conclusive in his estimation as he offers this alone. But he must have
forgotten that the manna fell on all the six working days, or he would
have seen that while his argument does not elevate Sunday above the other
five working days, it does make the Sabbath the least reputable day of
the seven! And yet the miracle of the manna was expressly designed to set
forth the sacredness of the Sabbath and to establish its authority before
the people. Cyprian is the next father who gives an argument for the
Sunday festival. He contents himself with one of Justin’s old arguments,
viz., that one drawn from circumcision. Thus he says:—
“For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the
Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given
beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when Christ came, it
was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is,
the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the
Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us
circumcision of the Spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first
day after the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day, went before in the
figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and
spiritual circumcision was given to us.”[611]
Such is the only argument adduced by Cyprian in behalf of the first-day
festival. The circumcision of infants when eight days old was, in his
judgment, a type of infant baptism. But circumcision on the eighth day of
the child’s life, in his estimation, did not signify that baptism need to
be deferred till the infant is eight days old, but, as here stated, did
signify that the eighth day was to be the Lord’s day! But the eighth day,
on which circumcision took place, was not the first day of the week, but
the eighth day of each child’s life, whatever day of the week that might
be.
The next father who gives a reason for celebrating Sunday as a day of
joy, and refraining from kneeling on it, is Peter of Alexandria, who
simply says, “Because on it he rose again.”[612]
Next in order come the Apostolical Constitutions, which assert that the
Sunday festival is a memorial of the resurrection:—
“But keep the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day festival; because the
former is a memorial of the creation, and the latter of the
resurrection.”[613]
The writer, however, offers no proof that Sunday was set apart by divine
authority in memory of the resurrection. But the next person who gives
his reasons for keeping Sunday “as a festival” is the writer of the
longer form of the reputed epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians. He
finds the eighth day prophetically set forth in the title to the sixth
and twelfth psalms! In the margin, the word Sheminith is translated “the
eighth.” Here is this writer’s argument for Sunday:—
“Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, ‘To the end for
the eighth day,’ on which our life both sprang up again, and
the victory over death was obtained in Christ.”[614]
There is yet another of the fathers of the first three centuries who
gives the reasons then used in support of the Sunday festival. This is
the writer of the Syriac Documents concerning Edessa. He comes next in
order and closes the list. Here are four reasons:—
1. “Because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the
place of the dead.”[615]
2. “On the first day of the week he arose upon the world,”[616]
_i. e._, he was born upon Sunday.
3. “On the first day of the week he ascended up to Heaven.”[617]
4. “On the first day of the week he will appear at last with
the angels of Heaven.”[618]
The first of these reasons is as good a one as man can devise out of
his own heart for doing what God never commanded; the second and fourth
are mere assertions of which mankind know nothing; while the third is a
positive untruth, for the ascension was upon Thursday.
We have now presented every reason for the Sunday festival which can be
found in all the writings of the first three centuries. Though generally
very trivial, and sometimes worse than trivial, they are nevertheless
worthy of careful study. They constitute a decisive testimony that the
change of the Sabbath by Christ or by his apostles from the seventh to
the first day of the week was absolutely unknown during that entire
period. But were it true that such change had been made they must
have known it. Had they believed that Christ changed the Sabbath to
commemorate his resurrection, how emphatically would they have stated
that fact instead of offering reasons for the festival of Sunday which
are so worthless as to be, with one or two exceptions, entirely discarded
by modern first-day writers. Or had they believed that the apostles
honored Sunday as the Sabbath or Lord’s day, how would they have produced
these facts in triumph! But Tertullian said that they had no positive
Scripture injunction for the Sunday festival, and the others, by offering
reasons that were only devised in their own hearts, corroborated his
testimony, and all of them together establish the fact that even in their
own estimation the day was only sustained by the authority of the church.
They were totally unacquainted with the modern doctrine that the seventh
day in the commandment means simply one day in seven, and that the
Saviour, to commemorate his resurrection, appointed that the first day of
the week should be that one of the seven to which the commandment should
apply!
We have given every statement in the fathers of the first three centuries
in which the manner of celebrating the Sunday festival is set forth. We
have also given every reason for that observance which is to be found in
any of them. These two classes of testimonies show clearly that ordinary
labor was not one of the things which were forbidden on that day. We
now offer direct proof that other days which on all hands are accounted
nothing but church festivals were expressly declared by the fathers to be
equal if not superior in sacredness to the Sunday festival.
The “Lost Writings of Irenæus” gives us his mind concerning the relative
sacredness of the festival of Sunday and that of either Easter or
Pentecost. This is the statement:—
“Upon which [feast] we do not bend the knee, because it is
of _equal significance_ with the Lord’s day, for the reason
already alleged concerning it.”[619]
Tertullian in a passage already quoted, which by omitting the sentence
we are about to quote, has been used as the strongest testimony to the
first-day Sabbath in the fathers, expressly equals in sacredness the
period of Pentecost—a space of fifty days—with the festival which he
calls Lord’s day. Thus he says:—
“Similarly, too, in the period of Pentecost; which period we
distinguish by _the same solemnity of exultation_.”[620]
He states the same fact in another work:—
“We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day
to be unlawful. We rejoice _in the same privilege_ also from
Easter to Whitsunday.”[621]
Origen classes the so-called Lord’s day with three other church
festivals:—
“If it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are
accustomed to observe certain days, as for example the Lord’s
day, the Preparation, the Passover, or Pentecost, I have to
answer, that to the perfect Christian, who is ever in his
thoughts, words, and deeds, serving his natural Lord, God the
Word, all his days are the Lord’s, and he is always keeping the
Lord’s day.”[622]
Irenæus and Tertullian make the Sunday Lord’s day equal in sacredness
with the period from the Passover to the Pentecost; but Origen, after
classing the day with several church festivals, virtually confesses that
it has no pre-eminence above other days.
Commodianus, who once uses the term Lord’s day, speaks of the
Catholic festival of the Passover as “Easter, that day of ours _most
blessed_.”[623] This certainly indicates that in his estimation no other
sacred day was superior in sanctity to Easter.
The “Apostolical Constitutions” treat the Sunday festival in the same
manner that it is treated by Irenæus and Tertullian. They make it equal
to the sacredness of the period from Easter to the Pentecost. Thus they
say:—
“He will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord’s day, being
the day of the resurrection, or during the time of Pentecost,
or in general, who is sad on a festival day to the Lord.”[624]
These testimonies prove conclusively that the festival of Sunday, in the
judgment of such men as Irenæus, Tertullian, and others, stood in the
same rank with that of Easter, or Whitsunday. They had no idea that one
was commanded by God, while the others were only ordained by the church.
Indeed, Tertullian, as we have seen, expressly declares that there is no
precept for Sunday observance.[625]
Besides these important facts, we have decisive evidence that Sunday was
not a day of abstinence from labor, and our first witness is Justin, the
earliest witness to the Sunday festival in the Christian church. Trypho
the Jew said to Justin, by way of reproof, “You observe no festivals or
Sabbaths.”[626] This was exactly adapted to bring out from Justin the
statement that, though he did not observe the seventh day as the Sabbath,
he did thus rest on the first day of the week, if it were true that that
day was with him a day of abstinence from labor. But he gives no such
answer. He sneers at the very idea of abstinence from labor, declaring
that “God does not take pleasure in such observances.” Nor does he
intimate that this is because the Jews did not rest upon the right day,
but he condemns the very idea of refraining from labor for a day, stating
that “the new law,” which has taken the place of the commandments given
on Sinai[627] requires a perpetual Sabbath, and this is kept by repenting
of sin and refraining from its commission. Here are his words:—
“The new law requires you to keep a perpetual Sabbath, and you,
_because you are idle for one day_, suppose you are pious, not
discerning why this has been commanded you; and if you eat
unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled.
The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances:
if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him
cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has
kept the sweet and true Sabbaths of God.”[628]
This language plainly implies that Justin did not believe that any day
should be kept as a Sabbath by abstinence from labor, but that all days
should be kept as sabbaths by abstinence from sin. This testimony is
decisive, and it is in exact harmony with the facts already adduced
from the fathers, and with others yet to be presented. Moreover, it is
confirmed by the express testimony of Tertullian. He says:—
“By us (to whom _Sabbaths are strange_, and the new moons,
and festivals formerly beloved by God) the Saturnalia and
new year’s and mid-winter’s festivals and Matronalia are
frequented.”[629]
And he adds in the same paragraph, in words already quoted:—
“If _any indulgence is to be granted to the flesh_, you have
it. I will not say _your own days_, but _more too_; for to the
_heathens_ each festive day occurs but once annually; you have
a _festive day every eighth day_.”[630]
Tertullian tells his brethren in plain language that they kept no
sabbaths, but did keep many heathen festivals. If the Sunday festival,
which was a day of “indulgence” to the flesh, and which he here mentions
as the “eighth day,” was kept by them as the Christian Sabbath in place
of the ancient seventh day, then he would not have asserted that to us
“sabbaths are strange.” But Tertullian has precisely the same Sabbath as
Justin Martyr. He does not keep the first day in place of the seventh,
but he keeps a “perpetual sabbath,” in which he professes to refrain from
sin every day, and actually abstains from labor on none. Thus, after
saying that the Jews teach that “from the beginning God sanctified the
seventh day” and therefore observe that day, he says:—
“Whence we [Christians] understand that we still more ought to
observe a Sabbath from all ‘servile work’ always, and not only
every seventh day, but through all time.”[631]
Tertullian certainly had no idea that Sunday was the Sabbath in any other
sense than were all the seven days of the week. We shall find a decisive
confirmation of this when we come to quote Tertullian respecting the
origin of the Sabbath. We shall also find that Clement expressly makes
Sunday a day of labor.
Several of the early fathers wrote in opposition to the observance of
the seventh day. We now give the reasons assigned by each for that
opposition. The writer called Barnabas did not keep the seventh day, not
because it was a ceremonial ordinance unworthy of being observed by a
Christian, but because it was so pure an institution that even Christians
cannot truly sanctify it till they are made immortal. Here are his words:—
“Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, ‘He
finished in six days.’ This implieth that the Lord will finish
all things in six thousand years, for a day is with him a
thousand years. And he himself testifieth, saying, ‘Behold,
to-day will be as a thousand years.’ Therefore, my children,
in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will
be finished. And he rested on the seventh day.’ This meaneth:
When his Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the
wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the
moon, and the stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh
day. Moreover, he says, ‘Thou shalt sanctify it with pure hands
and a pure heart.’ If, therefore, any one can now sanctify the
day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in heart in
all things, we are deceived. Behold, therefore: certainly then
one properly resting sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having
received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all
things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work
righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having
been first sanctified ourselves. Further he says to them, ‘Your
new moons and your sabbaths I cannot endure.’ Ye perceive how
he speaks: Your present sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but
that is which I have made [namely this], when, giving rest to
all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that
is, a beginning of another world, wherefore, also, we keep the
eighth day with joyfulness, the day, also, on which Jesus rose
again from the dead.”[632]
Observe the points embodied in this statement of doctrine: 1. He asserts
that the six days of creation prefigure the six thousand years which our
world shall endure in its present state of wickedness. 2. He teaches that
at the end of that period Christ shall come again and make an end of
wickedness, and “then shall he truly rest on the seventh day.” 3. That
no “one can now sanctify the day which God hath sanctified, except he is
pure in heart in all things.” 4. But that cannot be the case until the
present world shall pass away, “when we ourselves, having received the
promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made
new by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be
able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves.” Men cannot,
therefore, keep the Sabbath while this wicked world lasts. 5. Therefore,
he says, “Your present sabbaths are not acceptable,” not because they
are not pure, but because you are not now able to keep them as purely as
their nature demands. 6. That is to say, the keeping of the day which
God has sanctified is not possible in such a wicked world as this. 7.
But though the seventh day cannot now be kept, the eighth day can be,
and ought to be, because when the seven thousand years are past, there
will be at the beginning of the eighth thousand, the new creation. 8.
Therefore, he did not attempt to keep the seventh day, which God had
sanctified; for that is too pure to be kept in the present wicked world,
and can only be kept after the Saviour comes at the commencement of the
seventh thousand years; but he kept the eighth day with joyfulness on
which Jesus arose from the dead. 9. So it appears that the eighth day,
which God never sanctified, is exactly suitable for observance in our
world during its present state of wickedness. 10. But when all things
have been made new, and we are able to work righteousness, and wickedness
no longer exists, then we shall be able to sanctify the seventh day,
having first been sanctified ourselves.
The reason of Barnabas for not observing the Sabbath of the Lord is not
that the commandment enjoining it is abolished, but that the institution
is so pure that men in their present imperfect state cannot acceptably
sanctify it. They will keep it, however, in the new creation, but in the
meantime they keep with joyfulness the eighth day, which having never
been sanctified by God is not difficult to keep in the present state of
wickedness.
Justin Martyr’s reasons for not observing the Sabbath are not at all
like those of the so-called Barnabas, for Justin seems to have heartily
despised the Sabbatic institution. He denies that it was obligatory
before the time of Moses, and affirms that it was abolished by the advent
of Christ. He teaches that it was given to the Jews because of their
wickedness, and he expressly affirms the abolition of both the Sabbath
and the law. So far is he from teaching the change of the Sabbath from
the seventh to the first day of the week, or from making the Sunday
festival a continuation of the ancient Sabbatic institution, that he
sneers at the very idea of days of abstinence from labor, or days of
idleness, and though God gives as his reason for the observance of the
Sabbath, that that was the day on which he rested from all his work,
Justin gives as his first reason for the Sunday festival that that was
the day on which God began his work! Of abstinence from labor as an act
of obedience to the Sabbath, Justin says:—
“The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such
observances.”[633]
A second reason for not observing the Sabbath is thus stated by him:—
“For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the
Sabbaths, and in short, all the feasts, if we did not know for
what reason they were enjoined you—namely, on account of your
transgressions and the hardness of your hearts.”[634]
As Justin never discriminates between the Sabbath of the Lord and the
annual sabbaths he doubtless here means to include it as well as them.
But what a falsehood is it to assert that the Sabbath was given to the
Jews because of their wickedness! The truth is, it was given to the
Jews because of the universal apostasy of the Gentiles.[635] But in the
following paragraph Justin gives three more reasons for not keeping the
Sabbath:—
“Do you see that the elements are not idle, and keep no
Sabbaths? Remain as you were born. For if there was no need of
circumcision before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths,
of feasts and sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there
of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus
Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin
sprung from the stock of Abraham.”[636]
Here are three reasons: 1. “That the elements are not idle, and keep no
Sabbaths.” Though this reason is simply worthless as an argument against
the seventh day, it is a decisive confirmation of the fact already
proven, that Justin did not make Sunday a day of abstinence from labor.
2. His second reason here given is that there was no observance of
Sabbaths before Moses, and yet we do know that God at the beginning did
appoint the Sabbath to a holy use, a fact to which as we shall see quite
a number of the fathers testify, and we also know that in that age were
men who kept all the precepts of God. 3. There is no need of Sabbatic
observance since Christ. Though this is mere assertion, it is by no means
easy for those to meet it fairly who represent Justin as maintaining the
Christian Sabbath.
Another argument by Justin against the obligation of the Sabbath is
that God “directs the government of the universe on this day equally as
on all others!”[637] as though this were inconsistent with the present
sacredness of the Sabbath, when it is also true that God thus governed
the world in the period when Justin acknowledges the Sabbath to have
been obligatory. Though this reason is trivial as an argument against
the Sabbath, it does show that Justin could have attached no Sabbatic
character to Sunday. But he has yet one more argument against the
Sabbath. The ancient law has been done away by the new and final law, and
the old covenant has been superseded by the new.[638] But he forgets
that the design of the new covenant was not to do away with the law of
God, but to put that law into the heart of every Christian. And many of
the fathers, as we shall see, expressly repudiate this doctrine of the
abrogation of the Decalogue.
Such were Justin’s reasons for rejecting the ancient Sabbath. But though
he was a decided asserter of the abrogation of the law, and of the
Sabbatic institution itself, and kept Sunday only as a festival, modern
first-day writers cite him as a witness in support of the doctrine that
the first day of the week should be observed as the Christian Sabbath on
the authority of the fourth commandment.
Now let us learn what stood in the way of Irenæus’ observance of the
Sabbath. It was not that the commandments were abolished, for we shall
presently learn that he taught their perpetuity. Nor was it that he
believed in the change of the Sabbath, for he gives no hint of such an
idea. The Sunday festival in his estimation appears to have been simply
of “equal significance” with the Pentecost.[639] Nor was it that Christ
broke the Sabbath, for Irenæus says that he did not.[640] But because
the Sabbath is called a sign he regarded it as significant of the future
kingdom, and appears to have considered it no longer obligatory, though
he does not expressly say this. Thus he sets forth the meaning of the
Sabbath as held by him:—
“Moreover the Sabbaths of God, _that is, the kingdom_, was, as
it were, indicated by created things,” etc.[641]
“These [promises to the righteous] are [to take place] in _the
times of the kingdom_, that is, upon the seventh day which has
been sanctified, in which God rested from all the works which
he created, which is the true Sabbath of the righteous,”[642]
etc.
“For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years: and in six
days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore,
that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.”[643]
But Irenæus did not notice that the Sabbath as a sign does not point
forward to the restitution, but backward to the creation, that it may
signify that the true God is the Creator.[644] Nor did he observe the
fact that when the kingdom of God shall be established under the whole
heaven all flesh shall hallow the Sabbath.[645]
But he says that those who lived before Moses were justified “without
observance of Sabbaths,” and offers as proof that the covenant at
Horeb was not made with the fathers. Of course if this proves that the
patriarchs were free from obligation toward the fourth commandment, it
is equally good as proof that they might violate any other. These things
indicate that Irenæus was opposed to Sabbatic observance, though he did
not in express language assert its abrogation, and did in most decisive
terms assert the continued obligation of the ten commandments.
Tertullian offers numerous reasons for not observing the Sabbath, but
there is scarcely one of these that he does not in some other place
expressly contradict. Thus he asserts that the patriarchs before Moses
did not observe the Sabbath.[646] But he offers no proof, and he
elsewhere dates the origin of the Sabbath at the creation,[647] as we
shall show hereafter. In several places he teaches the abrogation of
the law, and seems to set aside moral law as well as ceremonial. But
elsewhere, as we shall show, he bears express testimony that the ten
commandments are still binding as the rule of the Christian’s life.[648]
He quotes the words of Isaiah in which God is represented as hating the
feasts, new-moons, and sabbaths observed by the Jews,[649] as proof
that the seventh-day Sabbath was a temporary institution which Christ
abrogated. But in another place he says: “_Christ did not at all rescind
the Sabbath_: he kept the law thereof.”[650] And he also explains this
very text by stating that God’s aversion toward the Sabbaths observed by
the Jews was “because they were celebrated without the fear of God by a
people full of iniquities,” and adds that the prophet, in a later passage
speaking of Sabbaths celebrated according to God’s commandment, “declares
them to be true, delightful, and inviolable.”[651] Another statement is
that Joshua violated the Sabbath in the siege of Jericho.[652] Yet he
elsewhere explains this very case, showing that the commandment forbids
our own work, not God’s. Those who acted at Jericho did “not do their own
work, but God’s, which they executed, and that, too, from his express
commandment.”[653] He also both asserts and denies that Christ violated
the Sabbath.[654] Tertullian was a double-minded man. He wrote much
against the law and the Sabbath, but he also contradicted and exposed his
own errors.
Origen attempts to prove that the ancient Sabbath is to be understood
mystically or spiritually, and not literally. Here is his argument:—
“‘Ye shall sit, every one in your dwellings: no one shall
move from his place on the Sabbath day.’ Which precept it is
impossible to observe literally; for no man can sit a whole day
so as not to move from the place where he sat down.”[655]
Great men are not always wise. There is no such precept in the Bible.
Origen referred to that which forbade the people to go out for manna on
the Sabbath, but which did not conflict with another that commanded holy
convocations or assemblies for worship on the Sabbath.[656]
Victorinus is the latest of the fathers before Constantine who offers
reasons against the observance of the Sabbath. His first reason is that
Christ said by Isaiah that his soul hated the Sabbath; which Sabbath he
in his body abolished; and these assertions we have seen answered by
Tertullian.[657] His second reason is that “Jesus [Joshua] the son of
Nave [Nun], the successor of Moses, himself broke the Sabbath day,”[658]
which is false. His third reason is that “Matthias [a Maccabean] also,
prince of Judah, broke the Sabbath,”[659] which is doubtless false, but
is of no consequence as authority. His fourth argument is original, and
may fitly close the list of reasons assigned in the early fathers for not
observing the Sabbath. It is given in full without an answer:—
“And in Matthew we read, that it is written Isaiah also and the
rest of his colleagues broke the Sabbath.”[660]
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE SABBATH IN THE RECORD OF THE EARLY FATHERS.
The first reasons for neglecting the Sabbath are now
mostly obsolete—A portion of the early fathers taught the
perpetuity of the decalogue, and made it the standard of moral
character—What they say concerning the origin of the Sabbath
at Creation—Their testimony concerning the perpetuity of the
ancient Sabbath, and concerning its observance—Enumeration of
the things which caused the suppression of the Sabbath and the
elevation of Sunday.
The reasons offered by the early fathers for neglecting the observance
of the Sabbath show conclusively that they had no special light on the
subject by reason of living in the first centuries, which we in this
later age do not possess. The fact is, so many of the reasons offered by
them are manifestly false and absurd that those who in these days discard
the Sabbath, do also discard the most of the reasons offered by these
fathers for this same course. We have also learned from such of the early
fathers as mention first-day observance, the exact nature of the Sunday
festival, and all the reasons which in the first centuries were offered
in its support. Very few indeed of these reasons are now offered by
modern first-day writers.
But some of the fathers bear emphatic testimony to the perpetuity of the
ten commandments, and make their observance the condition of eternal
life. Some of them also distinctly assert the origin of the Sabbath at
creation. Several of them moreover either bear witness to the existence
of Sabbath-keepers, or bear decisive testimony to the perpetuity and
obligation of the Sabbath, or define the nature of proper Sabbatic
observance, or connect the observance of the Sabbath and first day
together. Let us now hear the testimony of those who assert the authority
of the ten commandments. Irenæus asserts their perpetuity, and makes them
a test of Christian character. Thus he says:—
“For God at the first, indeed, warning them [the Jews] by
means of _natural precepts_, which _from the beginning he had
implanted in mankind_, that is, by means of _the_ DECALOGUE
(_which, if any one does not observe, he has no salvation_),
did then demand nothing more of them.”[661]
This is a very strong statement. He makes the ten commandments the law
of nature implanted in man’s being at the beginning; and so inherited
by all mankind. This is no doubt true. It is the presence of the carnal
mind or law of sin and death, implanted in man by the fall, that has
partially obliterated this law, and made the work of the new covenant a
necessity.[662] He again asserts the perpetuity and authority of the ten
commandments:—
“Preparing man for this life, the Lord himself did speak in
his own person to all alike the words of the Decalogue: and
therefore, in like manner, do they remain permanently with us,
receiving, by means of his advent in the flesh, extension and
increase, but not abrogation.”[663]
By the “extension” of the decalogue, Irenæus doubtless means the
exposition which the Saviour gave of the meaning of the commandments in
his sermon on the mount.[664] Theophilus speaks in like manner concerning
the decalogue:—
“For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and _every
one_ who _keeps_ these _can be saved_, and, obtaining the
resurrection, can inherit incorruption.”[665]
“We have learned a holy law; but we have as Law-giver him who
is really God, who teaches us to act righteously, and to be
pious, and to do good.”[666]
“Of this great and wonderful law which tends to all
righteousness, the TEN HEADS are such as we have already
rehearsed.”[667]
Tertullian calls the ten commandments “the rules of our regenerate life,”
that is to say, the rules which govern the life of a converted man:—
“They who theorize respecting numbers, honor the number ten
as the parent of all the others, and as imparting perfection
to the human nativity. For my own part, I prefer viewing this
measure of time in reference to God, as if implying that the
ten months rather initiated man into _the ten commandments_; so
that the numerical estimate of the time needed to consummate
our natural birth should correspond to the numerical
classification of _the rules of our regenerate life_.”[668]
In showing the deep guilt involved in the violation of the seventh
commandment, Tertullian speaks of the sacredness of the commandments
which precede it, naming several of them in particular, and among them
the fourth, and then says of the precept against adultery that
It stands “in the very forefront of _the most holy law_, among
the _primary counts_ of the _celestial edict_.”[669]
Clement of Rome, or rather the author whose works have been ascribed to
this father, speaks thus of the decalogue as a test:—
“On account of those, therefore, who, by neglect of their own
salvation, please the evil one, and those who, by study of
their own profit, seek to please the good One, ten things have
been prescribed as a test to this present age, according to the
number of the ten plagues which were brought upon Egypt.”[670]
Novatian, who wrote about A. D. 250, is accounted the founder of the sect
called _Cathari_ or Puritans. He wrote a treatise on the Sabbath, which
is not extant. There is no reference to Sunday in any of his writings. He
makes the following striking remarks concerning the moral law:—
“The law was given to the children of Israel for this purpose,
that they might profit by it, and RETURN _to those virtuous
manners_ which, although _they had received them from their
fathers_, they had corrupted in Egypt by reason of their
intercourse with a barbarous people. Finally, also, those _ten
commandments_ on the tables teach nothing _new_, but _remind
them of what had been obliterated_—that righteousness in them,
which had been put to sleep, might revive again as it were by
the afflatus of the law, after the manner of a fire [nearly
extinguished].”[671]
It is evident that in the judgment of Novatian, the ten commandments
enjoined nothing that was not sacredly regarded by the patriarchs
before Jacob went down into Egypt. It follows, therefore, that, in his
opinion, the Sabbath was made, not at the fall of the manna, but when
God sanctified the seventh day, and that holy men from the earliest ages
observed it.
The Apostolical Constitutions, written about the third century, give us
an understanding of what was widely regarded in the third century as
apostolic doctrine. They speak thus of the ten commandments:—
“Have before thine eyes the fear of God, and always remember
the ten commandments of God,—to love the one and only Lord
God with all thy strength; to give no heed to idols, or any
other beings, as being lifeless gods, or irrational beings or
dæmons.”[672]
“He gave a plain law to assist the law of nature, such a
one as is pure, saving, and holy, in which his own name was
inscribed, perfect, which is never to fail, being complete in
ten commands, unspotted, converting souls.”[673]
This writer, like Irenæus, believed in the identity of the decalogue
with the law of nature. These testimonies show that in the writings of
the early fathers are some of the strongest utterances in behalf of the
perpetuity and authority of the ten commandments. Now let us hear what
they say concerning the origin of the Sabbath at creation. The epistle
ascribed to Barnabas, says:—
“And he says in another place, ‘If my sons keep the Sabbath,
then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them.’ The Sabbath is
mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: ‘And God
made in six days the works of his hands, and made an end on
the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it.’”[674]
Irenæus seems plainly to connect the origin of the Sabbath with the
sanctification of the seventh day:—
“These [things promised] are [to take place] in the times of
the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, which has been
sanctified, in which God rested from all his works which he
created, which is the true Sabbath, in which they shall not be
engaged in any earthly occupation.”[675]
Tertullian, likewise, refers the origin of the Sabbath to “the
benediction of the Father”:—
“But inasmuch as birth is also completed with the seventh
month, I more readily recognize in this number than in the
eighth the honor of a numerical agreement with the Sabbatical
period; so that the month in which God’s image is sometimes
produced in a human birth, shall in its number tally with the
day on which God’s creation was completed and _hallowed_.”[676]
“For even in the case before us he [Christ] fulfilled the law,
while interpreting its condition; [moreover] he exhibits in a
clear light the different kinds of work, while doing what the
law excepts from the sacredness of the Sabbath, [and] while
imparting to the Sabbath day itself which _from the beginning
had been consecrated by the benediction of the Father_, an
additional sanctity by his own beneficent action.”[677]
Origen, who, as we have seen, believed in a mystical Sabbath, did
nevertheless fix its origin at the sanctification of the seventh day:—
“For he [Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and
rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s
creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and
in which all those will keep festival with God who have done
all their works in their six days.”[678]
The testimony of Novatian which has been given relative to the sacredness
and authority of the decalogue plainly implies the existence of the
Sabbath in the patriarchal ages, and its observance by those holy men of
old. It was given to Israel that they might “RETURN to those _virtuous
manners_ which, although _they had received them from their fathers_,
they had corrupted in Egypt.” And he adds, “Those ten commandments on
the tables teach _nothing new_, but _remind_ them of what had been
obliterated.”[679] He did not, therefore, believe the Sabbath to have
originated at the fall of the manna, but counted it one of those things
which were practiced by their fathers before Jacob went down to Egypt.
Lactantius places the origin of the Sabbath at creation:—
“God completed the world and this admirable work of nature in
the space of six days (as is contained in the secrets of holy
Scripture) and CONSECRATED the seventh day on which he had
rested from his works. But this is the Sabbath day, which, in
the language of the Hebrews, received its name from the number,
whence the seventh is the legitimate and complete number.”[680]
In a poem on Genesis written about the time of Lactantius, but by an
unknown author, we have an explicit testimony to the divine appointment
of the seventh day to a holy use while man was yet in Eden, the garden of
God:—
“The seventh came, when God
At his work’s end did rest, DECREEING IT
SACRED UNTO THE COMING AGE’S JOYS.”[681]
The Apostolical Constitutions, while teaching the present obligation of
the Sabbath, plainly indicate its origin to have been at creation:—
“O Lord Almighty, thou hast created the world by Christ, and
_hast appointed the Sabbath in memory thereof_, because that
on that day thou hast made us rest from our works, for the
meditation upon thy laws.”[682]
Such are the testimonies of the early fathers to the primeval origin of
the Sabbath, and to the sacredness and perpetual obligation of the ten
commandments. We now call attention to what they say relative to the
perpetuity of the Sabbath, and to its observance in the centuries during
which they lived. Tertullian defines Christ’s relation to the Sabbath:—
“He was called ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ because he maintained the
Sabbath as his own institution.”[683]
He affirms that Christ did not abolish the Sabbath:—
“Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath: he kept the law
thereof, and both in the former case did a work which was
beneficial to the life of his disciples (for he indulged
them with the relief of food when they were hungry), and in
the present instance cured the withered hand; in each case
intimating by facts, ‘I came not to destroy the law, but to
fulfill it.’”[684]
Nor can it be said that while Tertullian denied that Christ abolished
the Sabbath he did believe that he transferred its sacredness from the
seventh day of the week to the first, for he continues thus:—
“He [Christ] exhibits in a clear light the different kinds of
work, while doing what the law excepts from the sacredness
of the Sabbath, [and] while imparting to the Sabbath day
itself, which from the beginning had been consecrated by the
benediction of the Father, an additional sanctity by his own
beneficent action. For he furnished _to this day_ DIVINE
SAFEGUARDS—_a course which his adversary would have pursued
for some other days_, to avoid honoring the Creator’s Sabbath,
and restoring to the Sabbath the works which were proper for
it.”[685]
This is a very remarkable statement. The modern doctrine of the change
of the Sabbath was unknown in Tertullian’s time. Had it then been in
existence, there could be no doubt that in the words last quoted he was
aiming at it a heavy blow; for the very thing which he asserts Christ’s
adversary, Satan, would have had him do, that modern first-day writers
assert he did do in consecrating another day instead of adding to the
sanctity of his Father’s Sabbath.
Archelaus of Cascar in Mesopotamia emphatically denies the abolition of
the Sabbath:—
“Again, as to the assertion that the Sabbath has been
abolished, we deny that he has abolished it plainly; for he was
himself also Lord of the Sabbath.”[686]
Justin Martyr, as we have seen, was an out-spoken opponent of Sabbatic
observance, and of the authority of the law of God. He was by no means
always candid in what he said. He has occasion to refer to those who
observed the seventh day, and he does it with contempt. Thus he says:—
“But if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such
institutions as were given by Moses (from which they expect
some virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reason of
the hardness of the people’s hearts), along with their hope
in this Christ, and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural
acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live with the
Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing
them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the
Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold
that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with
them in all things as kinsmen and brethren.”[687]
These words are spoken of Sabbath-keeping Christians. Such of them as
were of Jewish descent no doubt generally retained circumcision. But
there were many Gentile Christians who observed the Sabbath, as we shall
see, and it is not true that they observed circumcision. Justin speaks
of this class as acting from “weak-mindedness,” yet he inadvertently
alludes to the keeping of the commandments as the performance of
“the ETERNAL and NATURAL ACTS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS,” a most appropriate
designation indeed. Justin would fellowship those who act thus, provided
they would fellowship him in the contrary course. But though Justin, on
this condition, could fellowship these “weak-minded” brethren, he says
that there are those who “_do not venture to have any intercourse with,
or to extend hospitality to, such persons_; but I do not agree with
them.”[688] This shows the bitter spirit which prevailed in some quarters
toward the Sabbath, even as early as Justin’s time. Justin has no word of
condemnation for these intolerant professors; he is only solicitous lest
those persons who perform “the eternal and natural acts of righteousness
and piety” should condemn those who do not perform them.
Clement of Alexandria, though a mystical writer, bears an important
testimony to the perpetuity of the ancient Sabbath, and to man’s present
need thereof. He comments thus on the fourth commandment:—
“And the fourth word is that which intimates that the world
was created by God, and that _he gave us the seventh day as a
rest_, on account of the trouble that there is in life. For
God is incapable of weariness, and suffering, and want. _But
we who bear flesh need rest._ The seventh day, therefore, is
proclaimed a rest—abstraction from ills—preparing for the
primal day, our true rest.”[689]
Clement recognized the authority of the moral law; for he treats of the
ten commandments, one by one, and shows what each enjoins. He plainly
teaches that the Sabbath was made for man, and that he now needs it as a
day of rest, and his language implies that it was made at the creation.
But in the next paragraph, he makes some curious suggestions, which
deserve notice:—
“Having reached this point, we must mention these things by
the way; since the discourse has turned on the seventh and the
eighth. For the eighth may possibly turn out to be properly the
seventh, and the seventh manifestly the sixth, and the latter
properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work. For the
creation of the world was concluded in six days.”[690]
This language has been adduced to show that Clement called the eighth
day, or Sunday, the Sabbath. But first-day writers in general have not
dared to commit themselves to such an interpretation, and some of them
have expressly discarded it. Let us notice this statement with especial
care. He speaks of the ordinals seventh and eighth in the abstract, but
probably with reference to the days of the week. Observe then,
1. That he does not intimate that the eighth day has _become_ the Sabbath
in place of the seventh which was _once_ such, but he says that the
eighth day may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh.
2. That in Clement’s time, A. D. 194, there was not any confusion in the
minds of men as to which day was the ancient Sabbath, and which one was
the first day of the week, or eighth day, as it was often called, nor
does he intimate that there was.
3. But Clement, from some cause, says that possibly the eighth day
should be counted the seventh, and the seventh day the sixth. Now, if
this should be done, it would change the numbering of the days, not only
as far back as the resurrection of Christ, but all the way back to the
creation.
4. If, therefore, Clement, in this place, designed to teach that Sunday
is the Sabbath, he must also have held that it always had been such.
5. But observe that, while he changes the numbering of the days of the
week, he does not change the Sabbath from one day to another. He says
the eighth may possibly be the seventh, and the seventh, properly the
sixth, and the latter, or this one [Greek, ἡ μὲν κυρίως εἶυαι σάββατου,],
properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work.
6. By the latter must be understood the day last mentioned, which he says
should be called, not the seventh, but the sixth; and by the seventh
must certainly be intended that day which he says is not the eighth, but
the seventh, that is to say, Sunday.
There remains but one difficulty to be solved, and that is why he should
suggest the changing of the numbering of the days of the week by striking
one from the count of each day, thus making the Sabbath the sixth day
in the count instead of the seventh; and making Sunday the seventh day
in the count instead of the eighth. The answer seems to have eluded the
observation of the first-day and anti-Sabbatarian writers who have sought
to grasp it. But there is a fact which solves the difficulty. Clement’s
commentary on the fourth commandment, from which these quotations are
taken, is principally made up of curious observations on “the perfect
number six,” “the number seven motherless and childless,” and the number
eight, which is “a cube,” and the like matters, and is taken with some
change of arrangement almost word for word from Philo Judæus, a teacher
who flourished at Alexandria about one century before Clement. Whoever
will take pains to compare these two writers will find in Philo nearly
all the ideas and illustrations which Clement has used, and the very
language also in which he has expressed them.[691] Philo was a mystical
teacher to whom Clement looked up as to a master. A statement which we
find in Philo, in immediate connection with several curious ideas, which
Clement quotes from him, gives, beyond all doubt, the key to Clement’s
suggestion that possibly the eighth day should be called the seventh, and
the seventh day called the sixth. Philo said that, according to God’s
purpose, the first day of time was not to be numbered with the other days
of the creation week. Thus he says:—
“And he allotted each of the six days to one of the portions
of the whole, TAKING OUT THE FIRST DAY, which he does not even
call the first day, _that it may not be numbered with the
others_, but entitling it ONE, he names it rightly, perceiving
in it, and ascribing to it, the nature and appellation of the
limit.”[692]
This would simply change the numbering of the days, as counted by Philo,
and afterward partially adopted by Clement, and make the Sabbath, not
the seventh day, but the sixth, and Sunday, not the eighth day, but the
seventh; but it would still leave the Sabbath day and the Sunday the same
identical days as before. It would, however, give to the Sabbath the
name of sixth day, because the first of the six days of creation was not
counted; and it would cause the eighth day, so called in the early church
because of its coming next after the Sabbath, to be called seventh day.
Thus the Sabbath would be the sixth day, and the seventh a day of work,
and yet the Sabbath would be the identical day that it had ever been,
and the Sunday, though called seventh day, would still, as ever before,
remain a day on which ordinary labor was lawful. Of course, Philo’s
idea that the first day of time should not be counted, is wholly false;
for there is not one fact in the Bible to support it, but many which
expressly contradict it, and even Clement, with all deference to Philo,
only timidly suggests it. But when the matter is laid open, it shows that
Clement had no thought of calling Sunday the Sabbath, and that he does
expressly confirm what we have fully proved out of other of the fathers,
that Sunday was a day on which, in their judgment, labor was not sinful.
Tertullian, at different periods of his life, held different views
respecting the Sabbath, and committed them all to writing. We last quoted
from him a decisive testimony to the perpetuity of the Sabbath, coupled
with an equally decisive testimony against the sanctification of the
first day of the week. In another work, from which we have already quoted
his statement that Christians should not kneel on Sunday, we find another
statement that “some few” abstained from kneeling on the Sabbath. This
has probable reference to Carthage, where Tertullian lived. He speaks
thus:—
“In the matter of _kneeling_ also, prayer is subject to
diversity of observance, through the act of some few who
abstain from kneeling on the Sabbath; and since this dissension
is particularly on its trial before the churches, the Lord will
give his grace that the dissentients may either yield, or else
indulge their opinion without offense to others.”[693]
The act of standing in prayer was one of the chief honors conferred upon
Sunday. Those who refrained from kneeling on the seventh day, without
doubt did it because they desired to honor that day. This particular
act is of no consequence; for it was adopted in imitation of those who,
from tradition and custom, thus honored Sunday; but we have in this an
undoubted reference to Sabbath-keeping Christians. Tertullian speaks of
them, however, in a manner quite unlike that of Justin in his reference
to the commandment-keepers of his time.
Origen, like many other of the fathers, was far from being consistent
with himself. Though he has spoken against Sabbatic observance, and has
honored the so-called Lord’s day as something better than the ancient
Sabbath, he has nevertheless given a discourse expressly designed to
teach Christians the proper method of observing the Sabbath. Here is a
portion of this sermon:—
“But what is the feast of the Sabbath except that of which
the apostle speaks, ‘There remaineth therefore a Sabbatism,’
that is, the observance of the Sabbath by the people of
God? Leaving the Jewish observances of the Sabbath, let us
see how the Sabbath ought to be observed by a Christian. On
the Sabbath day all worldly labors ought to be abstained
from. If, therefore, you cease from all secular works, and
execute nothing worldly, but give yourselves up to spiritual
exercises, repairing to church, attending to sacred reading
and instruction, thinking of celestial things, solicitous for
the future, placing the Judgment to come before your eyes, not
looking to things present and visible, but to those which are
future and invisible, this is the observance of the Christian
Sabbath.”[694]
This is by no means a bad representation of the proper observance of the
Sabbath. Such a discourse addressed to Christians is a strong evidence
that many did then hallow that day. Some, indeed, have claimed that these
words were spoken concerning Sunday. They would have it that he contrasts
the observance of the first day with that of the seventh. But the
contrast is not between the different methods of keeping two days, but
between two methods of observing one day. The Jews in Origen’s time spent
the day mainly in mere abstinence from labor, and often added sensuality
to idleness. But the Christians were to observe it in divine worship, as
well as sacred rest. What day he intends cannot be doubtful. It is DIES
SABBATI, a term which can signify only the seventh day. Here is the first
instance of the term Christian Sabbath, _Sabbati Christiani_, and it is
expressly applied to the seventh day observed by Christians.
The longer form of the reputed epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians
was not written till after Origen’s time, but, though not written by
Ignatius, it is valuable for light which it sheds upon the existing
state of things at the time of its composition, and for marking the
progress which apostasy had made with respect to the Sabbath. Here is its
reference to the Sabbath and first day:—
“Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish
manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for ‘he that does not
work, let him not eat.’ For say the [holy] oracles, ‘In the
sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.’ But let every one
of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in
meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring
the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the
day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a
prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits
which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the
Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s day as a
festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all
the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet
declared, ‘To the end, for the eighth day,’ on which our life
both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained
in Christ.”[695]
This writer specifies the different things which made up the Jewish
observance of the Sabbath. They may be summed up under two heads. 1.
Strict abstinence from labor. 2. Dancing and carousal. Now, in the light
of what Origen has said, we can understand the contrast which this writer
draws between the Jewish and Christian observance of the Sabbath. The
error of the Jews in the first part of this was that they contented
themselves with mere bodily relaxation, without raising their thoughts to
God, the Creator, and this mere idleness soon gave place to sensual folly.
The Christian, as Origen draws the contrast, refrains from labor on the
Sabbath that he may raise his heart in grateful worship. Or, as this
writer draws it, the Christian keeps the Sabbath in a spiritual manner,
rejoicing in meditation on the law; but to do thus, he must hallow it
in the manner which that law commands, that is, in the observance of
a sacred rest which commemorates the rest of the Creator. The writer
evidently believed in the observance of the Sabbath as an act of
obedience to that law on which they were to meditate on that day. And
the nature of the epistle indicates that it was observed, at all events,
in the country where it was written. But mark the work of apostasy. The
so-called Lord’s day for which the writer could offer nothing better than
an argument drawn from the title of the sixth psalm (see its marginal
reading) is exalted above the Lord’s holy day, and made the queen of all
days!
The Apostolical Constitutions, though not written in apostolic times,
were in existence as early as the third century, and were then very
generally believed to express the doctrine of the apostles. They do
therefore furnish important historical testimony to the practice of the
church at that time, and also indicate the great progress which apostasy
had made. Guericke speaks thus of them:—
“This is a collection of ecclesiastical statutes purporting
to be the work of the apostolic age, but in reality formed
gradually in the second, third, and fourth centuries, and is of
much value in reference to the history of polity, and Christian
archæology generally.”[696]
Mosheim says of them:—
“The matter of this work is unquestionably ancient; since the
manners and discipline of which it exhibits a view are those
which prevailed amongst the Christians of the second and third
centuries, especially those resident in Greece and the oriental
regions.”[697]
These Constitutions indicate that the Sabbath was extensively observed in
the third century. They also show the standing of the Sunday festival in
that century. After solemnly enjoining the sacred observance of the ten
commandments, they thus enforce the Sabbath:—
“Consider the manifold workmanship of God, which received its
beginning through Christ. Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on
account of Him who ceased from his work of creation, but ceased
not from his work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of
the law, not for idleness of the hands.”[698]
This is sound Sabbatarian doctrine. To show how distinctly these
Constitutions recognize the decalogue as the foundation of Sabbatic
authority we quote the words next preceding the above, though we have
quoted them on another occasion:—
“Have before thine eyes the fear of God, and always remember
the ten commandments of God,—to love the one and only Lord
God with all thy strength; to give no heed to idols, or any
other beings, as being lifeless gods, or irrational beings or
dæmons.”[699]
But though these Constitutions thus recognize the authority of the
decalogue and the sacred obligation of the seventh day, they elevate the
Sunday festival in some respects to higher honor than the Sabbath, though
they claim for it no precept of the Scriptures. Thus they say:—
“But keep the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day festival; because the
former is the memorial of the creation, and the latter of the
resurrection.”[700]
“For the Sabbath is the ceasing of the creation, the completion
of the world, the inquiry after laws, and the grateful praise
to God for the blessings he has bestowed upon men. All which
the Lord’s day excels, and shows the Mediator himself, the
Provider, the Law-giver, the Cause of the resurrection, the
First-born of the whole creation.”[701]
“So that the Lord’s day commands us to offer unto thee, O Lord,
thanksgiving for all. For this is the grace afforded by thee,
which, on account of its greatness, has obscured all other
blessings.”[702]
Tested by his own principles, the writer of these Constitutions was far
advanced in apostasy; for he held a festival, for which he claimed no
divine authority, more honorable than one which he acknowledged to be
ordained of God. There could be but one step more in this course, and
that would be to set aside the commandment of God for the ordinance of
man, and this step was not very long afterward actually taken. One other
point should be noticed. It is said:—
“Let the slaves work five days; but on the Sabbath day and
the Lord’s day let them have leisure to go to church for
instruction in piety.”[703]
The question of the sinfulness of labor on either of these days is not
here taken into the account; for the reason assigned is that the slaves
may have leisure to attend public worship. But while these Constitutions
elsewhere forbid labor on the Sabbath on the authority of the decalogue,
they do not forbid it upon the first day of the week. Take the following
as an example:—
“O Lord Almighty, thou hast created the world by Christ, and
hast appointed the Sabbath in memory thereof, because that _on
that day_ thou hast made us _rest from our works_, for the
meditation upon thy laws.”[704]
The Apostolical Constitutions are valuable to us, not as authority
respecting the teaching of the apostles, but as giving us a knowledge of
the views and practices which prevailed in the third century. As these
Constitutions were extensively regarded as embodying the doctrine of the
apostles, they furnish conclusive evidence that, at the time when they
were put in writing, the ten commandments were very generally revered
as the immutable rule of right, and that the Sabbath of the Lord was by
many observed as an act of obedience to the fourth commandment, and as
the divine memorial of the creation. They also show that the first-day
festival had, in the third century, attained such strength and influence
as to clearly indicate that ere long it would claim the entire ground.
But observe that the Sabbath and the so-called Lord’s day were then
regarded as distinct institutions, and that no hint of the change of the
Sabbath from the seventh day to the first is even once given.
Thus much out of the fathers concerning the authority of the decalogue,
and concerning the perpetuity and observance of the ancient Sabbath. The
suppression of the Sabbath of the Bible, and the elevation of Sunday to
its place, has been shown to be in no sense the work of the Saviour. But
so great a work required the united action of powerful causes, and these
causes we now enumerate.
1. _Hatred toward the Jews._ This people, who retained the ancient
Sabbath, had slain Christ. It was easy for men to forget that Christ, as
Lord of the Sabbath, had claimed it as his own institution, and to call
the Sabbath a Jewish institution which Christians should not regard.[705]
2. _The hatred of the church of Rome toward the Sabbath, and its
determination to elevate Sunday to the highest place._ This church, as
the chief in the work of apostasy, took the lead in the earliest effort
to suppress the Sabbath by turning it into a fast. And the very first act
of papal aggression was by an edict in behalf of Sunday. Thenceforward,
in every possible form, this church continued this work until the pope
announced that he had received a divine mandate for Sunday observance
[the very thing lacking] in a roll which fell from Heaven.
3. _The voluntary observance of memorable days._ In the Christian church,
almost from the beginning, men voluntarily honored the fourth, the sixth,
and the first days of the week, and also the anniversary of the Passover
and the Pentecost, to commemorate the betrayal, the death, and the
resurrection, of Christ, and the descent of the Holy Spirit, which acts
in themselves could not be counted sinful.
4. _The making of tradition of equal authority with the Scriptures._ This
was the great error of the early church, and the one to which that church
was specially exposed, as having in it those who had seen the apostles,
or who had seen those who had seen them. It was this which rendered the
voluntary observance of memorable days a dangerous thing. For what began
as a voluntary observance became, after the lapse of a few years, a
standing custom, established by tradition, which must be obeyed because
it came from those who had seen the apostles, or from those who had seen
others who had seen them. This is the origin of the various errors of the
great apostasy.
5. _The entrance of the no-law heresy._ This is seen in Justin Martyr,
the earliest witness to the Sunday festival, and in the church of Rome of
which he was then a member.
6. _The extensive observance of Sunday as a heathen festival._ The first
day of the week corresponded to the widely observed heathen festival
of the sun. It was therefore easy to unite the honor of Christ in the
observance of the day of his resurrection with the convenience and
worldly advantage of his people in having the same festival day with
their heathen neighbors, and to make it a special act of piety in that
the conversion of the heathen was thereby facilitated, while the neglect
of the ancient Sabbath was justified by stigmatizing that divine memorial
as a Jewish institution with which Christians should have no concern.
CHAPTER XIX.
THE SABBATH AND FIRST-DAY DURING THE FIRST FIVE CENTURIES.
Origin of the Sabbath and of the festival of the sun
contrasted—Entrance of that festival into the church—The
Moderns with the Ancients—The Sabbath observed by the early
Christians—Testimony of Morer—Of Twisse—Of Giesler—Of
Mosheim—Of Coleman—Of Bishop Taylor—The Sabbath loses
ground before the Sunday festival—Several bodies of
decided Sabbatarians—Testimony of Brerewood—Constantine’s
Sunday law—Sunday a day of labor with the primitive
church—Constantine’s edict a heathen law, and himself at that
time a heathen—The bishop of Rome authoritatively confers the
name of Lord’s day upon Sunday—Heylyn narrates the steps by
which Sunday arose to power—A marked change in the history of
that institution—Paganism brought into the church—The Sabbath
weakened by Constantine’s influence—Remarkable facts concerning
Eusebius—The Sabbath recovers strength again—The council of
Laodicea pronounces a curse upon the Sabbath-keepers—The
progress of apostasy marked—Authority of church councils
considered—Chrysostom—Jerome—Augustine—Sunday edicts—Testimony
of Socrates relative to the Sabbath about the middle of the
fifth century—Of Sozomen—Effectual suppression of the Sabbath
at the close of the fifth century.
The origin of the Sabbath and of the festival of Sunday is now distinctly
understood. When God made the world, he gave to man the Sabbath that he
might not forget the Creator of all things. When men apostatized from
God, Satan turned them to the worship of the sun, and, as a standing
memorial of their veneration for that luminary, caused them to dedicate
to his honor the first day of the week. When the elements of apostasy
had sufficiently matured in the Christian church, this ancient festival
stood forth as a rival to the Sabbath of the Lord. The manner in which
it obtained a foothold in the Christian church has been already shown;
and many facts which have an important bearing upon the struggle between
these rival institutions have also been given. We have, in the preceding
chapters, given the statements of the most ancient Christian writers
respecting the Sabbath and first-day in the early church. As we now trace
the history of these two days during the first five centuries of the
Christian era, we shall give the statements of modern church historians,
covering the same ground with the early fathers, and shall also quote
in continuation of the ancient writers the testimonies of the earliest
church historians. The reader can thus discover how nearly the ancients
and moderns agree. Of the observance of the Sabbath in the early church,
Morer speaks thus:—
“The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the
Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons. And it
is not to be doubted but they derived this practice from the
apostles themselves, as appears by several scriptures to that
purpose; who, keeping both that day and the first of the week,
gave occasion to the succeeding ages to join them together, and
make it one festival, though there was not the same reason for
the continuance of the custom as there was to begin it.”[706]
A learned English first-day writer of the seventeenth century, William
Twisse, D. D., thus states the early history of these two days:—
“Yet for some hundred years in the primitive church, not the
Lord’s day only, but the seventh day also, was religiously
observed, not by Ebion and Cerinthus only, but by pious
Christians also, as Baronius writeth, and Gomarus confesseth,
and Rivet also, that we are bound in conscience under the
gospel, to allow for God’s service a better proportion of time,
than the Jews did under the law, rather than a worse.”[707]
That the observance of the Sabbath was not confined to Jewish converts,
the learned Giesler explicitly testifies:—
“While the Jewish Christians of Palestine retained the entire
Mosaic law, and consequently the Jewish festivals, the Gentile
Christians observed also _the Sabbath_ and the passover,[708]
with reference to the last scenes of Jesus’ life, but without
Jewish superstition. In addition to these, Sunday, as the
day of Christ’s resurrection, was devoted to religious
services.”[709]
The statement of Mosheim may be thought to contradict that of Giesler.
Thus he says:—
“The seventh day of the week was also observed as a festival,
not by the Christians in general, but by such churches only as
were principally composed of Jewish converts, nor did the other
Christians censure this custom as criminal and unlawful.”[710]
It will be observed that Mosheim does not deny that the Jewish converts
observed the Sabbath. He denies that this was done by the Gentile
Christians. The proof on which he rests this denial is thus stated by
him:—
“The churches of Bithynia, of which Pliny speaks, in his letter
to Trajan, had only one stated day for the celebration of
public worship; and that was undoubtedly the first day of the
week, or what we call the Lord’s day.”[711]
The proposition to be proved is this: The Gentile Christians did not
observe the Sabbath. The proof is found in the following fact: The
churches of Bithynia assembled on a stated day for the celebration of
divine worship. It is seen therefore that the conclusion is gratuitous,
and wholly unauthorized by the testimony.[712] But this instance shows
the dexterity of Mosheim in drawing inferences, and gives us some
insight into the kind of evidence which supports some of these sweeping
statements in behalf of Sunday. Who can say that this “stated day” was
not the very day enjoined in the fourth commandment? Of the Sabbath and
first day in the early ages of the church, Coleman speaks as follows:—
“The last day of the week was strictly kept in connection with
that of the first day, for a long time after the overthrow of
the temple and its worship. Down even to the fifth century the
observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian
church, but with a rigor and solemnity gradually diminishing
until it was wholly discontinued.”[713]
This is a most explicit acknowledgment that the Bible Sabbath was long
observed by the body of the Christian church. Coleman is a first-day
writer, and therefore not likely to state the case too strongly in behalf
of the seventh day. He is a modern writer, but we have already proved his
statements true out of the ancients. It is true that Coleman speaks also
of the first day of the week, yet his subsequent language shows that it
was a long while before this became a sacred day. Thus he says:—
“During the early ages of the church it was never entitled
‘the Sabbath,’ this word being confined to the seventh day of
the week, the Jewish Sabbath, which, as we have already said,
continued to be observed for several centuries by the converts
to Christianity.”[714]
This fact is made still clearer by the following language, in which this
historian admits Sunday to be nothing but a human ordinance:—
“No law or precept appears to have been given by Christ or the
apostles, either for the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath, or
the institution of the Lord’s day, or the substitution of the
first for the seventh day of the week.”[715]
Coleman does not seem to realize that in making this truthful statement
he has directly acknowledged that the ancient Sabbath is still in full
force as a divine institution, and that first-day observance is only
authorized by the traditions of men. He next relates the manner in which
this Sunday festival which had been nourished in the bosom of the church
usurped the place of the Lord’s Sabbath; a warning to all Christians of
the tendency of human institutions, if cherished by the people of God, to
destroy those which are divine. Let this important language be carefully
pondered. He speaks thus:—
“The observance of the Lord’s day was ordered while yet
the Sabbath of the Jews was continued; nor was the latter
superseded until the former had acquired the same solemnity and
importance, which belonged, at first, to that great day which
God originally ordained and blessed.... But in time, after
the Lord’s day was fully established, the observance of the
Sabbath of the Jews was gradually discontinued, and was finally
denounced as heretical.”[716]
Thus is seen the result of cherishing this harmless Sunday festival in
the church. It only asked toleration at first; but gaining strength by
degrees, it gradually undermined the Sabbath of the Lord, and finally
denounced its observance as heretical.
Jeremy Taylor, a distinguished bishop of the Church of England, and a
man of great erudition, but a decided opponent of Sabbatic obligation,
confirms the testimony of Coleman. He affirms that the Sabbath was
observed by the Christians of the first three hundred years, but denies
that they did this out of respect to the authority or the law of God. But
we have shown from the fathers that those who hallowed the Sabbath did it
as an act of obedience to the fourth commandment, and that the decalogue
was acknowledged as of perpetual obligation, and as the perfect rule of
right. As Bishop T. denies that this was their ground of observance, he
should have shown some other, which he has not done. Thus he says:—
“The Lord’s day did not succeed in the place of the Sabbath,
but the Sabbath was wholly abrogated, and the Lord’s day was
merely an ecclesiastical institution. It was not introduced
by virtue of the fourth commandment, because they for almost
three hundred years together kept that day which was in that
commandment; but they did it also without any opinion of prime
obligation, and therefore they did not suppose it moral.”[717]
That such an opinion relative to the obligation of the fourth commandment
had gained ground extensively among the leaders of the church, as
early at least as the fourth century, and probably in the third, is
sufficiently attested by the action of the council of Laodicea, A. D.
364, which anathematized those who should observe the Sabbath, as will
be noticed in its place. That this loose view of the morality of the
fourth commandment was resisted by many, is shown by the existence of
various bodies of steadfast Sabbatarians in that age, whose memory has
come down to us; and also by the fact that that council made such a
vigorous effort to put down the Sabbath. Coleman has clearly portrayed
the gradual depression of the Sabbath, as the first-day festival arose in
strength, until Sabbath-keeping became heretical, when, by ecclesiastical
authority, the Sabbath was suppressed, and the festival of Sunday became
fully established as a new and different institution. The natural
consequence of this is seen in the rise of distinct sects, or bodies, who
were distinguished for their observance of the seventh day. That they
should be denounced as heretical and falsely charged with many errors is
not surprising, when we consider that their memory has been handed down
to us by their opponents, and that Sabbath-keepers in our own time are
not unfrequently treated in this very manner. The first of these ancient
Sabbatarian bodies was the Nazarenes. Of these, Morer testifies that,
They “retained the Sabbath; and though they pretended to
believe as Christians, yet they practiced as Jews, and so were
in reality neither one nor the other.”[718]
And Dr. Francis White, lord bishop of Ely, mentions the Nazarenes as one
of the ancient bodies of Sabbath-keepers who were condemned by the church
leaders for that heresy; and he classes them with heretics as Morer
has done.[719] Yet the Nazarenes have a peculiar claim to our regard,
as being in reality the apostolic church of Jerusalem, and its direct
successors. Thus Gibbon testifies:—
“The Jewish converts, or, as they were afterwards called, the
Nazarenes, who had laid the foundations of the church, soon
found themselves overwhelmed by the increasing multitudes, that
from all the various religions of polytheism enlisted under the
banner of Christ.... The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of
Jerusalem to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan, where
that ancient church languished above sixty years in solitude
and obscurity.”[720]
It is not strange that that church which fled out of Judea at the word
of Christ[721] should long retain the Sabbath, as it appears that they
did, even as late as the fourth century. Morer mentions another class of
Sabbath-keepers in the following language:—
“About the same time were the Hypsistarii who closed with these
as to what concerned the Sabbath, yet would by no means accept
circumcision as too plain a testimony of ancient bondage. All
these were heretics, and so adjudged to be by the Catholic
church. Yet their hypocrisy and industry were such as gained
them a considerable footing in the Christian world.”[722]
The bishop of Ely names these also as a body of Sabbath-keepers whose
heresy was condemned by the church.[723] The learned Joseph Bingham, M.
A., gives the following account of them:—
“There was another sect which called themselves Hypsistarians,
that is, worshipers of the most high God, whom they worshiped
as the Jews only in one person. And they observed their
Sabbaths and used distinction of meats, clean and unclean,
though they did not regard circumcision, as Gregory Nazianzen,
whose father was once one of this sect, gives the account of
them.”[724]
It must ever be remembered that these people, whom the Catholic church
adjudged to be heretics, are not speaking for themselves: their enemies
who condemned them have transmitted to posterity all that is known
of their history. It would be well if heretics, who meet with little
mercy at the hand of ecclesiastical writers, could at least secure the
impartial justice of a truthful record.
Another class are thus described by Cox in his elaborate work entitled
“Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties”:—
“In this way [that is, by presenting the testimony of the Bible
on the subject] arose the ancient Sabbatarians, a body it is
well known of very considerable importance in respect both to
numbers and influence, during the greater part of the third and
the early part of the next century.”[725]
The close of the third century witnessed the Sabbath much weakened
in its hold upon the church in general, and the festival of Sunday,
although possessed of no divine authority, steadily gaining in strength
and in sacredness. The following historical testimony from a member of
the English Church, Edward Brerewood, professor in Gresham College,
London, gives a good general view of the matter, though the author’s
anti-Sabbatarian views are mixed with it. He says:—
“The ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed together with
the celebration of the Lord’s day by the Christians of the east
church above three hundred years after our Saviour’s death;
and besides that, no other day for more hundreds of years than
I spake of before, was known in the church by the name of
Sabbath but that: let the collection thereof and conclusion of
all be this: The Sabbath of the seventh day as touching the
allegations of God’s solemn worship to time was ceremonial;
that Sabbath was religiously observed in the east church three
hundred years and more after our Saviour’s passion. That church
being the great part of Christendom, and having the apostles’
doctrine and example to instruct them, would have restrained it
if it had been deadly.”[726]
Such was the case in the eastern churches at the end of the third
century; but in such of the western churches as sympathized with the
church of Rome, the Sabbath had been treated as a fast from the beginning
of that century, to express their opposition toward those who observed it
according to the commandment.
In the early part of the fourth century occurred an event which could not
have been foreseen, but which threw an immense weight in favor of Sunday
into the balances already trembling between the rival institutions, the
Sabbath of the Lord and the festival of the sun. This was nothing less
than an edict from the throne of the Roman Empire in behalf of “the
venerable day of the sun.” It was issued by the emperor Constantine in A.
D. 321, and is thus expressed:—
“Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all
trades rest on the venerable day of the sun; but let those who
are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty attend
to the business of agriculture; because it often happens that
no other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines;
lest, the critical moment being let slip, men should lose the
commodities granted by Heaven. Given the seventh day of March;
Crispus and Constantine being consuls, each of them for the
second time.”[727]
Of this law, a high authority thus speaks:—
“It was Constantine the Great who first made a law for the
proper observance of Sunday; and who, according to Eusebius,
appointed it should be regularly celebrated throughout the
Roman Empire. Before him, and even in his time, they observed
the Jewish Sabbath, as well as Sunday; both to satisfy the law
of Moses, and to imitate the apostles who used to meet together
on the first day. By Constantine’s law, promulgated in 321, it
was decreed that for the future the Sunday should be kept as a
day of rest in all cities and towns; but he allowed the country
people to follow their work.”[728]
Another eminent authority thus states the purport of this law:—
“Constantine the Great made a law for the whole empire (A. D.
321) that Sunday should be kept as a day of rest in all cities
and towns; but he allowed the country people to follow their
work on that day.”[729]
Thus the fact is placed beyond all dispute that this decree gave full
permission to all kinds of agricultural labor. The following testimony of
Mosheim is therefore worthy of strict attention:—
“The first day of the week, which was the ordinary and stated
time for the public assemblies of the Christians, was in
consequence of a peculiar law enacted by Constantine, observed
with greater solemnity than it had formerly been.”[730]
What will the advocates of first-day sacredness say to this? They quote
Mosheim respecting Sunday observance in the first century—which testimony
has been carefully examined in this work[731]—and they seem to think
that his language in support of first-day sacredness is nearly equal in
authority to the language of the New Testament; in fact, they regard
it as supplying an important omission in that book. Yet Mosheim states
respecting Constantine’s Sunday law, promulgated in the fourth century,
which restrained merchants and mechanics, but allowed all kinds of
agricultural labor on that day, that it caused the day to be “observed
with greater solemnity than it had formerly been.” It follows, therefore,
on Mosheim’s own showing, that Sunday, during the first three centuries,
was not a day of abstinence from labor in the Christian church. On this
point, Bishop Taylor thus testifies:—
“The primitive Christians did all manner of works upon the
Lord’s day, even in the times of persecution, when they are the
strictest observers of all the divine commandments; but in this
they knew there was none; and therefore when Constantine the
emperor had made an edict against working upon the Lord’s day,
yet he excepts and still permitted all agriculture or labors of
the husbandman whatsoever.”[732]
Morer tells us respecting the first three centuries, that is to say, the
period before Constantine, that
“The Lord’s day had no command that it should be sanctified,
but it was left to God’s people to pitch on this or that day
for the public worship. And being taken up and made a day of
meeting for religious exercises, yet for three hundred years
there was no law to bind them to it, and for want of such a
law, the day was not wholly kept in abstaining from common
business; nor did they any longer rest from their ordinary
affairs (such was the necessity of those times) than during the
divine service.”[733]
And Sir Wm. Domville says:—
“Centuries of the Christian era passed away before the Sunday
was observed by the Christian church as a Sabbath. History does
not furnish us with a single proof or indication that it was
at any time so observed previous to the Sabbatical edict of
Constantine in A. D. 321.”[734]
What these able modern writers set forth as to labor on Sunday before
the edict of Constantine was promulgated, we have fully proved in the
preceding chapters out of the most ancient ecclesiastical writers. That
such an edict could not fail to strengthen the current already strongly
set in favor of Sunday, and greatly to weaken the influence of the
Sabbath, cannot be doubted. Of this fact, an able writer bears witness:—
“Very shortly after the period when Constantine issued his
edict enjoining the general observance of Sunday throughout the
Roman Empire, the party that had contended for the observance
of the seventh day dwindled into insignificance. The observance
of Sunday as a public festival, during which all business, with
the exception of rural employments, was intermitted, came to
be more and more generally established ever after this time,
throughout both the Greek and the Latin churches. There is
no evidence however that either at this, or at a period much
later, the observance was viewed as deriving any obligation
from the fourth commandment; it seems to have been regarded as
an institution corresponding in nature with Christmas, Good
Friday, and other festivals of the church; and as resting
with them on the ground of ecclesiastical authority and
tradition.”[735]
This extraordinary edict of Constantine caused Sunday to be observed
with greater solemnity than it had formerly been. Yet we have the most
indubitable proof that this law was a heathen enactment; that it was put
forth in favor of Sunday as a heathen institution and not as a Christian
festival; and that Constantine himself not only did not possess the
character of a Christian, but was at that time in truth a heathen. It
is to be observed that Constantine did not designate the day which he
commanded men to keep, as Lord’s day, Christian Sabbath, or the day of
Christ’s resurrection; nor does he assign any reason for its observance
which would indicate it as a Christian festival. On the contrary, he
designates the ancient heathen festival of the sun in language that
cannot be mistaken. Dr. Hessey thus sustains this statement:—
“Others have looked at the transaction in a totally different
light, and refused to discover in the document, or to suppose
in the mind of the enactor, any recognition of the Lord’s
day as a matter of divine obligation. They remark, and _very
truly_, that Constantine designates it by its _astrological_
or _heathen_ title, Dies Solis, and insist that the epithet
_venerabilis_ with which it is introduced has reference to the
rites performed on that day in honor of _Hercules_, _Apollo_,
and _Mithras_.”[736]
On this important point, Milman, the learned editor of Gibbon, thus
testifies:—
“The rescript commanding the celebration of the Christian
Sabbath, bears no allusion to its peculiar sanctity as a
Christian institution. It is the day of the sun which is to
be observed by the general veneration; the courts were to be
closed, and the noise and tumult of public business and legal
litigation were no longer to violate the repose of the sacred
day. But the believer in the new paganism, of which the solar
worship was the characteristic, might acquiesce without scruple
in the sanctity of the first day of the week.”[737]
And he adds in a subsequent chapter:—
“In fact, as we have before observed, the day of the sun would
be willingly hallowed by almost all the pagan world, especially
that part which had admitted any tendency towards the Oriental
theology.”[738]
On the seventh day of March, Constantine published his edict commanding
the observance of that ancient festival of the heathen, the venerable
day of the sun. On the following day, March eighth,[739] he issued a
second decree in every respect worthy of its heathen predecessor.[740]
The purport of it was this: That if any royal edifice should be struck
by lightning, the ancient ceremonies of propitiating the deity should
be practiced, and the _haruspices_ were to be consulted to learn the
meaning of the awful portent.[741] The _haruspices_ were soothsayers who
foretold future events by examining the entrails of beasts slaughtered in
sacrifice to the gods![742] The statute of the seventh of March enjoining
the observance of the venerable day of the sun, and that of the eighth
of the same month commanding the consultation of the _haruspices_,
constitute a noble pair of well-matched heathen edicts. That Constantine
himself was a heathen at the time these edicts were issued, is shown not
only by the nature of the edicts themselves, but by the fact that his
nominal conversion to Christianity is placed by Mosheim two years after
his Sunday law. Thus he says:—
“After well considering the subject, I have come to the
conclusion, that _subsequently to the death of Licinius in the
year 323_ when _Constantine_ found himself sole emperor, _he
became an absolute Christian_, or one who believes no religion
but the Christian to be acceptable to God. He had previously
considered the religion of one God as more excellent than the
other religions, and believed that Christ ought especially to
be worshiped: yet he supposed there were also inferior deities,
and that to these some worship might be paid, in the manner
of the fathers, without fault or sin. And who does not know,
that in those times, many others also combined the worship of
Christ with that of the ancient gods, whom they regarded as the
ministers of the supreme God in the government of human and
earthly affairs.”[743]
As a heathen, Constantine was the worshiper of Apollo or the sun, a
fact that sheds much light upon his edict enjoining men to observe the
venerable day of the sun. Thus Gibbon testifies:—
“The devotion of Constantine was more peculiarly directed to
the genius of the sun, the Apollo of Greek and Roman mythology;
and he was pleased to be represented with the symbols of the
god of light and poetry.... The altars of Apollo were crowned
with the votive offerings of Constantine; and the credulous
multitude were taught to believe that the emperor was permitted
to behold with mortal eyes the visible majesty of their tutelar
deity.... The sun was universally celebrated as the invincible
guide and protector of Constantine.”[744]
His character as a professor of Christianity is thus described:—
“The sincerity of the man, who in a short period effected such
amazing changes in the religious world, is best known to Him
who searches the heart. Certain it is that his subsequent life
furnished no evidence of conversion to God. He waded without
remorse through seas of blood, and was a most tyrannical
prince.”[745]
A few words relative to his character as a man will complete our view of
his fitness to legislate for the church. This man, when elevated to the
highest place of earthly power, caused his eldest son, Crispus, to be
privately murdered, lest the fame of the son should eclipse that of the
father. In the same ruin was involved his nephew Licinius, “whose rank
was his only crime,” and this was followed by the execution “perhaps of a
guilty wife.”[746]
Such was the man who elevated Sunday to the throne of the Roman Empire;
and such the nature of the institution which he thus elevated. A recent
English writer says of Constantine’s Sunday law that it “would seem to
have been rather to promote heathen than Christian worship.” And he shows
how this heathen emperor became a Christian, and how this heathen statute
became a Christian law. Thus he says:—
“At a LATER PERIOD, carried away by the current of opinion, he
declared himself a convert to the church. Christianity, then,
or what he was pleased to call by that name, became the law
of the land, and the edict of A. D. 321, being unrevoked, was
enforced as a Christian ordinance.”[747]
Thus it is seen that a law, enacted in support of a heathen institution,
after a few years came to be considered a Christian ordinance; and
Constantine himself, four years after his Sunday edict, was able to
control the church, as represented in the general council of Nice, so as
to cause the members of that council to establish their annual festival
of the passover upon Sunday.[748] Paganism had prepared the institution
from ancient days, and had now elevated it to supreme power; its work was
accomplished.
We have proved that the Sunday festival in the Christian church had no
Sabbatical character before the time of Constantine. We have also shown
that heathenism, in the person of Constantine, first gave to Sunday its
Sabbatical character, and, in the very act of doing it, designated it as
a heathen, and not as a Christian, festival, thus establishing a heathen
Sabbath. It was now the part of popery authoritatively to effect its
transformation into a Christian institution; a work which it was not
slow to perform. Sylvester was the bishop of Rome while Constantine was
emperor. How faithfully he acted his part in transforming the festival of
the sun into a Christian institution is seen in that, by his apostolic
authority, he changed the name of the day, giving it the imposing title
of LORD’S DAY.[749] To Constantine and to Sylvester, therefore, the
advocates of first-day observance are greatly indebted. The one elevated
it as a heathen festival to the throne of the empire, making it a day of
rest from most kinds of business; the other changed it into a Christian
institution, giving it the dignified appellation of Lord’s day. It is
not a sufficient reason for denying that Pope Sylvester, not far from
A. D. 325, authoritatively conferred on Sunday the name of Lord’s day,
to say that one of the fathers, as early as A. D. 200, calls the day by
that name, and that some seven different writers, between A. D. 200 and
A. D. 325, viz., Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Anatolius, Commodianus,
Victorinus, and Peter of Alexandria, can be adduced, who give this name
to Sunday.
No one of these fathers ever claims for this title any apostolic
authority; and it has been already shown that they could not have
believed the day to be the Lord’s day by divine appointment. So far,
therefore, is the use of this term by these persons as a name for Sunday
from conflicting with the statement that Sylvester, by his apostolic
authority, established this name as the rightful title of that day, that
it shows the act of Sylvester to be exactly suited to the circumstances
of the case. Indeed, Nicephorus asserts that Constantine, who considered
himself quite as much the head of the church as was the pope, “directed
that the day which the Jews considered the first day of the week, and
which the Greeks dedicated to the sun, should be called the Lord’s
day.”[750] The circumstances of the case render the statements of Lucius
and Nicephorus in the highest degree probable. They certainly do not
indicate that the pope would deem such act on his part unnecessary. Take
a recent event in papal history as an illustration of this case. Only a
few years since, Pius IX. decreed that the virgin Mary was born without
sin. This had long been asserted by many distinguished writers in the
papal church, but it lacked authority as a dogma of that church until the
pope, A. D. 1854, gave it his official sanction.[751] It was the work of
Constantine and of Sylvester in the early part of the fourth century to
establish the festival of the sun, to be a day of rest, by the authority
of the empire, and to render it a Christian institution by the authority
of St. Peter.
The following from Dr. Heylyn, a distinguished member of the Church of
England, is worthy of particular attention. In most forcible language, he
traces the steps by which the Sunday festival arose to power, contrasting
it in this respect with the ancient Sabbath of the Lord; and then, with
equal truth and candor, he acknowledges that, as the festival of Sunday
was set up by the emperor and the church, the same power can take it down
whenever it sees fit. Thus he says:—
“Thus do we see upon what grounds the Lord’s day stands; ON
CUSTOM FIRST, and VOLUNTARY consecration of it to religious
meetings; that custom countenanced by the authority of the
church of God, which TACITLY approved the same; and FINALLY
CONFIRMED and RATIFIED BY CHRISTIAN PRINCES throughout their
empires. And as the day for rest from labors and restraint from
business upon that day, [it] received its greatest strength
from the supreme magistrate as long as he retained that power
which to him belongs; as after from the canons and decrees
of councils, the decretals of popes and orders of particular
prelates, when the sole managing of ecclesiastical affairs was
committed to them.
“I hope it was not so with the former Sabbath, which neither
took original from custom, that people being not so forward
to give God a day; nor required any countenance or authority
from the kings of Israel to confirm and ratify it. The Lord had
spoke the word, that he would have one day in seven, precisely
the seventh day from the world’s creation, to be a day of rest
unto all his people; which said, there was no more to do but
gladly to submit and obey his pleasure.... But thus it was
not done in our present business. The Lord’s day had no such
command that it should be sanctified, but was left plainly to
God’s people to pitch on this, _or any other_, for the public
use. And being taken up amongst them and made a day of meeting
in the congregation for religious exercises; yet for three
hundred years there was neither law to bind them to it, nor any
rest from labor or from worldly business required upon it.
“And when it seemed good unto Christian princes, the nursing
fathers of God’s church, to lay restraints upon their people,
yet at the first they were not general; but only thus that
certain men in certain places should lay aside their ordinary
and daily works, to attend God’s service in the church; those
whose employments were most toilsome and most repugnant to the
true nature of a Sabbath, being allowed to follow and pursue
their labors because most necessary to the commonwealth.
“And in the following times, when as the prince and prelate,
in their several places endeavored to restrain them from that
also, which formerly they had permitted, and interdicted
almost all kinds of bodily labor upon that day; it was not
brought about without much struggling and an opposition of the
people; more than a thousand years being past, after Christ’s
ascension, before the Lord’s day had attained that state in
which now it standeth.... And being brought into that state,
wherein now it stands, it doth not stand so firmly and on
such sure grounds, but that those powers which raised it up
may take it lower if they please, yea take it quite away as
unto the time, and settle it on any other day as to them seems
best.”[752]
Constantine’s edict marks a signal change in the history of the Sunday
festival. Dr. Heylyn thus testifies:—
“Hitherto have we spoken of the Lord’s day as taken up by the
common consent of the church; not instituted or established
by any text of Scripture, or edict of emperor, or decree
of council.... In that which followeth, we shall find both
emperors and councils very frequent in ordering things about
this day and the service of it.”[753]
After his professed conversion to Christianity, Constantine still further
exerted his power in behalf of the venerable day of the sun, now happily
transformed into the Lord’s day, by the apostolic authority of the Roman
bishop. Heylyn thus testifies:—
“So natural a power it is in a Christian prince to order things
about religion, that he not only took upon him to command the
day, but also to prescribe the service.”[754]
The influence of Constantine powerfully contributed to the aid of those
church leaders who were intent upon bringing the forms of pagan worship
into the Christian church. Gibbon thus places upon record the motives of
these men, and the result of their action:—
“The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that
the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the
superstition of paganism, if they found some resemblance, some
compensation, in the bosom of Christianity. The religion of
Constantine achieved in less than a century, the final conquest
of the Roman Empire: but the victors themselves were insensibly
subdued by the arts of their vanquished rivals.”[755]
The body of nominal Christians, which resulted from this strange union
of pagan rites with Christian worship, arrogated to itself the title
of Catholic church, while the true people of God, who resisted these
dangerous innovations, were branded as heretics, and cast out of the
church. It is not strange that the Sabbath should lose ground in such a
body, in its struggle with its rival, the festival of the sun. Indeed,
after a brief period, the history of the Sabbath will be found only in
the almost obliterated records of those whom the Catholic church cast out
and stigmatized as heretics. Of the Sabbath in Constantine’s time, Heylyn
says:—
“As for the Saturday, that retained its wonted credit in the
eastern churches, little inferior to the Lord’s day, if not
plainly equal; not as a Sabbath, think not so; but as a day
designed unto sacred meetings.”[756]
There is no doubt that, after the great flood of worldliness which
entered the church at the time of Constantine’s pretended conversion, and
after all that was done by himself and by Sylvester in behalf of Sunday,
the observance of the Sabbath became, with many, only a nominal thing.
But the action of the council of Laodicea, to which we shall presently
come, proves conclusively that the Sabbath was still observed, not simply
as a festival, as Heylyn would have it, but as a day of abstinence from
labor, as enjoined in the commandment. The work of Constantine, however,
marks an epoch in the history of the Sabbath and of Sunday. Constantine
was hostile to the Sabbath, and his influence told powerfully against it
with all those who sought worldly advancement. The historian Eusebius was
the special friend and eulogist of Constantine. This fact should not be
overlooked in weighing his testimony concerning the Sabbath. He speaks of
it as follows:—
“They [the patriarchs] did not, therefore, regard circumcision,
nor observe the Sabbath, nor do we; neither do we abstain
from certain foods, nor regard other injunctions, which Moses
subsequently delivered to be observed in types and symbols,
because such things as these do not belong to Christians.”[757]
This testimony shows precisely the views of Constantine and the
imperial party relative to the Sabbath. But it does not give the views
of Christians as a whole; for we have seen that the Sabbath had been
extensively retained up to this point, and we shall soon have occasion
to quote other historians, the cotemporaries and successors of Eusebius,
who record its continued observance. Constantine exerted a controlling
influence in the church, and was determined to “have nothing in common
with that most hostile rabble of the Jews.” Happy would it have been had
his aversion been directed against the festivals of the heathen rather
than against the Sabbath of the Lord.
Before Constantine’s time, there is no trace of the doctrine of the
change of the Sabbath. On the contrary, we have decisive evidence that
Sunday was a day on which ordinary labor was considered lawful and
proper. But Constantine, while yet a heathen, commanded that every kind
of business excepting agriculture should be laid aside on that day. His
law designated the day as a heathen festival, which it actually was. But
within four years after its enactment, Constantine had become, not merely
a professed convert to the Christian religion, but, in many respects,
practically the head of the church, as the course of things at the
council of Nicea plainly showed. His heathen Sunday law, being unrevoked,
was thenceforward enforced in behalf of that day as a Christian festival.
This law gave to the Sunday festival, for the first time, something of a
Sabbatic character. It was now a rest-day from most kinds of business by
the law of the Roman Empire. God’s rest-day was thenceforward more in the
way than ever before.
But now we come to a fact of remarkable interest. The way having been
prepared, as we have just seen, for the doctrine of the change of the
Sabbath, and the circumstances of the case demanding its production, it
was at this very point brought forward for the _first time_. Eusebius,
the special friend and flatterer of Constantine, was the man who first
put forth this doctrine. In his “Commentary on the Psalms,” he makes the
following statement on Psalm xcii. respecting the change of the Sabbath:—
“Wherefore as they [the Jews] rejected it [the Sabbath law] the
Word [Christ], by the new covenant, TRANSLATED and TRANSFERRED
the feast of the Sabbath to the morning light, and gave us the
symbol of true rest, viz., the saving Lord’s day, the first
[day] of the light, in which the Saviour of the world, after
all his labors among men, obtained the victory over death, and
passed the portals of Heaven, having achieved a work superior
to the six-days’ creation.”[758]
“On this day, which is the first [day] of light and of the true
Sun, we assemble, after an interval of six days, and celebrate
holy and spiritual Sabbaths, even all nations redeemed by him
throughout the world, and do those things according to the
spiritual law, which were decreed for the priests to do on the
Sabbath.”[759]
“And all things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the
Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s day, as more
appropriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence
and is first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish
Sabbath.”[760]
Eusebius was under the strongest temptation to please and even to flatter
Constantine; for he lived in the sunshine of imperial favor. On one
occasion, he went so far as to say that the city of Jerusalem, which
Constantine had rebuilt, might be the New Jerusalem predicted in the
prophecies![761] But perhaps there was no act of Eusebius that could
give Constantine greater pleasure than his publication of such doctrine
as this respecting the change of the Sabbath. The emperor had, by the
civil law, given to Sunday a Sabbatical character. Though he had done
this while yet a heathen, he found it to his interest to maintain this
law after he obtained a commanding position in the Catholic church.
When, therefore, Eusebius came out and declared that Christ transferred
the Sabbath to Sunday, a doctrine never before heard of, and in support
of which he had no Scripture to quote, Constantine could not but feel in
the highest degree flattered that his own Sabbatical edict pertained to
the very day which Christ had ordained to be the Sabbath in place of the
seventh. It was a convincing proof that Constantine was divinely called
to his high position in the Catholic church, that he should thus exactly
identify his work with that of Christ, though he had no knowledge at the
time that Christ had done any work of the kind.
As no writer before Eusebius had ever hinted at the doctrine of the
change of the Sabbath, and as there is the most convincing proof, as we
have shown, that before his time Sunday possessed no Sabbatic character,
and as Eusebius does not claim that this doctrine is asserted in the
Scriptures, nor in any preceding ecclesiastical writer, it is certain
that he was the father of the doctrine. This new doctrine was not put
forth without some motive. That motive could not have been to bring
forward some neglected passages of the Scriptures; for he does not quote
a single text in its support. But the circumstances of the case plainly
reveal the motive. The new doctrine was exactly adapted to the new order
of things introduced by Constantine. It was, moreover, peculiarly suited
to flatter that emperor’s pride, the very thing which Eusebius was under
the strongest temptation to do.
It is remarkable, however, that Eusebius, in the very connection in
which he announces this new doctrine, unwittingly exposes its falsity.
He first asserts that Christ changed the Sabbath, and then virtually
contradicts it by indicating the real authors of the change. Thus he
says:—
“All things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath,
these WE have transferred to the Lord’s day.”[762]
The persons here referred to as the authors of this work are the Emperor
Constantine, and such bishops as Eusebius, who loved the favor of
princes, and Sylvester, the pretended successor of Saint Peter. Two facts
refute the assertion of Eusebius that Christ changed the Sabbath: 1. That
Eusebius, who lived three hundred years after the alleged change, is
the first man who mentions such change; 2. That Eusebius testifies that
himself and others made this change, which they could not have done had
Christ made it at the beginning. But though the doctrine of the change
of the Sabbath was thus announced by Eusebius, it was not seconded by
any writer of that age. The doctrine had never been heard of before,
and Eusebius had simply his own assertion, but no passage of the Holy
Scriptures to offer in its support.
But after Constantine, the Sabbath began to recover strength, at least
in the eastern churches. Prof. Stuart, in speaking of the period from
Constantine to the council of Laodicea, A. D. 364, says:—
“The practice of it [the keeping of the Sabbath] was continued
by Christians who were jealous for the honor of the Mosaic law,
and finally became, as we have seen, predominant throughout
Christendom. It was supposed at length that the fourth
commandment did require the observance of the seventh-day
Sabbath (not merely a seventh part of time), and reasoning
as Christians of the present day are wont to do, viz., that
_all_ which belonged to the ten commandments was immutable and
perpetual, the churches in general came gradually to regard the
seventh-day Sabbath as altogether sacred.”[763]
Prof. Stuart, however, connects with this the statement that Sunday
was honored by all parties. But the council of Laodicea struck a heavy
blow at this Sabbath-keeping in the eastern church. Thus Mr. James, in
addressing the University of Oxford, bears witness:—
“When the practice of keeping Saturday Sabbaths, which had
become so general at the close of this century, was evidently
gaining ground in the eastern church, a decree was passed in
the council held at Laodicea [A. D. 364] ‘that members of the
church should not rest from work on the Sabbath like Jews, but
should labor on that day, and preferring in honor the Lord’s
day, then if it be in their power should rest from work as
Christians.’”[764]
This shows conclusively that at that period the observance of the Sabbath
according to the commandment was extensive in the eastern churches. But
the Laodicean council, not only forbade the observance of the Sabbath,
they even pronounced a curse on those who should obey the fourth
commandment! Prynne thus testifies:—
“It is certain that Christ himself, his apostles, and the
primitive Christians for some good space of time, did
constantly observe the seventh-day Sabbath; ... the evangelists
and St. Luke in the Acts ever styling it the Sabbath day, ...
and making mention of its ... solemnization by the apostles
and other Christians, ... it being still solemnized by many
Christians after the apostles’ times, even till the council
of Laodicea [A. D. 364], as ecclesiastical writers and the
twenty-ninth canon of that council testify, which runs
thus:[765] ‘Because Christians ought not to Judaize, and to
rest in the Sabbath, but to work in that day (which many did
refuse at that time to do). But preferring in honor the Lord’s
day (there being then a great controversy among Christians
which of these two days ... should have precedency) if they
desired to rest they should do this as Christians. Wherefore
if they shall be found to Judaize, let them be accursed
from Christ.’... The seventh-day Sabbath was ... solemnized
by Christ, the apostles and primitive Christians, till the
Laodicean council did in a manner quite abolish the observation
of it.... The council of Laodicea [A. D. 364] ... first settled
the observation of the Lord’s day, and prohibited ... the
keeping of the Jewish Sabbath under an anathema.”[766]
The action of this council did not extirpate the Sabbath from the eastern
churches, though it did materially weaken its influence, and cause its
observance to become with many only a nominal thing, while it did most
effectually enhance the sacredness and the authority of the Sunday
festival. That it did not wholly extinguish Sabbath-keeping is thus
certified by an old English writer, John Ley:—
“From the apostles’ time until the council of Laodicea, which
was about the year 364, the holy observation of the Jews’
Sabbath continued, as may be proved out of many authors; yea,
notwithstanding the decree of that council against it.”[767]
And Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, about A. D. 372, uses this expostulation:—
“With what eyes can you behold the Lord’s day, when you despise
the Sabbath? Do you not perceive that they are sisters, and
that in slighting the one, you affront the other?”[768]
This testimony is valuable in that it marks the progress of apostasy
concerning the Sabbath. The Sunday festival entered the church, not as
a divine institution, but as a voluntary observance. Even as late as A.
D. 200, Tertullian said that it had only tradition and custom in its
support.[769]
But in A. D. 372, this human festival had become the sister and equal
of that day which God hallowed in the beginning and solemnly commanded
in the moral law. How worthy to be called the sister of the Sabbath the
Sunday festival actually was, may be judged from what followed. When this
self-styled sister had gained an acknowledged position in the family, she
expelled the other, and trampled her in the dust. In our days, the Sunday
festival claims to be the very day intended in the fourth commandment.
The following testimonies exhibit the authority of church councils in its
true light. Jortin is quoted by Cox as saying:—
“In such assemblies, the best and the most moderate men seldom
have the ascendant, and they are often led or driven by others
who are far inferior to them in good qualities.”[770]
The same writer gives us Baxter’s opinion of the famous Westminster
Assembly. Baxter says:—
“I have lived to see an assembly of ministers, where three or
four leading men were so prevalent as to form a confession
in the name of the whole party, which had that in it which
particular members did disown. And when about a controverted
article, one man hath charged me deeply with questioning the
words of the church, others, who were at the forming of that
article have laid it all on that same man, the rest being loth
to strive much against him; and so it was he himself was the
church whose authority he so much urged.”[771]
Such has been the nature of councils in all ages; yet they have ever
claimed infallibility, and have largely used that infallibility in the
suppression of the Sabbath and the establishment of the festival of
Sunday. Of first-day sacredness prior to, and as late as, the time of
Chrysostom, Kitto thus testifies:—
“Though in later times we find considerable reference to a sort
of _consecration of the day_, it does not seem at any period
of the ancient church to have assumed the form of such an
observance as some modern religious communities have contended
for. Nor do these writers in any instance pretend to allege
_any divine command, or even apostolic practice_, in support
of it.... Chrysostom (A. D. 360) concludes one of his Homilies
by dismissing his audience to their respective ordinary
occupations.”[772]
It was reserved for modern theologians to discover the divine or
apostolic authority for Sunday observance. The ancient doctors of the
church were unaware that any such authority existed; and hence they
deemed it lawful and proper to engage in usual worldly business on that
day when their religious worship was concluded. Thus, Heylyn bears
witness concerning St. Chrysostom that he
“Confessed it to be lawful for a man to look unto his worldly
business on the Lord’s day, after the congregation was
dismissed.”[773]
St. Jerome, a few years after this, at the opening of the fifth century,
in his commendation of the lady Paula, shows his own opinion of Sunday
labor. Thus he says:—
“Paula, with the women, as soon as they returned home on the
Lord’s day, they sat down severally to their work, and made
clothes for themselves and others.”[774]
Morer justifies this Sunday labor in the following terms:—
“If we read they did any work on the Lord’s day, it is to be
remembered that this application to their daily tasks was
not till their worship was quite over, when they might with
innocency enough resume them, because the length of time or
the number of hours assigned for piety was not then so well
explained as in after ages. The state of the church is vastly
different from what it was in those early days. Christians then
for some centuries of years were under persecution and poverty;
and besides their own wants, they had many of them severe
masters who compelled them to work, and made them bestow less
time in spiritual matters than they otherwise would. In St.
Jerome’s age their condition was better, because Christianity
had got into the throne as well as into the empire. Yet
for all this, the entire sanctification of the Lord’s day
proceeded slowly: and that it was the work of time to bring
it to perfection, appears from the several steps the church
made in her constitutions, and from the decrees of emperors
and other princes, wherein the prohibitions from servile and
civil business advanced by degrees from one species to another,
till the day had got a considerable figure in the world. Now,
therefore, the case being so much altered, the most proper use
of citing those old examples is only, in point of doctrine, to
show that ordinary work, as being a compliance with providence
for the support of natural life, is not sinful even on the
Lord’s day, when necessity is loud, and the laws of that church
and nation where we live are not against it. This is what the
first Christians had to say for themselves, in the works they
did on that day. And if those works had been then judged a
prophanation of the festival, I dare believe, they would have
suffered martyrdom rather than been guilty.”[775]
The bishop of Ely thus testifies:—
“In St Jerome’s days, and in the very place where he was
residing, the devoutest Christians did ordinarily work upon the
Lord’s day, when the service of the church was ended.”[776]
St. Augustine, the cotemporary of Jerome, gives a synopsis of the
argument in that age for Sunday observance, in the following words:—
“It appears from the sacred Scriptures, that this day was a
solemn one; it was the first day of the age, that is of the
existence of our world; in it the elements of the world were
formed; on it the angels were created; on it Christ rose also
from the dead; on it the Holy Spirit descended from Heaven upon
the apostles as manna had done in the wilderness. For these and
other such circumstances the Lord’s day is distinguished; and
therefore the holy doctors of the church have decreed that all
the glory of the Jewish Sabbath is transferred to it. Let us
therefore keep the Lord’s day as the ancients were commanded to
do the Sabbath.”[777]
It is to be observed that Augustine does not assign among his reasons
for first-day observance, the change of the Sabbath by Christ or his
apostles, or that the apostles observed that day, or that John had
given it the name of Lord’s day. These modern first-day arguments were
unknown to Augustine. He gave the credit of the work, not to Christ or
his inspired apostles, but to the holy doctors of the church, who, of
their own accord, had transferred the glory of the ancient Sabbath to the
venerable day of the sun. The first day of the week was considered in
the fifth century the most proper day for giving holy orders, that is,
for ordinations, and about the middle of this century, says Heylyn,
“A law [was] made by Leo then Pope of Rome, and generally since
taken up in the western church, that they should be conferred
upon no day else.”[778]
According to Dr. Justin Edwards, this same pope made also this decree in
behalf of Sunday:—
“WE ORDAIN, according to the true meaning of the Holy Ghost,
and of the apostles as thereby directed, that on the sacred day
wherein our own integrity was restored, all do rest and cease
from labor.”[779]
Soon after this edict of the pope, the emperor Leo, A. D. 469, put forth
the following decree:—
“It is our will and pleasure, that the holy days dedicated to
the most high God, should not be spent in sensual recreations,
or otherwise prophaned by suits of law, especially the Lord’s
day, which we decree to be a venerable day, and therefore
free it of all citations, executions, pleadings, and the
like avocations. Let not the circus or theater be opened,
nor combating with wild beasts be seen on it.... If any will
presume to offend in the premises, if he be a military man, let
him lose his commission; or if other, let his estate or goods
be confiscated.”[780]
And this emperor determined to mend the breach in Constantine’s law, and
thus prohibit agriculture on Sunday. So he adds:—
“We command therefore all, as well husbandmen as others, to
forbear work on this day of our restoration.”[781]
The holy doctors of the church had by this time very effectually
despoiled the Sabbath of its glory, transferring it to the Lord’s day of
Pope Sylvester; as Augustine testifies; yet was not Sabbatical observance
wholly extinguished even in the Catholic church. The historian Socrates,
who wrote about the middle of the fifth century, thus testifies:—
“For although almost all churches throughout the world
celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week,
yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of
some ancient tradition, refuse to do this. The Egyptians
in the neighborhood of Alexandria, and the inhabitants of
Thebais, hold their religious meetings on the Sabbath, but do
not participate of the mysteries in the manner usual among
Christians in general—for after having eaten and satisfied
themselves with food of all kinds, in the evening, making their
oblations, they partake of the mysteries.”[782]
As the church of Rome had turned the Sabbath into a fast some two hundred
years before this, in order to oppose its observance, it is probable that
this was the ancient tradition referred to by Socrates. And Sozomen, the
cotemporary of Socrates, speaks on the same point as follows:—
“The people of Constantinople, and of several other cities,
assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the next day;
which custom is never observed at Rome, or at Alexandria. There
are several cities and villages in Egypt where, contrary to
the usages established elsewhere, the people meet together on
Sabbath evenings; and although they have dined previously,
partake of the mysteries.”[783]
On the statement of these historians, Cox remarks:—
“It was their practice to Sabbatize on Saturday, and to
celebrate Sunday as a day of rejoicing and festivity. While,
however, in some places a respect was thus generally paid
to both of these days, the Judaizing practice of observing
Saturday was by the leading churches expressly condemned,
and all the doctrines connected with it steadfastly
resisted.”—_Sabbath Laws_, p. 280.
The time had now come, when, as stated by Coleman, the observance of
the Sabbath was deemed heretical; and the close of the fifth century
witnessed its effectual suppression in the great body of the Catholic
church.
CHAPTER XX.
SUNDAY DURING THE DARK AGES.
The pope becomes the head of all the churches—The people of
God retire into the wilderness—Sunday to be traced through the
Dark Ages in the history of the Catholic church—State of that
festival in the sixth century—It did not acquire the title of
Sabbath for many ages—Time when it became a day of abstinence
from labor in the east—When in the west—Sunday canon of the
first council of Orleans—Of the council of Arragon—Of the
third council of Orleans—Of a council at Mascon—At Narbon—At
Auxerre—Miracles establishing the sacredness of Sunday—The
pope advises men to atone, by the pious observance of Sunday,
for the sins of the previous week—The Sabbath and Sunday both
strictly kept by a class at Rome who were put down by the
pope—According to Twisse they were two distinct classes—The
Sabbath, like its Lord, crucified between two thieves—Council
of Chalons—At Toledo, in which the Jews were forbidden to keep
the Sabbath and commanded to keep Sunday—First English law for
Sunday—Council at Constantinople—In England—In Bavaria—Canon of
the archbishop of York—Statutes of Charlemagne and canons of
councils which he called—The pope aids in the work—Council at
Paris originates a famous first-day argument—The councils fail
to establish Sunday sacredness—The emperors besought to send
out some more terrible edict in order to compel the observance
of that day—The pope takes the matter in hand in earnest and
gives Sunday an effectual establishment—Other statutes and
canons—Sunday piety of a Norwegian king—Sunday consecrated to
the mass—Curious but obsolete first-day arguments—The eating
of meat forbidden upon the Sabbath by the pope—Pope Urban
II. ordains the Sabbath of the Lord to be a festival for the
worship of the Virgin Mary—Apparition from St. Peter—The pope
sends Eustace into England with a roll that fell from Heaven
commanding Sunday observance under direful penalties—Miracles
which followed—Sunday established in Scotland—Other Sunday laws
down to the Reformation—Sunday always only a human ordinance.
The opening of the sixth century witnessed the development of the great
apostasy to such an extent that the man of sin might be plainly seen
sitting in the temple of God.[784] The western Roman Empire had been
broken up into ten kingdoms, and the way was now prepared for the work
of the little horn.[785] In the early part of this century, the bishop
of Rome was made head over the entire church by the emperor of the east,
Justinian.[786] The dragon gave unto the beast his power, and his seat,
and great authority. From this accession to supremacy by the Roman
pontiff, date the “time, times, and dividing of time,” or twelve hundred
and sixty years of the prophecies of Daniel and John.[787]
The true people of God now retired for safety into places of obscurity
and seclusion, as represented by the prophecy: “The woman fled into the
wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should
feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.”[788] Leaving
their history for the present, let us follow that of the Catholic church,
and trace in its record the history of the Sunday festival through the
period of the Dark Ages. Of the fifth and sixth centuries, Heylyn bears
the following testimony:—
“The faithful being united better than before, became more
uniform in matters of devotion; and in that uniformity did
agree together to give the Lord’s day all the honors of an holy
festival. Yet was not this done all at once, but by degrees;
the fifth and sixth centuries being well-nigh spent before it
came into that height which hath since continued. The emperors
and the prelates in these times had the same affections; both
[being] earnest to advance this day above all other; and to
the edicts of the one and ecclesiastical constitutions of the
other, it stands indebted for many of those privileges and
exemptions which it still enjoyeth.”[789]
But Sunday had not yet acquired the title of Sabbath. Thus Brerewood
bears testimony:—
“The name of the Sabbath remained appropriated to the old
Sabbath; and was never attributed to the Lord’s day, not of
many hundred years after our Saviour’s time.”[790]
And Heylyn says of the term Sabbath in the ancient church:—
“The Saturday is called amongst them by no other name than that
which formerly it had, the _Sabbath_. So that whenever for a
thousand years and upwards, we meet with _Sabbatum_ in any
writer of what name soever, it must be understood of no day but
_Saturday_.”[791]
Dr. Francis White, bishop of Ely, also testifies:—
“When the ancient fathers distinguish and give proper names
to the particular days of the week, they always style the
Saturday, _Sabbatum_, the Sabbath, and the Sunday, or first day
of the week, _Dominicum_, the Lord’s day.”[792]
It should be observed, however, that the earliest mention of Sunday
as the Lord’s day, is in the writings of Tertullian; Justin Martyr,
some sixty years before, styling it “the day called Sunday;” while the
authoritative application of that term to Sunday was by Sylvester, bishop
of Rome, more than one hundred years after the time of Tertullian. The
earliest mention of Sunday as Christian Sabbath is thus noted by Heylyn:—
“The first who ever used it to denote the Lord’s day (the
first that I have met with in all this search) is one Petrus
Alfonsus—he lived about the time that Rupertus did—[which was
the beginning of the twelfth century] who calls the Lord’s day
by the name of Christian Sabbath.”[793]
Of Sunday labor in the eastern church, Heylyn says:—
“It was near nine hundred years from our Saviour’s birth if
not quite so much, before restraint of husbandry on this day
had been first thought of in the east; and probably being thus
restrained did find no more obedience there than it had done
before in the western parts.”[794]
Of Sunday labor in the western church, Dr. Francis White thus testifies:—
“The Catholic church for more than six hundred years after
Christ, permitted labor, and gave license to many Christian
people to work upon the Lord’s day, at such hours as they
were not commanded to be present at the public service by the
precept of the church.”[795]
But let us trace the several steps by which the festival of Sunday
increased in strength until it attained its complete development. These
will be found at present mostly in the edicts of emperors, and the
decrees of councils. Morer tells us that,
“Under Clodoveus king of France met the bishops in the first
council of Orleans [A. D. 507], where they obliged themselves
and their successors, to be always at the church on the Lord’s
day, except in case of sickness or some great infirmity. And
because they, with some other of the clergy in those days,
took cognizance of judicial matters, therefore by a council at
Arragon, about the year 518 in the reign of Theodorick, king
of the Goths, it was decreed that ‘No bishop or other person
in holy orders should examine or pass judgment in any civil
controversy on the Lord’s day.’”[796]
This shows that civil courts were sometimes held on Sunday by the bishops
in those days; otherwise such a prohibition would not have been put
forth. Hengstenberg, in his notice of the third council of Orleans, gives
us an insight into the then existing state of the Sunday festival:—
“The third council of Orleans, A. D. 538, says in its
twenty-ninth canon: ‘The opinion is spreading amongst the
people, that it is wrong to ride, or drive, or cook food, or
do anything to the house, or the person on the Sunday. But
since such opinions are more Jewish than Christian, that shall
be lawful in future, which has been so to the present time.
On the other hand agricultural labor ought to be laid aside,
_in order that the people may not be prevented from attending
church_.’”[797]
Observe the reason assigned. It is not lest they violate the law of
the Sabbath, but it is that they may not be kept from church. Another
authority states the case thus:—
“Labor in the country [on Sunday] was not prohibited till the
council of Orleans, A. D. 538. It was thus an institution of
the church, as Dr. Paley has remarked. The earlier Christians
met in the morning of that day for prayer and singing hymns in
commemoration of Christ’s resurrection, and then went about
their usual duties.”[798]
In A. D. 588, another council was holden, the occasion of which is thus
stated:—
“And because, notwithstanding all this care, the day was not
duly observed, the bishops were again summoned to Mascon, a
town in Burgundy, by King Gunthrum, and there they framed
this canon: ‘Notice is taken that Christian people, very much
neglect and slight the Lord’s day, giving themselves as on
other days to common work, to redress which irreverence, for
the future, we warn every Christian who bears not that name in
vain, to give ear to our advice, knowing we have a concern on
us for your good, and a power to hinder you to do evil. Keep
then the Lord’s day, the day of our new birth.’”[799]
Further legislation being necessary, we are told:—
“About a year forward, there was a council at Narbon, which
forbid all persons of what country or quality soever, to do
any servile work on the Lord’s day. But if any man presumed to
disobey this canon he was to be fined if a freeman, and if a
servant, severely lashed. Or as Surius represents the penalty
in the edict of King Recaredus, which he put out, near the same
time to strengthen the decrees of the council, ‘Rich men were
to be punished with the loss of a moiety of their estates,
and the poorer sort with perpetual banishment,’ in the year
of grace 590. Another synod was held at Auxerre a city in
Champain, in the reign of Clotair king of France, where it was
decreed ... ‘that no man should be allowed to plow, nor cart,
or do any such thing on the Lord’s day.’”[800]
Such were some of the efforts made in the sixth century to advance the
sacredness of the Sunday festival. And Morer tells us that,
“For fear the doctrine should not take without miracles to
support it, Gregory of Tours [about A. D. 590] furnishes us
with several to that purpose.”[801]
Mr. Francis West, an English first-day writer, gravely adduces one of
these miracles in support of first-day sacredness:—
“Gregory of Tours reporteth, ‘that a husbandman, who upon the
Lord’s day went to plough his field, as he cleansed his plough
with an iron, the iron stuck so fast in his hand that for two
years he could not be delivered from it, but carried it about
continually, to his exceeding great pain and shame.’”[802]
In the conclusion of the sixth century, Pope Gregory exhorted the people
of Rome to “expiate on the day of our Lord’s resurrection what was
remissly done for the six days before.”[803] In the same epistle, this
pope condemned a class of men at Rome who advocated the strict observance
of both the Sabbath and the Sunday, styling them the preachers of
Antichrist.[804] This shows the intolerant feeling of the papacy toward
the Sabbath, even when joined with the strict observance of Sunday. It
also shows that there were Sabbath-keepers even in Rome itself as late
as the seventh century; although so far bewildered by the prevailing
darkness that they joined with its observance a strict abstinence from
labor on Sunday.
In the early part of the seventh century arose another foe to the Bible
Sabbath in the person of Mahomet. To distinguish his followers alike from
those who observed the Sabbath and those who observed the festival of
Sunday, he selected Friday, the sixth day of the week, as their religious
festival. And thus “the Mahometans and the Romanists crucified the
Sabbath, as the Jews and the Romans did the Lord of the Sabbath, between
two thieves, the sixth and first day of the week.”[805] For Mahometanism
and Romanism each suppressed the Sabbath over a wide extent of territory.
About the middle of the seventh century, we have further canons of the
church in behalf of Sunday:—
“At Chalons, a city in Burgundy, about the year 654, there
was a provincial synod which confirmed what had been done by
the third council of Orleans, about the observation of the
Lord’s day, namely that ‘none should plow or reap, or do any
other thing belonging to husbandry, on pain of the censures
of the church; which was the more minded, because backed with
the secular power, and by an edict menacing such as offended
herein; who if bondmen, were to be soundly beaten, but if free,
had three admonitions, and then if faulty, lost the third part
of their patrimony, and if still obstinate were made slaves
for the future. And in the first year of Eringius, about the
time of Pope Agatho there sat the twelfth council of Toledo in
Spain, A. D. 681, where the Jews were forbid to keep their own
festivals, but so far at least observe the Lord’s day as to
do no manner of work on it, whereby they might express their
contempt of Christ or his worship.’”[806]
These were weighty reasons indeed for Sunday observance. Nor can it be
thought strange that in the Dark Ages a constant succession of such
things should eventuate in the universal observance of that day. Even the
Jews were to be compelled to desist from Sabbath observance, and to honor
Sunday by resting on that day from their labor. The earliest mention of
Sunday in English statutes appears to be the following:—
A. D. 692. “Ina, king of the west Saxons, by the advice of
Cenred his father, and Heddes and Erkenwald his bishops, with
all his aldermen and sages, in a great assembly of the servants
of God, for the health of their souls, and common preservation
of the kingdom, made several constitutions, of which this was
the third: ‘If a servant do any work on Sunday by his master’s
order, he shall be free, and the master pay thirty shillings;
but if he went to work on his own head, he shall be either
beaten with stripes, or ransom himself with a price. A freeman,
if he works on this day, shall lose his freedom or pay sixty
shillings; if he be a priest, double.’”[807]
The same year that this law was enacted in England, the sixth general
council convened at Constantinople, which decreed that,
“If any bishop or other clergyman, or any of the laity,
absented himself from the church three Sundays together, except
in cases of very great necessity, if a clergyman, he was to be
deposed; if a layman, debarred the holy communion.”[808]
In the year 747, a council of the English clergy was called under
Cuthbert, archbishop of Canterbury, in the reign of Egbert, king of Kent,
and this constitution made:—
“It is ordered that the Lord’s day be celebrated with due
veneration, and wholly devoted to the worship of God. And that
all abbots and priests, on this most holy day, remain in their
respective monasteries and churches, and there do their duty
according to their places.”[809]
Another ecclesiastical statute of the eighth century was enacted at
Dingosolinum in Bavaria, where a synod met about 772 which decreed that,
“If any man shall work his cart on this day, or do any such
common business, his team shall be presently forfeited to the
public use, and if the party persists in his folly, let him be
sold for a bondman.”[810]
The English were not behind their neighbors in the good work of
establishing the sacredness of Sunday. Thus we read:—
A. D. 784. “Egbert, archbishop of York, to show positively
what was to be done on Sundays, and what the laws designed by
prohibiting ordinary work to be done on such days, made this
canon: ‘Let nothing else, saith he, be done on the Lord’s
day, but to attend on God in hymns and psalms and spiritual
songs. Whoever marries on Sunday, let him do penance for seven
days.’”[811]
In the conclusion of the eighth century, further efforts were made in
behalf of this favored day:—
“Charles the Great summoned the bishops to Friuli, in Italy,
where ... they decreed [A. D. 791] that all people should, with
due reverence and devotion, honor the Lord’s day.... Under the
same prince another council was called three years later at
Frankford in Germany, and there the limits of the Lord’s day
were determined from Saturday evening to Sunday evening.”[812]
The five councils of Mentz, Rheims, Tours, Chalons, and Arles, were
all called in the year 813 by Charlemagne. It would be too irksome to
the reader to dwell upon the several acts of these councils in behalf
of Sunday. They are of the same character as those already quoted.
The council of Chalons, however, is worthy of being noticed in that,
according to Morer,
“They entreated the help of the secular power, and desired the
emperor [Charlemagne] to provide for the stricter observation
of it [Sunday]. Which he accordingly did, and left no stone
unturned to secure the honor of the day. His care succeeded;
and during his reign, the Lord’s day bore a considerable
figure. But after his day, it put on another face.”[813]
The pope lent a helping hand in checking the profanation of Sunday:—
“And thereupon Pope Eugenius, in a synod held at Rome about
826, ... gave directions that the parish priest should admonish
such offenders and wish them to go to church and say their
prayers, lest otherwise they might bring some great calamity on
themselves and neighbors.”[814]
All this, however, was not sufficient, and so another council was
summoned. At this council was brought forward—perhaps for the first
time—the famous first-day argument now so familiar to all, that Sunday is
proved to be the true Sabbath because that men are struck by lightning
who labor on that day. Thus we read:—
“But these paternal admonitions turning to little account, a
provincial council was held at Paris three years after ... in
829, wherein the prelates complain that ‘The Lord’s day was
not kept with reverence as became religion ... which was the
reason that God had sent several judgments on them, and in a
very remarkable manner punished some people for slighting and
abusing it. For, say they, many of us by our own knowledge, and
some by hearsay know, that several countrymen following their
husbandry on this day have been killed with lightning, others,
being seized with convulsions in their joints, have miserably
perished. Whereby it is apparent how high the displeasure of
God was upon their neglect of this day.’ And at last they
conclude that ‘in the first place the priests and ministers,
then kings and princes, and all faithful people be beseeched to
use their utmost endeavors and care that the day be restored
to its honor, and for the credit of Christianity more devoutly
observed for the time to come.’”[815]
Further legislation being necessary,
“It was decreed about seven years after in a council at Aken,
under Lewis the Godly, that neither pleadings nor marriages
should be allowed on the Lord’s day.”[816]
But the law of Charlemagne, though backed with the authority of the
church, as expressed in the canons of the councils already quoted, by
the remissness of Lewis, his successor became very feeble. It is evident
that canons and decrees of councils, though fortified with the mention
of terrible judgments that had befallen transgressors, were not yet
sufficient to enforce the sacred day. Another and more terrific statute
than any yet issued was sought at the hands of the emperor. Thus we read:—
“Thereupon an address was made to the emperors, Lewis and
Lotharius, that they would be pleased to take some care in it,
and send out some precept or injunction more severe than what
was hitherto extant, to strike terror into their subjects,
and force them to forbear their ploughing, pleading, and
marketing, then grown again into use; which was done about the
year 853; and to that end a synod was called at Rome under the
popedom of Leo IV.”[817]
The advocates of the first-day Sabbath have in all ages sought for a
law capable of striking terror into those who do not hallow that day.
They still continue the vain endeavor. But if they would honor the day
which God set apart for the Sabbath, they would find in that law of fire
which proceeded from his right hand a statute which renders all human
legislation entirely unnecessary.[818]
At this synod the pope took the matter in hand in good earnest. Thus
Heylyn testifies that under the emperors, Lewis and Lotharius, a synod
was held at Rome A. D. 853, under pope Leo IV.,
“Where it was ordered more precisely than in former times that
no man should from thenceforth dare to make any markets on the
Lord’s day, no, not for things that were to eat: neither to
do any kind of work that belonged to husbandry. Which canon
being made at Rome, confirmed at Compeigne, and afterwards
incorporated as it was into the body of the canon law, became
to be admitted, without further question, in most parts of
Christendom; especially when the popes had attained their
height, and brought all Christian princes to be at their
devotion. For then the people, who before had most opposed it,
might have justly said, ‘Behold two kings stood not before him,
how then shall we stand?’ Out of which consternation all men
presently obeyed, tradesmen of all sorts being brought to lay
by their labors; and amongst those, the miller, though his work
was easiest, and least of all required his presence.”[819]
This was a most effectual establishment of first-day sacredness. Five
years after this we read as follows:—
A. D. 858. “The Bulgarians sent some questions to Pope
Nicholas, to which they desired answers. And that [answer]
which concerned the Lord’s day was that they should desist from
all secular work, etc.”[820]
Morer informs us respecting the civil power, that,
“In this century the emperor [of Constantinople] Leo, surnamed
the philosopher, restrained the works of husbandry, which,
according to Constantine’s toleration, were permitted in the
east. The same care was taken in the west, by Theodorius, king
of the Bavarians, who made this order, that ‘If any person
on the Lord’s day yoked his oxen, or drove his wain, his
right-side ox should be forthwith forfeited; or if he made hay
and carried it in, he was to be twice admonished to desist,
which if he did not, he was to receive no less than fifty
stripes.’”[821]
Of Sunday laws in England in this century, we read:—
A. D. 876. “Alfred the Great, was the first who united the
Saxon Heptarchy, and it was not the least part of his care to
make a law that among other festivals this day more especially
might be solemnly kept, because it was the day whereon our
Saviour Christ overcame the devil; meaning Sunday, which is
the weekly memorial of our Lord’s resurrection, whereby he
overcame death, and him who had the power of death, that is the
devil. And whereas before the single punishment for sacrilege
committed on any other day, was to restore the value of the
thing stolen, and withal lose one hand, he added that if any
person was found guilty of this crime done on the Lord’s day,
he should be doubly punished.”[822]
Nineteen years later, the pope and his council still further strengthened
the sacred day. The council of Friburgh in Germany, A. D. 895, under
Pope Formosus, decreed that the Lord’s day, men “were to spend in
prayers, and devote wholly to the service of God, who otherwise might be
provoked to anger.”[823] The work of establishing Sunday sacredness in
England was carried steadily forward:—
“King Athelston, ... in the year 928, made a law that there
should be no marketing or civil pleadings on the Lord’s day,
under the penalty of forfeiting the commodity, besides a fine
of thirty shillings for each offense.”[824]
In a convocation of the English clergy about this time, it was decreed
that all sorts of traffic and the holding of courts, &c., on Sunday
should cease. “And whoever transgressed in any of these instances, if a
freeman, he was to pay twelve oræ, if a servant, be severely whipt.” We
are further informed that,
“About the year 943, Otho, archbishop of Canterbury, had it
decreed that above all things the Lord’s day should be kept
with all imaginable caution, according to the canon and ancient
practice.”[825]
A. D. 967. King Edgar “commanded that the festival should be
kept from three of the clock in the afternoon on Saturday, till
day-break on Monday.”[826]
“King Ethelred the younger, son of Edgar, coming to the crown
about the year 1009, called a general council of all the
English clergy, under Elfeagus, archbishop of Canterbury, and
Wolstan, archbishop of York. And there it was required that all
persons in a more zealous manner should observe the Sunday, and
what belonged to it.”[827]
Nor did the Sunday festival fail to gain a footing in Norway. Heylyn
tells us of the piety of a Norwegian king by the name of Olaus, A. D.
1028.
“For being taken up one Sunday in some serious thoughts, and
having in his hand a small walking stick, he took his knife and
whittled it as men do sometimes, when their minds are troubled
or intent on business. And when it had been told him as by way
of jest how he had trespassed therein against the Sabbath, he
gathered the small chips together, put them upon his hand, and
set fire unto them, that so, saith Crantzius, he might revenge
that on himself what unawares he had committed against God’s
commandment.”[828]
In Spain also the work went forward. A council was held at Coy, in
Spain, A. D. 1050, under Ferdinand, king of Castile, in the days of Pope
Leo IX., where it was decreed that the Lord’s day “was to be entirely
consecrated to hearing of mass.”[829]
To strengthen the sacredness of this venerable day in the minds of the
people, the doctors of the church were not wanting. Heylyn makes the
following statement:—
“It was delivered of the souls in purgatory by Petrus Damiani,
who lived A. D. 1056, that every Lord’s day they were
manumitted from their pains and fluttered up and down the lake
Avernus, in the shape of birds.”[830]
At the same time, another argument of a similar kind was brought forward
to render the observance still more strict. Morer informs us respecting
that class who in this age were most zealous advocates of Sunday
observance:—
“Yet still the others went on in their way; and to induce their
proselytes to spend the day with greater exactness and care,
they brought in the old argument of compassion and charity to
the damned in hell, who during the day, have some respite from
their torments, and the ease and liberty they have is more or
less according to the zeal and degrees of keeping it well.”[831]
If therefore they would strictly observe this sacred festival, their
friends in hell would reap the benefit, in a respite from their
torments on that day! In a council at Rome, A. D. 1078, Pope Gregory
VII. decreed that as the Sabbath had been long regarded as a fast day,
those who desired to be Christians should on that day abstain from
eating meat.[832] In the eastern division of the Catholic church, in the
eleventh century, the Sabbath was still regarded as a festival, equal
in sacredness with Sunday. Heylyn contrasts with this the action of the
western division of that church:—
“But it was otherwise of old in the church of Rome, where they
did labor and fast.... And this, with little opposition or
interruption, save that which had been made in the city of Rome
in the beginning of the seventh century, and was soon crushed
by Gregory then bishop there, as before we noted. And howsoever
Urban of that name the second, did consecrate it to the weekly
service of the blessed virgin, and instituted in the council
held at Clermont, A. D. 1095, that our lady’s office should be
said upon it, and that upon that day all Christian folks should
worship her with their best devotion.”[833]
It would seem that this was a crowning indignity to the Most High. The
memorial of the great Creator was set apart as a festival on which to
worship Mary, under the title of mother of God! In the middle of the
twelfth century, the king of England was admonished not to suffer men
to work upon Sunday. Henry II. entered on the government about the year
1155.
“Of him it is reported that he had an apparition at Cardiff
(... in South Wales) which from St. Peter charged him, that
upon Sundays throughout his dominions, there should be no
buying or selling, and no servile work done.”[834]
The sacredness of Sunday was not yet sufficiently established, because
a divine warrant for its observance was still unprovided. The manner
in which this urgent necessity was met is related by Roger Hoveden, a
historian of high repute who lived at the very time when this much-needed
precept was furnished by the pope. Hoveden informs us that Eustace the
abbot of Flaye in Normandy, came into England in the year 1200, to
preach the word of the Lord, and that his preaching was attended by many
wonderful miracles. He was very earnest in behalf of Sunday. Thus Hoveden
says:—
“At London also, and many other places throughout England, he
effected by his preaching, that from that time forward people
did not dare to hold market of things exposed for sale on the
Lord’s Day.”[835]
But Hoveden tells us that “the enemy of mankind raised against this
man of God the ministers of iniquity,” and it seems that having no
commandment for Sunday he was in a strait place. The historian continues:—
“However, the said abbot, on being censured by the ministers
of Satan, was unwilling any longer to molest the prelates of
England by his preaching, but returned to Normandy, unto his
place whence he came.”[836]
But Eustace, though repulsed, had no thought of abandoning the contest.
He had no commandment from the Lord when he came into England the first
time. But one year’s sojourn on the continent was sufficient to provide
that which he lacked. Hoveden tells us how he returned the following year
with the needed precept:—
“In the same year [1201], Eustace, abbot of Flaye, returned to
England, and preaching therein the word of the Lord from city
to city, and from place to place, forbade any person to hold a
market of goods on sale upon the Lord’s day. For he said that
the commandment under-written, as to the observance of the
Lord’s day, had come down from Heaven:—
“THE HOLY COMMANDMENT AS TO THE LORD’S DAY,
“Which came from Heaven to Jerusalem, and was found upon the
altar of Saint Simeon, in Golgotha, where Christ was crucified
for the sins of the world. The Lord sent down this epistle,
which was found upon the altar of Saint Simeon, and after
looking upon which, three days and three nights, some men fell
upon the earth, imploring mercy of God. And after the third
hour, the patriarch arose, and Acharias, the archbishop, and
they opened the scroll, and received the holy epistle from
God. And when they had taken the same they found this writing
therein:—
“‘I am the Lord, who commanded you to observe the holy day
of the Lord, and ye have not kept it, and have not repented
of your sins, as I have said in my gospel, “Heaven and earth
shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Whereas,
I caused to be preached unto you repentance and amendment of
life, you did not believe me, I have sent against you the
pagans, who have shed your blood on the earth; and yet you have
not believed; and, because you did not keep the Lord’s day
holy, for a few days you suffered hunger, but soon I gave you
fullness, and after that you did still worse again. Once more,
it is my will, that no one, from the ninth hour on Saturday
until sunrise on Monday, shall do any work except that which is
good.
“‘And if any person shall do so, he shall with penance make
amends for the same. And if you do not pay obedience to this
command, verily, I say unto you, and I swear unto you, by my
seat and by my throne, and by the cherubim who watch my holy
seat, that I will give you my commands by no other epistle,
but I will open the heavens, and for rain I will rain upon you
stones, and wood, and hot water, in the night, that no one may
take precautions against the same, and that so I may destroy
all wicked men.
“‘This do I say unto you; for the Lord’s holy day, you shall
die the death, and for the other festivals of my saints which
you have not kept: I will send unto you beasts that have the
heads of lions, the hair of women, the tails of camels, and
they shall be so ravenous that they shall devour your flesh,
and you shall long to flee away to the tombs of the dead, and
to hide yourselves for fear of the beasts; and I will take
away the light of the sun from before your eyes, and will send
darkness upon you, that not seeing, you may slay one another,
and that I may remove from you my face, and may not show mercy
upon you. For I will burn the bodies and the hearts of you, and
of all of those who do not keep as holy the day of the Lord.
“‘Hear ye my voice, that so ye may not perish in the land, for
the holy day of the Lord. Depart from evil, and show repentance
for your sins. For, if you do not do so, even as Sodom and
Gomorrah shall you perish. Now, know ye, that you are saved by
the prayers of my most holy mother, Mary, and of my most holy
angels, who pray for you daily. I have given unto you wheat and
wine in abundance, and for the same ye have not obeyed me. For
the widows and orphans cry unto you daily, and unto them you
show no mercy. The pagans show mercy, but you show none at all.
The trees which bear fruit, I will cause to be dried up for
your sins; the rivers and the fountains shall not give water.
“‘I gave unto you a law in Mount Sinai, which you have not
kept. I gave you a law with mine own hands, which you have not
observed. For you I was born into the world, and my festive day
ye knew not. Being wicked men, ye have not kept the Lord’s day
of my resurrection. By my right hand I swear unto you, that
if you do not observe the Lord’s day, and the festivals of my
saints, I will send unto you the pagan nations, that they may
slay you. And still do you attend to the business of others,
and take no consideration of this? For this will I send against
you still worse beasts, who shall devour the breasts of your
women. I will curse those who on the Lord’s day have wrought
evil.
“‘Those who act unjustly towards their brethren, will I curse.
Those who judge unrighteously the poor and the orphans upon the
earth, will I curse. For me you forsake, and you follow the
prince of this world. Give heed to my voice, and you shall have
the blessing of mercy. But you cease not from your bad works,
nor from the works of the devil. Because you are guilty of
perjuries and adulteries, therefore the nations shall surround
you, and shall, like beasts, devour you.’”[837]
That such a document was actually brought into England at this time,
and in the manner here described, is so amply attested as to leave no
doubt.[838] Matthew Paris, like Hoveden, was actually a cotemporary of
Eustace. Hoveden properly belongs to the twelfth century, for he died
shortly after the arrival of Eustace with his roll. But Matthew Paris
belongs to the thirteenth, as he was but young at the time this roll
(A. D. 1201) was brought into England. Both have a high reputation for
truthfulness. In speaking of the writers of that century, Mosheim bears
the following testimony to the credibility of Matthew Paris:—
“Among the historians, the _first place_ is due to Matthew
Paris, a writer of the _highest merit_, both in point of
_knowledge_ and _prudence_.”[839]
And Dr. Murdock says of him:—
“He is accounted the best historian of the Middle Ages,
learned, independent, honest, and judicious.”[840]
Matthew Paris relates the return of the abbot Eustachius (as he spells
the name) from Normandy, and gives us a copy of the roll which he
brought, and an account of its fall from Heaven as related by the abbot
himself. He also tells us how the abbot came by it, tracing the history
of the roll from the point when the patriarch gathered courage to take it
into his hands, till the time when our abbot was commissioned to bring it
into England. Thus he says:—
“But when the patriarch and clergy of all the holy land had
diligently examined the contents of this epistle, it was
decreed in a general deliberation that the epistle should be
sent to the judgment of the Roman pontiff, seeing that whatever
he decreed to be done, would please all. And when at length the
epistle had come to the knowledge of the lord pope, immediately
he ordained heralds, who being sent through different parts of
the world, preached every where the doctrine of this epistle,
the Lord working with them and confirming their words by signs
following. Among whom the abbot of Flay, Eustachius by name, a
devout and learned man, having entered the kingdom of England
did there shine with many miracles.”[841]
Now we know what the abbot was about during the year that he was
absent from England. He could not establish first-day sacredness by his
first mission to England, for he had no divine warrant in its behalf.
He therefore retired from the mission long enough to make known the
necessities of the case to the “lord pope.” But when he came the second
time he brought the divine mandate for Sunday, and with it the commission
of the pope, authorizing him to proclaim that mandate to the people, and
informing them that it was sent to His Holiness from Jerusalem by those
who saw it fall from Heaven. Had Eustace framed this document himself,
and then forged a commission from the pope, a few months would have
discovered the imposture. But their genuineness was never questioned as
is shown by the preservation of this roll by the best historians of that
time. We therefore trace the responsibility for this roll directly to
the pope of Rome. The statement of the pope that he received it from the
hands of those who saw it fall from Heaven is the guaranty given by His
Holiness to the people that the roll came from God. The historians then
living, who record this transaction, were able to satisfy themselves that
Eustace brought the roll from the pope; and they believed the pope’s
statement that he had received it from Heaven. It was Innocent III. who
filled the office of pope at this time, of whom Bower speaks thus:—
“Innocent was perfectly well qualified to raise the papal
power and authority to the highest pitch, and we shall see him
improving, with great address, every opportunity that offered
to compass that end.”[842]
Another eminent authority makes this statement:—
“The external circumstances of his time also furthered
Innocent’s views, and enabled him to make his pontificate the
most marked in the annals of Rome; the culminating point of
the temporal as well as the spiritual supremacy of the Roman
See.”[843]
“His pontificate may be fairly considered to have been the
period of the highest power of the Roman See.”[844]
The dense darkness of the Dark Ages still covered the earth when that
pontiff filled the papal throne who raised the papacy to its highest
elevation. Two facts worthy of much thought should here be named in
connection:—
1. The first act of papal usurpation was by an edict in behalf of
Sunday.[845]
2. The utmost hight of papal usurpation was marked by the pope’s act of
furnishing a divine precept for Sunday observance.
The mission of Eustace was attested by miracles which are worthy of
perusal by those who believe in first-day sacredness because their
fathers thus believed. Here they may learn what was done six centuries
since, to fix these ideas in the minds of their fathers. Eustace came to
York, in the north of England, and, meeting an honorable reception,
“Preached the word of the Lord, and on the breaking of the
Lord’s day and the other festivals, and imposed upon the people
penance and gave absolution, upon condition that in future
they would pay due reverence to the Lord’s day and the other
festivals of the saints, doing therein no servile work.”[846]
“Upon this, the people who were dutiful to God at his
preaching, vowed before God that, for the future, on the
Lord’s day, they would neither buy nor sell any thing, unless,
perchance, victuals and drink to wayfarers.”[847]
The abbot also made provision for the collection of alms for the benefit
of the poor, and forbade the use of the churches for the sale of goods,
and for the pleading of causes. Upon this, the king interfered as
follows:—
“Accordingly, through these and other warnings of this
holy man, the enemy of mankind being rendered envious,
he put it into the heart of the king and of the princes
of darkness to command that all who should observe the
before stated doctrines, and more especially all those who
had discountenanced the markets on the Lord’s day, should
be brought before the king’s court of justice, to make
satisfaction as to the observance of the Lord’s day.”[848]
The markets on the Lord’s day, it seems, were held in the churches, and
Eustace was attempting to suppress these when he forbade the sale of
goods in the churches. And now to confirm the authority of the roll,
and to neutralize the opposition of the king, some very extraordinary
prodigies were reported. The roll forbade labor “from the ninth hour
(that is 3 P. M.) on Saturday until sunrise on Monday.” Now read what
happened to the disobedient:—
“One Saturday, a certain carpenter of Beverly, who, after the
ninth hour of the day was, contrary to the wholesome advice
of his wife, making a wooden wedge, fell to the earth, being
struck with paralysis. A woman also, a weaver, who, after the
ninth hour, on Saturday, in her anxiety to finish a part of
the web, persisted in so doing, fell to the ground, struck
with paralysis, and lost her voice. At Rafferton also, a vill
belonging to Master Roger Arundel, a man made for himself a
loaf and baked it under the ashes, after the ninth hour on
Saturday, and ate thereof, and put part of it by till the
morning, but when he broke it on the Lord’s day blood started
forth therefrom; and he who saw it bore witness, and his
testimony is true.
“At Wakefield, also, one Saturday, while a miller was, after
the ninth hour, attending to grinding his corn, there suddenly
came forth, instead of flour, such a torrent of blood, that the
vessel placed beneath was nearly filled with blood, and the
mill-wheel stood immovable, in spite of the strong rush of the
water; and those who beheld it wondered thereat, saying, ‘Spare
us, O Lord, spare thy people!’
“Also, in Lincolnshire a woman had prepared some dough, and
taking it to the oven after the ninth hour on Saturday, she
placed it in the oven, which was then at a very great heat; but
when she took it out, she found it raw, on which she again put
it into the oven, which was very hot; and, both on the next
day, and on Monday, when she supposed that she should find the
loaves baked, she found raw dough.
“In the same county also, when a certain woman had prepared her
dough, intending to carry it to the oven, her husband said to
her, ‘It is Saturday, and it is now past the ninth hour, put it
one side till Monday;’ on which the woman, obeying her husband,
did as he commanded; and so, having covered over the dough with
a linen cloth, on coming the next day to look at the dough, to
see whether it had not, in rising, through the yeast that was
in it, gone over the sides of the vessel, she found there the
loaves ready made by the divine will, and well baked, without
any fire of the material of this world. This was a change
wrought by the right hand of Him on high.”[849]
The historian laments that these miracles were lost upon the people, and
that they feared the king more than they feared God, and so “like a dog
to his vomit, returned to the holding of markets on the Lord’s day.”[850]
Such was the first attempt in England after the apparition of St. Peter,
A. D. 1155, to supply divine authority for Sunday observance. “It shows,”
as Morer quaintly observes, “how industrious men were in those times
to have this great day solemnly observed.”[851] And Gilfillan, who has
occasion to mention the story of the roll from Heaven, has not one word
of condemnation for the pious fraud in behalf of Sunday, but he simply
speaks of our abbot as “This ardent person.”[852]
Two years after the arrival of Eustace in England with his roll, A. D.
1203, a council was held in Scotland concerning the introduction and
establishment of the Lord’s day in that kingdom.[853] The roll that had
fallen from Heaven to supply the lack of scriptural testimony in behalf
of this day, was admirably adapted to the business of this council,
though Dr. Heylyn informs us that the Scotch were so ready to comply
with the pope’s wishes that the packet from the court of Heaven and the
accompanying miracles were not needed.[854] Yet Morer asserts that the
packet was actually produced on this occasion:—
“To that end it was again produced and read in a council of
Scotland, held under [pope] Innocent III., ... A. D. 1203, in
the reign of King William, who ... passed it into a law that
Saturday from twelve at noon ought to be accounted holy, and
that no man shall deal in such worldly business as on feast
days were forbidden. As also that at the tolling of a bell, the
people were to be employed in holy actions, going to sermons
and the like, and to continue thus until Monday morning, a
penalty being laid on those who did the contrary. About the
year 1214, which was eleven years after, it was again enacted,
in a parliament at Scone, by Alexander III., king of the Scots,
that none should fish in any waters, from Saturday after
evening prayer, till sunrising on Monday, which was afterward
confirmed by King James I.”[855]
The sacredness of this papal Lord’s day seems to have been more easily
established by taking in with it a part of the ancient Sabbath. The work
of establishing this institution was everywhere carried steadily forward.
Of England we read:—
“In the year 1237, Henry III. being king, and Edmund de Abendon
archbishop of Canterbury, a constitution was made, requiring
every minister to forbid his parishioners the frequenting of
markets on the Lord’s day, and leaving the church, where they
ought to meet and spend the day in prayer and hearing the word
of God. And this on pain of excommunication.”[856]
Of France we are informed:—
“The council of Lyons sat about the year 1244, and it
restrained the people from their ordinary work on the Lord’s
day, and other festivals on pain of ecclesiastical censures.”
A. D. 1282. The council of Angeirs in France “forbid millers by
water or otherwise to grind their corn from Saturday evening
till Sunday evening.”[857]
Nor were the Spaniards backward in this work:—
A. D. 1322. This year “a synod was called at Valladolid in
Castile, and then was ratified what was formerly required,
that ‘none should follow husbandry, or exercise himself in any
mechanical employment on the Lord’s day, or other holy days,
but where it was a work of necessity or charity, of which the
minister of the parish was to be judge.’”[858]
The rulers of the church and realm of England were diligent in
establishing the sacredness of this day. Yet the following statutes
show that they were not aware of any Bible authority for enforcing its
observance:—
A. D. 1358. “Istippe, archbishop of Canterbury, with very great
concern and zeal, expresses himself thus: ‘We have it from
the relation of very credible persons, that in divers places
within our province, a very naughty, nay, damnable custom has
prevailed, to hold fairs and markets on the Lord’s day....
Wherefore by virtue of canonical obedience, we strictly charge
and command your brotherhood, that if you find your people
faulty in the premises, you forthwith admonish or cause them
to be admonished to refrain going to markets or fairs on the
Lord’s day.... And as for such who are obstinate and speak
or act against you in this particular, you must endeavor to
restrain them by ecclesiastical censures and by all lawful
means put a stop to these extravagances.’
“Nor was the civil power silent; for much about that time King
Edward made an act that wool should not be shown at the staple
on Sundays and other solemn feasts in the year. In the reign of
King Henry VI., Dr. Stafford being archbishop of Canterbury,
A. D. 1444, it was decreed that fairs and markets should no
more be kept in churches and church-yards on the Lord’s day, or
other festivals, except in time of harvest.”[859]
Observe that fairs and markets were held in the churches in England on
Sundays as late as 1444! And even later than this such fairs were allowed
in harvest time. On the European continent the sacredness of Sunday
was persistently urged. The council of Bourges urges its observance as
follows:—
A. D. 1532. “The Lord’s day and other festivals were instituted
for this purpose, that faithful Christians abstaining from
external work, might more freely, and with greater piety devote
themselves to God’s worship.”[860]
They did not seem to be aware of the fact however that when the fear of
God is taught by the precepts of men such worship is vain.[861] The
council of Rheims, which sat the next year, made this decree:—
A. D. 1533. “Let the people assemble at their parish churches
on the Lord’s day, and other holidays, and be present at mass,
sermons and vespers. Let no man on these days give himself to
plays or dances, especially during service.” And the historian
adds: “In the same year another synod at Tours, ordered the
Lord’s day and other holidays to be reverently observed under
pain of excommunication.”[862]
A council which assembled the following year thus frankly confessed the
divine origin of the Sabbath, and the human origin of that festival which
has supplanted it:—
A. D. 1584. “Let all Christians remember that the seventh day
was consecrated by God, and hath been received and observed,
not only by the Jews, but by all others who pretend to worship
God; though we Christians have changed their Sabbath into the
Lord’s day. A day therefore to be kept, by forbearing all
worldly business, suits, contracts, carriages, &c., and by
sanctifying the rest of mind and body, in the contemplation
of God and things divine, we are to do nothing but works of
charity, say prayers, and sing psalms.”[863]
We have thus traced Sunday observance in the Catholic church down to a
period subsequent to the Reformation. That it is an ordinance of man
which has usurped the place of the Bible Sabbath is most distinctly
confessed by the council last quoted. Yet they endeavor to make amends
for their violation of the Sabbath by spending Sunday in charity,
prayers, and psalms: a course too often adopted at the present time to
excuse the violation of the fourth commandment. Who can read this long
list of Sunday laws, not from the “one Law-giver who is able to save and
to destroy,” but from popes, emperors, and councils, without adopting the
sentiment of Neander: “The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals,
was always only a human ordinance?”
CHAPTER XXI.
TRACES OF THE SABBATH DURING THE DARK AGES.
The Dark Ages defined—Difficulty of tracing the people
of God during this period—The Sabbath effectually
suppressed in the Catholic church at the close of the fifth
century—Sabbath-keepers in Rome about A. D. 600—The Culdees
of Great Britain—Columba probably a Sabbath-keeper—The
Waldenses—Their antiquity—Their wide extent—Their
peculiarities—Sabbatarian character of a part of this
people—Important facts respecting the Waldenses and the
Romanists—Other bodies of Sabbatarians—The Cathari—The
Arnoldistæ—The Passaginians—The Petrobruysians—Gregory VII.
about A. D. 1074 condemns the Sabbath-keepers—The Sabbath
in Constantinople in the eleventh century—A portion of the
Anabaptists—Sabbatarians in Abyssinia and Ethiopia—The
Armenians of the East Indies—The Sabbath retained through the
Dark Ages by those who were not in the communion of the Romish
church.
With the accession of the Roman bishop to supremacy began the Dark
Ages;[864] and as he increased in strength, the gloom of darkness settled
with increasing intensity upon the world. The highest elevation of the
papal power marks the latest point in the Dark Ages before the first
gray dawn of twilight.[865] That power was providentially weakened
preparatory to the reformation of the sixteenth century, when the light
of advancing day began to manifestly dissipate the gross darkness which
covered the earth. The difficulty of tracing the true people of God
through this period is well set forth in the following language of
Benedict:—
“As scarcely any fragment of their history remains, all we
know of them is from accounts of their enemies, which were
always uttered in the style of censure and complaint; and
without which we should not have known that millions of them
ever existed. It was the settled policy of Rome to obliterate
every vestige of opposition to her doctrines and decrees;
everything heretical, whether persons or writings, by which the
faithful would be liable to be contaminated and led astray.
In conformity to this their fixed determination, all books
and records of their opposers were hunted up and committed
to the flames. Before the art of printing was discovered in
the fifteenth century, all books were made with the pen; the
copies, of course, were so few that their concealment was much
more difficult than it would be now; and if a few of them
escaped the vigilance of the inquisitors, they would soon be
worn out and gone. None of them could be admitted and preserved
in the public libraries of the Catholics, from the ravages of
time and of the hands of barbarians with which all parts of
Europe were at different periods overwhelmed.”[866]
The first five centuries of the Christian era accomplished the
suppression of the Sabbath in those churches which were under the
special control of the Roman pontiff. Thenceforward we must look for the
observers of the Sabbath outside the communion of the church of Rome. It
was predicted that the Roman power should cast down the truth to the
ground.[867] The Scriptures set forth the law of God as his truth.[868]
The Dark Ages were the result of this work of the great apostasy. So
dense and all-pervading was the darkness, that God’s pure truth was more
or less obscured even with the true people of God in their places of
retirement.
About the year 600, as we have seen, there was in the city of Rome
itself a class of Sabbath-keeping Christians who were very strict in
the observance of the fourth commandment. It has been said of them that
they joined with this a strict abstinence from labor on Sunday. But Dr.
Twisse, a learned first-day writer who has particularly examined the
record respecting them, asserts that this Sunday observance pertained to
“other persons, different from the former.”[869] These Sabbath-keepers
were not Romanists, and the pope denounced them in strong language.
The Christians of Great Britain, before the mission of Augustine to that
country, A. D. 596, were not in subjection to the bishop of Rome. They
were in an eminent degree Bible Christians. They are thus described:—
“The Scottish church, when it first meets the eye of
civilization, is not Romish, nor even prelatical. When the
monk Augustine, with his forty missionaries, in the time of
the Saxon Heptarchy, came over to Britain under the auspices
of Gregory, the bishop of Rome, to convert the barbarian
Saxons, he found the northern part of the island already
well-nigh filled with Christians and Christian institutions.
These Christians were the Culdees, whose chief seat was the
little island of Hi or Iona, on the western coast of Scotland.
An Irish presbyter, Columba, feeling himself stirred with
missionary zeal, and doubtless knowing the wretched condition
of the savage Scots and Picts, in the year 565, took with him
twelve other missionaries, and passed over to Scotland. They
fixed their settlement on the little island just named, and
from that point became the missionaries of all Scotland, and
even penetrated into England.[870]
“The people in the south of England converted by Augustine and
his assistants, and those in the north who had been won by
Culdee labor, soon met, as Christian conquest advanced from
both sides; and when they came together, it was soon seen
that Roman and Culdee Christianity very decidedly differed in
a great many respects. The Culdees, for the most part, had a
simple and primitive form of Christianity, while Rome presented
a vast accumulation of superstitions, and was arrayed in her
well-known pomp.[871]
“The Culdee went to Iona that in quiet, with meditation, study,
and prayer, he might fit himself for going out into the world
as a missionary. Indeed, Iona was a great mission institute,
where preachers were trained who evangelized the rude tribes of
Scotland in a very short time. To have done such a work as this
in less than half a century implies apostolic activity, purity,
and success.[872]
“After the success of Agustine and his monks in England, the
Culdees had shut themselves up within the limits of Scotland,
and had resisted for centuries all the efforts of Rome to win
them over. At last, however, they were overthrown by their own
rulers.”[873]
There is strong incidental evidence that Columba, the leading minister
of his time among the Culdees, was an observer of the ancient Sabbath
of the Bible. On this point I quote two standard authors of the Roman
Catholics. They certainly have no motive to put such words as I here
quote, fraudulently into the mouth of Columba, for they claim him as a
saint, and they are no friends of the Bible Sabbath. Nor can we see how
Columba could have used these words with satisfaction, as he evidently
did, when dying, had he all his life long been a violator of the ancient
rest-day of the Lord. Here are the words of Dr. Alvan Butler:—
“Having continued his labors in Scotland thirty-four years,
he clearly and openly foretold his death, and on Saturday the
ninth of June said to his disciple Diermit: ‘This day is called
the Sabbath, that is, the day of rest, and such will it truly
be to me; for it will put an end to my labors.’”[874]
Another distinguished Catholic author gives us his dying words thus:—
“To-day is Saturday, the day which the Holy Scriptures call the
Sabbath, or rest. And it will be truly my day of rest, for it
shall be the last of my laborious life.”[875]
These words show, 1. That Columba believed that Saturday was the true
Bible Sabbath. 2. That he did not believe the Sabbath had been changed to
Sunday. 3. That this confession of faith respecting the Bible Sabbath was
made with evident satisfaction, though in view of immediate death. Did
any first-day man ever recur with pleasure on his death-bed to the fact
that Saturday is the Bible Sabbath?
But Gilfillan quotes these words of Columba as spoken in behalf of
Sunday! In giving a list of eminent men who have asserted the change of
the Sabbath, or who have called Sunday the Sabbath, and have taught that
it should be observed as a day of sacred rest, he brings in Columba
thus:—
“The testimony of Columba is specially interesting, as it
expresses the feelings of the heart at a moment which tests
the sincerity of faith, and the value of a creed: ‘This day,’
he said to his servant, ‘in the sacred volume is called the
Sabbath, that is, rest; and will indeed be a Sabbath to me,
for it is to me the last day of this toilsome life, the
day on which I am to rest (sabbatize), after all my labors
and troubles, for on this coming sacred night of the Lord
(_Dominica nocte_), at the midnight hour, I shall, as the
Scriptures speak, go the way of my fathers.’”[876]
But this day which Columba said “will indeed be a Sabbath to me” was not
Sunday but Saturday.
Among the dissenters from the Romish church in the period of the Dark
Ages, the first place perhaps is due to the Waldenses, both for their
antiquity and the wide extent of their influence and doctrine. Benedict
quotes from their enemies respecting the antiquity of their origin:—
“We have already observed from Claudius Seyssel, the popish
archbishop, that one Leo was charged with originating the
Waldensian heresy in the valleys, in the days of Constantine
the Great. When those severe measures emanated from the Emperor
Honorious against rebaptizers, the Baptists left the seat of
opulence and power, and sought retreats in the country, and in
the valleys of Piedmont; which last place in particular became
their retreat from imperial oppression.”[877]
Dean Waddington quotes the following from Rainer Saccho, a popish writer,
who had the best means of information respecting them:—
“There is no sect so dangerous as the Leonists, for three
reasons: first, it is the most ancient—some say as old as
Sylvester [pope in Constantine’s time], others as the apostles
themselves. Secondly, it is very generally disseminated: there
is no country where it has not gained some footing. Thirdly,
while other sects are profane and blasphemous, this retains the
utmost show of piety; they live justly before men, and believe
nothing respecting God which is not good.”[878]
Mr. Jones gives Saccho’s own opinion as follows:—
“Their enemies confirm their great antiquity. Reinerius Saccho,
an inquisitor, and one of their most cruel persecutors, who
lived only eighty years after Waldo [A. D. 1160], admits
that the Waldenses flourished five hundred years before that
preacher. Gretser, the Jesuit, who also wrote against the
Waldenses, and had examined the subject fully, not only admits
their great antiquity, but declares his firm belief that the
Toulousians and Albigenses condemned in the years 1177 and
1178, were no other than the Waldenses.”[879]
Jortin dates their withdrawal into the wilderness of the Alps as follows:—
“A. D. 601. In the seventh century, Christianity was propagated
in China by the Nestorians; and the Valdenses, who abhorred the
papal usurptions, are supposed to have settled themselves in
the valleys of Piedmont. Monkery flourished prodigiously, and
the monks and popes were in the firmest union.”[880]
President Edwards says:—
“Some of the popish writers themselves own, that this people
never submitted to the church of Rome. One of the popish
writers, speaking of the Waldenses, says, The heresy of the
Waldenses is the oldest heresy in the world. It is supposed
that they first betook themselves to this place among the
mountains, to hide themselves from the severity of the heathen
persecutions which existed before Constantine the Great. And
thus the woman fled into the wilderness from the face of the
serpent. Rev. 12:6, 14. ‘And to the woman were given two wings
of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into
her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and
half a time, from the face of the serpent.’ The people being
settled there, their posterity continued [there] from age to
age; and being, as it were, by natural walls, as well as by
God’s grace, separated from the rest of the world, they never
partook of the overflowing corruption.”[881]
Benedict makes other quotations relative to their origin:—
“Theodore Belvedre, a popish monk, says that the heresy had
always been in the valleys. In the preface to the French Bible
the translators say that they [the Waldenses] have always had
the full enjoyment of the heavenly truth contained in the Holy
Scriptures ever since they were enriched with the same by the
apostles; having in fair MSS. preserved the entire Bible in
their native tongue from generation to generation.”[882]
Of the extent to which they spread in the countries of Europe, Benedict
thus speaks:—
“In the thirteenth century, from the accounts of Catholic
historians, all of whom speak of the Waldenses in terms of
complaint and reproach, they had founded individual churches,
or were spread out in colonies in Italy, Spain, Germany,
the Netherlands, Bohemia, Poland, Lithuania, Albania,
Lombardy, Milan, Romagna, Vicenza, Florence, Veleponetine,
Constantinople, Philadelphia, Sclavonia, Bulgaria, Diognitia,
Livonia, Sarmatia, Croatia, Dalmatia, Briton and Piedmont.”[883]
And Dr. Edgar gives the words of an old historian as follows:—
“The Waldensians, says Popliner, spread, not only through
France, but also through nearly all the European coasts, and
appeared in Gaul, Spain, England, Scotland, Italy, Germany,
Bohemia, Saxony, Poland, and Lithuania.”[884]
According to the testimony of their enemies, they were to some extent
divided among themselves. Dr. Allix quotes an old Romish writer who says
of that portion of them who were called Cathari:—
“They are also divided amongst themselves; so what some of them
say is again denied by others.”[885]
And Crosby makes a similar statement:—
“There were several sects of Waldenses or Albigenses, like as
there are of Dissenters in England. Some of these did deny all
baptism, others only the baptism of infants. That many of them
were of this latter opinion, is affirmed in several histories
of this people, as well ancient as modern.”[886]
Some of their enemies affirm that they reject the Old Testament;
but others, with much greater truthfulness, bear a very different
testimony.[887] Thus a Romish inquisitor, as quoted by Allix, bears
testimony concerning those in Bohemia:—
“They can say a great part of the Old and New Testaments
by heart. They despise the decretals, and the sayings and
expositions of holy men, and only cleave to the text of
Scripture.... [They say] that the doctrine of Christ and
the apostles is sufficient to salvation, without any church
statutes and ordinances. That the traditions of the church
are no better than the traditions of the Pharisees; and that
greater stress is laid on the observation of human traditions
than on the keeping of the law of God. Why do you transgress
the law of God by your traditions?... They contemn all
approved ecclesiastical customs which they do not read of in
the gospel, as the observation of Candlemas, Palm Sunday, the
reconciliation of penitents, the adoration of the cross on
Good Friday. They despise the feast of Easter, and all other
festivals of Christ and the saints, because of their being
multiplied to that vast number, and say that one day is as
good as another, and work upon holy days, where they can do it
without being taken notice of.”[888]
Dr. Allix quotes a Waldensian document of A. D. 1100, entitled the “Noble
Lesson,” and remarks:—
“The author upon supposal that the world was drawing to an
end, exhorts his brethren to prayer, to watchfulness, to a
renouncing of all worldly goods....
“He sets down all the judgments of God in the Old Testament
as the effects of a just and good God; and in particular the
decalogue as a law given by the Lord of the whole world. He
repeats the several articles of the law, not forgetting that
which respects idols.”[889]
Their religious views are further stated by Allix:—
“They declare themselves to be the apostles’ successors,
to have apostolical authority, and the keys of binding and
loosing. They hold the church of Rome to be the whore of
Babylon, and that all that obey her are damned, especially
the clergy that are subject to her since the time of Pope
Sylvester.... They hold that none of the ordinances of the
church that have been introduced since Christ’s ascension
ought to be observed, as being of no worth; the feasts, fasts,
orders, blessings, offices of the church and the like, they
utterly reject.”[890]
A considerable part of the people called Waldenses bore the significant
designation of _Sabbati_, or _Sabbatati_, or _Insabbatati_. Mr. Jones
alludes to this fact in the following words:—
“Because they would not observe saints’ days, they were falsely
supposed to neglect the Sabbath also, and called _Insabbatati_
or _Insabbathists_.”[891]
Mr. Benedict makes the following statement:—
“We find that the Waldenses were sometimes called
_Insabbathos_, that is, regardless of Sabbaths. Mr. Milner
supposes this name was given to them because they observed
not the Romish festivals, and rested from their ordinary
occupations only on Sundays. A Sabbatarian would suppose that
it was because they met for worship on the seventh day, and did
regard not the first-day Sabbath.”[892]
Mr. Robinson gives the statements of three classes of writers respecting
the meaning of these names, which were borne by the Waldenses. But
he rejects them all, alleging that these persons were led to these
conclusions by the apparent meaning of the words, and not by the facts.
Here are his words:—
“Some of these Christians were called _Sabbati_, _Sabbatati_,
_Insabbatati_, and more frequently _Inzabbatati_. Led astray
by sound without attending to facts, one says they were so
named from the Hebrew word Sabbath, because they kept the
Saturday for the Lord’s day. Another says they were so called
because they rejected all the festivals or Sabbaths in the low
Latin sense of the word, which the Catholic church religiously
observed. A third says, and many with various alterations and
additions have said after him, they were called so from _sabot_
or _zabot_, a shoe, because they distinguished themselves
from other people by wearing shoes marked on the upper part
with some peculiarity. Is it likely that people who could not
descend from their mountains without hazarding their lives
through the furious zeal of the inquisitors, should tempt
danger by affixing a visible mark on their shoes? Besides the
shoe of the peasants happens to be famous in this country; it
was of a different fashion, and was called abarca.”[893]
Mr. Robinson rejects these three statements, and then gives his own
judgment that they were so called because they lived in the mountains.
These four views cover all that has been advanced relative to the meaning
of these names. But Robinson’s own explanation is purely fanciful, and
seems to have been adopted by no other writer. He offers, however,
conclusive reasons for rejecting the statement that they took their name
from their shoes. There remain, therefore, only the first and second
of these four statements, which are that they were called by these
names because they kept the Saturday for the Lord’s day, and because
they did not keep the sabbaths of the papists. These two statements
do not conflict. In fact, if one of them be true, it almost certainly
follows that the other one must be true also. There would be in such
facts something worthy to give a distinguishing name to the true
people of God, surrounded by the great apostasy; and the natural and
obvious interpretation of the names would disclose the most striking
characteristic of the people who bore them.
Jones and Benedict agree with Robinson in rejecting the idea that the
Waldenses received these names from their shoes. Mr. Jones held, on
the contrary, that they were given them because they did not keep the
Romish festivals.[894] Mr. Benedict favors the view that it was because
they kept the seventh day.[895] But let us now see who they are that
make these statements respecting the observance of the Sabbath by the
Waldenses, that Robinson alludes to in this place. He quotes out of
Gretser the words of the historian Goldastus as follows:—
“Insabbatati [they were called] not because they were
circumcised, but because they kept the Jewish Sabbath.”[896]
Goldastus was “a learned historian and jurist, born near Bischofszell in
Switzerland in 1576.” He died in 1635.[897] He was a Calvinist writer of
note.[898] He certainly had no motive to favor the cause of the seventh
day. Gretser objects to his statement on the ground that the Waldenses
exterminated every festival; but this was the most natural thing in the
world for men who had God’s own rest-day in their keeping. Gretser still
further objects that the Waldenses denied the whole Old Testament; but
this charge is an utter misrepresentation, as we have already shown in
the present chapter.
Robinson also quotes on this point the testimony of Archbishop Usher.
Though that prelate held that the Waldenses derived these names from
their shoes, he frankly acknowledges that MANY understood that they
were given to them because they worshiped on the Jewish Sabbath. This
testimony is valuable in that it shows that many early writers asserted
the observance of “the Saturday for the Lord’s day” by the people who
were called Sabbatati.[899]
In consequence of the persecutions which they suffered, and because also
of their own missionary zeal, the people called Waldenses were widely
scattered over Europe. They bore, however, various names in different
ages and in different countries. We have decisive testimony that some
of these bodies observed the seventh day. Others observed Sunday. Eneas
Sylvius says that those in Bohemia hold “that we are to cease from
working on no day except the Lord’s day.”[900] This statement, let it
be observed, relates only to Bohemia. But it has been asserted that
the Waldenses were so distinct from the church of Rome they could not
have received the Sunday Lord’s day from thence, and must, therefore,
have received it from the apostles! But a few words from D’Aubigné will
suffice to show that this statement is founded in error. He describes an
interview between Œcolampadius and two Waldensian pastors who had been
sent by their brethren from the borders of France and Piedmont, to open
communication with the reformers. It was at Basle, in 1530. Many things
which they said pleased Œcolampadius, but some things he disapproved.
D’Aubigné makes this statement:—
“The barbes [the Waldensian pastors] were at first a little
confused at seeing that the elders had to learn of their
juniors; however, they were humble and sincere men, and the
Basle doctor having questioned them on the sacraments, they
confessed that through weakness and fear _they had their
children baptized by Romish priests_, and that _they even
communicated with them and sometimes attended mass_. This
unexpected avowal startled the meek Œcolampadius.”[901]
When the deputation returned word to the Waldenses that the reformers
demanded of them “a stricter reform,” D’Aubigné says that it was
“supported by some, and rejected by others.” He also informs us that the
demand that the Waldenses should “separate entirely from Rome” “caused
divisions among them.”[902]
This is a very remarkable statement. The light of many of these ancient
witnesses was almost ready to go out in darkness when God raised up the
reformers. They had suffered that woman Jezebel to teach among them, and
to seduce the servants of God. They had even come to practice infant
baptism, and the priests of Rome administered the rite! And in addition
to all this, they sometimes joined with them in the service of the mass!
If a portion of the Waldenses in southern Europe at the time of the
Reformation had exchanged believers’ baptism for the baptism of children
by Romish priests, it is not difficult to see how they could also accept
the Sunday-Lord’s day from the same source in place of the hallowed
rest-day of the Lord. All had not done this, but some certainly had.
D’Aubigné makes a very interesting statement respecting the French
Waldenses in the fifteenth century. His language implies that they had
a different Sabbath from the Catholics. He tells us some of the stories
which the priests circulated against the Waldenses. These are his words:—
“Picardy in the north and Dauphiny in the south were the two
provinces of France best prepared [at the opening of the
Protestant Reformation] to receive the gospel. During the
fifteenth century many Picardins, as the story ran, went to
_Vaudery_. Seated round the fire during the long nights,
simple Catholics used to tell one another how the _Vaudois_
(Waldenses) met in horrible assembly in solitary places, where
they found tables spread with numerous and dainty viands. These
poor Christians loved indeed to meet together from districts
often very remote. They went to the rendezvous by night and
along by-roads. The most learned of them used to recite some
passages of Scripture, after which they conversed together
and prayed. But such humble conventicles were ridiculously
travestied. ‘Do you know what they do to get there,’ said the
people, ‘so that the officers may not stop them? The devil
has given them a certain ointment, and when they want to go
to _Vaudery_, they smear a little stick with it. As soon as
they get astride it, they are carried up through the air, and
arrive at _their Sabbath_ without meeting anybody. In the midst
of them sits a goat with a monkey’s tail: this is Satan, who
receives their adoration.’... These stupid stories were not
peculiar to the people: they were circulated particularly by
the monks. It was thus that the inquisitor Jean de Broussart
spoke in 1460 from a pulpit erected in the great square at
Arras. An immense multitude surrounded him; a scaffold was
erected in front of the pulpit, and a number of men and women,
kneeling and wearing caps with the figure of the devil painted
on them, awaited their punishment. Perhaps the faith of these
poor people was mingled with error. But be that as it may, they
were all burnt alive after the sermon.”[903]
It seems that these Waldenses had a Sabbath peculiar to themselves. And
D’Aubigné himself alludes to something peculiar in their faith which he
cannot confess as the truth, and does not choose to denounce as error. He
says, “Perhaps the faith of these poor people was mingled with error.” To
speak of the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord by
New-Testament Christians, subjects a conscientious first-day historian to
this very dilemma. We have a further account of the Waldenses in France,
just before the commencement of the Reformation of the sixteenth century:—
“Louis XII., king of France, being informed by the enemies of
the Waldenses inhabiting a part of the province of Provence,
that several heinous crimes were laid to their account, sent
the Master of Requests, and a certain doctor of the Sorbonne,
who was confessor to His Majesty, to make inquiry into this
matter. On their return, they reported that they had visited
all the parishes where they dwelt, had inspected their places
of worship, but that they had found there no images, nor
signs of the ornaments belonging to the mass, nor any of the
ceremonies of the Romish church; much less could they discover
any traces of those crimes with which they were charged. On the
contrary, they kept the Sabbath day, observed the ordinance
of baptism according to the primitive church, instructed
their children in the articles of the Christian faith and the
commandments of God. The king having heard the report of his
commissioners, said with an oath that they were better men than
himself or his people.”[904]
We further read concerning the Vaudois, or Waldenses, as follows:—
“The respectable French historian, De Thou, says that the
Vaudois keep the commandments of the decalogue, and allow among
them of no wickedness, detesting perjuries, imprecations,
quarrels, seditions, &c.”[905]
It maybe proper to add that in 1686 the Waldenses were all driven out
of the valleys of Piedmont, and that those who returned and settled in
those valleys three years afterward, and from whom the present race of
Waldenses is descended, fought their way back, sword in hand, pursuing
in all respects a course entirely different from that of the ancient
Waldenses.[906]
Another class of witnesses to the truth during the Dark Ages, bore the
name of Cathari, that is, Puritans. Jones speaks of them as follows:—
“They were a plain, unassuming, harmless, and industrious race
of Christians, patiently bearing the cross after Christ, and,
both in their doctrines and manners, condemning the whole
system of idolatry and superstition which reigned in the
church of Rome, placing true religion in the faith, hope and
obedience of the gospel, maintaining a supreme regard to the
authority of God in his word, and regulating their sentiments
and practices by that divine standard. Even in the twelfth
century their numbers abounded in the neighborhood of Cologne,
in Flanders, the South of France, Savoy, and Milan. ‘They were
increased,’ says Egbert, ‘to great multitudes, throughout all
countries.’”[907]
That the Cathari did retain and observe the ancient Sabbath, is certified
by their Romish adversaries. Dr. Allix quotes a Roman Catholic author of
the twelfth century concerning three sorts of heretics, the Cathari, the
Passagii, and the Arnoldistæ. Allix says of this Romish writer that,
“He lays it down also as one of their opinions, ‘that the
law of Moses is to be kept according to the letter, and that
the keeping of the Sabbath, circumcision, and other legal
observances, ought to take place. They hold also that Christ
the Son of God is not equal with the Father, and that the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, these three persons, are not one
God and one substance; and as a surplus to these their errors,
they judge and condemn all the doctors of the church, and
universally the whole Roman church. Now since they endeavor
to defend this their error by testimonies drawn from the New
Testament and prophets, I shall with [the] assistance of the
grace of Christ stop their mouths, as David did Goliah’s, with
their own sword.’”[908]
Dr. Allix quotes another Romish author to the same effect:—
“Alanus attributes to the Cathari almost the very same opinions
[as those just enumerated] in his first book against heretics,
which he wrote about the year 1192.”[909]
Mr. Elliott mentions an incident concerning the Cathari, which is in
harmony with what these historians assert respecting their observance of
the seventh day. He says:—
“In this year [A. D. 1163] certain heretics of the sect of the
Cathari, coming from the parts of Flanders to Cologne, took
up their abode secretly in a barn near the city. But, as _on
the Lord’s day_ they did not go to church, they were seized
by the neighbors, and detected. On their being brought before
the Catholic church, when, after long examination respecting
their sect, they would be convinced by no evidence however
convincing, but most pertinaciously persisted in their doctrine
and resolution, they were cast out from the church, and
delivered into the hands of laics. These, leading them without
the city committed them to the flames: being four men and one
little girl.”[910]
These statements are made respecting three classes of Christian people
who lived during the Dark Ages: The Cathari, or Puritans, the Arnoldistæ,
and the Passaginians. Their views are presented in the uncandid language
of their enemies. But the testimony of ancient Catholic historians is
decisive that they were observers of the seventh day. The charge that
they observed circumcision also, will be noticed presently. Mr. Robinson
understands that the Passaginians were that portion of the Waldenses who
lived in the passes of the mountains. He says:—
“It is very credible that the name Passageros or Passagini ...
was given to such of them as lived in or near the passes or
passages of the mountains, and who subsisted in part by guiding
travelers or by traveling themselves for trade.”[911]
Mr. Elliott says of the _name_ Passagini:—
“The explanation of the term as meaning _Pilgrims_, in both the
spiritual and missionary sense of the word, would be but the
translation of their recognized Greek appellation εκδημοι, and
a title as distinctive as beautiful.”[912]
Mosheim gives the following account of them:—
“In Lombardy, which was the principal residence of the Italian
heretics, there sprung up a singular sect, known, for what
reason I cannot tell, by the denomination of Passaginians, and
also by that of the circumcised. Like the other sects already
mentioned, they had the utmost aversion to the dominion and
discipline of the church of Rome; but they were at the same
time distinguished by two religious tenets which were peculiar
to themselves. The first was a notion that the observance
of the law of Moses, in everything except the offering of
sacrifices, was obligatory upon Christians; in consequence
of which they circumcised their followers, abstained from
those meats the use of which was prohibited under the Mosaic
economy, and celebrated the Jewish Sabbath. The second tenet
that distinguished this sect was advanced in opposition to the
doctrine of three persons in the divine nature.”[913]
Mr. Benedict speaks of them as follows:—
“The account of their practicing circumcision is undoubtedly
a slanderous story forged by their enemies, and probably
arose in this way: because they observed the seventh day they
were called by way of derision, Jews, as the Sabbatarians are
frequently at this day; and if they were Jews, it followed of
course that they either did, or ought to, circumcise their
followers. This was probably the reasoning of their enemies;
but that they actually practiced the bloody rite is altogether
improbable.”[914]
An eminent church historian, Michael Geddes, thus testifies:—
“This [act] of fixing something that is justly abominable
to all mankind upon her adversaries, has been the constant
practice of the church of Rome.”[915]
Dr. Allix states the same fact, which needs to be kept in mind whenever
we read of the people of God in the records of the Dark Ages:—
“I must desire the reader to consider that it is no great sin
with the church of Rome to spread lies concerning those that
are enemies of that faith.”[916]
“There is nothing more common with the Romish party than to
make use of the most horrid calumnies to blacken and expose
those who have renounced her communion.”[917]
Of the origin of the Petrobrusians, we have the following account by Mr.
Jones:—
“But the Cathari or Puritans were not the only sect which,
during the twelfth century, appeared in opposition to the
superstition of the church of Rome. About the year 1110,
in the south of France, in the provinces of Languedoc and
Provence, appeared Peter de Bruys, preaching the gospel of the
kingdom of Heaven, and exerting the most laudable efforts to
reform the abuses and remove the superstition which disfigured
the beautiful simplicity of the gospel worship. His labors
were crowned with abundant success. He converted a great
number of disciples to the faith of Christ, and after a most
indefatigable ministry of twenty years’ continuance, he was
burned at St. Giles, a city of Languedoc in France, A. D.
1130, by an enraged populace, instigated by the clergy, who
apprehended their traffic to be in danger from this new and
intrepid reformer.”[918]
That this body of French Christians, who, in the very midnight of the
Dark Ages witnessed for the truth in opposition to the Romish church,
were observers of the ancient Sabbath is expressly certified by Dr.
Francis White, lord bishop of Ely. He was appointed by the king of
England to write against the Sabbath in opposition to Brabourne, who had
appealed to the king in its behalf. To show that Sabbatic observance is
contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic church—a weighty argument with
an Episcopalian—he enumerates various classes of heretics who had been
condemned by the Catholic church for keeping holy the seventh day. Among
these heretics he places the Petrobrusians:—
“In St. Bernard’s days it was condemned in the
Petrobruysans.”[919]
We have seen that, according to Catholic writers, the Cathari held to the
observance of the seventh day. Dr. Allix confirms the statement of Dr.
White that the Petrobrusians observed the ancient Sabbath, by stating
that the doctrines of these two bodies greatly resembled each other.
These are his words:—
“Petrus Cluniacensis has handled five questions against the
Petrobrusians which bear a great resemblance with the belief of
the Cathari of Italy.”[920]
The Sabbath-keepers in the eleventh century were of sufficient importance
to call down upon themselves the anathema of the pope. Dr. Heylyn says
that,
“Gregory, of that name the seventh [about A. D. 1074],
condemned those who taught that it was not lawful to do work on
the day of the Sabbath.”[921]
This act of the pope corroborates the testimonies we have adduced in
proof of the existence of Sabbath-keepers in the Dark Ages. Gregory the
Seventh was one of the greatest men that ever filled the papal chair.
Whatever class he anathematized was of some consequence. Gregory wasted
nothing on trifles.[922]
In the eleventh century, there were Sabbath-keepers also in
Constantinople and its vicinity. The pope, in A. D. 1054, sent
three legates to the emperor of the East, and to the patriarch of
Constantinople, for the purpose of re-uniting the Greek and the Latin
churches. Cardinal Humbert was the head of this legation. The legates,
on their arrival, set themselves to the work of refuting those doctrines
which distinguish the church of Constantinople from that of Rome. After
they had attended to the questions which separated the two churches,
they found it also necessary to discuss the question of the Sabbath. For
one of the most learned men of the East had put forth a treatise, in
which he maintained that ministers should be allowed to marry; that the
Sabbath should be kept holy; and that leavened bread should be used in
the supper; all of which the church of Rome held to be deadly heresies.
We quote from Mr. Bower a concise statement of the treatment which this
Sabbatarian writer received:—
“Humbert, likewise answered a piece that had been published
by a monk of the monastery of Studium, [near Constantinople,]
named Nicetas, who was deemed _one of the most learned men
at the time in the east_. In that piece the monk undertook
to prove, that leavened bread only should be used in the
eucharist, _that the Sabbath ought to be kept holy_, and that
priests should be allowed to marry. But the emperor, who wanted
by all means to gain the pope, for the reasons mentioned above,
was, or rather pretended to be, so fully convinced with the
arguments of the legate, confuting those alleged by Nicetas,
that he obliged the monk publickly to recant, and anathematize
_all who held the opinion_ that he had endeavored to establish,
with respect to unleavened bread, the Sabbath, and the marriage
of priests.
“At the same time Nicetas, in compliance with the command
of the emperor, anathematized all who should question the
primacy of the Roman church with respect to all other Christian
churches, or should presume to censure her ever orthodox faith.
The monk having thus retracted all he had written against
the Holy See, his book was burnt by the emperor’s order,
and he absolved, by the legates, from the censures he had
incurred.”[923]
This record shows that, in the dense darkness of the eleventh century,
“one of the most learned men at that time in the east” wrote a book
to prove that “the Sabbath ought to be kept holy,” and in opposition
to the papal doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy. It also shows how
the church of Rome caste down the truth of God by means of the sword of
emperors and kings. Though Nicetas retracted, under fear of the emperor
and the pope, it appears that there were others who held the same
opinions, for he was “obliged” to anathematize all such, and there is no
evidence that any of these persons turned from the truth because of the
fall of their leader. Indeed, if there had not been a considerable body
of these Sabbatarians, the papal legate would never have deemed it worthy
of his dignity to write a reply to Nicetas.
The Anabaptists are often referred to in the records of the Dark Ages.
The term signifies rebaptizers, and was applied to them because they
denied the validity of infant baptism. The designation is not accurate,
however, because those persons whom they baptized, they considered as
never having been baptized before, although they had been sprinkled or
even immersed in infancy. This people have been overwhelmed in obloquy in
consequence of the fanatical insurrection which broke out in their name
in the time of Luther. Of those engaged in this insurrection, Buck says:—
“The first insurgents groaned under severe oppressions, and
took up arms in defense of their civil liberties; and of
these commotions the Anabaptists seem rather to have availed
themselves, than to have been the prime movers. That a great
part were Anabaptists seems indisputable; at the same time
it appears from history that a great part also were Roman
Catholics, and a still greater part of those who had scarcely
any religious principles at all.”[924]
This matter is placed in the true light by Stebbing:—
“The overthrow of civil society, and fatal injuries to religion
were threatened by those who called themselves Anabaptists. But
large numbers appear to have disputed the validity of infant
baptism who had nothing else in common with them, yet who for
that one circumstance were overwhelmed with the obloquy, and
the punishment richly due to a fanaticism equally fraudulent
and licentious.”[925]
The ancient Sabbath was retained and observed by a portion of the
Anabaptists, or, to use a more proper term, Baptists. Dr. Francis White
thus testifies:—
“They which maintain the Saturday Sabbath to be in force,
comply with some Anabaptists.”[926]
In harmony with this statement of Dr. White, is the testimony of a French
writer of the sixteenth century. He names all the classes of men who have
borne the name of Anabaptists. Of one of these classes he writes thus:—
“Some have endured great torments, because they would not keep
Sundays and festival days, in despite of Antichrist: seeing
they were days appointed by Antichrist, they would not hold
forth any thing which is like unto him. Others observe these
days, but it is out of charity.”[927]
Thus it is seen that within the limits of the old Roman Empire, and in
the midst of those countries that submitted to the rule of the pope, God
reserved unto himself a people that did not bow the knee to Baal, and
among these the Bible Sabbath was observed from age to age. We are now
to search for the Sabbath among those who were never subjected to the
Roman pontiff. In Central Africa, from the first part of the Christian
era—possibly from the time of the conversion of the Ethiopian officer of
great authority[928] but very certainly as early as A. D. 330[929]—have
existed the churches of Abyssinia and Ethiopia. About the time of the
accession of the Roman Bishop to supremacy, they were lost sight of by
the nations of Europe. “Encompassed on all sides,” says Gibbon, “by the
enemies of their religion, the Ethiopians slept near a thousand years,
forgetful of the world, by whom they were forgotten.”[930] In the latter
part of the fifteenth century, they were again brought to the knowledge
of the world by the discovery of Portuguese navigators. Undoubtedly
they have been greatly affected by the dense darkness of pagan and
Mahometan errors with which they are encompassed; and in many respects
they have lost the pure and spiritual religion of our divine Redeemer. A
modern traveler says of them: “They have divers errors and many ancient
truths.”[931] Michael Geddes says of them:—
“The Abyssinians do hold the Scriptures to be the perfect rule
of the Christian faith; insomuch that they deny it to be in
the power of a general council to oblige people to believe
anything as an article of faith without an express warrant from
thence.”[932]
They practice circumcision, but for other reasons than that of a
religious duty.[933] Geddes further states their views:—
“Transubstantiation and the adoration of the consecrated bread
in the sacrament, were what the Abyssinians abhorred.... They
deny purgatory, and know nothing of confirmation and extreme
unction; they condemn graven images; they keep both Saturday
and Sunday.”[934]
Their views of the Sabbath are stated by the ambassador of the king of
Ethiopia, at the court of Lisbon, in the following words, explaining
their abstinence from all labor on that day:—
“Because God, after he had finished the creation of the world,
rested thereon; which day, as God would have it called the holy
of holies, so the not celebrating thereof with great honor
and devotion, seems to be plainly contrary to God’s will and
precept, who will suffer heaven and earth to pass away sooner
than his word; and that especially, since Christ came not to
destroy the law, but to fulfill it. It is not therefore in
imitation of the Jews, but in obedience to Christ and his holy
apostles, that we observe that day.”[935]
The ambassador states their reasons for first-day observance in these
words:—
“We do observe the Lord’s day after the manner of all other
Christians in memory of Christ’s resurrection.”[936]
He had no scripture to offer in support of this festival, and evidently
rested its observance upon tradition. This account was given by the
ambassador in 1534. In the early part of the next century the emperor of
Abyssinia was induced to submit to the pope in these words: “I confess
that the pope is the vicar of Christ, the successor of St. Peter, and the
sovereign of the world. To him I swear true obedience, and at his feet I
offer my person and kingdom.”[937] No sooner had the Roman bishop thus
brought the emperor to submit to him than that potentate was compelled
to gratify the popish hatred of the Sabbath by an edict forbidding its
further observance. In the words of Geddes, he “set forth a proclamation
prohibiting all his subjects upon severe penalties to observe Saturday
any longer.”[938] Or as Gibbon expresses it, “The Abyssinians were
enjoined to work and to play on the Sabbath.” But the tyranny of the
Romanists, after a terrible struggle, caused their overthrow and
banishment, and the restoration of the ancient faith. The churches
resounded with a song of triumph, “‘that the sheep of Ethiopia were now
delivered from the hyænas of the West;’ and the gates of that solitary
realm were forever shut against the arts, the science, and the fanaticism
of Europe.”[939]
We have proved in a former chapter that the Sabbath was extensively
observed as late as the middle of the fifth century in the so-called
Catholic church, especially in that portion most intimately connected
with the Abyssinians; and that from various causes, Sunday obtained
certain Sabbatic honors, in consequence of which the two days were
called sisters. We have also shown in another chapter that the effectual
suppression of the Sabbath in Europe is mainly due to papal influence.
And so for a thousand years we have been tracing its history in the
records of those men which the church of Rome has sought to kill.
These facts are strikingly corroborated by the case of the Abyssinians.
In consequence of their location in the interior of Africa, the
Abyssinians ceased to be known to the rest of Christendom about the fifth
century. At this point, the Sabbath and the Sunday in the Catholic church
were counted sisters. One thousand years later, these African churches
are visited, and though surrounded by the thick darkness of pagan and
Mahometan superstition, and somewhat affected thereby, they are found at
the end of this period holding the Sabbath and first-day substantially
as held by the Catholic church when they were lost sight of by it. The
Catholics of Europe on the contrary had, in the meantime, trampled the
ancient Sabbath in the dust. Why was this great contrast? Simply because
the pope ruled in Europe, while central Africa, whatever else it may have
suffered, was not cursed with his presence nor with his influence. But
so soon as the pope learned of the existence of the Abyssinian churches,
he sought to gain control of them, and when he had gained it, one of
his first acts was to suppress the Sabbath! In the end, the Abyssinians
regained their independence, and thenceforward till the present time have
held fast the Sabbath of the Lord.
The Armenians of the East Indies are peculiarly worthy of our attention.
J. W. Massie, M. R. I. A., says of the East Indian Christians:—
“Remote from the busy haunts of commerce, or the populous
seats of manufacturing industry, they may be regarded as the
eastern Piedmontese, the Vallois of Hindoostan, the witnesses
prophesying in sackcloth through revolving centuries, though
indeed their bodies lay as dead in the streets of the city
which they had once peopled.”[940]
Geddes says of those in Malabar:—
“The three great doctrines of popery, the pope’s supremacy,
transubstantiation, the adoration of images, were never
believed nor practiced at any time in this ancient apostolical
church.... I think one may venture to say that before the time
of the late Reformation, there was no church that we know of,
no, not that of the Vaudois, ... that had so few errors in
doctrine as the church of Malabar.” He adds concerning those
churches that “were never within the bounds of the Roman
Empire,” “It is in those churches that we are to meet with the
least of the leaven of popery.”[941]
Mr. Massie further describes these Christians:—
“The creed which these representatives of an ancient line of
Christians cherished was not in conformity with papal decrees,
and has with difficulty been squared with the thirty-nine
articles of the Anglican episcopacy. Separated from the western
world for a thousand years, they were naturally ignorant of
many novelties introduced by the councils and decrees of the
Lateran; and _their conformity with the faith and practice of
the first ages_, laid them open to the unpardonable guilt of
heresy and schism, as estimated by the church of Rome. ‘We
are Christians and not idolaters,’ was their expressive reply
when required to do homage to the image of the Virgin Mary....
La Croze states them at fifteen hundred churches, and as many
towns and villages. They refused to recognize the pope, and
declared they had never heard of him; they asserted the purity
and primitive truth of their faith since they came, and their
bishops had for thirteen hundred years been sent from the place
where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians.”[942]
The Sabbatarian character of these Christians is hinted by Mr. Yeates.
He says that Saturday “amongst them is a festival day, _agreeable to the
ancient practice of the church_.”[943]
“The ancient practice of the church,” as we have seen, was to hallow
the seventh day in memory of the Creator’s rest. This practice has been
suppressed wherever the great apostasy has had power to do it. But the
Christians of the East Indies, like those of Abyssinia, have lived
sufficiently remote from Rome to be preserved in some degree from its
blasting influence. The same fact is further hinted by the same writer in
the following language:—
“The inquisition was set up at Goa in the Indies, at the
instance of Francis Xaverius [a famous Romish saint] who
signified by letters to Pope John III., Nov. 10, 1545, ‘That
the JEWISH WICKEDNESS spread every day more and more in the
parts of the East Indies subject to the kingdom of Portugal,
and therefore he earnestly besought the said king, that to cure
so great an evil he would take care to send the office of the
inquisition into those countries.’”[944]
“The Jewish wickedness” was doubtless the observance of Saturday as “a
festival day agreeable to the ancient practice of the church” of which
this author had just spoken. The history of the past, as we have seen,
shows the hatred of the papal church toward the Sabbath. And the struggle
of that church to suppress the Sabbath in Abyssinia, and to subject that
people to the pope which at this very point of time was just commencing,
shows that the Jesuits would not willingly tolerate Sabbatic observance
in the East Indies, even though united with the observance of Sunday
also.
It appears therefore that this Jesuit missionary desired the pope and the
king of Portugal to establish the inquisition in that part of the Indies
subject to Portugal, in order to root out the Sabbath from those ancient
churches. The inquisition was established in answer to this prayer, and
Xavier was subsequently canonized as a saint! Nothing can more clearly
show the malignity of the Roman pontiff toward the Sabbath of the Lord;
and nothing more clearly illustrates the kind of men that he canonizes as
saints.
Since the time of Xavier, the East Indies have fallen under British rule.
A distinguished clergyman of the church of England some years since
visited the British Empire in India, for the purpose of acquainting
himself with these churches. He gave the following deeply interesting
sketch of these ancient Christians, and in it particularly marks their
Sabbatarian character:—
“The history of the Armenian church is very interesting.
Of all the Christians in Central Asia, they have preserved
themselves most free from Mahometan and papal corruptions. The
pope assailed them for a time with great violence, but with
little effect. The churches in lesser Armenia indeed consented
to an union, which did not long continue; but those in Persian
Armenia maintained their independence; and they retain their
ancient Scriptures, doctrines, and worship, to this day. ‘It
is marvelous,’ says an intelligent traveler who was much among
them, ‘how the Armenian Christians have preserved their faith,
equally against the vexatious oppression of the Mahometans,
their sovereigns, and against the persuasions of the Romish
church, which for more than two centuries has endeavored,
by missionaries, priests and monks, to attach them to her
communion. It is impossible to describe the artifices and
expenses of the court of Rome to effect this object, but all in
vain.’
“The Bible was translated into the Armenian language in the
fifth century, under very auspicious circumstances, the history
of which has come down to us. It has been allowed by competent
judges of the language, to be a most faithful translation. La
Cruze calls it the ‘Queen of Versions.’ This Bible has ever
remained in the possession of the Armenian people; and many
illustrious instances of genuine and enlightened piety occur in
their history....
“The Armenians in Hindoostan are our own subjects. They
acknowledge our government in India, as they do that of the
Sophi in Persia; and they are entitled to our regard. They
have preserved the Bible in its purity; and their doctrines
are, as far as the author knows, the doctrines of the Bible.
Besides, they maintain the solemn observance of Christian
worship throughout our empire, ON THE SEVENTH DAY, and they
have as many spires pointing to heaven among the Hindoos as we
ourselves. Are such a people then entitled to no acknowledgment
on our part, as fellow Christians? Are they forever to be
ranked by us with Jews, Mahometans, and Hindoos?”[945]
It has been said, however, that Buchanan might have intended Sunday by
the term “seventh day.” This is a very unreasonable interpretation of
his words. Episcopalian clergymen are not accustomed to call Sunday
the seventh day. We have, however, testimony which cannot with candor
be explained away. It is that of Purchas, written in the seventeenth
century. The author speaks of several sects of the eastern Christians
“continuing from ancient times,” as Syrians, Jacobites, Nestorians,
Maronites, and Armenians. Of the Syrians, or Surians, as he variously
spells the name, who, from his relation, appear to be identical with the
Armenians, he says:—
“They keep Saturday holy, nor esteem Saturday fast lawful but
on Easter even. They have solemn service on Saturdays, eat
flesh, and feast it bravely like the Jews.”[946]
This author speaks of these Christians disrespectfully, but he uses the
uncandid statements of their adversaries, which, indeed, are no worse
than those often made in these days concerning those who hallow the
Bible Sabbath. These facts clearly attest the continued observance of
the Sabbath during the whole period of the Dark Ages. The church of Rome
was indeed able to exterminate the Sabbath from its own communion, but
it was retained by the true people of God, who were measurably hidden
from the papacy in the wilds of Central Europe; while those African and
East Indian churches, that were never within the limits of the pope’s
dominion, have steadfastly retained the Sabbath to the present day.
CHAPTER XXII.
POSITION OF THE REFORMERS CONCERNING THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY.
The Reformation arose in the Catholic church—The Sabbath had
been crushed out of that church, and innumerable festivals
established in its stead—Sunday as observed by Luther,
Melancthon, Zwingle, Beza, Bucer, Cranmer, and Tyndale—The
position of Calvin stated at length and illustrated—Knox agreed
with Calvin—Sunday in Scotland A. D. 1601—How we should view
the Reformers.
The great Reformation of the sixteenth century arose from the bosom of
the Catholic church itself. From that church the Sabbath had long been
extirpated; and instead of that merciful institution ordained by the
divine Law-giver for the rest and refreshment of mankind, and that man
might acknowledge God as his Creator, the papacy had ordained innumerable
festivals, which, as a terrible burden, crushed the people to the earth.
These festivals are thus enumerated by Dr. Heylyn:—
“These holy days as they were named particularly in Pope
Gregory’s decretal, so was a perfect list made of them in the
Synod of Lyons, A. D. 1244, which being celebrated with a
great concourse of people from all parts of Christendom, the
canons and decrees thereof began forthwith to find a general
admittance. The holy days allowed of there, were these that
follow; viz., the feast of Christ’s nativity, St. Stephen,
St. John the evangelist, the Innocents, St. Sylvester, the
circumcision of our Lord, the Epiphany, Easter, together with
the week precedent, and the week succeeding, the three days in
rogation week, the day of Christ’s ascension, Whitsunday, with
the two days after, St. John the Baptist, the feasts of all the
twelve apostles, all the festivities of our Lady, St. Lawrence,
ALL THE LORD’S DAYS IN THE YEAR, St. Michael the Archangel, All
Saints, St. Martin’s, the wakes, or dedication of particular
churches, together with the feasts of such topical or local
saints which some particular people had been pleased to honor
with a day particular amongst themselves. On these and every
one of them, the people were restrained as before was said from
many several kinds of work, on pain of ecclesiastical censures
to be laid on them which did offend, unless on some emergent
causes, either of charity or necessity they were dispensed with
for so doing.... Peter de Aliaco, Cardinal of Cambray, in a
discourse by him exhibited to the council of Constance [A. D.
1416] made public suit unto the fathers there assembled, that
there might [be] a stop in that kind hereafter; as also that
excepting Sundays and the greater festivals it might be lawful
for the people, after the end of divine service to attend their
business; the poor especially, as having little time enough
on the working days to get their living. But these were only
the expressions of well-wishing men. The popes were otherwise
resolved, and did not only keep the holy days which they found
established, in the same state in which they found them, but
added others daily as they saw occasion.... Thus stood it as
before I said, both for the doctrine and the practice, till men
began to look into the errors and abuses in the Roman church
with a more serious eye than before they did.”[947]
Such was the state of things when the reformers began their labors. That
they should give up these festivals and return to the observance of the
ancient Sabbath, would be expecting too much of men educated in the bosom
of the Romish church. Indeed, it ought not to surprise us that, while
they were constrained to strike down the authority of these festivals,
they should nevertheless retain the most important of them in their
observance. The reformers spoke on this matter as follows: The Confession
of the Swiss churches declares that,
“The observance of the Lord’s day is founded not on any
commandment of God, but on the authority of the church; and,
That the church may alter the day at pleasure.”[948]
We further learn that,
“In the Augsburg Confession which was drawn up by Melancthon
[and approved by Luther], to the question, ‘What ought we to
think of the Lord’s day?’ it is answered that the Lord’s day,
Easter, Whitsuntide, and other such holy days, ought to be kept
because they are appointed by the church, that all things may
be done in order; but that the observance of them is not to
be thought necessary to salvation, nor the violation of them,
if it be done without offense to others, to be regarded as a
sin.”[949]
Zwingle declared “that it was lawful on the Lord’s day, after divine
service, for any man to pursue his labors.”[950] Beza taught that “no
cessation of work on the Lord’s day is required of Christians.”[951]
Bucer goes further yet, “and doth not only call it a superstition, but an
apostasy from Christ to think that working on the Lord’s day, in itself
considered, is a sinful thing.”[952] And Cranmer, in his Catechism,
published in 1548, says:—
“We now keep no more the Sabbath on Saturday as the Jews do;
but we observe the Sunday, and certain other days as the
magistrates do judge convenient, whom in this thing we ought to
obey.”[953]
Tyndale said:—
“As for the Sabbath, we be lords over the Sabbath, and may yet
change it into Monday, or into any other day as we see need,
or may make every tenth day holy day only if we see cause
why.”[954]
It is plain that both Cranmer and Tyndale believed that the ancient
Sabbath was abolished, and that Sunday was only a human ordinance which
it was in the power of the magistrates and the church lawfully to change
whenever they saw cause for so doing. And Dr. Hessey gives the opinion
of Zwingle respecting the present power of each individual church to
transfer the so-called Lord’s day to another day, whenever necessity
urges, as, for example, in harvest time. Thus Zwingle says:—
“If we would have the Lord’s day so bound to time that it
shall be wickedness to transfer it to another time, in which
resting from our labors equally as in that, we may hear the
word of God, if necessity haply shall so require, this day so
solicitously observed, would obtrude on us as a ceremony. For
we are no way bound to time, but time ought so to serve us,
that it is lawful, and permitted to each church, when necessity
urges (as is usual to be done in harvest time), to transfer the
solemnity and rest of the Lord’s day, or Sabbath, to some other
day.”[955]
Zwingle could not, therefore, have considered Sunday as a divinely
appointed memorial of the resurrection, or, indeed, as anything but a
church festival.
John Calvin said, respecting the origin of the Sunday festival:—
“However, the ancients have not without sufficient reason
substituted what _we_ call the Lord’s day in the room of the
Sabbath. For since the resurrection of the Lord is the end and
consummation of that true rest, which was adumbrated by the
ancient Sabbath; the same day which put an end to the shadows,
admonishes Christians not to adhere to a shadowy ceremony. Yet
I do not lay so much stress on the septenary number that I
would oblige the church to an invariable adherence to it; nor
will I condemn those churches, which have other solemn days
for their assemblies, provided they keep at a distance from
superstition.”[956]
It is worthy of notice that Calvin does not assign to Christ and his
disciples the establishment of Sunday in the place of the Sabbath. He
says this was done by the “ancients,”[957] or as another translates it,
“the old fathers.” Nor does he say “the day which _John_ called the
Lord’s day,” but “the day which _we_ call the Lord’s day.” And what is
worthy of particular notice he did not insist that the day which should
be appropriated to worship should be one day in every seven; for he
was not tied to “the septenary number.” The day might come once in six
days, or once in eight. And this proves conclusively that he did not
regard Sunday as a divine institution in the proper sense of the word;
for if he had, he would most assuredly have felt that the festival must
be septenary, that is, weekly, and that he must urge “the church to an
invariable adherence to it.” But Calvin does not leave the matter here.
He condemns as “FALSE PROPHETS” those who attempt to enforce the Sunday
festival by means of the fourth commandment; and who to do this say
that the ceremonial part, which requires the observance of the definite
seventh day, is abolished, while the moral part, which simply commands
the observance of one day in seven, still remains in force. Here are his
words:—
“Thus vanish all the dreams of false prophets, who in past
ages have infected the people with a Jewish notion, affirming
that nothing but the ceremonial part of the commandment, which
according to them is the appointment of the seventh day, has
been abrogated, but that the moral part of it, that is the
observance of one day in seven, still remains. But this is only
changing the day in contempt of the Jews, while they retain the
same opinion of the holiness of a day.”[958]
Yet these very “dreams of false prophets,” to use the words of Calvin,
constitute the foundation of the modern doctrine of the change of the
Sabbath. For whatever may be said of first-day sacredness in the New
Testament, the fourth commandment can only be made to recognize that
day by means of this very doctrine of one day in seven which Calvin
so sharply denounces. Now I state another important fact. Calvin’s
commentaries on the New Testament cover all the books from which
quotations are made in behalf of Sunday except the book of Revelation.
What does Calvin say concerning the change of the Sabbath in the record
of Christ’s resurrection?[959] Not one word. He does not even hint at
any sacredness in the day, nor any commemoration of the day. Does he say
that the meeting “after eight days” was upon Sunday? He does not say what
day it was.[960] What does he say of Sunday in treating of the day of
Pentecost?[961] Nothing. He does not so much as say that this festival
was on the first day of the week. What does he say of the breaking of
bread at Troas? He thinks it took place upon the ancient Sabbath! He
says:—
“Either he doth mean the first day of the week, which was
next after the Sabbath, or else some certain Sabbath. Which
latter thing may seem to me more probable; for this cause,
because _that day was more fit for an assembly, according to
custom_.”[962]
He says, however, that this place might “very well” be translated “the
morrow after the Sabbath.” But he adheres to his own translation, “one
day of the Sabbaths,” and not “first day of the week.” He says further:—
“For to what end is there mentioned of the Sabbath, save only
that he may note the opportunity and choice of the time? Also,
it is a likely matter that Paul waited for the Sabbath, that
the day before his departure he might the more easily gather
all the disciples into one place.”[963]
“Therefore, I think thus, that they had appointed a solemn
day for the celebrating of the holy supper of the Lord among
themselves, which might be commodious for them all.”[964]
This shows conclusively that Calvin believed the Sabbath, and not the
first day of the week, to have been the day for meetings in the apostolic
church. But what does he say of the laying by in store on the first day
of the week? He says that Paul’s precept relates, not to the first day
of the week, but to the Sabbath! And he marks the Sabbath as the day on
which the sacred assemblies were held, and the communion celebrated, and
says that on account of these things this was the most convenient day for
collecting their contribution. Thus he writes:—
“_On one of the Sabbaths._ The end is this—that they may have
their alms ready in time. He therefore exhorts them not to
wait till he came, as any thing that is done suddenly, and in
a bustle, is not done well, but to contribute on the Sabbath
what might seem good, and according as every one’s ability
might enable—that is on the day on which they held their sacred
assemblies.[965]
“For he has an eye, first of all, to convenience, and farther,
that the sacred assembly, in which the communion of saints
is celebrated, might be an additional spur to them. Nor am I
inclined to admit the view taken by Chrysostom—that the term
_Sabbath_ is employed here to mean the _Lord’s day_ (Rev.
1:10), for the probability is, that the apostles, at the
beginning, retained the day that was already in use, but that
afterwards, constrained by the superstition of the Jews, they
set aside that day, and substituted another. Now the _Lord’s
day_ was made choice of chiefly because our Lord’s resurrection
put an end to the shadows of the law. Hence the day itself puts
us in mind of our Christian liberty.”[966]
These words are very remarkable. They show first, that by the Sabbath
day Calvin means, not the first day, but the seventh; second, that in his
judgment as late as the time of this epistle, and of the meeting at Troas
[A. D. 60], the Sabbath was the day for the sacred assemblies of the
Christians, and for the celebration of the communion; third, “but that
AFTERWARDS, constrained by THE SUPERSTITION OF THE JEWS, they set aside
that day, and substituted another.”
Calvin did not therefore believe that Christ changed the Sabbath to
Sunday to commemorate his resurrection; for he says that the resurrection
abolished the Sabbath,[967] and yet he believes that the Sabbath was the
sacred day of the Christians to the entire exclusion of Sunday as late as
the year 60. Nor could he believe that the apostles set apart Sunday to
commemorate the resurrection of Christ, for he thinks that they did not
make choice of that day till after the year 60, and even then they did it
merely because constrained so to do by the superstition of the Jews!
Dr. Hessey illustrates Calvin’s ideas of Sunday observance by the
following incident:—
“Knox was the intimate friend of Calvin—visited Calvin, and, it
is said, on one occasion found him enjoying the recreation of
bowls on Sunday.”[968]
Without doubt Calvin was acting in exact harmony with his ideas of the
nature of the Sunday festival. But the famous case of Michael Servetus
furnishes us a still more pointed illustration of his views of the
sacredness of that day. Servetus was arrested in Geneva on the personal
application of John Calvin to the magistrates of that city. Such is the
statement of Theodore Beza, the life-long friend of Calvin.[969] Beza’s
translator adds to this fact the following remarkable statement:—
“Promptness induced him to have this heresiarch arrested on a
Sunday.”[970]
The same fact is stated by Robinson:—
“While he waited for a boat to cross the lake in his way to
Zurich, by some means Calvin got intelligence of his arrival;
and although it was on a Sunday, yet he prevailed upon the
chief syndic to arrest and imprison him. On that day by the
laws of Geneva no person could be arrested except for a capital
crime; but this difficulty was easily removed, for John Calvin
pretended that Servetus was a heretic, and that heresy was a
capital crime.”[971]
“The doctor was arrested and imprisoned on Sunday the
thirteenth of August [A. D. 1553]. That very day he was brought
into court.”[972]
Calvin’s own words respecting the arrest are these:—
“I will not deny but that he was made prisoner upon my
application.”[973]
The warmest friends of first-day sacredness will not deny that the
least sinful part of this transaction was that it occurred on Sunday.
Nevertheless the fact that Calvin caused the arrest of Servetus on that
day shows that he had no conviction that the day possessed any inherent
sacredness.
John Barclay,[974] a learned man of Scotch descent, and a moderate Roman
Catholic, who was born soon after the death of Calvin, and whose early
life was spent in eastern France, not very remote from Geneva, published
the statement that Calvin and his friends at Geneva
“Debated whether the reformed, for the purpose of estranging
themselves more completely from the Romish church, should not
adopt Thursday as the Christian Sabbath.”
Another reason assigned by Calvin for this proposed change was,
“That it would be a proper instance of Christian liberty.”[975]
This statement has been credited by many learned Protestants,[976] some
of whom must be acknowledged as men of candor and judgment. But Dr.
Twisse[977] discredits Barclay because he did not name the individuals
with whom Calvin consulted, and produce them as witnesses; and because
that King James I. of England at one time suspected Barclay of treachery
toward him. But no such crime was ever proved, nor does it appear that
the king continued always to hold him in that light.[978] His veracity
has never been impeached. The statement of Barclay may possibly be
incorrect, but it is not inconsistent with Calvin’s doctrine that the
church is not tied to a festival that should come once in _seven_ days,
even as Tyndale said that they could change the Sabbath into Monday or
could “make every tenth day holy day, only if we see cause why,” and it
is in perfect harmony with Calvin’s idea of Sunday sacredness as shown in
his acts already noticed. Like the other reformers, Calvin is not always
consistent with himself in his statements. Nevertheless, we have his
judgment concerning the several texts which are used to prove the change
of the Sabbath, and also respecting the theory that the commandment may
be used to enforce, not the seventh day, but one day in seven, and it is
fatal to the modern first-day doctrine.
John Knox, the great Scottish reformer, was the intimate friend of
Calvin, with whom he lived at Geneva during a portion of his exile from
Scotland. Though the foundation of the Presbyterian church of Scotland
was laid by Knox, or rather by Calvin, for Knox carried out Calvin’s
system, and though that church is now very strict in the observance of
Sunday as the Sabbath, yet Knox himself was of Calvin’s mind as to the
obligation of that day. The original Confession of Faith of that church
was drawn up by Knox in A. D. 1560.[979] In that document Knox states the
duties of the first table of the law as follows:—
“To have one God, to worship and honor him; to call upon him in
all our troubles; to reverence his holy name; to hear his word;
to believe the same; to communicate with his holy sacraments,
are the works of the first table.”[980]
It is plain that Knox believed the Sabbath commandment to have been
stricken out of the first table. Dr. Hessey, after speaking of certain
references to Sunday in a subsequent work of his, makes this statement
respecting the present doctrine of the Sabbath in the Presbyterian
church:—
“On the whole, whatever the language held at present in
Scotland may be, it is certainly not owing to the great man
whom the Scotch regard as the apostle of the Reformation in
their country.”[981]
That church now holds Sunday to be the divinely authorized memorial of
the resurrection of Christ, enforced by the authority of the fourth
commandment. But not thus was it held by Calvin and Knox. A British
writer states the condition of things with respect to Sunday in Scotland
about the year 1601:—
“At the commencement of the seventeenth century, tailors,
shoemakers, and bakers in Aberdeen were accustomed to work
till eight or nine every Sunday morning. While violation
of the prescribed ritual observances was punished by fine,
the exclusive consecration of the Sunday which subsequently
prevailed was then unknown. Indeed, there were regular
‘play Sundays’ in Scotland till the end of the sixteenth
century.”[982]
But the Presbyterian church, after Knox’s time, effected an entire change
with respect to Sunday observance. The same writer says:—
“The Presbyterian Kirk introduced into Scotland the Judaical
observance of the Sabbath [Sunday], retaining with some
inconsistency the Sunday festival of the Catholic church,
while rejecting all the other feasts which its authority had
consecrated.”[983]
Dr. Hessey shows the method of doing this. He says:—
“Of course some difficulties had to be got over. The Sabbath
was the seventh day, Sunday was the first day of the week. But
an ingenious theory that one day in seven was the essence of
the fourth commandment speedily reconciled them to this.”[984]
The circumstances under which this new doctrine was framed, the name
of its author, and the date of its publication, will be given in their
place. That the body of the reformers should have failed to recognize the
authority of the fourth commandment, and that they did not turn men from
the Romish festivals to the Sabbath of the Lord, is a matter of regret
rather than of surprise. The impropriety of making them the standard of
divine truth is forcibly set forth in the following language:—
“Luther and Calvin reformed many abuses, especially in the
discipline of the church, and also some gross corruptions in
doctrine; but they left other things of far greater moment just
as they found them.... It was great merit in them to go as far
as they did, and it is not they but we who are to blame if
their authority induce us to go no further. We should rather
imitate them in the boldness and spirit with which they called
in question and rectified so many long-established errors; and
availing ourselves of their labors, make further progress than
they were able to do. Little reason have we to allege their
name, authority, and example, when they did a great deal and we
do nothing at all. In this we are not imitating them, but those
who opposed and counteracted them, willing to keep things as
they were.”[985]
CHAPTER XXIII.
LUTHER AND CARLSTADT.
The case of Carlstadt worthy of notice—His difficulty with
Luther respecting the Epistle of James—His boldness in
standing with Luther against the pope—What Carlstadt did
during Luther’s captivity—How far he came under fanaticism—Who
acted with Carlstadt in the removal of images from the
churches, the suppression of masses, and the abolition of
the law of celibacy—Luther on returning restored the mass
and suppressed the simple ordinance of the supper—Carlstadt
submitted to Luther’s correction—After two years, Carlstadt
felt constrained to oppose Luther respecting the supper—The
grounds of their difference respecting the Reformation—Luther
said Christ’s flesh and blood were literally present IN the
bread and wine—Carlstadt said they were simply represented
by them—The controversy which followed—Carlstadt refuted by
banishment—His cruel treatment in exile—He was not connected
with the disorderly conduct of the Anabaptists—Why Carlstadt
has been so harshly judged—D’Aubigné’s estimate of this
controversy—Carlstadt’s labors in Switzerland—Luther writes
against him—Luther and Carlstadt reconciled—D’Aubigné’s
estimate of Carlstadt as a scholar and a Christian—Carlstadt a
Sabbatarian—Wherein Luther benefited Carlstadt—Wherein Luther
might have been benefited by Carlstadt.
It is worthy of notice that at least one of the reformers of considerable
prominence—Carlstadt—was a Sabbatarian. It is impossible to read the
records of the Reformation without the conviction that Carlstadt was
desirous of a more thorough work of reformation than was Luther. And that
while Luther was disposed to tolerate certain abuses lest the Reformation
should be endangered, Carlstadt was at all hazards for a complete return
to the Holy Scriptures.
The Sabbatarian principles of Carlstadt, his intimate connection with
Luther, his prominence in the early history of the Reformation, and the
important bearing of Luther’s decision concerning the Sabbath upon the
entire history of the Protestant church, render the former worthy of
notice in the history of the Sabbath. We shall give his record in the
exact words of the best historians, none of whom were in sympathy with
his observance of the seventh day. The manner in which they state his
faults shows that they were not partial toward him. Shortly after Luther
began to preach against the merit of good works, his deep interest in
the work of delivering men from popish thralldom led him to deny the
inspiration of some portion of those scriptures which were quoted against
him. Dr. Sears thus states the case:—
“Luther was so zealous to maintain the doctrine of
justification by faith, that he was prepared even to call in
question the authority of some portions of Scripture, which
seemed to him not to be reconcilable with it. To the Epistle
of James, especially, his expressions indicate the strongest
repugnance.”[986]
Before Luther’s captivity in the castle of Wartburg, a dispute had arisen
between himself and Carlstadt on this very subject. It is recorded of
Carlstadt that in the year 1520,
“He published a treatise ‘Concerning the Canon of Scripture,’
which, although defaced by bitter attacks on Luther, was
nevertheless an able work, setting forth the great principle of
Protestantism, viz., the paramount authority of Scripture. He
also at this time contended for the authority of the Epistle
of St. James, against Luther. On the publication of the bull
of Leo X. against the reformers, Carlstadt showed a real and
honest courage in standing firm with Luther. His work on ‘Papal
Sanctity’ (1520) attacks the infallibility of the pope on the
basis of the Bible.”[987]
Luther, as is well known, while returning from the Diet of Worms, was
seized by the agents of the Elector of Saxony, and hidden from his
enemies in Wartburg Castle. We read of Carlstadt at this time as follows:—
“In 1521, during Luther’s confinement in the Wartburg,
Carlstadt had almost sole control of the reform movement at
Wittemberg, and was supreme in the university. He attacked
monachism and celibacy in a treatise ‘Concerning Celibacy,
Monachism, and Widowhood.’ His next point of assault was the
Mass, and a riot of students and young citizens against the
Mass soon followed. On Christmas, 1521, he gave the sacrament
in both kinds to the laity, and in German; and in January,
1522, he married. His headlong zeal led him to do whatever he
came to believe right, at once and arbitrarily. But he soon
outran Luther, and one of his great mistakes was in putting the
Old Testament on the same footing as the New. On Jan. 24, 1522,
Carlstadt obtained the adoption of a new church constitution at
Wittemberg, which is of interest only as the first Protestant
organization of the Reformation.”[988]
There were present at this time in Wittemberg certain fanatical teachers,
who, from the town whence they came, were called “the prophets of
Zwickau.” They brought Carlstadt for a time so far under their influence,
that he concluded academical degrees to be sinful, and that, as the
inspiration of the Spirit was sufficient, there was no need of human
learning. He therefore advised the students of the university to return
to their homes.[989] That institution was in danger of dissolution. Such
was Carlstadt’s course in Luther’s absence. With the exception of this
last movement, his acts were in themselves right.
The changes made at Wittemberg during Luther’s absence, whether timely or
not, are generally set down to Carlstadt’s account, and said to have been
made by him on his individual responsibility, and in a fanatical manner.
But this was quite otherwise. Dr. Maclaine thus states the case:—
“The reader may perhaps imagine, from Dr. Mosheim’s account of
this matter, that Carlstadt introduced these changes merely by
his own authority; but this was far from being the case; the
suppression of private masses, the removal of images out of the
churches, the abolition of the law which imposed celibacy upon
the clergy; which are the changes hinted at by our historian as
rash and perilous, were effected by Carlstadt, in conjunction
with Bugenhagius, Melancthon, Jonas Amsdorf, and others, and
were confirmed by the authority of the Elector of Saxony;
so that there is some reason to apprehend that one of the
principal causes of Luther’s displeasure at these changes, was
their being introduced in his absence; unless we suppose that
he had not so far shaken off the fetters of superstition, as to
be sensible of the absurdity and the pernicious consequences of
the use of images.”[990]
Carlstadt had given the cup to the laity of which they had long been
deprived by Rome. He had set aside the worship of the consecrated bread.
Dr. Sears rehearses this work of Carlstadt, and then tells us what Luther
did concerning it on his return. These are his words:—
“He [Carlstadt] had so far restored the sacrament of the Lord’s
supper as to distribute the wine as well as the bread to the
laity. Luther, ‘in order not to offend weak consciences,’
insisted on distributing the bread only, and prevailed. He
[Carlstadt] rejected the practice of elevating and adoring the
host. Luther allowed it, and introduced it again.”[991]
The position of Carlstadt was at this time very trying. He had not
received “many things taught by the new teachers” from Zwickau. But
he had publicly taught some of their fanatical ideas relative to the
influence of the Spirit of God superseding the necessity of study. But
in the suppression of the idolatrous services of the Romanists, he was
essentially right. He had the pain to see much of this set up again.
Moreover the elector would not allow him either to preach or write upon
the points wherein he differed from Luther. D’Aubigné states his course
thus:—
“Nevertheless, he sacrificed his self-love for the sake of
peace, restrained his desire to vindicate his doctrine, was
reconciled, at least in appearance, to his colleague [Luther],
and soon after resumed his studies in the university.”[992]
As Luther taught some doctrines which Carlstadt could not approve, he
felt at last that he must speak. Dr. Sears thus writes:—
“After Carlstadt had been compelled to keep silence, from 1522
to 1524, and to submit to the superior power and authority of
Luther, he could contain himself no longer. He, therefore,
left Wittemberg, and established a press at Jena, through
which he could, in a series of publications, give vent to his
convictions, so long pent up.”[993]
The principles at the foundation of their ideas of the Reformation were
these: Carlstadt insisted on rejecting everything in the Catholic church
not authorized in the Bible; Luther was determined to retain everything
not expressly forbidden. Dr. Sears thus states their primary differences:—
“Carlstadt maintained, that ‘we should not, in things
pertaining to God, regard what the multitude say or think, but
look simply to the word of God. Others,’ he adds, ‘say that,
on account of the weak, we should not _hasten_ to keep the
commands of God; but wait till they become wise and strong.’ In
regard to the ceremonies introduced into the church, he judged
as the Swiss reformers did, that all were to be rejected which
had not a warrant in the Bible. ‘It is sufficiently against the
Scriptures if you can find no ground for it in them.’
“Luther asserted, on the contrary, ‘Whatever is not against
the Scriptures is for the Scriptures, and the Scriptures for
it. Though Christ hath not commanded adoring of the host,
so neither hath he forbidden it.’ ‘Not so,’ said Carlstadt,
‘we are bound to the Bible, and no one may decide after the
thoughts of his own heart.’”[994]
It is of interest to know what was the subject which caused the
controversy between them, and what was the position of each. Dr. Maclaine
thus states the occasion of the conflict which now arose:—
“This difference of opinion between Carlstadt and Luther
concerning the eucharist, was the true cause of the violent
rupture between those two eminent men, and it tended
very little to the honor of the latter; for, however the
explication, which the former gave of the words of the
institution of the Lord’s supper, may appear forced, yet the
sentiments he entertained of that ordinance as a commemoration
of Christ’s death, and not as a celebration of his bodily
presence, in consequence of a consubstantiation with the bread
and wine, are infinitely more rational than the doctrine
of Luther, which is loaded with some of the most palpable
absurdities of transubstantiation; and if it be supposed that
Carlstadt strained the rule of interpretation too far, when
he alleged, that Christ pronounced the pronoun _this_ (in
the words _This is my body_) pointing to his body, and not
to the bread, what shall we think of Luther’s explaining the
nonsensical doctrine of consubstantiation by the similitude of
a red-hot iron, in which two elements are united, as the body
of Christ is with the bread of the eucharist?”[995]
Dr. Sears also states the occasion of this conflict in 1524:—
“The most important difference between him and Luther, and
that which most embittered the latter against him, related to
the Lord’s supper. He opposed not only transubstantiation, but
consubstantiation, the real presence, and the elevation and
adoration of the host. Luther rejected the first, asserted the
second and third, and allowed the other two. In regard to the
real presence, he says: ‘In the sacrament is the real body of
Christ and the real blood of Christ, so that even the unworthy
and ungodly partake of it; and “partake of it corporally” too,
and not spiritually as Carlstadt will have it.’”[996]
That Luther was the one chiefly in error in this controversy will be
acknowledged by nearly every one at the present day. D’Aubigné cannot
refrain from censuring him:—
“When once the question of the supper was raised, Luther
threw away the proper element of the Reformation, and took
his stand for _himself_ and _his church_ in an _exclusive
Lutheranism_.”[997]
The controversy is thus characterized by Dr. Sears:—
“A furious controversy ensued. Both parties exceeded the bounds
of Christian propriety and moderation. Carlstadt was now in
the vicinity of the Anabaptist tumults, excited by Muntzer. He
sympathized with them in some things, but disapproved of their
disorders. Luther made the most of this.”[998]
It is evident that in this contest Luther did not gain any decisive
advantage, even in the estimation of his friends. The Elector of Saxony
interfered and banished Carlstadt! D’Aubigné thus states the case:—
“He issued orders to deprive Carlstadt of his appointments, and
banished him, not only from Orlamund, but from the States of
the electorate.”[999]
“Luther had nothing to do with this sternness on the part of
the prince: it was foreign to his disposition,—and this he
afterward proved.”[1000]
Carlstadt, for maintaining the doctrine now held by almost all
Protestants, concerning the supper, and for denying Luther’s doctrine
that Christ is personally present in the bread, was rendered a homeless
wanderer for years. His banishment was in 1524. What followed is thus
described:—
“From this date until 1534 he wandered through Germany,
pursued by the persecuting opinions of both Lutherans and
Papists, and at times reduced to great straits by indigence
and unpopularity. But, although he always found sympathy and
hospitality among the Anabaptists, yet he is evidently clear
of the charge of complicity with Muntzer’s rebellion. Yet he
was forbidden to write, his life was sometimes in danger, and
he exhibits the melancholy spectacle of a man great and right
in many respects, but whose rashness, ambition, and insincere
zeal, together with many fanatical opinions, had put him under
the well-founded but immoderate censure of both friends and
foes.”[1001]
Such language seems quite unwarranted by the facts. There was no justice
in this persecution of Carlstadt. He did for a brief time hold some
fanatical ideas, but these he did not afterward maintain. The same writer
speaks further in the same strain:—
“It cannot be denied that in many respects he was apparently in
advance of Luther, but his error lay in his haste to subvert
and abolish the external forms and pomps before the hearts of
the people, and doubtless his own, were prepared by an internal
change. Biographies of him are numerous, and the Reformation no
doubt owes him much of good for which he has not the credit, as
it was overshadowed by the mischief he produced.”[1002]
Important truth relative to the services of Carlstadt is here stated,
but it is connected with intimations of evil which have no sufficient
foundation in fact. Dr. Sears speaks thus of the bitter language
concerning him:—
“For three centuries, Carlstadt’s moral character has been
treated somewhat as Luther’s would have been, if only Catholic
testimony had been heard. The party interested has been both
witness and judge. What if we were to judge of Zwingle’s
Christian character by Luther’s representations? The truth
is, Carlstadt hardly showed a worse spirit, or employed more
abusive terms toward Luther, than Luther did toward him.
Carlstadt knew that in many things the truth was on his side;
and yet, in these, no less than in others, he was crushed by
the civil power, which was on the side of Luther.”[1003]
D’Aubigné speaks thus of the contest between these two men:—
“Each turns against the error which, to his mind, seems most
noxious, and in assailing it, goes—it may be—beyond the truth.
But this being admitted, it is still true that both are right
in the prevailing turn of their thoughts, and though ranking in
different hosts, the two great teachers are nevertheless found
under the same standard—that of Jesus Christ, who alone is
TRUTH in the full import of that word.”[1004]
D’Aubigné says of them after Carlstadt had been banished:—
“It is impossible not to feel a pain at contemplating these two
men, once friends, and both worthy of our esteem, thus angrily
opposed.”[1005]
Sometime after Carlstadt’s banishment from Saxony he visited Switzerland.
D’Aubigné speaks of the result of his labors in that country, and what
Luther did toward him:—
“His instructions soon attracted an attention nearly equal to
that which had been excited by the earliest theses put forth by
Luther. Switzerland seemed almost gained over to his doctrine.
Bucer and Capito also appeared to adopt his views.
“Then it was that Luther’s indignation rose to its hight; and
he put forth one of the most powerful but also most OUTRAGEOUS
of his controversial writings,—his book ‘_Against the Celestial
Prophets_.’”[1006]
Dr. Sears also mentions the labors of Carlstadt in Switzerland, and
speaks of Luther’s uncandid book:—
“The work which he wrote against him, he entitled ‘The book
against the Celestial Prophets.’ This was uncandid; for the
controversy related chiefly to the sacrament of the supper.
In the south of Germany and in Switzerland, Carlstadt found
more adherents than Luther. Banished as an Anabaptist, he was
received as a Zwinglian.”[1007]
Dr. Maclaine tells something which followed, which is worthy of the
better nature of these two illustrious men:—
“Carlstadt, after his banishment from Saxony, composed a
treatise against enthusiasm in general, and against the
extravagant tenets and the violent proceedings of the
Anabaptists in particular. This treatise was even addressed
to Luther, who was so affected by it, that, repenting of his
unworthy treatment of Carlstadt, he pleaded his cause, and
obtained from the elector a permission for him to return into
Saxony.”[1008]
“After this reconciliation with Luther, he composed a treatise
on the eucharist, which breathes the most amiable spirit of
moderation and humility; and having perused the writings of
Zwingle, where he saw his own sentiments on that subject
maintained with the greatest perspicuity and force of evidence,
he repaired the second time to Zurich, and thence to Basil,
where he was admitted to the offices of pastor and professor of
divinity, and where, after having lived in the exemplary and
constant practice of every Christian virtue, he died, amidst
the warmest effusions of piety and resignation, on the 25th of
December, 1541.”[1009]
Of Carlstadt’s scholarship, and of his conscientiousness, D’Aubigné
speaks thus:—
“‘He was well acquainted,’ says Dr. Scheur, ‘with Latin, Greek,
and Hebrew;’ and Luther acknowledged him to be his superior
in learning. Endowed with great powers of mind, he sacrificed
to his convictions fame, station, country, and even his
bread.”[1010]
His Sabbatarian character is attested by Dr. White, lord bishop of Ely:—
“The same [the observance of the seventh day] likewise being
revived in Luther’s time by Carolastadius, Sternebergius, and
by some sectaries among the Anabaptists hath both then and
ever since been censured as Jewish and heretical.”[1011]
Dr. Sears alludes to Carlstadt’s observance of the seventh day, but as
is quite usual with first-day historians in such cases, does it in such
a manner as to leave the fact sufficiently obscure to be passed over
without notice by the general reader. He writes thus:—
“Carlstadt differed essentially from Luther in regard to the
use to be made of the Old Testament. With him, the law of
Moses was still binding. Luther, on the contrary, had a strong
aversion to what he calls a legal and Judaizing religion.
Carlstadt held to the divine authority of the Sabbath from the
Old Testament; Luther believed Christians were free to observe
any day as a Sabbath, provided they be uniform in observing
it.”[1012]
We have, however, Luther’s own statement respecting Carlstadt’s views of
the Sabbath. It is from his book “Against the Celestial Prophets:”—
“Indeed, if Carlstadt were to write further about the Sabbath,
Sunday would have to give way, and the Sabbath—that is to say,
Saturday—must be kept holy; he would truly make us Jews in all
things, and we should come to be circumcised: for that is true,
and cannot be denied, that he who deems it necessary to keep
one law of Moses, and keeps it as the law of Moses, must deem
all necessary, and keep them all.”[1013]
The various historians who treat of the difficulty between Luther and
Carlstadt, speak freely of the motives of each. But of such matters it is
best to speak little; the day of Judgment will show the hearts of men,
and we must wait till then. We may, however, freely speak of their acts,
and may with propriety name the things wherein each would have benefited
the other. Carlstadt’s errors at Wittemberg were not because he rejected
Luther’s help, but because he was deprived of it by Luther’s captivity.
Luther’s error in those things wherein Carlstadt was right were because
he saw it best to reject Carlstadt’s doctrine.
1. Carlstadt’s error in the removal of the images, the suppression of
masses, the abolition of monastic vows, or vows of celibacy, and in
giving the wine as well as the bread in the supper, and in performing the
service in German instead of Latin, if it was an error, was one of time
rather than of doctrine. Had Luther been with him, probably all would
have been deferred for some months or perhaps some years.
2. Carlstadt would probably have been saved by Luther’s presence from
coming under the influence of the Zwickau prophets. As it was, he did for
a brief season accept, not their teaching in general, but their doctrine
that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in believers renders human
learning vain and worthless. But in both these things Carlstadt submitted
to Luther’s correction. Had Luther regarded Carlstadt, he would have been
benefited in the following particulars:—
1. In his zeal for the doctrine of justification by faith, he would have
been saved from the denial of the inspiration of the epistle of James,
and would not have called it a “strawy or chaffy epistle.”[1014]
2. Instead of exchanging transubstantiation, which is the Romish doctrine
that the bread and wine of the supper become Christ’s literal flesh and
blood, for consubstantiation, the doctrine which he fastened upon the
Lutheran church that Christ’s flesh and blood are actually present _in_
the bread and wine, he would have given to that church the doctrine that
the bread and wine simply represent the body and blood of Christ, and are
used in commemoration of his sacrifice for our sins.
3. Instead of holding fast every thing in the Romish church not expressly
forbidden in the Bible, he would have laid all aside which had not the
actual sanction of that holy book.
4. Instead of the Catholic festival of Sunday, he would have observed and
transmitted to the Protestant church the ancient Sabbath of the Lord.
Carlstadt needed Luther’s help, and he accepted it. Did not Luther
also need that of Carlstadt? Is it not time that Carlstadt should be
vindicated from the great obloquy thrown upon him by the prevailing
party? And would not this have been done long since had not Carlstadt
been a decided Sabbatarian?
CHAPTER XXIV.
SABBATH-KEEPERS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
The judgment of the martyr Frith—The Reformation brings
Sabbath-keepers to light in various countries—In
Transylvania—In Bohemia—In Russia—In Germany—In Holland—In
France—In England.
John Frith, an English reformer of considerable note and a martyr, was
converted by the labors of Tyndale about 1525, and assisted him in the
translation of the Bible. He was burned at Smithfield, July 4, 1533.
He is spoken of in the highest terms by the historians of the English
Reformation.[1015] His views respecting the Sabbath and first-day are
thus stated by himself:—
“The Jews have the word of God for their Saturday, sith [since]
it is the seventh day, and they were commanded to keep the
seventh day solemn. And we have not the word of God for us, but
rather against us; for we keep not the seventh day, as the Jews
do, but the first, which is not commanded by God’s law.”[1016]
When the Reformation had lifted the vail of darkness that covered the
nations of Europe, Sabbath-keepers were found in Transylvania, Bohemia,
Russia, Germany, Holland, France, and England. It was not the Reformation
which gave existence to these Sabbatarians, for the leaders of the
Reformation, as a body, were not friendly to such views. On the contrary,
these observers of the Sabbath appear to be remnants of the ancient
Sabbath-keeping churches that had witnessed for the truth during the Dark
Ages.
Transylvania, a country which now constitutes one of the eastern
divisions of the Austrian Empire, was, in the sixteenth century, an
independent principality. About the middle of that century, the country
was under the rule of Sigismund. The historian of the Baptists, Robinson,
gives the following interesting record of events in that age and country:—
“The prince received his first religious impressions under his
chaplain, Alexius, who was a Lutheran. On his removal he chose
Francis Davidis to succeed him, and by him was further informed
of the principles of the Reformation. Davidis was a native of
that extremely populous and well-fortified town which is called
Coloswar by the natives, Clausenberg by the Germans, and by
others, Claudiopolis. He was a man of learning, address, and
piety, and reasoned in this part of his life more justly on the
principles of the Reformation than many of his cotemporaries.
In 1563 his highness invited several learned foreigners to
come into Transylvania for the purpose of helping forward the
Reformation.[1017]
“Several other foreigners, who had been persecuted elsewhere,
sought refuge in this country, where persecution for religion
was unknown. These refugees were Unitarian Baptists, and
through their indefatigable industry and address, the prince,
the greatest part of the senate, a great number of ministers,
and a multitude of the people went heartily into their plan of
Reformation.[1018]
“In the end the Baptists became by far the most numerous
party, and were put in possession of a printing office, and an
academy, and the cathedral was given to them for a place of
worship. They obtained these without any violence, and while
they formed their own churches according to the convictions of
their members, they persecuted nobody, but allowed the same
liberty to others, and great numbers of Catholics, Lutherans
and Calvinists resided in perfect freedom.”[1019]
Mr. Robinson further informs us that Davidis took extreme Unitarian
ground with respect to the worship of Christ, which seems to have
been the only serious error that can be laid to his charge. Davidis
was a Unitarian Baptist minister, intrusted by his brethren with the
superintendency of the churches in Transylvania. His influence in that
country at one period was very great. His views of the Sabbath are thus
stated:—
“He supposed the Jewish Sabbath not abrogated, and he therefore
kept holy the seventh day. He believed also the doctrine of the
millennium, and like an honest man, what he believed he taught.
He was considered by the Transylvanian churches as an apostle,
and had grown gray in their service; but the Catholics,
the Lutherans, and the Calvinists, thought him a Turk, a
blasphemer, and an atheist, and his Polish Baptist brethren
said he was half a Jew. Had he been a whole Jew he ought not to
have been imprisoned for his speculations.[1020]
“By what means the Supreme Searcher of hearts only knows, but
by some methods till then unknown in Transylvania, the old
man was arrested, and by the senate condemned to die. He was
imprisoned in the castle, and providence by putting a period to
his life there, saved his persecutors from the disgrace of a
public execution.”[1021]
Mr. Robinson says that “many have been blamed” for the death of Davidis,
“but perhaps the secret springs of this event may never be known till
the Judge of the world maketh inquisition for blood.” There were many
Sabbatarians in Transylvania at this time, for Mr. Robinson enumerates
many persons of distinction who were of the same views with Davidis.
The ambassador Bequessius, general of the army; the princess, sister of
prince John; the privy counselor, Chaquius, and the two Quendi; general
Andrassi, and many others of high rank; Somer, the rector of the academy
at Claudiopolis; Matthias Glirius, Adam Neusner, and Christian Francken,
a professor an the academy at Claudiopolis.
“These,” says Robinson, “were all of the same sentiments as
Davidis, as were many more of different ranks, who after
his death in prison, defended his opinion against Socinus.
Palæologus was of the same mind; he had fled into Moravia, but
was caught by the emperor, at the request of Pope Gregory XIV.,
and carried to Rome, where he was burnt for a heretick. He
was an old man, and was terrified at first into a recantation,
but he recollected himself and submitted to his fate like a
Christian.”[1022]
These persons must have been Sabbatarians. Mosheim, after saying
that Davidis “left behind him disciples and friends, who strenuously
maintained his sentiments,” adds:—
“The most eminent of these were Jacob Palæologus, of the isle
of Chio, who was burned at Rome in 1585; Christian Francken,
who had disputed in person with Socinus; and John Somer, who
was master of the academy of Clausenberg. This little sect
is branded by the Socinian writers, with the ignominious
appellation of SEMI-JUDAIZERS.”[1023]
We have a further record of Sabbatarians in Transylvania to the effect
that in the time of Davidis,
“John Gerendi [was] head of the Sabbatarians, a people who did
not keep Sunday but Saturday, and whose disciples took the name
of Genoldists.”[1024]
Sabbath-keepers, also, were found in Bohemia, a country of Central
Europe, at the time of the Reformation. We are dependent upon those who
despised their faith and practice for a knowledge of their existence.
Erasmus speaks of them as follows:—
“Now we hear that among the Bohemians a new kind of Jews has
arisen called Sabbatarians, who observe the Sabbath with so
much superstition, that if on that day anything falls into
their eyes they will not remove it; as if the Lord’s day would
not suffice for them instead of the Sabbath, which to the
apostles also was sacred; or as if Christ had not sufficiently
expressed how much should be allowed upon the Sabbath.”[1025]
We need say nothing relative to the alleged superstition of these
Sabbath-keepers. The statement sufficiently refutes itself, and
indicates the bitter prejudice of those who speak of them thus. But that
Sabbath-keepers were found at this time in Bohemia admits of no doubt.
They were of some importance, and they must also have published their
views to the world; for Cox tells us that,
“Hospinian of Zurich, in his treatise ‘Concerning the Feasts
of the Jews and of the Gentiles,’ chapter iii. (Tiguri, 1592)
replies to the arguments of these Sabbatarians.”[1026]
The existence of this body of Sabbatarians in Bohemia at the time of the
Reformation is strong presumptive proof that the Waldenses of Bohemia,
noticed in the preceding chapter, though claimed as observers of Sunday,
were actually observers of the ancient Sabbath.
In Russia, the observers of the seventh day are numerous at the present
time. Their existence can be traced back nearly to the year 1400. They
are, therefore, at least one hundred years older than the work of
Luther. The first writer that I quote speaks of them as “having left the
Christian faith.” But even in our time, it is very common for people to
speak of those who turn from the first day to the seventh that they have
renounced Christ for Moses.[1027] He also speaks of them as holding
to circumcision. Even Carlstadt was charged with this by Luther as a
necessary deduction from the fact that he observed the day enjoined in
the fourth commandment. Such being a common method of characterizing
Sabbath-keepers in our time, and such also having been the case in
past ages—for when men lack argument, they use opprobrious terms—the
historian, who makes up his record of these people from the statements of
the popular party, will certainly represent them as rejecting Christ and
the gospel, and accepting instead Moses and the ceremonial law. I give
the statements of the historians as they are, and the reader must judge.
Robert Pinkerton gives the following account of them:—
“_Seleznevtschini._ This sect are, in modern time, precisely
what the Strigolniks originally were. They are Jews in
principle; maintain the divine obligation of circumcision;
observe the Jewish Sabbath, and the ceremonial law. There
are many of them about Tula, on the river Kuma, and in other
provinces, and they are very numerous in Poland and Turkey,
where, having left the Christian faith, they have joined the
seed of Abraham, according to the flesh, in rejecting the
Messiah and the gospel.”[1028]
The ancient Russian name of this people was _Strigolniks_. Dr. Murdock
gives the following account of them:—
“It is common to date the origin of sectarians in the Russian
church, about the middle of the seventeenth century, in the
time of the patriarch Nikon. But according to the Russian
annals, there existed schismatics in the Russian church two
hundred years before the days of Nikon; and the disturbances
which took place in his time, only proved the means of
augmenting their numbers, and of bringing them forward into
public view. The earliest of these schismatics first appeared
in Novogorod, early in the fifteenth century, under the name of
_Strigolniks_.
“A Jew named Horie preached a mixture of Judaism and
Christianity; and proselyted two priests, Denis and Alexie, who
gained a vast number of followers. This sect was so numerous,
that a national council was called, towards the close of the
fifteenth century, to oppose it. Soon afterwards, one Karp, an
excommunicated deacon, joined the _Strigolniks_; and accused
the higher clergy of selling the office of priesthood, and
of so far corrupting the church, that the Holy Ghost was
withdrawn from it. He was a very successful propagator of this
sect.”[1029]
It is very customary with historians to speak of Sabbath-keeping
Christians in one of the following ways: 1. To name their observance of
the seventh day distinctly, but to represent them as turning from Christ
to Moses and the ceremonial law; or, 2. To speak of their Sabbatarian
principles in so vague a manner that the reader will not be likely to
suspect them of being Sabbath-keepers. Pinkerton speaks of these Russian
Sabbath-keepers after the first of these methods; Murdock, after the
second. It is plain that Murdock did not regard these people as rejecting
Christ, and it is certain from Pinkerton that the two writers are
speaking of the same people.
What was the origin of these Russian Sabbath-keepers? Certainly it was
not from the Reformation of the sixteenth century; for they were in
existence at least one century before that event. We have seen that
the Waldenses, during the Dark Ages, were dispersed through many of the
countries of Europe. And so also were the people called Cathari, if,
indeed, the two were not one people. In particular, we note the fact
that they were scattered through Poland, Lithuania, Sclavonia, Bulgaria,
Livonia, Albania, and Sarmatia.[1030] These countries are now parts
of the Russian Empire. Sabbath-keepers were numerous in Russia before
the time of Luther. The Sabbath of the Lord was certainly retained by
many of the ancient Waldenses and Cathari, as we have seen. In fact,
the very things said of the Russian Sabbath-keepers, that they held to
circumcision and the ceremonial law, were also said of the Cathari, and
of that branch of the Waldenses called Passaginians.[1031] Is there any
reasonable doubt that in these ancient Christians we have the ancestors
of the Russian Sabbath-keepers of the fifteenth century?
Mr. Maxson makes the following statement:—
“We find that Sabbath-keepers appear in Germany late in the
fifteenth or early in the sixteenth century according to
‘Ross’s Picture of All Religions.’ By this we are to understand
that their numbers were such as to lead to organization,
and attract attention. A number of these formed a church,
and emigrated to America, in the early settlement of this
country.”[1032]
Mr. Utter makes the following statement respecting Sabbath-keepers in
Germany and in Holland:—
“Early in the sixteenth century there are traces of
Sabbath-keepers in Germany. The Old Dutch Martyrology gives
an account of a Baptist minister named Stephen Benedict,
somewhat famous for baptizing during a severe persecution in
Holland, who is supposed by good authorities to have kept the
seventh day as the Sabbath. One of the persons baptized by him
was Barbary von Thiers, wife of Hans Borzen, who was executed
on the 16th of September, 1529. At her trial she declared her
rejection of the idolatrous sacrament of the priest, and also
the Mass.”[1033]
We give her declaration of faith respecting Sundays and holy days:—
“God has commanded us to rest on the seventh day. Beyond this
she did not go: but with the help and grace of God she would
persevere therein, and in death abide thereby; for it is the
true faith, and the right way in Christ.”[1034]
Another martyr, Christina Tolingerin, is mentioned thus:—
“Concerning holy days and Sundays, she said: ‘In six days
the Lord made the world, on the seventh day he rested. The
other holy days have been instituted by popes, cardinals, and
archbishops.’”[1035]
There were at this time Sabbath-keepers in France:—
“In France also there were Christians of this class, among
whom were M. de la Roque, who wrote in defense of the Sabbath
against Bossuet, Catholic bishop of Meaux.”[1036]
M. de la Roque is referred to by Dr. Wall in his famous history of
infant baptism “as a learned man in other points,” but in great error
for asserting that “the primitive church did not baptize infants.”[1037]
It is worthy of notice that Sabbath-keepers are always observers of
scriptural baptism—the burial of penitent believers in the watery grave.
No people retaining infant baptism, or the sprinkling of believers, have
observed the seventh day.[1038]
The origin of the Sabbatarians of England cannot now be definitely
ascertained. Their observance of believers’ baptism and the keeping
of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord, strongly attest their
descent from the persecuted heretics of the Dark Ages, rather than from
the reformers of the sixteenth century, who retained infant baptism and
the festival of Sunday. That these heretics had long been numerous in
England, is thus certified by Crosby:—
“For in the time of William the Conqueror [A. D. 1070] and
his son William Rufus, it appears that the Waldenses and
their disciples out of France, Germany, and Holland, had
their frequent recourse, and did abound in England.... The
Beringarian, or Waldensian heresy, as the chronologer calls it,
had, about A. D. 1080, generally corrupted all France, Italy,
and England.”[1039]
Mr. Maxson says of the English Sabbatarians:—
“In England we find Sabbath-keepers very early. Dr. Chambers
says: ‘They arose in England in the sixteenth century,’
from which we understand that they then became a distinct
denomination in that kingdom.”[1040]
Mr. Benedict speaks thus of the origin of English Sabbatarians:—
“At what time the Seventh-day Baptists began to form churches
in this kingdom does not appear; but probably it was at an
early period; and although their churches have never been
numerous, yet there have been among them almost for two hundred
years past, some very eminent men.”[1041]
CHAPTER XXV.
HOW AND WHEN SUNDAY APPROPRIATED THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT.
The light of the Reformation destroyed many of the best
Sunday arguments of the preceding Dark Ages—The controversy
between the Presbyterians and Episcopalians of England
brings Sunday sacredness to the test—The former discover the
means of enforcing the observance of Sunday by the fourth
commandment—How this can be done—Effects of this extraordinary
discovery—History of the Sunday festival concluded.
The light of the Reformation necessarily dissipated into thin air many
of the most substantial arguments by which the Sunday festival had
been built up during the Dark Ages. The roll that fell from Heaven—the
apparition of St. Peter—the relief of souls in purgatory, and even of the
damned in hell—and many prodigies of fearful portent—none of these, nor
all of them combined, were likely longer to sustain the sacredness of the
venerable day. True it was that when these were swept away there remained
to sustain the festival of Sunday, the canons of councils, the edicts of
kings and emperors, the decrees of the holy doctors of the church, and,
greatest of all, the imperious mandates of the Roman pontiff. Yet these
could be adduced also in behalf of the innumerable festivals ordained
by the same great apostate church. Such authority would answer for the
Episcopalian, who devoutly accepts of all these festivals, because
commanded so to do by the church; but for those who acknowledge the
Bible as the only rule of faith, the case was different. In the latter
part of the sixteenth century, the Presbyterians and Episcopalians of
England were involved in such a controversy as brought this matter to an
issue. The Episcopalians required men to observe all the festivals of the
church; the Presbyterians observed Sunday, and rejected all the rest. The
Episcopalians showed the inconsistency of this discrimination, inasmuch
as the same church authority had ordained them all. As the Presbyterians
rejected the authority of the church, they would not keep Sunday upon
that ground, especially as it would involve the observance also of all
the other festivals. They had to choose therefore between the giving up
of Sunday entirely, and the defense of its observance by the Bible. There
was indeed another and a nobler choice that they might have made, viz.,
to adopt the Sabbath of the Lord, but it was too humiliating for them
to unite with those who retained that ancient and sacred institution.
The issue of this struggle is thus related by a distinguished German
theologian, Hengstenberg:—
“The opinion that the Sabbath was transferred to the Sunday
was first broached in its perfect form, and with all its
consequences, in the controversy which was carried on in
England between the Episcopalians and Presbyterians. The
Presbyterians, who carried to extremes the principle, that
every institution of the church must have its foundation in the
Scriptures, and would not allow that God had given, in this
respect, greater liberty to the church of the New Testament,
which his Spirit had brought to maturity, than to that of
the Old, charged the Episcopalians with popish leaven, and
superstition, and subjection to the ordinances of men, because
they retained the Christian feasts. The Episcopalians, on the
other hand, as a proof that greater liberty was granted to
the New-Testament church in such matters as these, appealed
to the fact that even the observance of the Sunday was only
an arrangement of the church. The Presbyterians were now in a
position which compelled them either to give up the observance
of the Sunday, or to maintain that a divine appointment from
God separated it from the other festivals. The first they could
not do, for their Christian experience was too deep for them
not to know how greatly the weakness of human nature stands in
need of regularly returning periods, devoted to the service of
God. They therefore decided upon the latter.”[1042]
Thus much for the occasion of that wonderful discovery by which the
Scriptures are made to sustain the divine appointment of Sunday as the
Christian Sabbath. The date of the discovery, the name of the discoverer,
and the manner in which he contrived to enforce the first day of the
week by the authority of the fourth commandment, are thus set forth by a
candid first-day historian, Lyman Coleman:—
“The true doctrine of the Christian Sabbath was first
promulgated by an English dissenter, the Rev. Nicholas Bound,
D. D., of Norton, in the county of Suffolk. About the year
1595, he published a famous book, entitled, ‘Sabbathum Veteris
et Novi Testamenti,’ or the True Doctrine of the Sabbath. In
this book he maintained ‘that the seventh part of our time
ought to be devoted to God—that Christians are bound to rest on
the Lord’s day as much as the Jews were on the Mosaic Sabbath,
the commandment about rest being moral and perpetual; and that
it was not lawful for persons to follow their studies or
worldly business on that day, nor to use such pleasures and
recreations as are permitted on other days.’ This book spread
with wonderful rapidity. The doctrine which it propounded
called forth from many hearts a ready response, and the result
was a most pleasing reformation in many parts of the kingdom.
‘It is almost incredible,’ says Fuller, ‘how taking this
doctrine was, partly because of its own purity, and partly for
the eminent piety of such persons as maintained it; so that the
Lord’s day, especially in corporations, began to be precisely
kept; people becoming a law unto themselves, forbearing such
sports as yet by statute permitted; yea, many rejoicing at
their own restraint herein.’ The law of the Sabbath was indeed
a religious principle, after which the Christian church had,
for centuries, been darkly groping. Pious men of every age had
felt the necessity of divine authority for sanctifying the
day. Their conscience had been in advance of their reason.
Practically they had kept the Sabbath better than their
principles required.
“Public sentiment, however, was still unsettled in regard to
this new doctrine respecting the Sabbath, though a few at first
violently opposed it. ‘Learned men were much divided in their
judgments about these Sabbatarian doctrines; some embraced them
as ancient truths consonant to Scripture, long disused and
neglected, now seasonably revived for the increase of piety.
Others conceived them grounded on a wrong bottom; but because
they tended to the manifest advance of religion, it was a pity
to oppose them; seeing none have just reason to complain, being
deceived unto their own good. But a third sort flatly fell out
with these propositions, as galling men’s necks with a _Jewish
yoke_ against the liberty of Christians; that Christ, as Lord
of the Sabbath, had removed the rigor thereof, and allowed men
lawful recreations; _that this doctrine put an unequal lustre
on the Sunday_, on set purpose to eclipse all other holy days,
to the derogation of the authority of the church; that this
strict observance was set up out of faction, to be a character
of difference to brand all for libertines who did not entertain
it.’ No open opposition, however, was at first manifested
against the sentiments of Dr. Bound. No reply was attempted
for several years, and ‘not so much as a feather of a quill in
print did wag against him.’
“His work was soon followed by several other treatises in
defense of the same sentiments. ‘All the Puritans fell in with
this doctrine, and distinguished themselves by spending that
part of sacred time in public, family, and private devotion.’
Even Dr. Heylyn certified the triumphant spread of those
puritanical sentiments respecting the Sabbath....
“‘This doctrine,’ he says, ‘carrying such a fair show of piety,
at least in the opinion of the common people, and such as did
not examine the true grounds of it, induced many to embrace
and defend it; and in a very little time it became the most
bewitching error and the most popular infatuation that ever was
embraced by the people of England.’”[1043]
Dr. Bound was not absolutely the inventor of the seventh-part-of-time
theory; but he may be said rather to have gathered up and combined the
scattered hints of his predecessors, and to have added to these something
of his own production. His grounds for asserting Sunday to be the Sabbath
of the fourth commandment are these:—
“That which is natural, namely, that every seventh day should
be kept holy unto the Lord, that still remaineth: that which is
positive, namely, that day which was the seventh day from the
creation, should be the Sabbath, or day of rest, that is now
changed in the church of God.”[1044]
He says that the meaning of the declaration, “The seventh day is the
Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” is this:—
“There must be one [day] of seven and not [one] of eight.”[1045]
But the special key to the whole theory is in the statement that the
seventh day in the commandment was “_genus_,” that is to say, it was a
kind of seventh day which comprehended several species of seventh days,
at least two. Thus he says:—
“So he maketh the seventh day to be _genus_ in this
commandment, and to be perpetual: and in it by virtue of
the commandment to comprehend these two species or kinds:
the Sabbath of the Jews and of the Gentiles, of the law
and of the gospel: so that both of them were comprehended
in the commandment, even as _genus_ comprehendeth both his
species.”[1046]
He enforces the first day by the fourth commandment, as follows:—
“So that we have not in the gospel a new commandment for the
Sabbath, diverse from that that was in the law; but there is a
diverse time appointed; namely, not the seventh day from the
creation, but the day of Christ’s resurrection, and the seventh
from that: both of them at several times being comprehended in
the fourth commandment.”[1047]
He means to say that the fourth commandment enforces the seventh day from
the creation to the resurrection of Christ, and since that enforces a
different seventh day, namely, the seventh from Christ’s resurrection.
Such is the perverse ingenuity by which men can evade the law of God and
yet make it appear that they are faithfully observing it.
Such was the origin of the seventh-part-of-time theory, by which the
seventh day is dropped out of the fourth commandment, and one day in
seven slipped into its place; a doctrine most opportunely framed at
the very period when nothing else could save the venerable day of the
sun. With the aid of this theory, the Sunday of “Pope and Pagan” was
able coolly to wrap itself in the fourth commandment, and then in the
character of a divine institution, to challenge obedience from all Bible
Christians. It could now cast away the other frauds on which its very
existence had depended, and support its authority by this one alone. In
the time of Constantine it ascended the throne of the Roman Empire, and
during the whole period of the Dark Ages it maintained its supremacy from
the chair of St. Peter; but now it had ascended the throne of the Most
High. And thus a day which God “commanded not nor spake it, neither came
it into” his “mind,” was enjoined upon mankind with all the authority of
his holy law. The immediate effect of Dr. Bound’s work upon the existing
controversy is thus described by an Episcopalian eye-witness, Dr. Heylyn:—
“For by inculcating to the people these new Sabbath
speculations [concerning Sunday], teaching that that day only
‘was of God’s appointment, and all the rest observed in the
church of England, a remnant of the will-worship in the church
of Rome;’ the other holy days in this church established,
were so shrewdly shaken that till this day they are not well
recovered of the blow then given. Nor came this on the by
or besides their purpose, but as a thing that specially was
intended from the first beginning.”[1048]
In a former chapter, we called attention to the fact that Sunday can
be maintained as a divine institution only by adopting the rule of
faith acknowledged in the church of Rome, which is, the Bible with
the traditions of the church added thereto. We have seen that in the
sixteenth century the Presbyterians of England were brought to decide
between giving up Sunday as a church festival and maintaining it as
a divine institution by the Bible. They chose the latter course. Yet
while apparently avoiding the charge of observing a Catholic festival,
by claiming to prove the Sunday institution out of the Bible, the
utterly unsatisfactory nature of the several inferences adduced from
the Scriptures in support of that day, compelled them to resort to the
traditions of the church, and to add these to their so-called biblical
evidences in its behalf. It would be no worse to keep Sunday while
frankly acknowledging it to be a festival of the Catholic church, not
commanded in the Bible, than it is to profess that you observe it as a
biblical institution, and then prove it to be such by adopting the rule
of faith of the Romanists. Joaunes Perrone, an eminent Italian Catholic
theologian, in an important doctrinal work, entitled, “Theological
Lessons,” makes a very impressive statement respecting the acknowledgment
of tradition by Protestant Sunday-keepers. In his chapter “Concerning
the Necessity and Existence of Tradition,” he lays down the proposition
that it is necessary to admit doctrines which we can prove only from
tradition, and cannot sustain from the Holy Scriptures. Then he says:—
“It is not possible, indeed, if traditions of such character
are rejected, that several doctrines, which the Protestants
held with us since they withdrew from the Catholic church,
could, in any possible manner, be established. The fact is
placed beyond a venture of a doubt, for they themselves hold
with us the validity of baptism administered by heretics or
infidels, the validity also of infant baptism, the true form
of baptism [sprinkling]; they held, too, that the law of
abstaining from blood and anything strangled is not in force;
also concerning the substitution of the Lord’s day for the
Sabbath; besides those things which I have mentioned before,
and not a few others.”[1049]
Dr. Bound’s theory of the seventh part of time has found general
acceptance in all those churches which sprung from the church of Rome.
Most forcibly did old Cotton Mather observe:—
“The reforming churches, flying from Rome, carried, some of
them more, some of them less, all of them something, of Rome
with them.”[1050]
One sacred treasure which they all drew from the venerable mother of
harlots is the ancient festival of the sun. She had crushed out of her
communion the Sabbath of the Lord, and having adopted the venerable day
of the sun, had transformed it into the Lord’s day of the Christian
church. The reformed, flying from her communion, and carrying with
them this ancient festival, now found themselves able to justify its
observance as being indeed the veritable Sabbath of the Lord! As the
seamless coat of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, was torn from him before
he was nailed to the cross, so has the fourth commandment been torn
from the rest-day of the Lord, around which it was placed by the great
Law-giver, and given to this papal Lord’s day; and this Barabbas the
robber, thus arrayed in the stolen fourth commandment, has from that
time to the present day, and with astonishing success, challenged the
obedience of the world as the divinely appointed Sabbath of the most
high God. Here we close the history of the Sunday festival, now fully
transformed into the _Christian Sabbath_. A rapid survey of the history
of English and American Sabbath-keepers will conclude this work.
CHAPTER XXVI.
ENGLISH SABBATH-KEEPERS.
English Sabbatarians in the sixteenth century—Their
doctrines—John Trask for these doctrines pilloried, whipt, and
imprisoned—He recants—Character of Mrs. Trask—Her crime—Her
indomitable courage—She suffers fifteen years’ imprisonment,
and dies in the prison—Principles of the Traskites—Brabourne
writes in behalf of the seventh day—Appeals to King Charles I.
to restore the ancient Sabbath—The king employs Dr. White to
write against Brabourne, and Dr. Heylyn to write the History of
the Sabbath—The king intimidates Brabourne and he recants—He
returns again to the Sabbath—Philip Tandy—James Ockford
writes “The Doctrine of the Fourth Commandment”—His book
burned—Edward Stennett—Wm. Sellers—Cruel Treatment of Francis
Bampfield—Thomas Bampfield—Martyrdom of John James—How the
Sabbath cause was prostrated in England.
Chambers speaks thus of Sabbath-keepers in the sixteenth century:—
“In the reign of Elizabeth, it occurred to many conscientious
and independent thinkers (as it had previously done to some
Protestants in Bohemia), that the fourth commandment required
of them the observance, not of the first, but of the specified
_seventh_ day of the week, and a strict bodily rest, as a
service then due to God; while others, though convinced that
the day had been altered by divine authority, took up the same
opinion as to the scriptural obligation to refrain from work.
The former class became numerous enough to make a considerable
figure for more than a century in England, under the title of
‘Sabbatarians’—a word now exchanged for the less ambiguous
appellation of ‘Seventh-day Baptists.’”[1051]
Gilfillan quotes an English writer of the year 1584, John Stockwood, who
says that there were then
“A great diversity of opinion among the vulgar people and
simple sort, concerning the Sabbath day, and the right use of
the same.”
And Gilfillan states one of the grounds of controversy thus:—
“Some maintaining the unchanged and unchangeable obligation of
the seventh-day Sabbath.”[1052]
In 1607, an English first-day writer, John Sprint, gave the views of the
Sabbath-keepers of that time, which in truth have been substantially the
same in all ages:—
“They allege reasons drawn, 1. From the precedence of the
Sabbath before the law, and before the fall; the laws of which
nature are immutable. 2. From the perpetuity of the moral law.
3. And from the large extent thereof appertaining to [the
Sabbath above] all [the other precepts.] 4. ... And of the
cause of [this precept of] the law which maketh it perpetual,
which is the memorial and meditation of the works of God; which
belong unto the Christians as well as to the Jews.”[1053]
John Trask began to speak and write in favor of the seventh day as
the Sabbath of the Lord, about the time that King James I., and the
archbishop of Canterbury, published the famous “Book of Sports for
Sunday,” in 1618. His field of labor was London, and being a very
zealous man, he was soon called to account by the persecuting authority
of the church of England. He took high ground as to the sufficiency of
the Scriptures to direct in all religious services, and that the civil
authorities ought not to constrain men’s consciences in matters of
religion. He was brought before the infamous Star Chamber, where a long
discussion was held respecting the Sabbath. It was on this occasion that
Bishop Andrews first brought forward that now famous first-day argument,
that the early martyrs were tested by the question, “Hast thou kept the
Lord’s day?”[1054]
Gilfillan, quoting the words of cotemporary writers, says of Trask’s
trial that,
“For ‘making of conventicles and factions, by that means which
may tend to sedition and commotion, and for scandalizing
the king, the bishops, and the clergy,’ ‘he was censured in
the Star Chamber to be set upon the pillory at Westminster,
and from thence to be whipt to the fleet, there to remain a
prisoner.’”[1055]
This cruel sentence was carried into execution, and finally broke his
spirit. After enduring the misery of his prison for one year, he recanted
his doctrine.[1056] The case of his wife is worthy of particular mention.
Pagitt gives her character thus:
“She was a woman endued with many particular virtues, well
worthy the imitation of all good Christians, had not error
in other things, especially a spirit of strange unparalleled
opinionativeness and obstinacy in her private conceits, spoiled
her.”[1057]
Pagitt says that she was a school teacher of superior excellence. She
was particularly careful in her dealings with the poor. He gives her
reasons thus:—
“This she professed to do out of conscience, as believing she
must one day come to be judged for all things done in the
flesh. Therefore she resolved to go by _the safest rule_,
rather against than for her private interest.”[1058]
Pagitt gives her crime in the following words:—
“At last for teaching only five days in the week, and resting
upon Saturday, _it being known upon what account she did it_,
she was carried to the new prison in Maiden Lane, a place
then appointed for the restraint of several other persons of
different opinions from the church of England.”[1059]
Observe the crime: it was not what she did, for a first-day person
might have done the same, but because she did it to obey the fourth
commandment. Her motive exposed her to the vengeance of the authorities.
She was a woman of indomitable courage, and would not purchase her
liberty by renouncing the Lord’s Sabbath. During her long imprisonment,
Pagitt says that some one wrote her thus:—
“Your constant suffering would be praiseworthy, were it for
truth; but being for error, your recantation will be both more
acceptable to God, and laudable before men.”[1060]
But her faith and patience held out till she was released by death.
“Mrs. Trask lay fifteen or sixteen years a prisoner for her
opinion about the Saturday Sabbath; in all which time she would
receive no relief from anybody, notwithstanding she wanted
much: alleging that it was written, ‘It is more blessed ...
to give than to receive.’ Neither would she borrow, because
it was written, ‘Thou shalt lend to many nations, and shalt
not borrow.’ So she deemed it a dishonor to her head, Christ,
either to beg or borrow. Her diet for the most part during
her imprisonment, that is, till a little before her death,
was bread and water, roots and herbs; no flesh, nor wine, nor
brewed drink. All her means was an annuity of forty shillings
a year; what she lacked more to live upon she had of such
prisoners as did employ her sometimes to do business for
them.”[1061]
Pagitt, who was the cotemporary of Trask, thus states the principles of
the Sabbatarians of that time, whom he calls Traskites:—
“The positions concerning the Sabbath by them maintained were
these:—
“1. That the fourth commandment of the Decalogue, ‘Remember
the Sabbath day, to keep it holy’ [Ex. 20], is a divine
precept, simply and entirely moral, containing nothing legally
ceremonial in whole or in part, and therefore the weekly
observation thereof ought to be perpetual, and to continue in
force and virtue to the world’s end.
“2. That the Saturday, or seventh day in every week, ought to
be an everlasting holy day in the Christian church, and the
religious observation of this day obligeth Christians under the
gospel, as it did the Jews before the coming of Christ.
“3. That the Sunday, or Lord’s day, is an ordinary working day,
and it is superstition and will-worship to make the same the
Sabbath of the fourth commandment.”[1062]
It was for this noble confession of faith that Mrs. Trask was shut up in
prison till the day of her death. For the same, Mr. Trask was compelled
to stand in the pillory, and was whipped from thence to the fleet, and
then shut up in a wretched prison, from which he escaped by recantation
after enduring its miseries for more than a year.[1063]
Mr. Utter mentions the next Sabbatarian minister as follows:—
“Theophilus Brabourne, a learned minister of the gospel in the
established church, wrote a book, which was printed at London
in 1628, wherein he argued ‘that the Lord’s day is not the
Sabbath day by divine institution,’ but ‘that the seventh-day
Sabbath is now in force.’ Mr. Brabourne published another book
in 1632, entitled, ‘A Defense of that most Ancient and Sacred
Ordinance of God’s, the Sabbath Day.’”[1064]
Brabourne dedicated his book to King Charles I., requesting him to use
his royal authority for the restoration of the ancient Sabbath. But those
who put their trust in princes are sure to be disappointed. Dr. F. White,
bishop of Ely, thus states the occasion of his own work against the
Sabbath:—
“Now because this Brabourne’s treatise of the Sabbath was
dedicated to his Royal Majesty, and the principles upon which
he grounded all his arguments (being commonly preached,
printed, and believed throughout the kingdom), might have
poisoned and infected many people either with this Sabbatarian
error, or with some other of like quality; it was the king,
our gracious master, his will and pleasure, that a treatise
should be set forth, to prevent further mischief, and to settle
his good subjects (who have long time been distracted about
Sabbatarian questions) in the old and good way of the ancient
and orthodoxal Catholic church. Now that which his sacred
Majesty commanded, I have by your Grace’s direction [Archbishop
Laud] obediently performed.”[1065]
The king not only wished by this appointment to overthrow those who kept
the day enjoined in the commandment, but also those who by means of Dr.
Bound’s new theory pretended that Sunday was that day. He therefore
joined Dr. Heylyn with Bishop White in this work:—
“Which burden being held of too great weight for any one to
undergo, and the necessity of the work requiring a quick
dispatch, it was held fit to divide the employment betwixt two.
The argumentative and scholastical part was referred to the
right learned Dr. White, then bishop of Ely, who had given good
proof of his ability in polemical matters in several books and
disputations against the papists. The practical and historical
[was to be written], by Heylyn of Westminster, who had gained
some reputation for his studies in the ancient writers.”[1066]
The works of White and Heylyn were published simultaneously in 1635. Dr.
White, in addressing himself to those who enforce Sunday observance by
the fourth commandment, speaks thus of Brabourne’s arguments, that not
Sunday, but the ancient seventh day, is there enjoined:—
“Maintaining your own principles that the fourth commandment
is purely and simply moral and of the law of nature, it will
be impossible for you either in English or in Latin, to solve
Theophilus Brabourne’s objections.”[1067]
But the king had something besides argument for Brabourne. He was brought
before Archbishop Laud and the court of High Commission, and, moved by
the fate of Mrs. Trask, he submitted for the time to the authority of the
church of England, but sometime afterward wrote other books in behalf
of the seventh day.[1068] Dr. White’s book has this pithy notice of the
indefinite-time theory:—
“Because an indefinite time must either bind to all moments
of time, as a debt, when the day of payment is not expressly
dated, is liable to payment every moment; or else it binds to
no time at all.”[1069]
Mr. Utter, after the statement of Brabourne’s case, continues thus:—
“About this time Philip Tandy began to promulgate in the
northern part of England the same doctrine concerning the
Sabbath. He was educated in the established church, of which
he became a minister. Having changed his views respecting the
mode of baptism and the day of the Sabbath, he abandoned that
church and ‘became a mark for many shots.’ He held several
public disputes about his peculiar sentiments, and did much to
propagate them. James Ockford was another early advocate in
England of the claims of the seventh day as the Sabbath. He
appears to have been well acquainted with the discussions in
which Trask and Brabourne had been engaged. Being dissatisfied
with the pretended conviction of Brabourne, he wrote a book
in defense of Sabbatarian views, entitled, ‘The Doctrine of
the Fourth Commandment.’ This book, published about the year
1642, was burnt by order of the authorities in the established
church.”[1070]
The famous Stennett family furnished, for four generations, a succession
of able Sabbatarian ministers. Mr. Edward Stennett, the first of these,
was born about the beginning of the seventeenth century. His work
entitled, “The Royal Law Contended For,” was first published at London
in 1658. “He was an able and devoted minister, but dissenting from
the established church, he was deprived of the means of support.” “He
suffered much of the persecution which the Dissenters were exposed to at
that time, and more especially for his faithful adherence to the cause
of the Sabbath. For this truth he experienced tribulation, not only from
those in power, by whom he was kept a long time in prison, but also much
distress from unfriendly, dissenting brethren, who strove to destroy his
influence, and ruin his cause.” In 1664, he published a work entitled,
“The Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the Lord.”[1071] In 1671, Wm. Sellers
wrote a work in behalf of the seventh day in reply to Dr. Owen. Cox
states its object thus:—
“In opposition to the opinion _that some one day in seven_ is
all that the fourth commandment requires to be set apart, the
writer maintains the obligation of the Saturday Sabbath on the
ground that ‘God himself directly in the letter of the text
calls the seventh day the Sabbath day, giving both the names to
one and the selfsame day, as all men know that ever read the
commandments.’”[1072]
One of the most eminent Sabbatarian ministers of the last half of the
seventeenth century was Francis Bampfield. He was originally a clergyman
of the church of England. The Baptist historian, Crosby, speaks of him
thus:—
“But being utterly unsatisfied in his conscience with the
conditions of conformity, he took his leave of his sorrowful
and weeping congregation in ... 1662, and was quickly after
imprisoned for worshiping God in his own family. So soon was
his unshaken loyalty to the king forgotten, ... that he was
more frequently imprisoned and exposed to greater hardships for
his nonconformity, than most other dissenters.”[1073]
Of his imprisonment, Neale says:—
“After the act of uniformity, he continued preaching as he had
opportunity in private, till he was imprisoned for five days
and nights, with twenty-five of his hearers in one room ...
where they spent their time in religious exercises, but after
some time he was released. Soon after, he was apprehended again
and lay nine years in Dorchester jail, though he was a person
of unshaken loyalty to the king.”[1074]
During his imprisonment, he preached almost every day, and gathered a
church even under his confinement. And when he was at liberty, he ceased
not to preach in the name of Jesus. After his release, he went to London,
where he preached with much success.[1075] Neale says of his labors in
that city:—
“When he resided in London he formed a church on the principles
of the Sabbatarian Baptists, at Pinner’s hall, of which
principles he was a zealous asserter. He was a celebrated
preacher, and a man of serious piety.”[1076]
On Feb. 17, 1682, he was arrested while preaching, and on March 28, was
sentenced to forfeit all his goods and to be imprisoned in Newgate for
life. In consequence of the hardships which he suffered in that prison,
he died, Feb. 16, 1683.[1077] “Bampfield,” says Wood, “dying in the said
prison of Newgate ... aged seventy years, his body was ... followed
with a very great company of factious and schismatical people to his
grave.”[1078] Crosby says of him:—
“All that knew him will acknowledge that he was a man of great
piety. And he would in all probability have preserved the same
character, with respect to his learning and judgment, had it
not been for his opinion in two points, viz., that infants
ought not to be baptized, and that the Jewish Sabbath ought
still to be kept.”[1079]
Mr. Bampfield published two works in behalf of the seventh day as the
Sabbath, one in 1672, the other in 1677. In the first of these he thus
sets forth the doctrine of the Sabbath:—
“The law of the seventh-day Sabbath was given before the law
was proclaimed at Sinai, even from the creation, given to Adam,
... and in him to all the world.[1080]... The Lord Christ’s
obedience unto this _fourth word_ in observing in his lifetime
the seventh day as a weekly Sabbath day, ... and no other day
of the week as such, is a part of that perfect righteousness
which every sound believer doth apply to himself in order to
his being justified in the sight of God; and every such person
is to conform unto Christ in all the acts of his obedience to
the ten words.”[1081]
His brother, Mr. Thomas Bampfield, who had been speaker in one of
Cromwell’s parliaments, wrote also in behalf of seventh-day observance,
and was imprisoned for his religious principles in Ilchester jail.[1082]
About the time of Mr. Bampfield’s first imprisonment, severe persecution
arose against the Sabbath-keepers in London. Crosby thus bears testimony:—
“It was about this time [A. D. 1661], that a congregation of
Baptists holding the seventh day as a Sabbath, being assembled
at their meeting-house in Bull-stake alley, the doors being
open, about three o’clock P. M. [Oct. 19], whilst Mr. John
James was preaching, one Justice Chard, with Mr. Wood, an
headborough, came into the meeting-place. Wood commanded him
in the king’s name to be silent and come down, having spoken
treason against the king. But Mr. James, taking little or no
notice thereof, proceeded in his work. The headborough came
nearer to him in the middle of the meeting-place and commanded
him again in the king’s name to come down or else he would pull
him down; whereupon the disturbance grew so great that he could
not proceed.”[1083]
The officer having pulled him down from the pulpit, led him away to
the court under a strong guard. Mr. Utter continues this narrative as
follows:—
“Mr. James was himself examined and committed to Newgate, on
the testimony of several profligate witnesses, who accused him
of speaking treasonable words against the king. His trial took
place about a month afterward, at which he conducted himself
in such a manner as to create much sympathy. He was, however,
sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered.[1084] This awful
sentence did not dismay him in the least. He calmly said,
‘Blessed be God; whom man condemneth, God justifieth.’ While
he lay in prison, under sentence of death, many persons of
distinction visited him, who were greatly affected by his piety
and resignation, and offered to exert themselves to secure his
pardon. But he seems to have had little hope of their success.
Mrs. James, by advice of her friends, twice presented petitions
to the king [Charles II.], setting forth the innocence of
her husband, the character of the witnesses against him, and
entreating His Majesty to grant a pardon. In both instances she
was repulsed with scoffs and ridicule. At the scaffold, on the
day of his execution, Mr. James addressed the assembly in a
very noble and affecting manner. Having finished his address,
and kneeling down, he thanked God for covenant mercies, and for
conscious innocence; he prayed for the witnesses against him,
for the executioner, for the people of God, for the removal
of divisions, for the coming of Christ, for the spectators,
and for himself, that he might enjoy a sense of God’s favor
and presence, and an entrance into glory. When he had ended,
the executioner said, ‘The Lord receive your soul;’ to which
Mr. James replied, ‘I thank thee.’ A friend observing to him,
‘This is a happy day,’ he answered, ‘I bless God it is.’ Then
having thanked the sheriff for his courtesy, he said, ‘Father,
into thy hands I commit my spirit.’... After he was dead his
heart was taken out and burned, his quarters were affixed to
the gates of the city, and his head was set up in White chapel
on a pole opposite to the alley in which his meeting-house
stood.”[1085]
Such was the experience of English Sabbath-keepers in the seventeenth
century. It cost something to obey the fourth commandment in such times
as those. The laws of England during that century were very oppressive
to all Dissenters, and bore exceedingly hard upon the Sabbath-keepers.
But God raised up able men, eminent for piety, to defend his truth during
those troublous times, and, if need be, to seal their testimony with
their blood. In the seventeenth century, eleven churches of Sabbatarians
flourished in England, while many scattered Sabbath-keepers were to be
found in various parts of that kingdom. Now, but three of these churches
are in existence! And only remnants, even of these, remain!
To what cause shall we assign this painful fact? It is not because their
adversaries were able to confute their doctrine; for the controversial
works on both sides still remain, and speak for themselves. It is not
that they lacked men of piety and of learning; for God gave them these,
especially in the seventeenth century. Nor is it that fanaticism sprang
up and disgraced the cause; for there is no record of anything of this
kind. They were cruelly persecuted, but the period of their persecution
was that of their greatest prosperity. Like Moses’ bush, they stood
unconsumed in the burning fire. The prostration of the Sabbath cause in
England is due to none of these things.
The Sabbath was wounded in the house of its own friends. They took upon
themselves the responsibility, after a time, of making the Sabbath of no
practical importance, and of treating its violation as no very serious
transgression of the law of God. Doubtless they hoped to win men to
Christ and his truth by this course; but, instead of this, they simply
lowered the standard of divine truth into the dust. The Sabbath-keeping
ministers assumed the pastoral care of first-day churches, in some cases
as their sole charge, in others, they did this in connection with the
oversight of Sabbatarian churches. The result need surprise no one; as
these Sabbath-keeping ministers and churches said to all men, in thus
acting, that the fourth commandment might be broken with impunity, the
people took them at their word. Mr. Crosby, a first-day historian, sets
this matter in a clear light:—
“If the seventh day ought to be observed as the Christian
Sabbath, then all congregations that observe the first day
as such must be Sabbath-breakers.... I must leave those
gentlemen on the contrary side to their own sentiments; and to
vindicate the practice of becoming pastors to a people whom
in their conscience they must believe to be breakers of the
Sabbath.”[1086]
Doubtless there have been noble exceptions to this course; but the
body of English Sabbatarians for many years have failed to faithfully
discharge the high trust committed to them.
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE SABBATH IN AMERICA.
The first Sabbath-keeping church in America—Names of
its members—Origin of the second—Organization of the
Seventh-day Baptist General Conference—Statistics of the
Denomination at that time—Nature of its organization—Present
Statistics—Educational facilities—Missionary work—The American
Sabbath Tract Society—Responsibility for the light of the
Sabbath—The German S. D. Baptists of Pennsylvania—Reference
to Sabbath-keepers in Hungary—In Siberia—The Seventh-day
Adventists—Their origin—Labors of Joseph Bates—Of James
White—The Publishing Association—Systematic Benevolence—The
work of the preachers mainly in new fields—Organization of the
S. D. Adventists—Statistics—Peculiarities of their faith—Their
object—The S. D. Adventists of Switzerland—Why the Sabbath is
of priceless value to mankind—The nations of the saved observe
the Sabbath in the new earth.
The first Sabbatarian church in America originated at Newport, R. I. The
first Sabbath-keeper in America was Stephen Mumford, who left London
three years after the martyrdom of John James, and forty-four years
after the landing of the pilgrim fathers at Plymouth. Mr. Mumford, it
appears, came as a missionary from the English Sabbath-keepers.[1087] Mr.
Isaac Backus, the historian of the early New England Baptists, makes the
following record:—
“Stephen Mumford came over from London in 1664, and brought
the opinion with him that the whole of the ten commandments,
as they were delivered from Mount Sinai, were moral and
immutable; and that it was the Antichristian power which
thought to change times and laws, that changed the Sabbath from
the seventh to the first day of the week. Several members of
the first church in Newport embraced this sentiment, and yet
continued with the church for some years, until two men and
their wives who had so done, turned back to the keeping of the
first day again.”[1088]
Mr. Mumford, on his arrival, went earnestly to work to convert men to
the observance of the fourth commandment, as we infer from the following
record:—
“Stephen Mumford, the first Sabbath-keeper in America, came
from London in 1664. Tacy Hubbard commenced keeping the
Sabbath, March 11, 1665. Samuel Hubbard commenced April 1,
1665. Rachel Langworthy, January 15, 1666. Roger Baxter,
April 15, 1666, and William Hiscox, April 28, 1666. These
were the first Sabbath-keepers in America. A controversy,
lasting several years, sprung up between them and members of
the church. They desired to retain their connection with the
church, but were, at last, compelled to withdraw, that they
might peaceably enjoy and keep God’s holy day.”[1089] [Baxter
is Baster in the _S. D. B. Memorial_.]
Though Mr. Mumford faithfully taught the truth, he seems to have
cherished the ideas of the English Sabbatarians, that it was possible
for first-day and seventh-day observers to walk together in church
fellowship. Had the first-day people been of the same mind, the light
of the Sabbath would have been extinguished within a few years, as
the history of English Sabbath-keepers clearly proves. But, in the
providence of God, the danger was averted by the opposition which these
commandment-keepers had to encounter.
Besides the persons above enumerated, four others embraced the Sabbath
in 1666, but in 1668 they renounced it. These four were also members of
the first-day Baptist church of Newport. Though the Sabbath-keepers who
retained their integrity thought that they might lawfully commune with
the members of the church who were fully persuaded to observe the first
day, yet they felt otherwise with respect to these who had clearly seen
the Sabbath, and had for a time observed it, and then apostatized from
it. These persons “both wrote and spoke against it, which so grieved them
that they could not sit down at the table of the Lord with them, nor with
the church because of them.” But as they were members of a first-day
church, and had “no power to deal with them as of themselves without
the help of the church,” they “found themselves barred as to proceeding
with them, as being but private brethren. So they concluded not to bring
the case to the church to judge of the fact, viz., in turning from the
observation of the seventh day, being contrary-minded as to that.” They
therefore sent to the London Sabbath-keepers for advice, and in the mean
time refrained from communing with the church.
Dr. Edward Stennet wrote them in behalf of the London Sabbath-keepers:
“If the church will hold communion with these apostates from the truth,
you ought then to desire to be fairly dismissed from the church; which if
the church refuse, you ought to withdraw yourselves.”[1090] They decided,
however, not to leave the church. But they told “the church publicly
that they could not have comfortable communion with those four persons
that had sinned.” “And thus for several months they walked with little
or no offense from the church; after which the leading or ministering
brethren began to declare themselves concerning the ten precepts.” Mr.
Tory “declared the law to be done away.” Mr. Luker and Mr. Clarke “made
it their work to preach the non-observation of the law, day after day.”
But the Sabbath-keepers replied “that the ten precepts were still as
holy, just, good, and spiritual, as ever.” Mr. Tory “with some unpleasant
words said ‘that their tune was only the fourth precept,’ to which they
answered, ‘that the whole ten precepts were of equal force with them, and
that they did not plead for one without the other.’ And they for several
years, went on with the church in a halvish kind of fellowship.”[1091]
Mr. Bailey thus states the result:—
“At the time of their change of sentiment and practice,
[respecting the Bible Sabbath], they had no intention of
establishing a church with this distinctive feature. God,
evidently, had a different mission for them, and brought them
to it, through the severe trial of persecution. They were
forced to leave the fellowship of the Baptist church, or
abandon the Sabbath of the Lord their God.”[1092]
“These left the Baptist church on December 7, 1671.”[1093]
“On the 23d of December, just sixteen days after withdrawing
from the Baptist church, they covenanted together in a church
organization.”[1094]
Such was the origin of the first Sabbath-keeping church in America.[1095]
The second of these churches owes its origin to this circumstance: About
the year 1700, Edmund Dunham of Piscataway, N. J., reproved a person for
labor on Sunday. He was asked for his authority from the Scriptures. On
searching for this, he became satisfied that the seventh day is the only
weekly Sabbath in the Bible, and began to observe it.
“Soon after, others followed his example, and in 1707 a
Seventh-day Baptist church was organized, with seventeen
members. Edmund Dunham was chosen pastor and sent to Rhode
Island to receive ordination.”[1096]
The S. D. Baptist General Conference was organized in 1802. At its first
annual session, it included in its organization eight churches, nine
ordained ministers, and 1130 members.[1097] The Conference was organized
with only advisory powers, the individual churches retaining the matters
of discipline and church government in their own hands.[1098] The
Conference now embraces some eighty churches, and about 8000 members.
These churches are found in most of the northern and western States, and
are divided into five associations, which, however, have no legislative
nor disciplinary power over the churches which compose them. There
are, belonging to the denomination, five academies, one college, “and
a university with academic, collegiate, mechanical, and theological
departments in operation.”[1099] The S. D. Baptist missionary society
sustains several home missionaries who labor principally on the western
and southern borders of the denomination. They have within a few years
past met with a good degree of success in this work. It has also a
missionary station at Shanghai, China, and a small church there of
faithful Christians.
The American Sabbath Tract Society is the publishing agency of the
denomination. Its head-quarters are at Alfred Center, N. Y. It publishes
the _Sabbath Recorder_, the organ of the S. D. Baptists, and it also
publishes a series of valuable works relating to the Sabbath and the law
of God.
During the two hundred years which have elapsed since the organization
of the first Sabbatarian church in America, God has raised up among this
people men of eminent talent and moral worth. He has also in providential
ways called attention to the sacred trust which he so long since confided
to the S. D. Baptists, and which they have been slow to realize in its
immense importance.
Among those converted to the Sabbath through the agency of this people,
the name of J. W. Morton is particularly worthy of honorable mention.
He was sent in 1847 a missionary to the island of Hayti by the Reformed
Presbyterians. Here he came in contact with Sabbatarian publications,
and after a serious examination became satisfied that the seventh day
is the Sabbath of the Lord. As an honest man, what he saw to be truth
he immediately obeyed, and returning home to be tried for his heresy,
was summarily expelled from the Reformed Presbyterian church without
being suffered to state the reasons which had governed his conduct. He
has given to the world a valuable work, entitled, “Vindication of the
True Sabbath,” in which his experience is related, and his reasons for
observing the seventh day set forth with great force and clearness.
The S. D. Baptists do not lack men of education and of talent, and they
have ample means in their possession with which to sustain the cause of
God. If in time past they have not fully realized that they were debtors
to all mankind because of the great truth which God committed to their
trust, there is reason to believe that they are now to some extent
awakening to this vast indebtedness.[1100]
There is also in the State of Pennsylvania a small body of German S. D.
Baptists found in the counties of Lancaster, York, Franklin, and Bedford,
and in the central and western parts of the State. They originated in
1728 from the teaching of Conrad Beissel, a native of Germany. They
practice trine immersion, and the washing of feet, and observe open
communion. They encourage celibacy, but make it obligatory upon none.
Even those who have chosen this manner of life are at liberty to marry
if at any time they choose so to do. They established and successfully
maintained a Sabbath-school at Ephrata, their head-quarters, forty years
before Robert Raikes had introduced the system of Sunday-schools. This
people have suffered much persecution because of their observance of
the seventh day, the laws of Pennsylvania being particularly oppressive
toward Sabbatarians.[1101] The German S. D. Baptists do not belong to the
S. D. Baptist General Conference.
We have already noticed the fact that Sabbath-keepers are numerous
in Russia, in Poland, and in Turkey. We find the following statement
respecting Sabbath-keepers in Hungary:—
“A congregation of seventh-day Christians in Hungary, being
refused tolerance by the laws, has embraced Judaism, in order
to be allowed to exist in connection with one of the ‘received
religions.’”[1102]
The probability is that as the laws of the Austrian Empire bear very
heavily upon all religious bodies not belonging to some one of the
tolerated sects or orders, these “Seventh-day Christians” on “being
refused tolerance” in their own name, secured the privilege of observing
the seventh day by allowing their doctrine to be classed by the civil
authorities under the head of Judaism, and so bringing themselves under
the tolerance accorded to the “received religions.” We do not say that
this was right, even as a technicality, but it is evidently the extent of
what they did. There is no reason to believe that they abjured Christ. We
also learn that there are Sabbath-keepers in the north of Asia:—
“There is a sect of Greek Christians in Siberia who keep the
Jewish Sabbath (Saturday). Such sects already exist in the
United States, in Germany, and we believe in England.”[1103]
The Sabbath was first introduced to the attention of the Advent people
at Washington, N. H. A faithful Seventh-day Baptist sister, Mrs. Rachel
D. Preston, from the State of New York, having removed to this place,
brought with her the Sabbath of the Lord. Here she became interested
in the doctrine of the glorious advent of the Saviour at hand. Being
instructed in this subject by the Advent people, she in turn instructed
them in the commandments of God, and as early as 1844, nearly the entire
church in that place, consisting of about forty persons, became observers
of the Sabbath of the Lord.[1104] The oldest body of Sabbath-keepers
among the Seventh-day Adventists is therefore at Washington, N. H. Its
present number is small, for it has been thinned by emigration and by the
ravages of death; but there still remains a small company to bear witness
to this ancient truth of the Bible.
From this place, several Advent ministers received the Sabbath truth
during the year 1844. One of these was Eld. T. M. Preble, who has the
honor of first bringing this great truth before the Adventists through
the medium of the press. His essay was dated Feb. 13, 1845. He presented
briefly the claims of the Bible Sabbath, and showed that it was not
changed by the Saviour, but was changed by the great apostasy. He then
said:—
“Thus we see Dan. 7:25, fulfilled, the little horn changing
‘times and laws.’ Therefore it appears to me that all who keep
the first day for the Sabbath, are Pope’s Sunday-keepers, and
God’s Sabbath breakers.”[1105]
Within a few months many persons began to observe the Sabbath as the
result of the light thus shed on their pathway. Eld. J. B. Cook, a man
of decided talent as a preacher and a writer, was one of these early
converts to the Sabbath. Elders Preble and Cook were at this time in
the full vigor of their mental powers, and were possessed of talent
and a reputation for piety, which gave them great influence among the
Adventists in behalf of the Sabbath. These men were called in the
providence of God to fill an important place in the work of Sabbath
reform.
But both of them, while preaching and writing in its behalf, committed
the fatal error of making it of no practical importance. They had
apparently the same fellowship for those who rejected the Sabbath that
they had for those who observed it. Such a course of action produced
its natural result. After two or three years of this kind of Sabbath
observance, each of these men apostatized from it, and thenceforward used
what influence they possessed in warring against the fourth commandment.
The larger part of those who embraced the Sabbath from their labors were
not sufficiently impressed with its importance to become settled and
grounded in its weighty evidences, and, after a brief period, they turned
back from its observance. But enough had been done to excite bitter
opposition toward the Sabbath on the part of many Adventists, and to
bring out the ingenious and plausible arguments by which men attempt to
prove that God has abolished his own sacred law.
Such was the fruit of their course, and such the condition of things
at the time of their defection. But the result of their plan of action
taught the Advent Sabbath-keepers a lesson of value, which they have
never forgotten. They learned that the fourth commandment must be treated
as a part of the moral law, if men are ever to be led to its sacred
observance.
Eld. Preble’s first article in behalf of the Sabbath was the means of
calling the attention of our venerable brother, Joseph Bates, to this
divine institution. He soon became convinced of its obligation, and at
once began to observe it. He had acted quite a prominent part in the
Advent movement of 1843-4, and now, with self-sacrificing zeal, he took
hold of the despised Sabbath truth to set it before his fellow-men. He
did not do it in the half-way manner of Elders Preble and Cook, but as
a man thoroughly in earnest and fully alive to the importance of his
subject.
The subject of the heavenly Sanctuary began about this time to interest
many Adventists, and especially Eld. Bates. He was one of the first to
see that the central object of that Sanctuary is the ark of God. He also
called attention to the proclamation of the third angel relative to God’s
commandments. He girded on the armor to lay it down only when his work
should be accomplished. He has been instrumental in leading many to the
observance of the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and few
who have received the Sabbath from his teaching have apostatized from
it.[1106]
It was but a few months after Eld. Bates, that our esteemed and efficient
brother, Eld. James White, also embraced the Sabbath. He had labored
with much success in the great Advent movement, and he now entered
heartily into the work of Sabbath reform. Uniting with Eld. Bates in the
proclamation of the doctrine of the advent and the Sabbath as connected
together in the Sanctuary and the message of the third angel, he has,
with the blessing of God, accomplished great results in behalf of the
Sabbath.
The publishing interests of the Seventh-day Adventists originated through
his instrumentality. He began the work of publishing in 1849, without
resources, and with very few friends, but with much toil, self-sacrifice,
and anxious care; and with the blessing of God upon his efforts, he has
been the means of establishing an efficient office of publication, and
of disseminating many important works throughout our country, and, to
some extent, to other nations also. The publication of the _Advent Review
and Herald of the Sabbath_, the organ of the Seventh-day Adventists, was
commenced by him in 1850. For most of the years of its existence, he has
served as one of its editors; and for all its earlier years, he was both
publisher and sole editor. During this time, he has also labored with
energy as a minister of the gospel of Christ.
The wants of the cause demanding an enlargement of capital and more
extensive operations, to this end an Association was incorporated in
the city of Battle Creek, Michigan, May 3, 1861, under the name of the
Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association. This Association owns three
commodious publishing houses, with engine, power presses, and all the
fixtures necessary for doing an extensive business. There are about fifty
persons constantly employed in this work of publication. The Association
has a capital of about $82,000. Under God, it owes its prosperity to the
prudent management and untiring energy of Eld. James White.
The _Advent Review_ has at the present time (Nov., 1873) a circulation of
about 5000 copies. The _Youth’s Instructor_, a monthly paper designed for
the children of Sabbath-keeping Adventists, began to be issued in 1852,
and has now attained a circulation of nearly 5000 copies.
The _Advent Tidende_, a Danish monthly with a circulation of 800, is
published for the benefit of those who speak the Danish and Norwegian
tongues, of whom a considerable number have embraced the Sabbath.
The S. D. Adventists have taken a strong interest in the subject of
hygiene and the laws of health, and have established a Health Institute
at Battle Creek, Mich., which publishes the _Health Reformer_, a monthly
journal, magazine form, having a circulation of nearly 5000 copies.
Numerous publications on Prophecy, the Signs of the Times, the Coming
of Christ, the Sabbath, the Law of God, the Sanctuary, &c., &c., have
been issued within the past twenty years, and have had an extensive
circulation, amounting, in the aggregate, to many millions of pages.
The ordinary financial wants of the cause are sustained by a method
of collecting means known as Systematic Benevolence. By this system,
it is designed that each friend of the cause shall pay a certain sum
weekly proportioned to the property which he possesses. But there is no
compulsion in this matter. In this manner the burden is borne by all,
so that it rests heavily upon none; and the means needed for the work
flows with a steady stream into the treasury of the several churches, and
finally into that of the State Conferences. A settlement is instituted
each year at the State Conferences, in which the labors, receipts, and
expenditures, of each minister are carefully considered. Thus none are
allowed to waste means, and none who are recognized as called of God to
the ministry are allowed to suffer.
The churches sustain their meetings for the most part without the aid of
preaching. They raise means to sustain the servants of Christ, but bid
them mainly devote their time and strength to save those who have not the
light of these important truths shining upon their pathway. So they go
out everywhere preaching the word of God, as his providence guides their
feet. During the summer months, the work in new fields is carried forward
principally by means of large tents, which enable the preacher to provide
a suitable place of worship, wherever he may think it desirable to labor.
The Seventh-day Adventists have thirteen State Conferences, which
assemble annually in their respective States. These bear the names of
Maine, Vermont, New England, New York and Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan,
Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri and Kansas, and
California. These Conferences are designed to meet the local wants of
the cause. There is also a General Conference, which assembles yearly,
composed of delegates from the State Conferences. This Conference takes
the general oversight of the work in all the State Conferences, supplying
the more destitute with laborers as far as possible, and uniting the
whole strength of the body for the accomplishment of the work. It also
takes the charge of missionary labor in those States which have no
organized Conferences.
There are about fifty ministers who devote their whole time to the
work of the gospel. There is also a considerable number who preach a
portion of the time and devote the remainder to secular labor. There are
about 6000 members in the several Conference organizations. But such
is the scattered condition of this people (for they are found in all
the northern States and in several of the southern), that a very large
portion have no connection with its organization. They are to be found
in single families scattered all the way from Maine to California and
Oregon. The _Review_ and _Instructor_ constitute, in a great number of
cases, the only preachers of their faith.
Those subjects which more especially interest this people, are the
fulfillment of prophecy, the second personal advent of the Saviour as an
event now near at hand, immortality through Christ alone, a change of
heart through the operation of the Holy Spirit, the observance of the
Sabbath of the fourth commandment, the divinity and mediatorial work
of Christ, and the development of a holy character by obedience to the
perfect and holy law of God.[1107]
They are very strict with regard to the ordinance of baptism, believing
not only that it requires men to be buried in the watery grave, but that
even such baptism is faulty if administered to those who are breaking one
of the ten commandments. They also believe that our Lord’s direction in
John 13 should be observed in connection with the supper.
They teach that the gifts of the Spirit set forth in 1 Cor. 12 and Eph.
4, were designed to remain in the church till the end of time. They
believe that these were lost in consequence of the same apostasy that
changed the Sabbath. They also believe that in the final restoration of
the commandments by the work of the third angel, the gifts of the Spirit
of God are restored with them. So the remnant of the church, or last
generation of its members, is said to “keep the commandments of God, and
have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”[1108] And the angel of God explains
this by saying, “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”[1109]
The spirit of prophecy therefore has a distinct place assigned to it in
the final work of Sabbath reform. Such are their views of this portion of
Scripture; and their history from the beginning has been marked by the
influence of this sacred gift.
In the face of strong opposition, the people known as Seventh-day
Adventists have arisen to bear their testimony for the Sabbath of the
Lord. They have had perils from open foes, and from false brethren; but
they have thus far overcome the difficulties of the way, and from each
have gathered strength for the conflict before them. They have a definite
work which they hope to accomplish. It is to make ready a people
prepared for the advent of the Lord.
Honorable mention should be made of the Seventh-day Adventists of
Switzerland. They first learned these precious truths from Elder M. B.
Czechowski, who a few years since instructed them in the commandments of
God and the faith of Jesus. Since his labors with them ceased, God has
given them strength to stand with firmness for his truth, and has added
to their numbers. They have a heart to obey the truth and to sacrifice
for its advancement. They number about sixty persons. There are a few
individuals of this faith also in Italy, Germany, and Denmark.
The observance of the Sabbath is sometimes advocated on the ground
that man needs a day of rest and will grow prematurely old if he labor
seven days in each week, which is doubtless true; and it has also been
advocated on the ground that God will bless in basket and in store those
who hallow his Sabbath, which may be true in many cases; but the Bible
does not urge motives of this kind in respect to this sacred institution.
Without doubt there are great incidental advantages in the observance of
the Sabbath. But these are not what God sets before us as the reasons
for its observance. The true reason is infinitely higher than all
considerations of this kind, and should constrain men to obey, even were
it certain that it would cost them all that is dear in the present life.
The Sabbath has been advocated on the ground that it secures to men a day
for divine worship in which by common consent they may appear before God.
This is a very important consideration, and yet the Bible says little
concerning it. It is one of the incidental blessings of the Sabbath,
and not the chief reason for its observance. The Sabbath was ordained to
commemorate the creation of the heavens and the earth.
The importance of the Sabbath as the memorial of creation is that it
keeps ever present the true reason why worship is due to God. For the
worship of God is based upon the fact that he is the Creator and that
all other beings were created by him. The Sabbath therefore lies at the
very foundation of divine worship, for it teaches this great truth in
the most impressive manner, and no other institution does this. The true
ground of divine worship, not of that on the seventh day merely, but of
all worship, is found in the distinction between the Creator and his
creatures. This great fact can never become obsolete, and must never be
forgotten. To keep it in man’s mind, God gave to him the Sabbath. He
received it in his innocency, and notwithstanding the perversity of his
professed people, God has preserved this sacred institution through the
entire period of man’s fallen state.
The four and twenty elders in the very act of worshiping Him who sits
upon the throne, state the reason why worship is due to God:—
“Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power;
for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are
and were created.”[1110]
This great truth is therefore worthy to be remembered even in the
glorified state. And we shall presently learn that what God gave to man
in Paradise, to keep this great truth before his mind, shall be honored
by him in Paradise restored.
The future is given to us in the prophetic Scriptures. From them we learn
that our earth is reserved unto fire, and that from its ashes shall
spring new heavens and earth, and ages of endless date.[1111] Over this
glorified inheritance, the second Adam, the Lord of the Sabbath, shall
bear rule, and under his gracious protection the nations of them which
are saved shall inherit the land forever.[1112] When the glory of the
Lord shall thus fill the earth as the waters cover the sea, the Sabbath
of the Most High is again and for the last time brought to view:—
“For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make
shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and
your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new
moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all
flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.”[1113]
Does not Paul refer to these very facts set forth by Isaiah when he says,
“There remaineth therefore a rest [Greek, _Sabbatismos_, literally “A
KEEPING OF THE SABBATH”] to the people of God”?[1114] The reason for this
monthly gathering to the New Jerusalem of all the host of the redeemed
from every part of the new earth may be found in the language of the
Apocalypse:—
“And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as
crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the
river was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of
fruits and yielded her fruit every month; and the leaves of the
tree were for the healing [literally, the service][1115] of the
nations.”[1116]
The gathering of the nations that are saved to the presence of the
Creator, from the whole face of the new earth on each successive Sabbath,
attests the sacredness of the Sabbath even in that holy state, and sets
the seal of the Most High to the perpetuity of this ancient institution.
FOOTNOTES
[1] For the scriptural and traditional evidence on this point, see
Shimeall’s Bible Chronology, part i. chap. vi; Taylor’s Voice of the
Church, pp. 25-30; and Bliss’ Sacred Chronology, pp. 199-203.
[2] Isa. 57:15; 1 Sam. 15:29, margin; Jer. 10:10, margin; Micah 5:2,
margin; 1 Tim. 6:16; 1:17; Ps. 90:2.
[3] Dr. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on Gen. 1:1, uses the following
language: “Created] Caused that to exist which previously to this moment,
had no being. The rabbins, who are legitimate judges in a case of verbal
criticism on their own language, are unanimous in asserting that the
word _bara_, expresses the commencement of the existence of a thing:
or its egression from nonentity to entity.... These words should be
translated: ‘God in the beginning created the _substance_ of the heavens
and the _substance_ of the earth; _i. e._, the _prima materia_, or first
elements, out of which the heavens and the earth were successively
formed.’”
Purchase’s Pilgrimage, b. i. chap, ii., speaks thus of the creation:
“Nothing but nothing had the Lord Almighty, whereof, wherewith, whereby,
to build this city” [that is the world].
Dr. Gill says: “These are said to be _created_, that is, to be made out
of nothing; for what pre-existent matter to this chaos [of verse 2] could
there be out of which they could be formed?”
“Creation must be the work of God, for none but an almighty power could
produce something out of nothing.” Commentary on Gen. 1:1.
John Calvin, in his Commentary on this chapter, thus expounds the
creative act: “His meaning is, that the world was made out of nothing.
Hence the folly or those is refuted who imagine that unformed matter
existed from eternity.”
The work of creation is thus defined in 2 Maccabees 7:28: “Look upon the
heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made
them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise.”
That this creative act marked the commencement of the first day instead
of preceding it by almost infinite ages is thus stated in 2 Esdras 6:38:
“And I said, O Lord, thou spakest from the beginning of the creation,
even the first day, and saidst thus: Let heaven and earth be made; and
thy word was a perfect work.”
Wycliffe’s translation, the earliest of the English versions, renders
Gen. 1:1, thus: “In the first, made God of naught heaven and earth.”]
[4] Heb. 11:3; Gen. 1.
[5] Gen. 1:1-5; Heb. 1.
[6] Gen. 1:6-8; Job 37:18.
[7] Gen. 1:9-13; Ps. 136:6; 2 Pet. 3:5.
[8] Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 119:91; Jer. 33:25.
[9] Gen 1:20-23.
[10] Gen. 1:24-31; 2:7-9, 18-22; 3:20; Job 38:7.
[11] “On the sixth day God ended his work which he had made; and he
rested on the seventh day,” &c., is the reading of the Septuagint, the
Syriac, and the Samaritan; “and this should be considered the genuine
reading,” says Dr. A. Clarke. See his Commentary on Gen. 2.
[12] Gen. 2:2; Ex. 31:17.
[13] Isa. 40:28.
[14] Gen. 2:3; Ex. 20:11. In an anonymous work entitled “Morality of the
Fourth Commandment,” London, 1652, but not the same with that of Dr.
Twisse, of the same title, is the following striking passage:
“The Hebrew root for seven signifies _fullness_, _perfection_, and the
Jews held many mysteries to be in the number seven: so John in his
Apocalypse useth much that number. As, seven churches, seven stars, seven
spirits, seven candlesticks, seven angels, seven seals, seven trumpets;
and we no sooner meet with a seventh day, but it is blessed; no sooner
with a seventh man [Gen. 5:24; Jude 14], but he is translated.” Page 7.
[15] Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary on the words _sanctify_ and
_hallow_. Ed. 1859.
The revised edition of 1864 gives this definition: “To make sacred
or holy; to set apart to a holy or religious use; _to consecrate
by appropriate rites_; to hallow. God blessed the seventh day, and
_sanctified_ it. Gen. 2:3. Moses ... sanctified Aaron and his garments.
Lev. 8:30.”
Worcester defines it thus: “_To ordain or set apart to sacred ends_; to
consecrate; to hallow. God blessed the seventh day and _sanctified_ it.
Gen. 2:3.”
[16] Gen. 2:15; 1:28.
[17] Morality of the Fourth Commandment, pp. 56, 57, London, 1641.
[18] Hebrew Lexicon, p. 914, ed. 1854.
[19] Josh. 20:7; Joel 1:14; 2:15; 2 Kings 10:20, 21; Zeph. 1 7, margin.
[20] Ex. 10:12, 23.
[21] Dr. Lange’s Commentary speaks on this point thus, in vol. i, p. 197:
“If we had no other passage than this of Gen. 2:3, there would be no
difficulty in deducing from it a precept for the universal observance of
a Sabbath, or seventh day, to be devoted to God, as holy time, by all of
that race for whom the earth and its nature were specially prepared. The
first men must have known it. The words, ‘He hallowed it,’ can have no
meaning otherwise. They would be a blank unless in reference to some who
were required to keep it holy.”
Dr. Nicholas Bound, in his “True Doctrine of the Sabbath,” London, 1606,
page 7, thus states the antiquity of the Sabbath precept:
“This first commandment of the Sabbath was no more then first given when
it was pronounced from Heaven by the Lord, than any other one of the
moral precepts, nay, that it hath so much antiquity as the seventh day
hath being; for, so soon as the day was, so soon was it sanctified, that
we might know that, as it came in with the first man, so it must not go
out but with the last man; and as it was in the beginning of the world,
so it must continue to the end of the same; and, as the first seventh day
was sanctified, so must the last be. And this is that which one saith,
that the Sabbath was commanded by God, and the seventh day was sanctified
of him even from the beginning of the world; where (the latter words
expounding the former) he showeth that, when God did sanctify it, then
also he commanded it to be kept holy; and therefore look how ancient the
sanctification of the day is, the same antiquity also as the commandment
of keeping it holy; for they two are all one.”
[22] Ex. 20:8-11.
[23] Buck’s Theological Dictionary, article, Sabbath; Calmet’s
Dictionary, article, Sabbath.
[24] Ex. 16:22, 23.
[25] John 1: 1-3; Gen. 1:1, 26; Col. 1:13-16.
[26] Mark 2:27.
[27] Barrett’s Principles of English Grammar, p. 29.
[28] Job 14:12; 1 Cor. 10:13; Heb. 9:27.
[29] Dr. Twisse illustrates the absurdity of that view which makes the
first observance of the Sabbath in memory of creation to have begun some
2500 years after that event: “We read that when the Ilienses, inhabitants
of Ilium, called anciently by the name of Troy, sent an embassage to
Tiberius, to condole the death of his father Augustus, he, considering
the unseasonableness thereof, it being a long time after his death,
requited them accordingly, saying that he was sorry for their heaviness
also, having lost so renowned a knight as Hector was, to wit, above a
thousand years before, in the wars of Troy.”—_Morality of the Fourth
Commandment_, p. 198.
[30] Ex. 16:23.
[31] Ex. 16.
[32] Ex. 20:8-11.
[33] Compare Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11.
[34] Heb. 3:4; Jer. 10:10-12; Rom. 1:20; Ps. 33:9; Heb. 11:3.
[35] Antiquities of the Jews, b. i. chap. i. sect. 1.
[36] Works, vol. i. The Creation of the World, sect. 30.
[37] Isa. 58:13, 14; Heb. 9:10.
[38] Gen. 3; Rom. 5:12.
[39] Gen. 9:5, 7.
[40] Gen. 5:24; 6:9; 26:5.
[41] See the beginning of chap. viii. of this work.
[42] Ezra 3:1-6; Neh. 8:2, 9-12, 14-18; 1 Kings 8:2, 65; 2 Chron. 5:3;
7:8, 9; John 7:2-14, 37.
[43] “The week, another primeval measure, is not a natural measure of
time, as some astronomers and chronologers have supposed, indicated
by the phases or quarters of the moon. It was originated by divine
appointment at the creation—six days of labor and one of rest being
wisely appointed for man’s physical and spiritual well-being.”—_Bliss’
Sacred Chronology_, p. 6; _Hale’s Chronology_, vol. i. p. 19.
“Seven has been the ancient and honored number among the nations of the
earth. They have measured their time by weeks from the beginning. The
original of this was the Sabbath of God, as Moses has given the reasons
of it in his writings.”—_Brief Dissertation on the first three Chapters
of Genesis, by Dr. Coleman_, p. 26.
[44] Gen. 29:27, 28; 8:10, 12; 7:4, 10; 50:10; Ex. 7:25; Job 2:13.
[45] Ex. 16:22, 23.
[46] The interest to see the first man is thus stated: “Sem and Seth were
in great honor among men, and so was Adam above every living thing in the
creation.” Ecclesiasticus 49:16.
[47] Gen. 26:5; 18:19.
[48] Gen. 2-6; Heb. 11:4-7; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5.
[49] Gen. 7; Matt. 24:37-39; Luke 17:26, 27; 2 Pet. 3:5, 6.
[50] Deut. 32:7, 8; Acts 17:26.
[51] Gen. 11:1-9; Josephus’ Ant., b. i. chap. iv. This took place in the
days of Peleg, who was born about one hundred years after the flood. Gen.
10:25, compared with 11:10-16; Ant., b. i. chap. vi. sect. 4.
[52] Rom. 1:18-32; Acts 14:16, 17; 17:29, 30.
[53] Gen. 12:1-3; Josh. 24:2, 3, 14; Neh. 9:7, 8; Rom. 4:13-17; 2 Chron.
20:7; Isa. 41:8; James 2:23.
[54] Gen. 18:19.
[55] Gen. 17:9-14; 34:14; Acts 10:28; 11:2, 3; Eph. 2:12-19; Num. 23:9;
Deut. 33:27, 28.
[56] Gen. 15; Ex. 1-5; Deut. 4:20.
[57] Ex. 12:29-42; Gal. 3:17.
[58] Ps. 105:43-45; Lev. 22:32, 33; Num. 15:41.
[59] Gen. 2:2, 3; 26:5; Ex. 16:4, 27, 28; 18:16.
[60] Ps. 90:2.
[61] Ex. 19:3-8, 24:3-8; Jer. 3:14, compared with last clause of Jer.
31:32.
[62] Ex. 20:2; 24:10.
[63] Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14; Neh. 9:14.
[64] On this verse Dr. A. Clarke thus comments:—“_On the sixth day they
gathered twice as much_—This they did that they might have a provision
for the Sabbath.”
[65] The Douay Bible reads: “To-morrow is the rest of the Sabbath
sanctified unto the Lord.” Dr. Clarke comments as follows upon this text:
“_To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath._ There is nothing either
in the text or context that seems to intimate that the Sabbath was now
_first_ given to the Israelites, as some have supposed; on the contrary,
it is here spoken of as being perfectly well known, from its having been
generally observed. The commandment, it is true, may be considered as
being now _renewed_; because they might have supposed, that in their
unsettled state in the wilderness, they might have been exempted from the
observance of it. Thus we find, 1. That when God finished his creation he
instituted the Sabbath; 2. When he brought the people out of Egypt, he
insisted on the strict observance of it; 3. When he gave the LAW, he made
it a tenth part of the whole: such importance has this institution in the
eyes of the Supreme Being!”
Richard Baxter, a famous divine of the seventeenth century, and a decided
advocate of the abrogation of the fourth commandment, in his “Divine
Appointment of the Lord’s Day,” thus clearly states the origin of the
Sabbath: “Why should God begin two thousand years after [the creation of
the world] to give men a Sabbath upon the reason of his rest from the
creation of it, if he had never called man to that commemoration before?
And it is certain that the Sabbath was observed at the falling of the
manna before the giving of the law; and let any considering Christian
judge..... 1. Whether the not falling of the manna, or the rest of God
after the creation, was like to be the original reason of the Sabbath.
2. And whether if it had been the first, it would not have been said,
Remember to keep holy the Sabbath-day; for on six days the manna fell,
and not on the seventh; rather than ‘for in six days God created heaven
and earth, &c., and rested the seventh day.’ And it is casually added,
‘Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it.’ Nay,
consider whether this annexed reason intimates not that the day on this
ground being hallowed before, therefore it was that God sent not down
the manna on that day, and that he prohibited the people from seeking
it.”—_Practical Works_, Vol. iii. p. 784. ed. 1707.
[66] The Douay Bible reads: “Because it is the Sabbath of the Lord.”
[67] Ex. 16.
[68] It has indeed been asserted that God by a miracle equalized the
portion of every one on five days, and doubled the portion of each on the
sixth, so that no act of the people had any bearing on the Sabbath. But
the equal portion of each on the five days was not thus understood by
Paul. He says: “But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance
may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply
for your want; that there may be equality; as it is written, He that had
gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no
lack.” 2 Cor. 8:14, 15. And that the double portion on the sixth day was
the act of the people, is affirmed by Moses. He says that “on the sixth
day they gathered twice as much bread.” Verse 22.
[69] Gen. 7:4, 10; 8:10, 12; 29:27, 28; 50:10; Ex. 7:25; Job 2:13.
[70] By this three-fold miracle, occurring every week for forty years,
the great Law-giver distinguished his hallowed day. The people were
therefore admirably prepared to listen to the fourth commandment
enjoining the observance of the very day on which he had rested. Ex.
16:35; Josh. 5:12; Ex. 20:8-11.
[71] The twelfth chapter of Exodus relates the origin of the passover. It
is in striking contrast with Ex. 16, which is supposed to give the origin
of the Sabbath. If the reader will compare the two chapters he will see
the difference between the origin of an institution as given in Ex. 12,
and a familiar reference to an existing institution as in Ex. 16. If he
will also compare Gen. 2 with Ex. 12, he will see that the one gives the
origin of the Sabbath in the same manner that the other gives the origin
of the passover.
[72] This implies, first, the fall of a larger quantity on that day, and
second, its preservation for the wants of the Sabbath.
[73] This must refer to going out for manna, as the connection implies;
for religious assemblies on the Sabbath were commanded and observed. Lev.
23:3; Mark 1:21; Luke 4:16; Acts 1:12; 15:21.
[74] John 7:22.
[75] Gen. 17:34; Ex. 4. Moses is said to have given circumcision to
the Hebrews; yet it is a singular fact that his first mention of that
ordinance is purely incidental, and plainly implies an existing knowledge
of it on their part. Thus it is written: “This is the ordinance of the
passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof; but every man’s servant
that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he
eat thereof.” Ex. 12:43, 44. And in like manner when the Sabbath was
given to Israel, that people were not ignorant of the sacred institution.
[76] Eze. 20:12; Ex. 31:17.
[77] Jer. 10:10-12.
[78] That the Lord was there in person with his angels, see besides the
narrative in Ex. 19; 20; 32-34, the following testimonies: Deut. 33:2;
Judges 5:5; Nehemiah 9:6-13; Ps. 68:17.
[79] Ex. 24:10; Lev. 22:32, 33; Num. 15:41; Isa. 41:17.
[80] Ps. 147:19, 20; Rom. 3:1, 2; 9:4, 5. The following from the pen of
Mr. Wm. Miller presents the subject in a clear light: “I say, and believe
I am supported by the Bible, that the moral law was never given to the
Jews as a people exclusively; but they were for a season the keepers of
it in charge. And through them the law, oracles, and testimony, have been
handed down to us. See Paul’s clear reasoning in Rom. chapters 2, 3, and
4, on that point.”—_Miller’s Life and Views_, p. 161.
[81] Ex. 19; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 2 Sam. 7:23; 1 Kings 8:53; Amos 3:1, 2.
[82] Ex. 20:1-17; 34:28, margin; Deut. 5:4-22; 10:4, margin.
[83] Deut. 5:22.
[84] He who created the world on the first day of the week, and completed
its organization in six days, rested on the seventh day, and was
refreshed. Gen. 1; 2; Ex. 31:17.
[85] To this, however, it is objected that in consequence of the
revolution of the earth on its axis, the day begins earlier in the East
than with us; and hence that there is no definite seventh day to the
world of mankind. To suit such objectors, the earth ought not to revolve.
But in that case, so far from removing the difficulty, there would be no
seventh day at all; for one side of the globe would have perpetual day
and the other side perpetual night. The truth is, everything depends upon
the revolution of the earth. God made the Sabbath for man [Mark 2:27]; he
made man to dwell on all the face of the earth [Acts 17:26]; he caused
the earth to revolve on its axis that it might measure off the days of
the week; causing that the sun should shine on the earth, as it revolves
from west to east, thus causing the day to go round the world from east
to west. Seven of these revolutions constitute a week; the seventh one
brings the Sabbath to all the world.
[86] Luke 23:54-56; 24:1.
[87] See also Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1, 2.
[88] Neh. 9:13, 14.
[89] This expression is strikingly illustrated in the statement of Eze.
20:5, where God is said to have made himself known unto Israel in Egypt.
This language cannot mean that the people were ignorant of the true God,
however wicked some of them might be, for they had been God’s peculiar
people from the days of Abraham. Ex. 2:23-25; 3:6, 7; 4:31. The language
implies the prior existence both of the Law-giver and of his Sabbath,
when it is said that they were “made known” to his people.
[90] It should never be forgotten that the term Sabbath day signifies
rest-day; that the Sabbath of the Lord is the rest-day of the Lord; and
hence that the expression, “Thy holy Sabbath,” refers the mind to the
Creator’s rest-day, and to his act of blessing and hallowing it.
[91] Ex. 20-24.
[92] Ex. 23:12.
[93] See also Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14; Isa. 56.
[94] Ex. 12:43-48.
[95] Ex. 24:3-8; Heb. 9:18-20.
[96] Dr. Clarke has the following note on this verse: “It is very likely
that Moses went up into the mount on the first day of the week; and
having with Joshua remained in the region of the cloud during six days,
on the seventh, which was the Sabbath, God spake to him.”—_Commentary
on Ex._ 24:16. The marking off of a week from the forty days in this
remarkable manner goes far toward establishing the view of Dr. C. And if
this be correct, it would strongly indicate that the ten commandments
were given upon the Sabbath; for there seems to be good evidence that
they were given the day before Moses went up to receive the tables of
stone. For the interview in which chapters 21-23 were given would require
but a brief space, and certainly followed immediately upon the giving of
the ten commandments. Ex. 20:18-21. When the interview closed, Moses came
down to the people and wrote all the words of the Lord. In the morning he
rose up early, and, having ratified the covenant, went up to receive the
law which God had written. Ex. 24:3-13.
[97] Ex. 24:12-18.
[98] Ex. 25-31.
[99] Ex. 31:12-18.
[100] Eze. 20:11, 12, 19, 20.
[101] See third chapter of this work.
[102] “To sanctify, _kadash_, signifies to consecrate, separate, and set
apart a thing or person from all secular purposes to some religious use.”
_Clarke’s Commentary on Ex._ 13:2. The same writer says, on Ex. 19:23,
“Here the word _kadash_ is taken in its proper, literal sense, signifying
the separating of a thing, person, or place, from all profane or common
uses, and devoting it to sacred purposes.”
[103] Gen. 17:7, 8; 26:24; 28:13; Ex. 3:6, 13-16, 18; 5:3; Isa. 45:3.
[104] Lev. 11:45.
[105] See chapter third.
[106] As a sign it did not thereby become a shadow and a ceremony, for
the Lord of the Sabbath was himself a sign. “Behold, I and the children
whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the
Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in Mount Zion.” Isa. 8:18. In Heb. 2:13,
this language is referred to Christ. “And Simeon blessed them, and said
unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising
again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against.”
Luke 2:34. That the Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel throughout
their generations, that is, for the time that they were his peculiar
people, no more proves that it is now abolished than the fact that Jesus
is now a sign that is spoken against proves that he will cease to exist
when he shall no longer be such a sign. Nor does this language argue that
the Sabbath was made for them, or that its obligation ceased when they
ceased to be the people of God. For the prohibition against eating blood
was a perpetual statute for their generations; yet it was given to Noah
when God first permitted the use of animal food, and was still obligatory
upon the Gentiles when the apostles turned to them. Lev. 3:17; Gen.
9:1-4; Acts 15.
The penalty of death at the hand of the civil magistrate is affixed to
the violation of the Sabbath. The same penalty is affixed to most of
the precepts of the moral law. Lev. 20:9, 10; 24:15-17; Deut. 13:6-18;
17:2-7. It should be remembered that the moral law embracing the Sabbath
formed a part of the civil code of the Hebrew nation. As such, the great
Law-giver annexed penalties to be inflicted by the magistrate, thus
doubtless shadowing forth the final retribution of the ungodly. Such
penalties were suspended by that remarkable decision of the Saviour that
those who were without sin should cast the first stone. But such a Being
will arise to punish men, when the hailstones of his wrath shall desolate
the earth. Our Lord did not, however, set aside the real penalty of the
law, the wages of sin, nor did he weaken that precept which had been
violated. John 8:1-9; Job 38:22, 23; Isa. 28:17; Rev. 16:17-21; Rom. 6:23.
[107] This fact will shed light upon those texts which introduce the
agency of angels in the giving of the law. Acts 7:38, 53; Gal. 3:19; Heb.
2:2.
[108] Ex. 32; 33.
[109] Ex. 34; Deut. 9.
[110] Ex. 34:21.
[111] The idea has been suggested by some from this verse that it was
Moses and not God who wrote the second tables. This view is thought to
be strengthened by the previous verse: “Write thou these words: for
after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and
with Israel.” But it is to be observed that the words upon the tables
of stone were the ten commandments; while the words here referred to
were those which God spoke to Moses during this interview of forty days,
beginning with verse 10 and extending to verse 27. That the pronoun
_he_ in verse 28 might properly enough refer to Moses, if positive
testimony did not forbid such reference, is readily admitted. That it
is necessary to attend to the connection in deciding the antecedents of
pronouns, is strikingly illustrated in 2 Sam. 24:1, where the pronoun
_he_ would naturally refer to the Lord, thus making God the one who
moved David to number Israel. Yet the connection shows that this was
not the case; for the anger of the Lord was kindled by the act; and 1
Chron. 21:1, positively declares that _he_ who thus moved David was
Satan. For positive testimony that it was God and not Moses who wrote
upon the second tables, see Ex. 34:1; Deut. 10:1-5. These texts carefully
discriminate between the work of Moses and the work of God, assigning the
preparation of the tables, the carrying of them up to the mount and the
bringing of them down from the mount, to Moses, but expressly assigning
the writing on the tables to God himself.
[112] Ex. 34:1, 28; Deut. 4:12, 13; 5:22.
[113] Ex. 24:12.
[114] Deut. 33:2. That angels are sometimes called saints or holy ones,
see Dan. 8:13-16. That angels were present with God at Sinai, see Ps.
68:17.
[115] Deut. 10:4, 5; Ex. 25:10-22.
[116] 1 John 3:4, 5.
[117] Ex. 32; Josh. 24:2, 14, 23; Eze. 20:7, 8, 16, 18, 24.
[118] Amos 5:25-27; Acts 7:41-43; Josh. 5:2-8.
[119] Num. 14; Ps. 95; Eze. 20:13.
[120] Eze. 20:13-24.
[121] Ex. 32.
[122] Num. 14.
[123] Deut. 9:24.
[124] Num. 14; Heb. 3:16.
[125] Ex. 16; Josh. 5:12.
[126] Num. 11; 21.
[127] A comparison of Ex. 19; 20:18-21; 24:3-8, with chapter 32, will
show the astonishing transitions of the Hebrews from faith and obedience
to rebellion and idolatry. See a general history of these acts in Ps. 78;
106.
[128] For a notice of this penalty see chapter 5.
[129] Ex. 35:1-3.
[130] Lev. 24:5-9; Num. 28:9, 10.
[131] The Bible abounds with facts which establish this proposition. Thus
the psalmist, in an address to Jerusalem, uses the following language:
“He giveth snow like wool; he scattereth the hoar-frost like ashes. He
casteth forth his ice like morsels; who can stand before his cold? He
sendeth out his word, and melteth them; he causeth his wind to blow,
and the waters flow. He showeth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and
his judgments unto Israel.” Ps. 147:16-19. Dr. Clarke has the following
note on this text: “At particular times the cold in the East is so very
intense as to kill man and beast. _Jacobus de Vitriaco_, one of the
writers in the _Gesta Dei per Francos_, says that in an expedition in
which he was engaged against Mount Tabor, on the 24th of December, the
cold was so intense that many of the poor people, and the beasts of
burthen died by it. And _Albertus Aquensis_, another of these writers,
speaking of the cold in Judea, says that _thirty_ of the people who
attended Baldwin I., in the mountainous districts near the Dead Sea,
were killed by it; and that in that expedition they had to contend with
horrible hail and ice; with unheard of snow and rain. From this we find
that the winters are often very severe in Judea; and that in such cases
as the above we may well call out, Who can stand against his cold!”
See his commentary on Ps. 147. See also Jer. 36:22; John 18:18; Matt.
24:20; Mark 13:18. 1 Maccabees 13:22, mentions a very great snow storm in
Palestine, so that horsemen could not march.
[132] The testimony of the Bible on this point is very explicit. Thus we
read: “Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt
rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid,
and the stranger, may be refreshed.” Ex. 23:12. To be without fire in
the severity of winter would cause the Sabbath to be a curse and not a
refreshment. It would ruin the health of those who should thus expose
themselves, and render the Sabbath anything but a source of refreshment.
The prophet uses the following language: “If thou turn away thy foot from
the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day: and call the Sabbath
a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable,” etc. The Sabbath then was
designed by God to be a source of delight to his people, and not a cause
of suffering. The merciful and beneficent character of the Sabbath is
seen in the following texts: Matt. 12:10-13; Mark 2:27, 28; Luke 14:3-6.
From them we learn that God regards the sufferings of the brute creation,
and would have them alleviated upon the Sabbath; how much more the
distress and the needs of his people, for whose refreshment and delight
the Sabbath was made.
[133] Ex. 29:9; 31:16; Lev. 3:17; 24:9; Num. 19:21; Deut. 5:31; 6:1; 7.
The number and variety of these allusions will surprise the inquirer.
[134] Ex. 16:23.
[135] Ex. 12; Deut. 16.
[136] The law of the passover certainly contemplated the arrival of the
Hebrews in the promised land before its regular observance. Ex. 12:25.
Indeed, it was only once observed in the wilderness; namely, in the year
following their departure from Egypt; and after that, was omitted until
they entered the land of Canaan. Num. 9; Josh. 5. This is proved, not
merely from the fact that no other instances are recorded, but because
that circumcision was omitted during the whole period of their sojourn in
the wilderness; and without this ordinance the children would have been
excluded from the passover. Ex. 12; Josh. 5.
[137] Dr. Gill, who considered the seventh-day Sabbath as a Jewish
institution, beginning with Moses, and ending with Christ, and one with
which Gentiles have no concern, has given his judgment concerning this
question of fire on the Sabbath. He certainly had no motive in this case
to answer this popular objection only that of stating the truth. He says:—
“This law seems to be a temporary one, and not to be continued, nor is it
said to be throughout their generations, as elsewhere, where the law of
the Sabbath is given or repeated; it is to be restrained to the building
of the tabernacle, and while that was about to which it is prefaced; and
it is designed to prevent all public or private working on the Sabbath
day in any thing belonging to that;” etc.—_Commentary on Ex._ 35:3.
Dr. Bound gives us St. Augustine’s idea of this precept: “He doth not
admonish them of it without cause; for that he speaketh in making
the tabernacle, and all things belonging to it, and showeth that,
notwithstanding that, they must rest upon the Sabbath day, and not
under the color of that (as it is said in the text) so much as kindle a
fire.”—_True Doctrine of the Sabbath_, p. 140.
[138] Lev. 19:1-3, 30.
[139] Lev. 23:3. It has been asserted from verse 2, that the Sabbath was
one of the feasts of the Lord. But a comparison of verses 2, 4, shows
that there is a break in the narrative, for the purpose of introducing
the Sabbath as a holy convocation; and that verse 4 begins the theme
anew in the very language of verse 2; and it is to be observed that the
remainder of the chapter sets forth the actual Jewish feasts; viz.,
that of unleavened bread, the Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles.
What further clears this point of all obscurity is the fact that
verses 37, 38, carefully discriminate between the feasts of the Lord
and the Sabbaths of the Lord. But Ex. 23:14, settles the point beyond
controversy: “Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year.”
And then verses 15-17 enumerate these feasts as in Lev. 23:4-44. See also
2 Chron. 8:13.
[140] Lev. 26:1, 2.
[141] Eze. 20:15, 16.
[142] Num. 13:14.
[143] Num. 15:32-36.
[144] Eze. 20:15, 16 comp. with Num. 14:35.
[145] Num. 15:30.
[146] Eze. 20.
[147] Hengstenberg, a distinguished German Anti-Sabbatarian, thus
candidly treats this text: “A man who had gathered wood on the Sabbath
is brought forth at the command of the Lord, and stoned by the whole
congregation before the camp. Calvin says rightly, ‘The guilty man did
not fall through error, but through gross contempt of the law, so that he
treated it as a light matter to overthrow and destroy all that is holy.’
It is evident from the manner of its introduction that the account is
not given with any reference to its chronological position; it reads,
‘And while the children of Israel were _in the wilderness_, they found a
man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day.’ It stands simply as an
example of the presumptuous breach of the law, of which the preceding
verses speak. He was one who despised the word of the Lord and broke his
commandments [verse 31]; one who with a high hand sinned and reproached
the Lord. Verse 30.”—_The Lord’s Day_, pp. 31, 32.
[148] Deut. 5:1-3.
[149] See the pledges of this people in Ex. 19; 24.
[150] See the second chapter of this work.
[151] See chapter third.
[152] Deut. 5:12-15.
[153] Compare Ex. 19; 20; Deut. 1.
[154] Ex. 20:8-11.
[155] Ex. 12; 13.
[156] Deut. 24:17, 18.
[157] Deut. 4:12, 13.
[158] Ex. 34:1; Deut. 10:2.
[159] Ex. 34:28; Deut. 10:4.
[160] Deut. 9:10.
[161] Deut. 5:22.
[162] Deut. 5:12-15, compared with Ex. 20:8-11.
[163] Deut. 5, compared with Ex. 20.
[164] Ex. 12; 1 Cor. 5:7, 8.
[165] Lev. 23:10-21; Num. 28:26-31; Deut. 16:9-12; Acts 2:1-18.
[166] Lev. 23:34-43; Deut. 16:13-15; Neh. 8; Rev. 7:9-14.
[167] Num. 10:10; 28:11-15; 1 Sam. 20:5, 24, 27; Ps. 81:3.
[168] Ex. 12:15, 16; Lev. 23:7, 8; Num. 28:17, 18, 25.
[169] Lev. 23:21; Num. 28:26.
[170] Lev. 23:24, 25; Num. 29:1-6.
[171] Lev. 23:27-32; 16:29-31; Num. 29:7.
[172] Lev. 23:39.
[173] Ex. 23:10, 11; Lev. 25:2-7.
[174] Lev. 25:8-54.
[175] Lev. 26:34, 35, 43; 2 Chron. 36:21.
[176] Ex. 12:25.
[177] On this point Mr. Miller uses the following language: “Only one
kind of Sabbath was given to Adam, and one only remains for us. See Hosea
2:11. ‘I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her
new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.’ All the Jewish
sabbaths did cease when Christ nailed them to his cross. Col. 2:14-17.
These were properly called Jewish sabbaths. Hosea says, ‘her sabbaths.’
But the Sabbath of which we are speaking, God calls ‘my Sabbath.’ Here
is a clear distinction between the creation Sabbath and the ceremonial.
The one is perpetual; the others were merely shadows of good things to
come.”—_Life and Views_, pp. 161, 162.
[178] Ex. 12:16.
[179] Ex. 20:10; 31:13; Isa. 58:13; compared with Lev. 23:24, 32, 39;
Lam. 1:7; Hosea 2:11.
[180] Lev. 23:37, 38.
[181] Isa. 1:13, 14.
[182] Isa. 56:1-7; 58:13, 14.
[183] Hosea 2:11.
[184] Lam. 1:7; 2:5-7.
[185] Deut. 16:16; 2 Chron. 7:12; Ps. 122.
[186] Jer. 17:19-27; Neh. 13:15-18.
[187] Isa. 56. See the eighth chapter of this work.
[188] See chapter x.
[189] 2 Kings 4:23.
[190] 1 Chron. 9:32. It is true that this text relates to the order of
things after the return from Babylon; yet we learn from verse 22, that
this order was originally ordained by David and Samuel. See verses 1-32.
[191] Compare these two cases: Ex. 16:23; 1 Chron. 9:32.
[192] See chapters ii. and iii.
[193] Josh. 6.
[194] See Dr. A. Clarke’s commentary on Josh. 6:15.
[195] Josh. 10:12-14.
[196] 1 Sam. 21:1-6; Matt. 12:3, 4; Mark 2:25, 26; Luke 6:3, 4.
[197] Lev. 24:5-9; 1 Chron. 9:32.
[198] 1 Sam. 21:5, 6; Matt. 12:4.
[199] See the tenth chapter of this work.
[200] 1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4; 8:13; 31:3; Neh. 10:31, 33; Eze.
45:17.
[201] See chapter vii. of this work.
[202] 1 Chron. 9:32.
[203] Cotton Mather says: “There is a psalm in the Bible whereof the
title is, ‘A Psalm or Song for the Sabbath day.’ Now ’tis a clause
in that psalm, ‘O Lord, how great are thy works! thy thoughts are
very deep.’ Ps. 92:5. That clause intimates what we should make the
subject of our meditations on the Sabbath day. Our thoughts are to be
on God’s works.”—_Discourse on the Lord’s Day_, p. 30, A. D. 1703. And
Hengstenberg says: “This psalm is according to the heading, ‘A Song for
the Sabbath day.’ The proper positive employment of the Sabbath appears
here to be a thankful contemplation of the works of God, a devotional
absorption in them which could only exist when ordinary occupations are
laid aside.”—_The Lord’s Day_, pp. 36, 37.
[204] 2 Kings 4:23.
[205] Isa. 66:23; Eze. 46:1; Amos 8:5.
[206] Ex. 16:29.
[207] 2 Kings 11:5-9; 2 Chron. 23:4-8.
[208] Amos 8:4-6.
[209] 2 Kings 16:18.
[210] Isa. 56:1-8.
[211] For the coming of this salvation see Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 1:9.
[212] Ex. 12:48, 49; Isa. 14:1; Eph. 2:12.
[213] See chapter vii.
[214] Deut. 28:64; Luke 21:24.
[215] Isa. 58:13, 14.
[216] Matt. 8:11; Heb. 11:8-16; Rev. 21.
[217] On this text Dr. A. Clarke comments thus: “From this and the
following verses we find the ruin of the Jews attributed to the breach
of the Sabbath: as this led to a neglect of sacrifice, the ordinances of
religion, and all public worship; so it necessarily brought with it all
immorality. The breach of the Sabbath was that which let in upon them all
the waters of God’s wrath.”
[218] For an inspired commentary on this language, see Neh. 13:15-18.
[219] This language strongly implies that the violation of the Sabbath
had ever been general with the Hebrews. See Jer. 7:23-28.
[220] Jer. 17:20-27.
[221] Eze. 22:7, 8, 26; 23:38, 39.
[222] Eze. 20:23, 24; Deut. 32:16-35.
[223] Eze. 23:38, 39.
[224] 2 Chron. 36:16-20.
[225] Eze., chapters 40-48.
[226] Eze. 43:7-11.
[227] Eze. 44:24; 45:17; 46:1, 3, 4, 12.
[228] Eze. 46:1.
[229] Neh. 9:13, 14.
[230] Neh. 9:38; 10:1-31.
[231] Neh. 10:31.
[232] A few words relative to the time of beginning the Sabbath are
here demanded. 1. The reckoning of the first week of time necessarily
determines that of all succeeding weeks. The first division of the
first day was night; and each day of the first week began with evening;
the evening and the morning, an expression equivalent to the night and
the day, constituted the day of twenty-four hours. Gen. 1. Hence, the
first Sabbath began and ended with evening. 2. That the night is in the
Scriptures reckoned a part of the day of twenty-four hours, is proved
by many texts. Ex. 12:41, 42; 1 Sam. 26:7, 8; Luke 2:8-11; Mark 14:30;
Luke 22:34, and many other testimonies. 3. The 2300 days, symbolizing
2300 years, are each constituted like the days of the first week of time.
Dan. 8:14. The margin, which gives the literal Hebrew, calls each of
these days an “evening morning.” 4. The statute defining the great day of
atonement is absolutely decisive that the day begins with evening, and
that the night is a part of the day. Lev. 23:32. “It shall be unto you
a Sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of
the month at even, from even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath.”
5. That evening is at sunset is abundantly proved by the following
scriptures: Deut. 16:6; Lev. 22:6, 7; Deut. 23:2; 24:13, 15; Josh. 8:29;
10:26, 27; Judges 14:18; 2 Sam. 3:35; 2 Chron. 18:34; Matt. 8:16; Mark
1:32; Luke 4:40. But does not Neh. 13:19, conflict with this testimony,
and indicate that the Sabbath did not begin until after dark? I think
not. The text does not say, “When it began to be dark at Jerusalem before
the Sabbath,” but it says, “When the _gates_ of Jerusalem began to be
dark.” If it be remembered that the gates of Jerusalem were placed under
wide and high walls, it will not be found difficult to harmonize this
text with the many here adduced, which prove that the day begins with
sunset.
Calmet, in his Bible Dictionary, article, Sabbath, thus states the
ancient Jewish method of beginning the Sabbath: “About half an hour
before the sunset all work is quitted and the Sabbath is supposed to be
begun.” He speaks thus of the close of the Sabbath: “When night comes,
and they can discern in the heaven three stars of moderate magnitude,
then the Sabbath is ended, and they may return to their ordinary
employments.”
[233] Neh. 13:15-22.
[234] Speaking of the Babylonish captivity, in his note on Eze. 23:48,
Dr. Clarke says: “From that time to the present day the Jews never
relapsed into idolatry.”
[235] 1 Mac. 1:41-43.
[236] 1 Mac. 2:29-38; Josephus’ Antiquities, b. xii. chap. vi.
[237] 2 Mac. 5:25,26.
[238] 1 Mac. 2:41.
[239] 2 Mac. 6:11.
[240] 2 Mac. 8:23-28.
[241] 1 Mac. 9:43-49; Josephus’ Antiquities, b. xiii. chap. i.; 2 Mac. 15.
[242] Antiquities of the Jews, b. xiv. chap. iv. Here we call attention
to one of those historical frauds by which Sunday is shown to be the
Sabbath. Dr. Justin Edwards states this case thus: “Pompey, the Roman
general, knowing this, when besieging Jerusalem, would not attack them on
the Sabbath; but spent the day in constructing his works, and preparing
to attack them on Monday, and in a manner that they could not withstand,
and so he took the city.”—_Sabbath Manual_, p. 216. That is to say, the
next day after the Sabbath was Monday, and of course Sunday was the
Sabbath! Yet Dr. E. well knew that in Pompey’s time, 63 years before
Christ, Saturday was the only weekly Sabbath, and that Sunday and not
Monday was the day of attack.
[243] Sabbath Manual of the American Tract Society, pp. 214, 215.
[244] Gal. 4:4, 5; John 1:1-10; 17:5, 24; Heb. 1.
[245] Dan. 9:25; Mark 1:14, 15.
[246] Luke 4:14-16.
[247] Luke 4:30-39; Mark 1:21-31; Matt. 8:5-15.
[248] See, on this point, the conclusion of chapter viii.
[249] Mark 1:32-34; Luke 4:40.
[250] Matt. 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5.
[251] Mark 2:27, 28.
[252] Comp. John 1:1-3; Gen. 1:1, 26; 2:1-3.
[253] See chap. viii.
[254] Num. 28:9, 10.
[255] Lev. 24:5-9; 1 Chron. 9:32.
[256] Hosea 6:6.
[257] Thus the Greek Testament: Καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· Tὸ σάββατον διὰ τὸν
ἄνθρωπον ἐγένετο, ουχ ὁ ἄνθρωπος διὰ τό σάββατον.
[258] 1 Cor. 11:9.
[259] Gen. 2:1-3, 7, 21-23.
[260] Matt. 19:3-9.
[261] Ex. 16:23; 23:12; Isa. 58:13, 14.
[262] See conclusion of chap. ix.
[263] Matt. 5:17-19; Isa. 42:21.
[264] Matt. 12:9-14; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 6:6-11.
[265] Mark 6:1-6.
[266] John 5:1-18.
[267] Dr. Bloomfield’s Greek Testament on this text; family Testament of
the American Tract Society on the same; Nevins’ Biblical Antiquities, pp.
62, 63.
[268] Compare Jer. 17:21-27 with Nehemiah 13:15-20.
[269] Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Isa. 56; 58:13, 14; Eze. 20.
[270] Gal. 4:4; Matt. 5:17-19; 7:12; 19:17; Luke 16:17.
[271] John 5:19.
[272] John 7:21-23.
[273] Grotius well says: “If he healed any on the Sabbath he made it
appear, not only from the law, but also from their received opinions,
that such works were not forbidden on the Sabbath.”—_The Truth of the
Christian Religion_, b. v. sect. 7.
[274] John 9:1-16.
[275] Luke 13:10-17.
[276] 1 Pet. 3:6.
[277] Luke 14:1-6.
[278] Matt. 23:23.
[279] Matt. 24:15-21.
[280] Dan. 9:26, 27.
[281] Luke 21:20.
[282] Jewish Wars, b. ii. chap. xix.
[283] Id. b. ii. chap. xx.
[284] Eccl. Hist. b. iii. chap. v.
[285] Jewish Wars, b. ii. chap. xix.
[286] Deut. 16:16.
[287] Thus remarks Mr. Crozier in the _Advent Harbinger_ for Dec. 6,
1851: “The reference to the Sabbath in Matt. 24:20, only shows that the
Jews who rejected Christ would be keeping the Sabbath at the destruction
of Jerusalem, and would, in consequence, add to the dangers of the
disciples’ flight by punishing them perhaps with death for fleeing on
that day.”
And Mr. Marsh, forgetting that Christ forbade his disciples to take
anything with them in their flight, uses the following language: “If
the disciples should attempt to flee from Jerusalem on that day and
carry their things, the Jews would embarrass their flight and perhaps
put them to death. The Jews would be keeping the Sabbath, because they
rejected Christ and his gospel.”—_Advent Harbinger_, Jan. 24, 1852.
These quotations betray the bitterness of their authors. In honorable
distinction from these anti-Sabbatarians, the following is quoted from
Mr. William Miller, himself an observer of the first day of the week:—
“‘Neither on the Sabbath day.’ Because it was to be kept as a day of
rest, and no servile work was to be done on that day, nor would it be
right for them to travel on that day. Christ has in this place sanctioned
the Sabbath, and clearly shows us our duty to let no trivial circumstance
cause us to break the law of the Sabbath. Yet how many who profess to
believe in Christ, at this present day, make it a point to visit, travel,
and feast, on this day? What a false-hearted profession must that person
make who can thus treat with contempt the moral law of God, and despise
the precepts of the Lord Jesus! We may here learn our obligation to
remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”—_Exposition of Matt._ 24, p.
18.
[288] Jewish Wars, b. ii. chap. xix.
[289] Id. b. ii. chap. xix.
[290] See chap. xvi.
[291] President Edwards says: “A further argument for the perpetuity of
the Sabbath we have in Matt. 24:20: ‘Pray ye that your flight be not in
the winter, _neither on the Sabbath day_.’ Christ is here speaking of the
flight of the apostles and other Christians out of Jerusalem and Judea,
just before their final destruction, as is manifest by the whole context,
and especially by the 16th verse: ‘Then let them which be in Judea flee
into the mountains.’ But this final destruction of Jerusalem was after
the dissolution of the Jewish constitution, and after the Christian
dispensation was fully set up. Yet it is plainly implied in these words
of our Lord, that even then Christians were bound to a strict observation
of the Sabbath.”—_Works of President Edwards_, vol. iv. pp. 621, 622, New
York, 1849.
[292] Matt. 27; Isa. 53.
[293] Dan. 9:24-27.
[294] Col. 2:14-17.
[295] For an extended view of these Jewish festivals see chapter vii.
[296] Deut. 10:4, 5, compared with 31:24-26. Thus Morer contrasts the
phrase “in the ark,” which is used with reference to the two tables, with
the expression “in the side of the ark,” as used respecting the book
of the law, and says of the latter: “In the side of the ark, or more
critically, in the outside of the ark; or in a chest by itself on the
right side of the ark, saith the Targum of Jonathan.”—_Morer’s Dialogues
on the Lord’s Day_, p. 211, London, 1701.
[297] See chap. vii.
[298] See chap. ii.
[299] Mark 2:27.
[300] Lev. 23:37, 38.
[301] Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20; Matt. 5:17, 19.
[302] Isa. 66:22, 23. See also the close of chap. xxvii of this work.
[303] Luke 23:54-56.
[304] James 2:8-12; Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:19, 31.
[305] Heb. 9; 10; Luke 23:46-53; John 19:38-42.
[306] Luke 23:54-56.
[307] Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1, 2, 9; Luke 23:56; 24:1; John 20:1, 19.
[308] Eze. 46:1.
[309] See the origin of the ancient Sabbath in Gen. 2:1-3.
[310] Mark 16:14. That this interview was certainly the same with that in
John 20:19, will be seen from a careful examination of Luke 24.
[311] Matt. 19:26; Titus 1:2.
[312] Isa. 65:16; Ps. 119:142, 151.
[313] Rom. 1:25.
[314] It is just as easy to change the crucifixion-day from that day of
the week on which Christ was crucified, to one of the six days on which
he was not, as to change the rest-day of the Creator from that day of the
week on which he rested, to one of the six days on which he wrought in
the work of creation.
[315] John 20:26.
[316] John 21.
[317] Acts 1:3. Forty days from the day of the resurrection would expire
on Thursday.
[318] When the resurrection day was “far spent,” the Saviour and two
of the disciples drew near to Emmaus, a village seven and a half miles
from Jerusalem. They constrained him to go in with them to tarry for
the night. While they were eating supper they discovered that it was
Jesus, when he vanished from their sight. Then they arose and returned
to Jerusalem; and after their arrival, the first meeting of Jesus with
the eleven took place. It could not therefore have lacked but little of
sunset, which closed the day, if not actually upon the second day, when
Jesus came into their midst. Luke 24. In the latter case, the expression,
“the same day at evening being the first day of the week,” would find an
exact parallel in meaning, in the expression, “in the ninth day of the
month at even,” which actually signifies the evening with which the tenth
day of the seventh month commences. Lev. 23:32.
[319] Those who were to come before God from Sabbath to Sabbath to
minister in his temple, were said to come “after seven days.” 1 Chron.
9:25; 2 Kings 11:5.
[320] “After six days,” instead of being the sixth day, was about eight
days after. Matt. 17:1; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28.
[321] That sunset marks the close of the day, see the close of chapter
viii.
[322] Acts 2:1, 2.
[323] Luke 24:49-53; Acts 1.
[324] Horatio B. Hacket, D. D., Professor of Biblical Literature, in
Newton Theological Institution, thus remarks: “It is generally supposed
that this Pentecost, signalized by the outpouring of the Spirit, fell on
the Jewish Sabbath, our Saturday.”—_Commentary on the Original Text of
the Acts_, pp. 50, 51.
[325] In 1633, William Prynne, a prisoner in the tower of London,
composed a work in defense of first-day observance, entitled,
“Dissertation on the Lord’s Day Sabbath.” He thus acknowledges the
futility of the argument under consideration: “No scripture ... prefers
or advanceth the work of redemption ... before the work of creation;
both these works being very great and glorious in themselves; wherefore
I cannot believe the work of redemption, or Christ’s resurrection alone,
to be more excellent and glorious than the work of creation, without
sufficient texts and Scripture grounds to prove it; but may deny it as
a presumptuous fancy or unsound assertion, till satisfactorily proved,
as well as peremptorily averred without proof.”—Page 59. This is the
judgment of a candid advocate of the first day as a Christian festival.
On Acts 20:7, he will be allowed to testify again.
[326] Luke 21:28; Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1:13, 14; 4:30.
[327] Eph. 1:7; Gal. 3:13; Rev. 5:9.
[328] 1 Cor. 11:23-26.
[329] Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12.
[330] Ps. 118:22-24.
[331] Eph. 1:20-23; 2:20, 21; 1 Pet. 2:4-7.
[332] 1 Thess. 5:16.
[333] John 8:56.
[334] See chap. iii.
[335] Matt. 5:17-19.
[336] Eph. 2:13-16; Col. 2:14-17.
[337] Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 16:15.
[338] Dan. 9:24-27; Acts 9; 10; 11; 26:12-17; Rom. 11:13.
[339] 1 Cor. 11:25; Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-12; Dan. 9:27; Eph. 2:11-22.
[340] Matt. 5:17-19; 1 John 3:4, 5; Rom. 4:15.
[341] Heb. 9:1-7; Ex. 25:1-21; Deut. 10:4, 5; 1 Kings 8:9.
[342] Heb., chaps. 7-10; Lev. 16.
[343] Heb. 8:1-5; 9:23, 24.
[344] Rev. 11:19.
[345] Ex. 25:21, 22.
[346] Rom. 3:19-31; 5:8-21; 8:3, 4; 13:8-10; Gal. 3:13, 14; Eph. 6:2, 3;
James 2:8-12; 1 John 3:4, 5.
[347] Ex. 19; 20; 24:12; 31:18; Deut. 10.
[348] Lev. 16.
[349] Rom. 3:19-31; 1 John 3:4, 5.
[350] Ps. 40:6-8; Heb. 10.
[351] Heb. 9; 10.
[352] Jer. 31:33; Rom. 8:3, 4; 2 Cor. 3:3.
[353] Ps. 19:7; James 1:25; Ps. 40.
[354] Rom. 5.
[355] Rom. 3:19.
[356] Rom. 3:31.
[357] Rom. 3:20; 1 John 3:4, 5; 2:1, 2.
[358] Jer. 11:16; Rom. 11:17-24.
[359] Rom. 4:16-18; Gal. 3:7-9.
[360] Ex. 19:5, 6; 1 Pet. 2:9, 10.
[361] Gen. 11:1-9; Acts 2:1-11.
[362] Rom. 7:12, 13.
[363] James 2:8-12.
[364] See chapter x.
[365] Acts 13:14.
[366] Verse 27.
[367] Dr. Bloomfield has the following note on this text: “The words,
εἰς τὸ μεταξὺ σαββ., are by many commentators supposed to mean ‘on some
intermediate week-day.’ But that is refuted by verse 44, and the sense
expressed in our common version is, no doubt, the true one. It is adopted
by the best recent commentators, and confirmed by the ancient versions.”
_Greek Testament with English notes_, vol. i. p. 521. And Prof. Hacket
has a similar note.—_Commentary on Acts_, p. 233.
[368] Verses 42-44.
[369] Acts 15.
[370] Acts 15:10, 28, 29; James 2:8-12.
[371] Verses 1, 5.
[372] Verse 29; 21:25.
[373] Ex. 34:15, 16; Num. 25:2; Lev. 17:13, 14; Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; Gen.
34; Lev. 19:29.
[374] Acts 15:19-21.
[375] Acts 16:12-14.
[376] Paul’s manner is exemplified by the following texts, in all of
which it would appear that the meetings in question were upon the
Sabbath. Acts 13:5; 14:1; 17:10, 17; 18:19; 19:8.
[377] Acts 17:1-4.
[378] 1 Thess. 2:14.
[379] 1 Thess. 1:7, 8.
[380] Acts 18:3, 4.
[381] Acts 10:2, 4, 7, 22, 30-35; 13:43; 14:1; 16:13-15; 17:4, 10-12.
[382] 1 Cor. 16:1, 2.
[383] Vindication of the True Sabbath, Battle Creek ed., pp. 51, 52.
[384] Greek Testament with English Notes, vol. ii. p. 173.
[385] Sabbath Manual of the American Tract Society, p. 116.
[386] Family Testament of the American Tract Society, p. 286.
[387] Eze. 46:1.
[388] Prof. Hacket remarks on the length of this voyage: “The passage on
the apostle’s first journey to Europe occupied two days only; see chapter
16:11. Adverse winds or calms would be liable, at any season of the year,
to occasion this variation.”—_Commentary on Acts_, p. 329. This shows
how little ground there is to claim that Paul broke the Sabbath on this
voyage. There was ample time to reach Troas before the Sabbath when he
started from Philippi, had not providential causes hindered.
[389] Acts 20:6-13.
[390] Thus Prof. Whiting renders the phrase: “The disciples being
assembled.” And Sawyer has it: “We being assembled.”
[391] 1 Cor. 11:23-26.
[392] Matt. 26.
[393] Acts 2:42-46.
[394] This fact has been acknowledged by many first-day commentators.
Thus Prof. Hacket comments upon this text: “The Jews reckoned the day
from evening to morning, and on that principle the evening of the first
day of the week would be our Saturday evening. If Luke reckoned so here,
as many commentators suppose, the apostle then waited for the expiration
of the Jewish Sabbath, and held his last religious service with the
brethren at Troas, at the beginning of the Christian Sabbath, _i. e._,
on Saturday evening, and consequently resumed his journey on Sunday
morning.”—_Commentary on Acts_, pp. 329, 330. But he endeavors to shield
the first-day Sabbath from this fatal admission by suggesting that Luke
probably reckoned time according to the pagan method, rather than by that
which is ordained in the Scriptures!
Kitto, in noting the fact that this was an evening meeting, speaks thus:
“It has from this last circumstance been inferred that the assembly
commenced after sunset on the Sabbath, at which hour the first day
of the week had commenced, according to the Jewish reckoning [Jahn’s
Bibl. Antiq., sect. 398], which would hardly agree with the idea of a
commemoration of the resurrection.”—_Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature_,
article, Lord’s day.
And Prynne, whose testimony relative to redemption as an argument for the
change of the Sabbath has been already quoted, thus states this point:
“Because the text saith there were many lights in the upper room where
they were gathered together, and that Paul preached from the time of
their coming together till midnight, ... this meeting of the disciples
at Troas, and Paul’s preaching to them, began at evening. The sole doubt
will be what evening this was.... For my own part I conceive clearly that
it was upon Saturday night, as we falsely call it, and not the coming
Sunday night.... Because St. Luke records that it was upon the first day
of the week when this meeting was ... therefore it must needs be on the
Saturday, not on our Sunday evening, since the Sunday evening in St.
Luke’s and the Scripture account was no part of the first, but of the
second day; the day ever beginning and ending at evening.”
Prynne notices the objection drawn from the phrase, “ready to depart
on the morrow,” as indicating that this departure was not on the same
day of the week with his night meeting. The substance of his answer is
this: If the fact be kept in mind that the days of the week are reckoned
from evening to evening, the following texts, in which in the night, the
morning is spoken of as the morrow, will show at once that another day of
the week is not necessarily intended by the phrase in question. 1 Sam.
19:11; Esth. 2:14; Zeph. 3:3; Acts 23:31, 32.—_Diss. on Lord’s Day Sab._,
pp. 36-41, 1633.
[395] See the conclusion of chap. viii.
[396] Luke 23:56; 24:1.
[397] Rom. 14:1-6.
[398] James 2:8-12.
[399] Rom. 7:12, 13; 1 John 3:4, 5.
[400] Rom. 3.
[401] Ex. 20.
[402] Lev. 23. These are particularly enumerated in Col. 2, as we have
already noticed in chapter vii, and in the concluding part of chapter x.
[403] Acts 2:1-11; Rom 2:17; 4:1; 7:1.
[404] Ex. 16:4, 21, 27, 28.
[405] Cor. 15:27; Ps. 8.
[406] Rev. 1:10.
[407] To show that Paul regarded Sabbatic observance as _dangerous_,
Gal. 4:10, is often quoted; notwithstanding the same individuals claim
that Rom. 14 proves that it is a matter of _perfect indifference_; they
not seeing that this is to make Paul contradict himself. But if the
connection be read from verse 8 to verse 11, it will be seen that the
Galatians before their conversion were not Jews, but heathen: and that
these days, months, times, and years, were not those of the Levitical
law, but those which they had regarded with superstitious reverence while
heathen. Observe the stress which Paul lays upon the word “again,” in
verse 9. And how many that profess the religion of Christ at the present
day superstitiously regard certain days as “lucky” or “unlucky days;”
though such notions are derived only from heathen distinctions.
[408] See chapter x.
[409] Rev. 1:9-11.
[410] Dr. Bloomfield, though himself of a different opinion, speaks thus
of the views of others concerning the date of John’s gospel: “It has been
the general sentiment, both of ancient and modern inquirers, that it was
published about _the close of the first century_.”—_Greek Testament with
English Notes_, vol. i. p. 328.
Morer says that John “penned his gospel two years later than the
Apocalypse, and after his return from Patmos, as St. Augustine, St.
Jerome, and Eusebius, affirm.”—_Dialogues on the Lord’s Day_, pp. 53, 54.
The Paragraph Bible of the London Religious Tract Society, in its preface
to the book of John, speaks thus: “According to the general testimony of
ancient writers, John wrote his gospel at Ephesus, about the year 97.”
In support of the same view, see also Religious Encyclopedia, Barnes’
Notes (gospels), Bible Dictionary, Cottage Bible, Domestic Bible, Mine
Explored, Union Bible Dictionary, Comprehensive Bible, Dr. Hales, Horne,
Nevins, Olshausen, &c.
[411] The Encyclopedia Britannica, in its article concerning the Sabbath,
undertakes to prove that the “religious observation of the first day of
the week is of apostolical appointment.” After citing and commenting upon
all the passages that could be urged in proof of the point, it makes the
following candid acknowledgment: “Still, however, it must be owned that
these passages are not sufficient to prove the apostolical institution of
the Lord’s day, or even the actual observation of it.”
The absence of all scriptural testimony relative to the change of the
Sabbath, is accounted for by certain advocates of that theory, not by the
frank admission that it never was changed by the Lord, but by quoting
John 21:25, assuming the change of the Sabbath as an undoubted truth,
but that it was left out of the Bible lest it should make that book
too large! They think, therefore, that we should go to Ecclesiastical
history to learn this part of our duty; not seeing that, as the fourth
commandment still stands in the Bible unrepealed and unchanged, to
acknowledge that that change must be sustained wholly outside of the
Bible, is to acknowledge that first-day observance is a tradition which
makes void the commandment of God. The following chapters will, however,
patiently examine the argument for first-day observance drawn from
ecclesiastical history.
[412] Gen. 2:3.
[413] Ex. 16:23.
[414] Ex. 20:8-11.
[415] Isa. 58:13, 14.
[416] Mark 2:27, 28.
[417] An able opponent of Sabbatic observance thus speaks relative to
the term Lord’s day of Rev. 1:10: “If a current day was intended, the
only day bearing this definition, in either the Old or New Testament, is
Saturday, the seventh day of the week.”—_W. B. Taylor, in the Obligation
of the Sabbath_, p. 296.
[418] Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xv.
[419] Acts 20:29, 30.
[420] 2 Thess. 2:3, 4, 7, 8.
[421] 2 Tim. 4:2-4; 2 Pet. 2; Jude 4; 1 John 2:18.
[422] Book ii. chap. i. sect. 1.
[423] Eccl. Researches, chap. vi. p. 51, ed. 1792.
[424] The Modern Sabbath Examined, pp. 123, 124.
[425] Rose’s Neander, p. 184.
[426] Hist. of the Popes, vol. i. p. 1, Phila. ed., 1817.
[427] History of Romanism, book ii. chap. i. sects. 3, 4.
[428] Lectures on Romanism, p. 203.
[429] Commentary on Prov. 8.
[430] Autobiography of Adam Clarke, LL. D., p. 134.
[431] Christianography, part ii. p. 59, London, 1636.
[432] Translation of the Apologies of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and
others, vol. ii. p. 375.
[433] John 21:20-23.
[434] 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.
[435] Note of the Douay Bible on 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.
[436] Obligation of the Sabbath, pp. 254, 255.
[437] Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10.
[438] A Treatise of Thirty Controversies.
[439] The writer has prepared a small work entitled, “The Complete
Testimony of the Fathers of the first Three Centuries concerning the
Sabbath and First Day,” in which, with the single exception of Origen,
some of whose works were not at that time accessible, every passage in
the fathers which gives their views of the Sabbath and first-day is
presented. This pamphlet can be had of the publishers of the present work
for fifteen cents. To save space in this History, a general statement of
the doctrine of the fathers is here made with brief quotations of their
words. But in “The Complete Testimony of the Fathers” every passage is
given in their own words, and to this little work the reader is referred.
[440] Those who dispute these statements are invited to present the words
of the fathers which modify or disprove them. The reader who may not have
access to the writings of the fathers is referred to the pamphlet already
mentioned in which their complete testimony is given.
[441] See the testimony on page 189 of this work.
[442] Justin Martyr’s First Apology, chap. lxvii.
[443] Eusebius’s Eccl. Hist., book iv. chap. xxiii.
[444] See chap. xviii. of this History.
[445] See his Ecclesiastical History, book iv. chap. xxvi.
[446] Sabbath Manual, p. 114.
[447] See chap. xvi. of this work; and also Testimony of the Fathers, pp.
44-52.
[448] The Miscellanies of Clement, book v. chap. xiv.
[449] The Miscellanies of Clement, book vii. chap. xii.; Testimony of the
Fathers, p. 61.
[450] The Miscellanies, book vii. chap. vii.; Testimony of the Fathers,
p. 62.
[451] Kitto’s Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, original edition,
article Lord’s Day.
[452] Tertullian on Prayer, chap. xxiii.; Testimony of the Fathers, p. 67.
[453] On Idolatry, chap. xiv.; Testimony of the Fathers, p. 66.
[454] _Ad Nationes_, book i. chap. xiii.; Testimony of the Fathers, p. 70.
[455] _De Corona_, sects. 3 and 4; Testimony of the Fathers, pp. 68, 69.
[456] An Answer to the Jews, chap. iv.; Testimony of the Fathers, p. 73.
[457] Against Celsus, book 8. chap. xxii.; Testimony of the Fathers, p.
87.
[458] Eusebius’s Eccl. Hist., book v. chap. xxiv.
[459] Socrates’s Eccl. Hist., book v. chap. xxii.
[460] Anatolius, Tenth Fragment.
[461] Socrates’s Eccl. Hist., book v. chap. xxii.
[462] Sozomen’s Eccl. Hist., book vii. chap. xviii.; see also Mosheim,
book i. cent. 2, part ii. chap iv. sect. 9.
[463] Socrates’s Eccl. Hist., book v. chap. xxii.; McClintock and
Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. iii. p. 13; Bingham’s Antiquities, p. 1149.
[464] Maclaine’s Mosheim, cent. 1, part ii. chap. iv. sec. 4. I have
given Maclaine’s translation, not because it is an accurate version of
Mosheim, but because it is so much used in support of the first-day
Sabbath. Maclaine in his preface to Mosheim says: “I have sometimes
taken considerable liberties with my author.” And he tells us what these
liberties were by saying that he had “often added a few sentences, to
render an observation more striking, a fact more clear, a portrait more
finished.” The present quotation is an instance of these liberties. Dr.
Murdock of New Haven who has given “a close, literal version” of Mosheim,
gives the passage thus:—
“The Christians of this century, assembled for the worship of God, and
for their advancement in piety, on the first day of the week, the day
on which Christ reassumed his life: for that this day was set apart
for religious worship, by the apostles themselves, and that, after the
example of the church of Jerusalem, it was generally observed, we have
unexceptionable testimony.”—_Murdock’s Mosheim_, cent. 1, part ii. chap.
iv. sec. 4.
[465] Neander’s Church History, translated by H. J. Rose, p. 186. To
break the force of this strong statement of Neander that “the festival
of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance,
and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine
command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic
church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday,” two things have
been said:—
1. That Neander, in a later edition of his work, retracted this
declaration. It is true that in re-writing his work he omitted this
sentence. But he inserted nothing of a contrary character, and the
general tenor of the revised edition is in this place precisely the same
as in that from which this out-spoken statement is taken.
In proof of this, we cite from the later edition of Neander his statement
in this very place of what constituted Sunday observance in the early
church. He says:—
“Sunday was distinguished as a day of joy, by being exempted from fasts,
and by the circumstance that prayer was performed on this day in a
standing and not in a kneeling posture, as Christ, by his resurrection,
had raised up fallen man again to Heaven.”—_Torrey’s Neander_, vol. i. p.
295, ed. 1852.
This is an accurate account of early Sunday observance, as we shall
hereafter show; and that such observance was only a human ordinance,
of which no feature was ever commanded by the apostles, will be very
manifest to every person who attempts to find any precept for any
particular of it in the New Testament.
2. But the other method of setting aside this testimony of Neander is
to assert that he did not mean to deny that the apostles established
a divine command for Sunday as the Christian Sabbath, but meant to
assert that they did not establish a divine command for Sunday as a
Catholic festival! Those who make this assertion must know that it is
false. Neander expressly denies that the apostles either constituted
or recognized Sunday as a Sabbath, and he represents Sunday as a mere
festival from the very first of its observance, and established only by
human authority.
[466] See chapters x. and xi., in which the New Testament has been
carefully examined on this point.
[467] Epistle of Barnabas 13:9, 10; or, as others divide the epistle,
chapter 15.
[468] Eccl. Hist., cent. 1, part ii. chap. ii. sect. 21.
[469] Historical Commentaries, cent. 1, sect. 53.
[470] Rose’s Neander, p. 407.
[471] Note appended to Gurney’s History, Authority, and Use of the
Sabbath, p. 86.
[472] Ancient Church, pp. 367, 368.
[473] Commentary on Acts, p. 251.
[474] History of the Church, cent. 1, chap. xv.
[475] Cyc. Bib. Lit., art. Lord’s day, tenth ed. 1858.
[476] Encyc. of Rel. Knowl., art. Barnabas’ Epistle.
[477] Eccl. Hist., book iii. chap. xxv.
[478] The Sabbath, or an Examination of the Six Texts commonly adduced
from the New Testament in proof of a Christian Sabbath, p. 233.
[479] Ancient Christianity, chap. i. sect. 2.
[480] Epistle of Barnabas, 9:8. In some editions it is chap. 10.
[481] Coleman’s Ancient Christianity, pp. 35, 36.
[482] Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. 26, sect. 2.
[483] Buck’s Theological Dictionary, art. Christians.
[484] Tertullian’s Apology, sect. 2.
[485] Obligation of the Sabbath, p. 300.
[486] Historical Commentaries, cent. 1, sect. 47.
[487] 1 Pet. 1:1. See Clarke’s Commentary, preface to the epistles of
Peter.
[488] Ignatius to the Magnesians, 3:3-5; or, as others divide the
epistle, chap. 9.
[489] Ancient Church, pp. 413, 414.
[490] Id. p. 427.
[491] Future Life, p. 290.
[492] Examination of the Six Texts, p. 237.
[493] Ecclesiastical Researches, chap. vi. pp. 50, 51, ed. 1792.
[494] Ignatius ad Magnesios, sect. 9.
[495] Cyc. Bib. Lit., art. Lord’s day.
[496] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, pp. 206, 207.
[497] A first-day writer, author of the “History, Authority, and Use, of
the Sabbath.”
[498] Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 250, 251.
[499] For a more full statement of the case of Ignatius, see the
“Testimony of the Fathers,” pp. 26-30. The quotation from Ignatius
examined in this chapter is there shown, according to the connection, to
relate, not to New-Testament Christians, but to the ancient prophets.
[500] Sabbath Manual, p. 120.
[501] See his “History, Authority, and Use, of the Sabbath,” chap. iv.
pp. 87, 88.
[502] Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 258-261.
[503] The date in Baronius is A. D. 303.
[504] Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 263-265.
[505] Note by Domville. “_Dominicum_ is not, as may at first be supposed,
an adjective, of which _diem_ [day] is the understood substantive. It
is itself a substantive, neuter as appears from the passage, ‘_Quia non
potest intermitti Dominicum_,’ in the narrative respecting Saturninus.
The Latin adjective _Dominicus_, when intended to refer to the Lord’s
day, is never, I believe, used without its substantive _dies_ [day] being
expressed. In all the narratives contained in Ruinart’s _Acta Martyrum_,
I find but two instances of mention being made of the Lord’s day, and in
both these instances the substantive _dies_ [day] is expressed.”
[506] This testimony is certainly decisive. It is the interpretation of
the compiler of the _Acta Martyrum_, himself, and is given with direct
reference to the particular instance under discussion. An independent
confirmation of Domville’s authorities, may be found in Lucius’s Eccl.
Hist., cent. 4, chap, vi.: “Fit mentio aliquoties locorum istorum in
quibus convenerint Christiani, in historia persecutionis sub Diocletiano
& Maximino. Et apparet, ante Constantinum etiam, locos eos fuisse
mediocriter exstructos atque exornatos: quos seu Templa appellarunt seu
Dominica; ut apud Eusebium (li. 9, c. 10) & Ruffinum (li. 1, c. 3).”
It is certain that _Dominicum_ is here used as designating a place of
divine worship. Dr. Twisse in his “Morality of the Fourth Commandment,”
p. 122, says: “The ancient fathers, both Greek and Latin, called temples
by the name of dominica and κυρίακα.”
[507] Domville cites St. Augustine’s Works, vol. v. pp. 116, 117, Antwerp
ed. A. D. 1700.
[508] Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 267, 268.
[509] Id. pp. 270, 271.
[510] Id. pp. 272, 273.
[511] Historical Commentaries, cent. 1, sect. xxxii.
[512] The Sabbath, by James Gilfillan, p. vii.
[513] To break the force of Domville’s statement in which he exposes
the story originally told by Bishop Andrews as coming from the _Acta
Martyrum_, it is said that Domville used Ruinart’s _Acta Martyrum_, and
that Ruinart was not born till thirty-one years after Bishop Andrews’
death, so that Domville did not go to the same book that was used by
the bishop, and therefore failed to find what he found. Those who raise
this point betray their ignorance or expose their dishonesty. The _Acta
Martyrum_ is a collection of the memoirs of the martyrs, written by
their friends from age to age. Ruinart did not write a new work, but
simply edited “the most valued collection” of these memoirs that has
ever appeared. See McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. i. pp.
56, 57. Domville used Ruinart’s edition, because, as he expresses it,
it is “the most complete collection of the memoirs and legends still
extant, relative to the lives and sufferings of the Christian martyrs.”
Domville’s use of Ruinart was, therefore, in the highest degree just and
right.
[514] Ibique celebrantes ex more Dominica Sacramenta.—_Baronius_, _Tome
3_, p. 348, A. D. 303, No. xxxvi. Lucæ, A. D. 1738.
[515] Qui contra edictum Imperatorum, & Cæsarum Collectam Dominicam
celebrassent.—_Baronius_, _Tome 3_, p. 348, A. D. 303, No. xxxix.
[516] Utrum Collectam fecisset. Qui cum se Christianum, & in Collecta
fuisse profiteretur.—_Id. Ib._
[517] Nam & in Collecta fui, & Dominicum cum fratribus celebravi, quia
Christiana sum.—_Id._ No. xliii. p. 344. This was spoken by a female
martyr.
[518] Dominicum celebravimus. Proconsul ait: Quare? respondit: Quia non
potest intermitti Dominicum.—_Id._ No. xlvi. p. 350.
[519] In cujus dome Collecta facta fuit.—_Id._ No. xlvii. p. 350.
[520] Intermitti Dominicum non potest, ait. Lex sic jubet.—_Id._ No.
xlvii. p. 350.
[521] In tua, inquit proconsul, domo Collectæ factæ sunt, contra
praecepta Imperatorum? Cui Emeritus sancto Spiritu inundatus: In domo
mea, inquit, egimus Dominicum.... Quoniam sine Dominico esse non
possumus.—_Id._ No. xlix. pp. 350, 351.
[522] Non quaero an Christianus sis sed an Collectam feceris.... Quasi
Christianus sine Dominico esse possit.—_Id._ No. li. p. 351.
[523] Collectam, inquit, religiosissime celebravimus; ad scripturas
Dominicas legendas in Dominicum convenimus semper.—_Id. Ib._ p. 351.
[524] Cum fratribus feci Collectam, Dominicum celebravi.—_Id._ No. lii.
p. 351.
[525] Post quem junior Felix, spem salutemque Christianorum Dominicum
esse proclamans.... Ego, inquit, devota menta celebravi Dominicum;
collectam cum fratribus feci, quia Christianus sum.—_Id._ liii.
[526] Utrum egeris Dominicum. Cui respondit Saturninus: Egi Dominicum,
quia Salvator est Christus.—_Id. Ib._ p. 352.
[527] Per Collectam namque, & Collectionem, & Dominicum, intellegit
semper auctor sacrificium Missæ.—_Baronius_, _Tome 3_, A. D. 303, No.
xxxix. p. 348.
[528] Scilicet lex Christiana de Dominico, nempe sacrificio
celebrando.—_Id._ No. xlvii. p. 350.
[529] De celebratione Dominici; Quod autem superius in recitatis actis
sit demonstratum, flagrantis persecutionis etiam tempore solicitos fuisse
Christianos celebrare Dominicum, nempe (ut alias pluribus declararimus)
ipsam sacrosanctum sacrificium incruentum.—_Id._ No. lxxxiii. p. 358.
[530] Quod etsi sciamus eamdem vocem pro Dei templo interdum accipi
solitam; tamen quod ecclesiæ omnes solo æquatæ fuissent; ex aliis
superius recitatis de celebratione Dominici, nonisi sacrificium missæ
posse intelligo, satis est declaratum.—_Id._ lxxxiv. p. 359.
[531] Collecta, Dominicum, Missa, idem, 303, xxxix. p. 677.
[532] Missa idem quod Collecta, sive Dominicum, 303, xxxix. p. 702.
[533] Dominicum celebrare idem quod Missas agere, 303, xxxix.; xlix.; li.
p. 684.
[534] Vol. xviii. p. 409.
[535] Verstegan’s Antiquities, p. 10, London, 1628.
[536] Antiquities, p. 68.
[537] Jewish Antiquities, book iii. chap. i. See also McClintock and
Strong’s Cyclopedia, 4, 472, article Idolatry; Dr. A. Clarke on Job
31:26; and Dr. Gill on the same; Webster under the word Sabianism, and
Worcester, under Sabian.
[538] Id. book iii. chap. iii.
[539] Vol. xviii. p. 409.
[540] Pp. 61, 62.
[541] 2 Kings 23:5; Jer. 43:13, margin.
[542] Dialogues on the Lord’s day, pp. 22, 23.
[543] Apology, chap. lxvii.; Testimony of the Fathers, pp. 34, 35.
[544] Apology, sect. 16; Testimony of the Fathers, pp. 64, 65.
[545] Ad Nationes, book i. chap. xiii.; Testimony of the Fathers, p. 70.
[546] Eccl. Hist., cent. 1, part ii. chap. iv. note ‡ to sect. 4.
[547] Eccl. Hist. cent. 2, part. ii. chap. i. sect. 12.
[548] History of the Sabbath, part ii. chap. i. sect. 12.
[549] Id. part ii. chap. iii. sect. 4.
[550] Hist. of the Sabbath, part ii. chap. i. sect. 10.
[551] Examination of the Six Texts, Supplement, pp. 6, 7.
[552] Du Pin’s Eccl. Hist. vol. i. p. 50.
[553] Hist. Church, cent. 2, chap. iii.
[554] Justin Martyr’s First Apology, translated by Wm. Reeves, p. 127,
sects. 87, 88, 89.
[555] The Spirit of Popery, pp. 44, 45.
[556] Ductor Dubitantium, part i. book ii. chap. ii. rule 6, sect. 45.
[557] Brown’s Translation, pp. 43, 44, 52, 59, 63, 64.
[558] Sabbath Manual, p. 121.
[559] Dialogue with Trypho, p. 65.
[560] Sabbath Manual, p. 114.
[561] Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 131, 132.
[562] Id. p. 128.
[563] Id. p. 130.
[564] See his full testimony in the Testimony of the Fathers, pp. 44-52.
[565] Against Heresies, book iv. chap. xvi. sects. 1, 2; Id. book v.
chap. xxviii. sect. 3.
[566] Id. book iv. chap. xvi. sects. 1, 2.
[567] Id. book v. chap. xxxiii. sect. 2.
[568] Against Heresies, book iv. chap. xv. sect. 1; chap. xiii. sect. 4.
[569] Bower’s History of the Popes, vol. i. pp. 18, 19; Rose’s Neander,
pp. 188-190; Dowling’s History of Romanism, book i. chap. ii. sect. 9.
[570] History of the Popes, vol. i. p. 18.
[571] History of Romanism, heading of page 32.
[572] History of the Popes, vol. i. p. 18.
[573] Id. pp. 18, 19; Giesler’s Eccl. Hist. vol. i. sect. 57.
[574] History of the Sabbath, part ii. chap. ii. sects. 4, 5.
[575] Boyle’s Historical View of the Council of Nice, p. 52, ed. 1842.
[576] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. ii. sect. 5.
[577] Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xxvii.
[578] Id. chap. xxxviii.
[579] Tertullian’s Apology, sect. 16.
[580] Tertullian _Ad Nationes_, book i. chap. xiii.
[581] History of the Sabbath, part 2, chap. ii. sect. 3.
[582] Sermons on the Sacraments and Sabbath, p. 166.
[583] Neander, p. 186.
[584] Ancient Church History, part i. div. 2, A. D. 100-312, sect. 69.
[585] Enquiry into the Constitution of the Primitive Church, part ii.
chap. vii. sect. 11. See also Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church,”
vol. i. p. 373.
[586] Epistle of Barnabas, chap. xv.
[587] Justin Martyr’s First Apology, chap. lxvii.
[588] Lost Writings of Irenæus, Fragments 7 and 50.
[589] Book of the Laws of Countries.
[590] Tertullian’s Apology, sect. 16.
[591] On Idolatry, chap. xiv.
[592] Hist. Sab. part 2, chap. viii. sect. 13.
[593] On Prayer, chap. xxiii.
[594] De Corona, sect. 3.
[595] Ad Nationes, book i. chap. xiii.
[596] Canon 15.
[597] Ante-Nicene Library, vol. xiv. p. 322.
[598] Apostolical Constitutions, book ii. sect. 7, par. 59.
[599] Id. book v. sect. ii. par. 10.
[600] Id. book v. sect. iii. par. 20.
[601] Epistle to the Magnesians (longer form), chap. ix.
[602] Syriac Documents, p. 38.
[603] Epistle of Barnabas, chap. xv.
[604] Justin’s First Apology, chap. lxvii.
[605] Id. Ib.
[606] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. xxiv.
[607] Id. chap. xli.
[608] Clement’s Miscellanies, book v. chap. xiv.
[609] _De Corona_, sect. 4.
[610] _Origen’s Opera_, Tome ii. p. 158, Paris, A. D. 1733, “Quod si ex
Divinis Scripturis hoc constat, quod die Dominica Deus pluit manna de
cælo et in Sabbato non pluit, intelligant Judæi jam tunc prælatam esse
Dominicam nostram Judaico Sabbato.”
[611] Cyprian’s Epistle, No. lviii. sect. 4.
[612] Peter’s Canons, No. xv.
[613] Apostolical Constitutions, book vii. sect. ii. par. 23.
[614] Epistle to the Magnesians, chap. ix.
[615] Syriac Documents, p. 38.
[616] Id. Ib.
[617] Id. Ib.
[618] Id. Ib.
[619] Fragment 7.
[620] Tertullian on Prayer, chap. xxiii.
[621] _De Corona_, sect. 3.
[622] Origen against Celsus, book viii. chap. xxii.
[623] Instructions of Commodianus, sect. 75.
[624] Apostolical Constitutions, book v. sect. 3, par. 20.
[625] _De Corona_, sects. 3 and 4.
[626] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. x.
[627] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. xi.
[628] Id. chap. xii.
[629] Tertullian on Idolatry, chap. xiv.
[630] Id. Ib.
[631] Tertullian Against the Jews, chap. iv.
[632] Epistle of Barnabas, chap. xv.
[633] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. xii.
[634] Id. chap. xviii.
[635] See the third chapter of this History.
[636] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. xxiii.
[637] Id. chap. xxix.
[638] Id. chap. xi.
[639] Lost Writings of Irenæus, Fragment 7.
[640] Against Heresies, book iv. chap. viii. sect. 2.
[641] Id. book iv. chap. xvi. sect. 1.
[642] Irenæus against Heresies, book v. chap. xxxiii. sect. 2.
[643] Id. book. v. chap. xxviii. sect. 3.
[644] Ex. 31:17; Eze. 20:12, 20.
[645] Isa. 66:22, 23; Dan. 7:18, 27.
[646] Answer to the Jews, chap. ii.
[647] Tertullian against Marcion, book iv. chap. xii.
[648] Compare his works as follows: Answer to the Jews, chaps. ii. iii.
iv. vi.; Against Marcion, book i. chap. xx.; book v. chaps. iv. xix. with
De Anima, chap. xxxvii.; and, On Modesty, chap. v.
[649] Isa. 1:13, 14.
[650] Answer to the Jews, chap. iv.; Against Marcion, book iv. chap. xii.
[651] Isa. 56:2; 58:13.
[652] Answer to the Jews, chap. iv.; Against Marcion, book iv. chap. xii.
[653] Against Marcion, book ii. chap. xxi.
[654] Against Marcion, book iv. chap. xii.
[655] De Principiis, book iv. chap. i. sect. 17.
[656] Ex. 16:29; Lev. 23:3.
[657] Creation of the World, sect. 4.
[658] Id. sect. 5.
[659] Id. Ib.
[660] Creation of the World, sect. 5.
[661] Irenæus Against Heresies, book iv. chap. xv. sect. 1.
[662] Jer. 31:33; Rom. 7:21-25; 8:1-7.
[663] Irenæus Against Heresies, book iv. chap. xvi. sect. 4.
[664] Matt. chapters 5, 6, 7.
[665] Theophilus to Autolycus, book ii. chap. xxvii.
[666] Id. book iii. chap. ix.
[667] Id. Ib.
[668] _De Anima_, chap. xxxvii.
[669] On Modesty, chap. v.
[670] Recognitions of Clement, book iii. chap. lv.
[671] Novatian on the Jewish Meats, chap. iii.
[672] Apostolical Constitutions, book ii. sect. 4, par. 36.
[673] Id. book vi. sect. 4, par. 19.
[674] Epistle of Barnabas, chap. xv.
[675] Irenæus Against Heresies, book v. chap. xxxiii. sect. 2.
[676] _De Anima_, chap. xxxvii.
[677] Tertullian Against Marcion, book iv. chap. xii.
[678] Origen Against Celsus, book vi. chap. lxi.
[679] Novatian on the Jewish Meats, chap. iii.
[680] Divine Institutes of Lactantius, book vii. chap. xiv.
[681] Poem on Genesis, Lines 51-53.
[682] Apostolical Constitutions, book vii. sect. 2, par. 36.
[683] Tertullian Against Marcion, book iv. chap. xii.
[684] Id. Ib.
[685] Tertullian Against Marcion, book iv, chap. xii.
[686] Disputation with Manes, sect. 42.
[687] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. xlvii.
[688] Id. Ib.
[689] Clement’s Miscellanies, book vi. chap. xvi.
[690] Id. Ib.
[691] Compare Clement of Alexandria, vol. ii. pp. 386-890, Ante-Nicene
library edition, or the Miscellanies of Clement, book vi. chap. xvi. with
Bohn’s edition of Philo, vol. i. pp. 3, 4, 29, 30, 31, 32, 54, 55; vol.
iii. p. 159; vol. iv. p. 452.
[692] Bohn’s edition of Philo Judæus, vol. i. p. 4.
[693] Tertullian on Prayer, chap. xxiii.
[694] _Origen’s Opera_, Tome 2, p. 358, Paris, 1733, “Quæ est autem
festivitas Sabbati nisi illa dequa Apostolus dicit, ‘relinqueretur ergo
Sabbatismus,’ hoc est, Sabbati observatio, ‘populo Dei’? Relinquentes
ergo Judaicas Sabbati observationes, qualis debeat esse Christiano
Sabbati observatio, videamus. Die Sabbati nihil ex omnibus mundi actibus
oportet operari. Si ergo desinas ab omnibus sæcularibus operibus, et
nihil mundanum geras, sed spiritalibus operibus vaces, ad ecclesiam
convenias, lectionibus divinis et tractatibus aurem præbeas, et de
cœlestibus cogites, de futura spe sollicitudinem geras, venturum judicium
præ oculis habeas, non respicias ad præ sentia et visibilia, sed ad
invisibilia et futura, hæc est observatio Sabbati Christiani.”—_Origenis
in Numeras Homilia_ 23.
[695] Epistle to the Magnesians (longer form) chap. ix.
[696] Ancient Church, p. 212.
[697] Historical Commentaries, cent. 1. sect. 51.
[698] Apostolical Constitutions, book ii. sect. 4, par. 36.
[699] Id. Ib.
[700] Id. book vii. sect. 2, par. 23.
[701] Id. book vii. sect. 2, par. 36.
[702] Apostolical Constitutions, book ii, sec. 4, par. 36.
[703] Id. book viii. sect. 4, par. 33.
[704] Id. book vii. sect. 2, par. 36.
[705] Victorinus says, “Let the sixth day become a rigorous fast, lest we
should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews.”—_On the Creation of
the World_, sect. 4. And Constantine says, “It becomes us to have nothing
in common with the perfidious Jews.”— _Socrates’ Eccl. Hist._ book v.
chap. xxii.
[706] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 189.
[707] Morality of the Fourth Commandment, p. 9, London, 1641.
[708] 1 Cor. 5:6-8.
[709] Eccl. Hist. vol. i. chap. ii. sect. 30.
[710] Eccl. Hist. book i. cent. 1, part ii. chap. iv. sect. 4. Dr.
Murdock’s translation is more accurate than that above by Maclaine.
He gives it thus: “Moreover, those congregations, which either lived
intermingled with Jews, or were composed in great measure of Jews, were
accustomed also to observe the _seventh day_ of the week, as a SACRED
day: for doing which, the other Christians taxed them with no wrong.”
[711] Id. margin.
[712] See chap. xiv. of this History.
[713] Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. xxvi. sect. 2.
[714] Anc. Christ. Exem. chap. xxvi. sect. 2.
[715] Id. Ib.
[716] Id. Ib.
[717] _Ductor Dubitantium_, part i. book ii. chap. ii. rule 6, sect. 51.
[718] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 66.
[719] A Treatise of the Sabbath Day, containing a “Defense of the
Orthodoxal Doctrine of the Church of England against Sabbatarian
Novelty,” p. 8. It was written in 1635 at the command of the king in
reply to Brabourne, a minister of the established church, whose work,
entitled “A Defense of that most Ancient and Sacred Ordinance of God’s,
the Sabbath Day,” was dedicated to the king with a request that he would
restore the Bible Sabbath! See the preface to Dr. White’s Treatise.
[720] Dec. and Fall, chap. xv.
[721] See chap. x.
[722] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 67.
[723] Treatise of the Sabbath Day, p. 8.
[724] Antiquities of the Christian Church, book xvi. chap. vi. sect. 2.
[725] Page 280. Cox here quotes the work, entitled “The Modern Sabbath
Examined.”
[726] Learned Treatise of the Sabbath, p. 77, Oxford, 1631.
[727] This edict is the original fountain of first-day authority, and
in many respects answers to the festival of Sunday, what the fourth
commandment is to the Sabbath of the Lord. The original of this edict may
be seen in the library of Harvard College, and is as follows:—
IMP. CONSTANT. A. ELPIDIO.
Omnes Judices, urbanæque plebes, et cunctarum artium officia
venerabili die solis quiescant. Ruri tamen positi agrorum
culturæ libere licenterque inserviant: quoniam frequenter
evenit, ut non aptius alio die frumenta sulcis, aut vineæ
scrobibus mandentur, ne occasione momenti pereat commoditas
coelesti provisione concessa. Dat. Nonis Mart. Crispo. 2 &
Constantino 2. Coss. 321. Corpus Juris Civilis Codicis lib. iii
tit. 12. 3.
[728] Encyc. Brit. art. Sunday, seventh edition, 1842.
[729] Encyc. Am. art. Sabbath.
[730] Eccl. Hist. cent. iv. part ii. chap. iv. sect. 5.
[731] Chap. xiv.
[732] Duct. Dubitant. part i. book ii. chap. ii. rule 6, sect. 59.
[733] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 233.
[734] Examination of the Six Texts, p. 291.
[735] Cox’s Sabbath Laws, &c. pp. 280, 281. He quotes The Modern Sabbath
Examined.
[736] Hessey’s Bampton Lectures, p. 60.
[737] History of Christianity, book iii. chap. i.
[738] Id. book iii. chap. iv.
[739] These dates are worthy of marked attention. See Blair’s
Chronological Tables, p. 193, ed. 1856; Rosse’s Index of Dates, p. 830.
[740] _Imp. Constantinus A. Ad Maximum._ Si quid de Palatio Nostro, aut
ceteris operibus publicis, degustatum fulgore esse constiterit, retento
more veteris observantiae. Quid portendat, ob Haruspicibus requiratur,
et diligentissime scriptura collecta ad Nostram Scientiam referatur.
Ceteris etiam usurpandae huius consuetudinis licentia tribuenda: dummodo
sacrificiis domesticis abstineant, quae specialiter prohibita sunt. Eam
autem denunciationem adque interpretationem, quae de tactu Amphitheatri
scriba est, de qua ad Heraclianum Tribunum, et Magistrum Officiorum
scripseras, ad nos scias esse perlatum. Dat. xvi. Kal. Jan. Serdicae
Acc. viii. Id. Mart. Crispo ii. & Constantino ii. C. C. Coss. 821. Cod.
Theodos. xvi. 10, 1.—_Library of Harvard College._
[741] See Jortin’s Eccl. Hist. vol. i. sect. 31; Milman’s Hist.
Christianity, book iii. chap. i.
[742] See Webster; for an ancient record of the act, see Eze. xxi. 19-22.
[743] Historical Commentaries, cent. iv. sect. 7.
[744] Dec. and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xx.
[745] Marsh’s Eccl. Hist. period iii. chap. v.
[746] Dec. and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xviii.
[747] Sunday and the Mosaic Sabbath, p. 4, published by R. Groombridge &
Sons, London.
[748] See chap. xviii.
[749] Omnium vero dierum per septimanam appellationes (ut Solis, Lunae,
Martis, etc.), mutasse in ferias: ut Polydorus (li. 6, c. 5) indicat.
Mataphrastes vero, nomina dierum Hebraeis usitata retinuisse eum,
tradit; SOLIUS PRIMI DIEI APPELLATIONE MUTATA, QUEM DOMINICUM DIXIT.
Historia Ecclesiastica per M. Ludovicum Lucium, cent. iv. cap. x. pp.
739, 740, Ed. Basilea, 1624. _Library of Andover Theological Seminary._
The Ecclesiastical History of Lucius is simply the second edition of the
famous “Magdeburg Centuries,” which was published under his supervision.
[750] Quoted in Elliott’s Horæ Apocalypticæ, fifth edition, vol. iv. p.
603.
[751] McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. iv. p. 506.
[752] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iii. sect. 12.
[753] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iii. sect. 1.
[754] Id. Ib.
[755] Dec. and Fall, chap. xxviii.
[756] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iii sect. 5.
[757] Eccl. Hist. book i. chap. iv.
[758] Eusebius’ Commentary on the Psalms, quoted in Cox’s Sabbath
Literature, vol. i. p. 361; also in Justin Edward’s Sabbath Manual, pp.
125-127.
[759] Id. Ib.
[760] Id. Ib.
[761] Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, 3, 33, quoted in Elliott’s Horæ
Apocalypticæ, vol. i. p. 256.
[762] Cox’s Sabbath Literature, vol. i. p. 361.
[763] Appendix to Gurney’s History, &c., of the Sabbath, pp. 115, 116.
[764] Sermons on the Sacraments and Sabbath, pp. 122, 123.
[765] Quod non oportet Christianos Judaizere et otiare in Sabbato, sed
operari in eodem die. Preferentes autem in veneratione Dominicum diem
si vacare voluerint, ut Christiani hoc faciat; quod si reperti fuerint
Judaizare Anathema sint a Christo.
[766] Dissertation on the Lord’s-day Sabbath, pp. 33, 34, 44. 1633.
[767] Sunday a Sabbath, p. 163. 1640.
[768] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 188; Hessey’s Bampton Lectures, pp.
72, 304, 305.
[769] Tertullian’s De Corona, sections 3 and 4.
[770] Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 138.
[771] Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 138.
[772] Cyc. Bib. Lit. art. Lord’s Day; Heylyn’s Hist. Sab. part ii. chap.
ii. sect. 7.
[773] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iii. sect. 9.
[774] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 234; Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iii.
sect. 7.
[775] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, pp. 236, 237.
[776] Treatise of the Sabbath, p. 219.
[777] Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 284.
[778] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iv. sect. 8.
[779] Sabbath Manual, p. 123.
[780] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 259.
[781] Id. p. 260.
[782] Socrates, book v. chap. xxii.
[783] Sozomen, book vii. chap. 19; Lardner, vol. iv. chap. lxxxv. p. 217.
[784] 2 Thess. 2.
[785] Dan. 7.
[786] Shimeall’s Bible Chronology, part ii. chap. ix. sect. 5, pp. 175,
176; Croly on the Apocalypse, pp. 167-173.
[787] Dan. 7:8, 24, 25; Rev. 13:1-5.
[788] Rev. 12.
[789] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iv. sect. 1.
[790] Learned Treatise of the Sabbath, p. 73, ed. 1631.
[791] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. ii. sect. 12.
[792] Treatise of the Sabbath Day, p. 202.
[793] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 13.
[794] Id. part ii. chap. v. sect. 6.
[795] Treatise of the Sabbath Day, pp. 217, 218.
[796] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, pp. 263, 264.
[797] The Lord’s Day, p. 58.
[798] Dictionary of Chronology, p. 813, art. Sunday.
[799] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 265.
[800] Id. pp. 265, 266; Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iv. sect. 7.
[801] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 68.
[802] Historical and Practical Discourse on the Lord’s Day, p. 174.
[803] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 282.
[804] Fleury, Hist. Eccl. Tome viii. Livre xxxvi. sect. 22; Heylyn’s
Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 1. Dr. Twisse, however, asserts that
the pope speaks of two classes. He gives Gregory’s words as follows:
“Relation is made unto me that certain men of a perverse spirit, have
sowed among you some corrupt doctrines contrary to our holy faith; so
as to forbid any work to be done on the Sabbath day: these men we may
well call the preachers of Antichrist.... Another report was brought
unto me; and what was that? That some perverse persons preach among you,
that on the Lord’s day none should be washed. This is clearly another
point maintained by other persons, different from the former.”—_Morality
of the Fourth Commandment_, pp. 19, 20. If Dr. Twisse is right, the
Sabbath-keepers in Rome about the year 600 were not chargeable with the
Sunday observance above mentioned.
[805] The idea is suggested by the language of an anonymous first-day
writer of the seventeenth century, Irenæus Philalethes, in a work
entitled “_Sabbato-Dominica_,” pref. p. 11, London, 1643.
[806] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 267.
[807] Id. p. 283.
[808] Dialogues, &c. p. 268.
[809] Id. pp. 283, 284.
[810] Id. p. 268.
[811] Id. p. 284.
[812] Dialogues, &c. p. 269.
[813] Id. p. 270.
[814] Id. p. 271.
[815] Dialogues, &c. p. 271; Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 7.
[816] Dialogues, &c. p. 272.
[817] Dialogue, &c. p. 261.
[818] Ex. 20:8-11; Deut. 33:2.
[819] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 7; Morer, p. 272.
[820] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 7; Morer, p. 272.
[821] Dialogues, &c. pp. 261, 262.
[822] Id. pp. 284, 285.
[823] Dialogues, &c. p. 274.
[824] Id. p. 285.
[825] Id. p. 286.
[826] Id. Ib.
[827] Id. pp. 286, 287.
[828] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 2.
[829] Dialogues, &c. p. 274.
[830] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 2.
[831] Dialogues, &c. p. 68.
[832] Binius, vol. iii. p. 1285, ed. 1606.
[833] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 13.
[834] Morer, p. 288; Heylyn, part 2. chap. vii. sect. 6.
[835] Roger de Hoveden’s Annals, Bohn’s ed. vol. ii. p. 487.
[836] Id. Ib.
[837] Hoveden, vol. ii. pp. 526-528.
[838] See Matthew Paris’s Historia Major, pp. 200, 201, ed. 1640; Binius’
Councils, ad ann. 1201, vol. iii. pp. 1448, 1449; Wilkins’ Concilia
Magnæ Britaniæ et Hibernæ, vol. i. pp. 510, 511, London, 1737; Sir David
Dalrymple’s Historical Memorials, pp. 7, 8, ed. 1769; Heylyn’s History
of the Sabbath, part ii. chap. vii. sect. 5; Morer’s Lord’s Day, pp.
288-290; Hessey’s Sunday pp. 90, 321; Gilfillan’s Sabbath, p. 399.
[839] Maclaine’s Mosheim, cent. xiii. part ii. chap. i. sect. 5.
[840] Murdock’s Mosheim, cent. xiii. part ii. chap. i. sect. 5, note 19.
[841] Matthew Paris’s Historia Major, p. 201. His words are: “Cum autem
Patriarcha et clerus omnis Terræ sanctæ, hunc epistolæ tenorem diligenter
examinassent; communi omnium deliberatione decretum est, ut epistola
ad judicium Romani Pontificis transmitteretur; quatenus, quicquid ipse
agendum decrevit, placæt universis. Cumque tandem epistola ad domini
Papæ notitiam pervenisset, continuo prædicatores ordinavit; qui per
diversas mundi partes profecti, prædicaverunt ubique epistolæ tenerem;
Domino cooperante et sermonem eorum confirmante, sequentibus signis.
Inter quos Abbos de Flai nomine Eustachius, vir religiosus et literali
scientia eruditis, regnum Angliæ aggressus: multis ibidem miraculis
corruscavit.”—_Library of Harvard College._
[842] History of the Popes, vol. ii. p. 535.
[843] M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. iv. p. 590.
[844] Id. vol. iv. p. 592.
[845] See page 274 of this work.
[846] Hoveden, vol. ii. p. 528.
[847] Hoveden, vol. ii. p. 528.
[848] Id. p. 529.
[849] Hoveden, vol. ii. pp. 529, 530.
[850] Id. Ib.
[851] Dialogues, &c. p. 290.
[852] Gilfillan’s Sabbath, p. 399.
[853] Binius’s Councils, vol. iii. pp. 1448, 1449; Heylyn, part ii. chap.
vii. sect. 7.
[854] Heylyn, part ii. chap. vii. sect. 7.
[855] Dialogues, &c. pp. 290, 291.
[856] Id. p. 291.
[857] Id. p. 275.
[858] Id. Ib.
[859] Id. pp. 293, 294.
[860] Id. p. 279.
[861] Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:9.
[862] Morer, p. 280.
[863] Id. pp. 281, 282.
[864] Mr. Croly says: “With the title of ‘Universal Bishop,’ the power of
the papacy, and the Dark Ages, alike began.”—_Croly on the Apocalypse_,
p. 173.
[865] M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. iv. p. 591.
[866] History of the Baptist Denomination, p. 50, ed. 1849.
[867] Dan. 8:12.
[868] Ps. 119:142, 151.
[869] See chap. xx. of this work.
[870] M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. ii. pp. 600, 601;
D’Aubigné’s History of the Reformation, book xvii.
[871] M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. ii. p. 601.
[872] Id. Ib.
[873] Id. Ib.
[874] Butler’s Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and principal Saints,
article, St. Columba, A. D. 597.
[875] The Monks of the West, vol. ii. p. 104.
[876] Gilfillan’s Sabbath, p. 389.
[877] Id. pp. 32, 33.
[878] Waddington’s History of the Church, part iv. chap. xviii.
[879] Jones’s History of the Church, vol. ii. chap. v. sect. 1.
[880] Jortin’s Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. sect. 38.
[881] Edward’s Hist. of Redemption, period iii. part iv. sect. 2.
[882] Hist. Bapt. Denom. p. 33.
[883] Id. p. 31.
[884] Variations of Popery, p. 52.
[885] Eccl. Hist. of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, p. 167.
[886] History of the English Baptists, vol. i. pref. p. 35.
[887] Mr. Jones, in his “Church History,” vol. i. chap. iii., note at the
end of the chapter, explains this charge as follows: “But this calumny
is easily accounted for. The advocates of popery, to support their
usurpations and innovations in the kingdom of Christ, were driven to the
Old Testament for authority, adducing the kingdom of David for their
example. And when their adversaries rebutted the argument, insisting that
the parallel did not hold, for that the kingdom of Christ, which is not
of this world, is a very different state of things from the kingdom of
David, their opponents accused them of giving up the divine authority of
the Old Testament.”
[888] Eccl. Hist. Ancient Churches of Piedmont, pp. 231, 236, 237.
[889] Id. pp. 175-177.
[890] Id. p. 209.
[891] Hist. Church, chap. v. sect. 1.
[892] Gen. Hist. Bapt. Denom. vol. ii. p. 413, ed. 1813.
[893] Ecclesiastical Researches, chap. x. pp. 303, 304.
[894] Jones’s Hist. Church, vol. ii. chap. v. sect. 1.
[895] General Hist. Baptist Denom. vol. ii. p. 413.
[896] Circumcisi forsan illi fuerint, qui aliis Insabbatati, non quod
circumciderentur, inquit Calvinista [Goldastus] sed quod in Sabbato
judaizarent.—_Eccl. Researches_, chap. x. p. 303.
[897] Thomas’ Dictionary of Biography and Mythology, article Goldast.
[898] D’Aubigné’s Reformation in the time of Calvin, vol. iii. p. 456.
[899] Nec quod in Sabbato colendo Judaizarent, ut MULTI PUTABANT, sed a
zapata.—_Eccl. Researches_, chap. x. p. 304; _Usher’s De Christianar.
Eccl. success. et stat._ cap. 7.
[900] Jones’s Church History, vol. ii. chap. v. sect. 2.
[901] Reformation in the time of Calvin, vol. iii. p. 249.
[902] Id. pp. 250, 251.
[903] Reformation in the time of Calvin, vol. i. p. 349; D’Aubigné cites
as his authority, “_Histoire des Protestants de Picardie_” by L. Rossier,
p. 2.
[904] Jones’s Church History, vol. ii. chap. v. sect. 4.
[905] History of the Vaudois by Bresse, p. 126.
[906] Benedict’s Hist. Bapt. p. 41.
[907] Hist. Church, chap. iv. sect. 3.
[908] Eccl. Hist. of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, pp. 168,
169, Boston, Pub. Lib. The author, Rev. Peter Allix, D. D., was a
French Protestant, born in 1641, and was distinguished for piety and
erudition.—_Lempriere’s Universal Biography._
[909] Id. p. 170.
[910] Horæ Apocalypticæ, vol. ii. p. 291.
[911] Eccl. Researches, chap. x. pp. 305, 306.
[912] Horæ Apocalypticæ, vol. ii. p. 342.
[913] Eccl. Hist. cent. xii. part ii. chap. v. sect. 14.
[914] General Hist. Bapt. Denom. vol. ii. p. 414, ed. 1813.
[915] Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Diamper, p. 158, London 1694.
[916] Eccl. Hist. of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, p. 224.
[917] Id. p. 225.
[918] Hist. of the Church, chap. iv. sect. 3.
[919] Treatise of the Sabbath day, p. 8.
[920] Eccl. Hist. of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, p. 162.
[921] History of the Sabbath, part ii. chap. v. sect. 1.
[922] Bower says of Gregory: “He was a man of most extraordinary
parts, of an unbounded ambition, of a haughty and imperious temper,
of resolution and courage incapable of yielding to the greatest
difficulties, _perfectly acquainted with the state of the western
churches_, as well as with the different interests of the Christian
princes.”—_History of the Popes_, vol. ii. p. 378.
[923] History of the Popes, vol. ii. p. 358.
[924] Theological Dict. art. Anabaptists.
[925] Hist. Church, vol. i. pp. 183, 184.
[926] Treatise of the Sabbath day, p. 132. He cites Hist. Anabapt. lib.
6, p. 153.
[927] The Rise, Spring, and Foundation of the Anabaptists or Rebaptized
of our Times. By Guy de Brez, A. D. 1565.
[928] Acts 8:26-40.
[929] M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia, vol. i. p. 40.
[930] Dec. and Fall, chap. xlvii.
[931] Maxson’s Hist. Sab. p. 33, ed. 1844.
[932] Church Hist. of Ethiopia, p. 31.
[933] Id. p. 96; Gibbon, chap. xv. note 25; chap. xlvii. note 160.
M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. i. p. 40.
[934] Church Hist. Ethiopia, pp. 34, 35; Purchas’s Pilgrimage, book ii.
chap. v.
[935] Ch. Hist. Eth. pp. 87, 88.
[936] Id. Ib.
[937] Gibbon, chap. xlvii.
[938] Ch. Hist. Eth. pp. 311, 312; Gobat’s Abyssinia, pp. 83, 93.
[939] Gibbon, chap. xlvii.
[940] Continental India, vol. ii. p. 120.
[941] Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Diamper, preface.
[942] Continental India, vol. ii. pp. 116, 117.
[943] East Indian Church History, pp. 133, 134.
[944] Id. pp. 139, 140.
[945] Buchanan’s Christian Researches in Asia, pp. 159, 160.
[946] Purchas His Pilgrimes, part ii. book viii. chap. vi. sect. 5, p.
1269, London, 1625. The “Encyclopedia Britannica,” vol. viii. p. 695,
eighth ed., speaks of Purchas as “an Englishman admirably skilled in
language and human and divine arts, a very great philosopher, historian,
and theologian.”
[947] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. vi. sects. 3, 5.
[948] Cox’s Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 287.
[949] Id. Ib.
[950] Cox’s Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 287.
[951] Id. p. 286.
[952] Id. Ib.
[953] Id. p. 289.
[954] Tyndale’s Answer to More, book i. chap. xxv.
[955] Hessey, p. 352.
[956] Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, book ii. chap. viii.
sect. 34, translated by John Allen.
[957] Quanquam non sine delectu Dominicum quem vocamus diem veteres in
locum Sabbathi subrogarunt.
[958] Calvin’s Institutes, book ii. chap. viii. sect. 34.
[959] Calvin’s Harmony of the Evangelists on Matt. 28; Mark 16; Luke 24.
[960] Calvin’s Commentary on John 20.
[961] Calvin’s Commentary on Acts 2:1.
[962] Calvin’s Commentary on Acts 20:7.
[963] Id. Ib.
[964] Calvin’s Commentary on Acts 20:7.
[965] Calvin’s Commentary on 1 Cor. 16:2.
[966] Id. Ib.
[967] Calvin’s Institutes, book ii. chap. viii. sect. 34.
[968] Hessey’s Bampton Lectures on Sunday, p. 201, ed. 1866. In the notes
appended, p. 366, he says: “At Geneva a tradition exists, that when John
Knox visited Calvin on a Sunday, he found his austere coadjutor bowling
on a green.” Dr. Hessey evidently credited this tradition.
[969] Beza’s Life of Calvin, Sibson’s Translation, p. 55, ed. 1836.
[970] Id. p. 115.
[971] Eccl. Researches, chap. x. p. 338.
[972] Id. p. 339.
[973] Beza’s Life of Calvin, p. 168.
[974] M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. i. p. 663.
[975] Hessey, p. 341, gives a clue to the title of Barclay’s work. It was
Parænesis ad Sectarios hujus temporis, lib. 1, cap. 13, p. 160, Rome,
1617.
[976] See Heylyn’s Hist. of the Sabbath, part ii. chapter vi. sect.
8; Morer’s Lord’s Day, pp. 216, 217, 228; An Inquiry into the Origin
of Septenary Institutions, p. 55; The Modern Sabbath Examined, p. 26,
Whitaker, Treacher, and Arnot, London, 1832; Cox’s Sabbath Literature,
vol. i. pp. 165, 166; Hessey, pp. 141, 142, 198, 341, and the authors
there cited.
[977] Morality of the Fourth Commandment, pp. 32, 36, 39, 40.
[978] In fact, the story told by Twisse that Barclay is not to be
believed in what he says of Calvin because he was treacherous toward
King James I., who for that reason would not promote him at his court,
appears to be wholly unfounded. The Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. iv., p.
439, eighth edition, assigns a very different reason. It says: “In those
days a pension bestowed upon a Scottish papist would have been numbered
among the national grievances.” That is to say, public opinion would
not then tolerate the promotion of a Romanist. But this writer believes
that the king secretly favored Barclay. Thus on page 440 he adds:
“Although it does not appear that he obtained any regular provision from
the king, we may perhaps suppose that he at least received occasional
gratuities.” This writer knew nothing of Barclay as a detected spy at
the king’s court. Of his standing as a man, he says on p. 441: “If there
had been any remarkable blemish in the morals of Barclay, some of his
numerous adversaries would have pointed it out.” M’Clintock and Strong’s
Cyclopedia, vol. 1, p. 663, says that he “would doubtless have succeeded
at court had he not been a Romanist.” See also Knight’s Cyclopedia of
Biography, article Barclay.
[979] Cox’s Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 123; M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia,
vol. v. pp. 137-140.
[980] Quoted in Hessey’s Bampton Lectures, p. 200.
[981] Id. p. 201.
[982] Westminster Review, July, 1858, p. 37.
[983] Westminster Review, July, 1858, p. 37.
[984] Hessey, p. 203.
[985] Dr. Priestly, as quoted in Cox’s “Sabbath Laws,” p. 260.
[986] Life of Luther by Barnas Sears, D. D., larger ed. pp. 400, 401.
[987] M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. ii. p. 123.
[988] Id. Ib.
[989] D’Aubigné’s Hist. of the Ref. book ix.
[990] Mosheim’s Church Hist. book iv. cent. xvi. sect. 3, part ii.
paragraph 22, note.
[991] Life of Luther, p. 401.
[992] D’Aubigné’s Hist. Ref. book ix. p. 282. I use the excellent
one-volume edition of Porter and Coates.
[993] Life of Luther, pp. 402, 403.
[994] Id. pp. 401, 402.
[995] Mosheim’s Hist. of the Church, book iv. cent. xvi. sect. 3, part
ii. paragraph 22, note.
[996] Life of Luther, p. 402.
[997] D’Aubigné’s Hist. of Ref. book x. p. 312.
[998] Life of Luther, p. 403.
[999] D’Aubigné’s Hist. Ref. book x. pp. 314, 315.
[1000] Id. Ib.
[1001] M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. ii. p. 123.
[1002] Id. Ib.
[1003] Life of Luther, p. 400.
[1004] D’Aubigné’s Hist. Ref. book x. p. 312.
[1005] Id. book x. p. 315.
[1006] Hist. Ref. book x. p. 315.
[1007] Life of Luther, p. 403.
[1008] Mosheim’s Church Hist. book iv. cent. 16, sect. 3, part ii.
paragraph 22, note.
[1009] Id. Ib. Very nearly the same statement is made by Du Pin, tome 13,
chap. ii. section 20, p. 103, A. D. 1703.
[1010] Hist. Ref. book x. p. 315.
[1011] Treatise of the Sabbath Day, p. 8.
[1012] Life of Luther, p. 402.
[1013] Quoted in the Life of Martin Luther in Pictures, p. 147,
Philadelphia, J. W. Moore, 195 Chestnut street.
[1014] M’Clintock and Strong, vol. ii. p. 123; Dr. A. Clarke’s
Commentary, preface to James.
[1015] M’Clintock and Strong, vol. iii. p. 679; D’Aubigné’s Hist. Ref.
book xviii. pp. 672, 689, 706, 707; book xx. pp. 765, 766; Fox’s Acts and
Monuments, book viii. pp. 524-527.
[1016] Frith’s works, p. 69, quoted in Hessey, p. 198.
[1017] Eccl. Researches, chap. xvi. p. 630.
[1018] Id. Ib.
[1019] Id. p. 631.
[1020] Eccl. Researches, chap. xvi. p. 636.
[1021] Id. pp. 636, 637.
[1022] Eccl. Researches, chap. xvi. p. 640.
[1023] Mosheim’s Hist. Church, book iv. cent. 16, sect. 3, part ii. chap.
iv. par. 23.
[1024] Lamy’s History of Socinianism, p. 60.
[1025] “Nunc audimus apud Bohemos exoriri novum Judæorum genus,
Sabbatarios appellant, qui tanta superstitione servant Sabbatum, ut si
quid eo die inciderit in oculum, nolint eximere; quasi non sufficiat
eis pro Sabbato Dies Dominicus, qui Apostolis etiam erat sacer, aut
quasi Christus non satis expresserit quantum tribuen dum sit Sabbato.”
De Amabili Ecclesiæ Concordia; Opera, tome 5, p. 506, Lugd. Bat. 1704;
quoted in Cox’s Sabbath Literature, vol. ii. pp. 201, 202; Hessey, p. 374.
[1026] Cox, vol. ii. p. 202.
[1027] Such statements respecting the observers of the seventh day
are very common. Even those who first commenced to keep the Sabbath
in Newport were said to “have left Christ and gone to Moses in the
observation of days, and times, and seasons, and such like.”—_Seventh-day
Baptist Memorial_, vol. i. p. 32. The pastor of the first-day Baptist
church of Newport said to them: “I do judge you have and still do deny
Christ.”—_Id._ p. 37.
[1028] The Present State of the Greek Church in Russia, Appendix. p. 273,
New York, 1815.
[1029] Murdock’s Mosheim, book iv. cent. xvii. sect. 2, part i. chap. ii.
note 12.
[1030] See the twenty-first chapter of this work.
[1031] Id. Ib.
[1032] Maxson’s Hist. Sab. p. 41.
[1033] Manual of the Seventh-day Baptists, p. 16.
[1034] Martyrology of the Churches of Christ, commonly called Baptists,
during the era of the Reformation. From the Dutch of T. J. Van Braght,
London, 1850, vol. i. pp. 113, 114.
[1035] Id. p. 113.
[1036] Manual of the S. D. Baptists, p. 16.
[1037] Wall’s History of Infant Baptism, vol. ii. p. 379, Oxford, 1835.
[1038] I know of no exception to this statement. If there be any it must
be found in the cases of those observing both seventh and first days.
Even here, there is certainly no such thing as sprinkling for baptism,
but possibly there may be the baptism of young children.
[1039] Hist. English Baptists, vol. ii. pref. pp. 43, 44.
[1040] Maxson’s Hist. Sab. p. 42.
[1041] Gen. Hist. Bapt. Denom. vol. ii. p. 414, ed. 1813.
[1042] Hengstenberg’s Lord’s Day, p. 66.
[1043] Coleman’s Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. xxvi. sect. 2;
Heylyn’s Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. viii. sect. 7; Neal’s Hist. Puritans,
part i. chap. viii.
[1044] Sabbathum Veteris et Novi Testamenti; or, the True Doctrine of the
Sabbath, by Nicholas Bound, D. D., sec. ed. London, 1606, p. 51.
[1045] Id. p. 66.
[1046] True Doc. of the Sab. p. 71.
[1047] Id. p. 72.
[1048] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. viii. sect. 8.
[1049] Prælectiones Theologicæ, vol. i. part ii. sect. 2, cap. i. p.
194. “Propositio. Præter sacram Scripturam admitti necessario debent
Traditiones divinæ dogmaticæ ab illa prorsus distinctæ.”
“Non posse praeterea, rejectis ejusmodi traditionibus, plura dogmata, quæ
nobiscum retinuerunt protestantes cum ab Ecclesia catholica recesserunt,
ullo modo adstruis, res est citra omnis dubitationis aleam posita. Etenim
ipsi nobiscum retinuerunt valorem baptismi ab haereticis aut infidelibus
administrati, valorem item paedobaptismi, germanam baptismi formam,
cessationem legis de abstinentia a sanguine et suffocato, de die dominico
Sabbatis suffecto, praeter ea quæ superius commemoravimus aliaque haud
pauca.”
[1050] Backus’ Hist. of the Baptists in New England, p. 63, ed. 1777.
[1051] Chambers’ Cyclopedia, article, Sabbath, vol. viii. p. 402, London,
1867.
[1052] Gilfillan’s Sabbath, p. 60.
[1053] Observation of the Christian Sabbath, p. 2.
[1054] See the fifteenth chapter of this work.
[1055] Gilfillan’s Sabbath, p. 88.
[1056] Id. Ib.
[1057] Pagitt’s Heresiography, p. 209, London, 1661.
[1058] Pagitt’s Heresiography, p. 209.
[1059] Id. p. 210.
[1060] Id. p. 164.
[1061] Pagitt’s Heresiography, pp. 196, 197.
[1062] Id. p. 161.
[1063] Manual of the Seventh-day Baptists, pp. 17, 18; Heylyn’s Hist. of
the Sab. part ii. chap. viii. sect. 10; Gilfillan’s Sabbath, pp. 88, 89;
Cox’s Sabbath Literature, vol. i. pp. 152, 153.
[1064] Manual of the S. D. Baptists, p. 18.
[1065] Dr. Francis White’s Treatise of the Sabbath Day, quoted in Cox’s
Sab. Lit. vol. i. p. 167.
[1066] Heylyn’s Cyprianus Anglicus, quoted in Cox, vol. i. p. 173.
[1067] Treatise of the Sabbath Day, p. 110.
[1068] Hessey’s Bampton Lectures, pp. 373, 374; Cox’s Sab. Lit. vol. ii.
p. 6; A. H. Lewis’s Sabbath and Sunday, pp. 178-184. This work contains
much valuable information respecting English and American Sabbatarians.
[1069] Treatise of the Sabbath Day, p. 73.
[1070] Manual of the S. D. Baptists, pp. 19, 20.
[1071] Cox, vol. i. p. 268; vol. ii. p. 10.
[1072] Id. vol. ii. p. 35.
[1073] Hist. English Baptists, vol. i. pp. 365, 366.
[1074] Hist. Puritans, part 2. chap. x.
[1075] Crosby’s Hist. Eng. Baptists, vol. i. pp. 366, 367.
[1076] Hist. Puritans, part 2, chap. x.
[1077] Calamy’s Ejected Ministers, vol. ii. pp. 258, 259; Lewis’ Sabbath
and Sunday, pp. 188-193.
[1078] Wood’s Athenæ Oxonienses, vol. iv. p. 123.
[1079] Crosby, vol. i. p. 367.
[1080] Ex. 16:23; Gen. 2:3.
[1081] Judgment for the Observation of the Jewish or Seventh-day Sabbath,
pp. 6-8, 1672.
[1082] Calamy, vol. 2, p. 260.
[1083] Crosby, vol. 2, pp. 165-171.
[1084] When asked what he had to say why sentence should not be
pronounced, he said he would leave with them these scriptures: Jer.
26:14, 15; Ps. 116:15.
[1085] Manual, &c. pp. 21-23.
[1086] Crosby’s Hist. Eng. Bapt. vol. iii. pp. 138, 139.
[1087] “When the London Seventh-day Baptists, in 1664, sent Stephen
Mumford to America, and in 1675 sent Eld. William Gibson, they did as
much, in proportion to their ability, as had been done by any society for
propagating the gospel in foreign parts.”—_Seventh-day Baptist Memorial_,
vol. i. p. 43.
[1088] Ch. Hist. of N. England from 1783 to 1796, chap. xi. sect. 10.
[1089] Hist. of the S. D. Bapt. Gen. Conf. by Jas. Bailey, pp. 237, 238.
[1090] Seventh-day Baptist Memorial, vol. i. pp. 27, 28, 29.
[1091] Records of the First Baptist Church in Newport, quoted in the S.
D. Baptist Memorial, vol. i. pp. 28-39.
[1092] Bailey’s Hist. pp. 9, 10.
[1093] Id. p. 237.
[1094] Id. p. 238.
[1095] Manual of the S. D. Baptists, pp. 39, 40; Backus, chap. xi. sect.
10.
[1096] Hist. S. D. Baptist Gen. Conf. pp. 15, 238.
[1097] Id. pp. 46-55.
[1098] Id. pp. 57, 58, 62, 74, 82.
[1099] Sabbath and Sunday, p. 232.
[1100] Much interesting matter pertaining to the Seventh-day Baptists of
America may be found in Utter’s Manual of the S. D. Baptists; Bailey’s
Hist. of the S. D. Bapt. Gen. Conf.; Lewis’s Sabbath and Sunday, and in
the S. D. B. Memorial.
[1101] Rupp’s History of all Religious Denominations in the United
States, pp. 109-123, second edition; Bailey’s Hist. Gen. Conf. pp.
255-258.
[1102] New York _Independent_, March 18, 1869.
[1103] _Semi-Weekly Tribune_, May 4, 1869.
[1104] This sister was born at Vernon, Vt. Her maiden name was Rachel D.
Harris. At the age of seventeen, she was converted and soon after joined
the Methodist church. After her marriage, she removed with her husband
to central New York. There, at the age of twenty-eight, she became an
observer of the Bible Sabbath. The Methodist minister, her pastor, did
what he could to turn her from the Sabbath, but finally told her she
might keep it if she would not leave them. But she was faithful to her
convictions of duty and united with the first Seventh-day Baptist church
of Verona, Oneida Co., N. Y. Her first husband bore the name of Oaks; her
second, that of Preston. She and her daughter, Delight Oaks, were members
of the first Verona church at the time of their removal to Washington, N.
H. The mother died Feb. 1, 1868; the daughter, several years earlier.
[1105] Eld. Preble’s article appeared in the _Hope of Israel_ of Feb.
28, 1845, published at Portland, Maine. This article was reprinted in
the _Advent Review_ of Aug. 23, 1870. The article, as rewritten by Eld.
Preble and published in tract form, was also printed in the _Review_ of
Dec. 21, 1869.
[1106] He fell asleep March 19, 1872, in the eightieth year of his age.
[1107] For a further knowledge of their views, see their weekly paper,
the _Advent Review and Herald of the Sabbath_, published at Battle Creek,
Michigan, at $2.00 per year, and the list of publications advertised in
its columns.
[1108] Rev. 12:17; 14:12.
[1109] Rev. 19:10.
[1110] Rev. 4:10, 11.
[1111] 2 Pet. 3; Isa. 65; Rev. 21, 22. Milton thus states this doctrine:—
“The world shall burn, and from her ashes spring
New heaven and earth, wherein the just shall dwell,
And after all their tribulation long,
See golden days, fruitful of golden deeds,
With joy and love triumphing, and fair truth.”
—_Paradise Lost_, book iii, lines 334-338.
“So shall the world go on,
To good malignant, to bad men benign;
Under her own weight, groaning; till the day
Appear of respiration to the just,
And vengeance to the wicked, at return
Of Him so lately promised to thy aid,
The woman’s seed; obscurely then foretold,
Now ampler known thy Saviour and thy Lord:
Last, in the clouds, from heaven to be revealed
In glory of the Father, to dissolve
Satan with his perverted world; then raise
From the conflagrant mass, purged and refined,
New heaven, new earth, ages of endless date,
Founded in righteousness, and peace, and love;
To bring forth fruits, joy, and eternal bliss.”
—_Id._ book xii, lines 537-551.
[1112] Dan. 7:9, 10, 13, 14, 17-27; Ps. 2:7-9; 37:9-11, 18-22, 34; Mal.
4:1-3.
[1113] Isa. 66:22, 23.
[1114] Heb. 4:9. The margin renders it “a keeping of a Sabbath.” Liddell
and Scott define _Sabbatismos_ “a keeping of the Sabbath.” They give no
other definition, but derive it from the verb _Sabbatizo_, which they
define by these words only, “to keep the Sabbath.” Schrevelius defines
_Sabbatismos_ by this one phrase: “Observance of the Sabbath.” He also
derives it from _Sabbatizo_. _Sabbatismos_ is therefore the noun in Greek
which signifies the _act of Sabbath-keeping_, while _Sabbatizo_, from
which it is derived, is the verb which expresses that act.
[1115] See the Lexicons of Liddell and Scott, Schrevelius, and Greenfield.
[1116] Rev. 22:1, 2.
INDEX OF AUTHORS QUOTED.
Abyssinian Ambassador, 425.
Acta Martyrum, 244, 253.
_Advent Review_, 502, 507.
Allix, Dr., 406, 407, 415, 416, 418, 420.
Anatolius, 227.
Andrews, Dr., 244, 246, 248.
Aquensis, 69.
Archelaus, 316.
Augsburg Confession, 434.
Augustine, 71, 247, 365.
Bardesanes, 219, 284.
Barnabas, 218, 231, 232, 235, 242, 284, 289, 299, 300, 301, 312, 313.
Backus, 478, 494, 496.
Bailey, James, 494, 496, 497, 499.
Bampfield, Francis, 489.
Barclay, 441, 442, 443.
Baronius, 250, 253-257.
Barrett, 29.
Baxter, 38, 362, 363.
Benedict, 399, 405, 408, 409, 410, 415, 418, 469, 470.
Beza, 435, 441.
Beza’s Translation, 177.
Bible Dictionary of Am. Tract Society, 211, 212.
Bingham, 228, 340.
Binius, 384, 388, 394.
Bliss, Sylvester, 9, 31.
Bloomfield, 126, 168, 176, 189.
Boehmer, 237.
Bound, Nicholas, 19, 71, 472-475.
Bower, 198, 274, 275, 390, 420, 421.
Boyle, 275.
Brabourne, 339, 484.
Brerewood, 341, 370.
Bresse, 414.
Brez, Guy de, 423.
Bucer, 435.
Buchanan, 430, 431.
Buck, 20, 236, 423.
Butler, Alvan, 402.
Calmet, 20, 108.
Calvin, 10, 74, 239, 436-443.
Carlstadt, 447-459.
Chafie, 261, 262.
Chambers, 479, 480.
Chrysostom, 363.
Clarke, Adam, 10, 14, 38, 52, 55, 68, 69, 96, 103, 109, 200, 237,
260, 458.
Clement of Alexandria, 219, 220, 221, 222, 290, 299, 318-322.
Clement of Rome, 311.
Coleman, Dr., 31.
Coleman, Lyman, 235, 236, 335-337, 472-474.
Columba, St., 402.
Commodianus, 296.
Constantine, 264, 275, 329, 342, 346, 347.
Constitutions, Apostolical, 287, 288, 292, 296, 312, 315, 326-329.
Cox, 340, 344, 357, 359, 362, 363, 365, 368, 434, 435, 442, 444,
445, 446, 464, 483, 484, 485, 487.
Cranmer, 435.
Crozier, 135.
Croly, 369, 398.
Crosby, 406, 469, 487-489, 492.
Cumming, Dr., 199, 200.
Cyprian, 248, 291.
D’Aubigné, 401, 410, 412, 413, 449, 450, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 460.
Davidis, 461.
Dictionary of Chronology, 373.
Dionysius, 214.
Domville, Sir Wm., 234, 239, 241, 242, 245, 246, 247, 248, 251, 266,
271, 272, 344.
Douay Translation, 38, 39, 176, 177, 202.
Dowling, 196, 199, 274.
Du Pin, 266, 456.
Edgar, Dr., 405.
Edwards, Justin, 112, 113, 114, 126, 177, 212, 216, 244, 271, 357,
366.
Edwards, President, 138, 404, 405.
Elliot, 351, 357, 416, 417.
Encyclopedia Americana, 342.
Encyclopedia Britannica, 190, 342, 432, 442, 443.
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 234.
Eusebius, 133, 214, 216, 227, 234, 355, 357, 359.
Erasmus, 463, 464.
Family Testament, 126.
Fleury, 374.
Fox, 460.
Frith, 459, 460.
Geddes, 418, 424, 425, 426, 428.
Gerendi, John, 463.
Gesenius, 17.
Gesner, 248.
Gibbon, 194, 276, 339, 348, 354, 424, 425, 426.
Giesler, 275, 334.
Gilfillan, 250, 388, 394, 402, 403, 480, 481, 483.
Gill, 10, 70, 71, 260.
Gobat, 426.
Goldastus, 410.
Greenfield, 512.
Gregory of Nyssa, 361.
Gregory of Tours, 374.
Gregory the Great, 374.
Gregory VII., 420.
Gretser, 410.
Grotius, 128, 129.
Guericke, 326.
Gurney, 242, 244, 248, 360.
Hacket, 150, 168, 178, 181, 233.
Hales, Dr., 31.
Hase, Dr., 281.
Hengstenberg, 74, 100, 372, 471, 472.
Hessey, 345, 362, 388, 435, 436, 440, 442, 444, 445, 460, 464, 485.
Heylyn, 265, 266, 275, 276, 280, 285, 352, 353, 354, 363, 364, 366,
370, 371, 374, 379, 380, 381, 383, 384, 385, 388, 394, 420,
433, 434, 442, 474, 476, 483, 485.
Hope of Israel, 502.
Hoveden, Roger de, 385-388, 391-393.
Hudson, 239.
Ignatius, 211, 231, 237, 238, 240, 241, 242, 288, 292, 293, 324-326.
Irenæus, 216, 218, 271, 273, 274, 284, 295, 304, 305, 309, 310, 313.
James, William, 280, 360.
Jennings, 260.
Jerome, 364.
Jones, 404, 406, 408, 409, 411, 414, 415, 418, 419.
Jortin, 347, 362, 404.
Josephus, 27, 34, 110, 112, 133, 136.
Justin Martyr, 212, 218, 263, 267, 270, 271, 284, 289, 296, 297, 301,
302, 303, 304, 316, 317, 318.
Killen, Dr., 233, 238, 239.
King, Lord, 281.
Kitto, 181, 222, 233, 234, 240, 241, 363.
Knox, 440, 443, 444.
Lactantius, 314.
Lange, 19.
Lamy, 463.
Lardner, 367.
Lempriere, 416.
Leo, Pope, 366.
Lewis, A. H., 485, 488, 497, 499.
Ley, John, 361.
Liddell and Scott, 512.
Life of Luther in Pictures, 457.
Lucius, 247, 350.
Luther, 17, 434, 447-459.
Maclaine, 449, 451, 452, 455, 456.
Magdeburg Centuriators, 350.
Marsh, 348.
Marsh, Joseph, 135.
Mather, Cotton, 100, 478.
Massie, 427, 428.
Maxson, W. B., 424, 467, 469.
M’Clintock and Strong, 228, 251, 260, 351, 391, 399, 400, 401, 424,
425, 441, 443, 444, 448, 454, 458, 460.
Melancthon, 434.
Melito, 215, 216.
Memorial, S. D. B., 465, 493-496, 499.
Metaphrastes, 350.
Miller, Wm., 45, 87, 135.
Milman, 346, 347.
Milner, 233, 266.
Milton, 511.
Modern Sabbath Examined, Anonymous, 197, 340, 344, 345, 442.
Monks of the West, 402.
Morality of the Fourth Commandment, Anon., 14, 15.
Morer, 139, 189, 241, 262, 263, 333, 338, 339, 344, 362, 364, 365,
366, 372, 373, 374, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383,
384, 385, 388, 393-397, 442.
Mosheim, 227, 229, 231, 232, 233, 235, 237, 242, 249, 264, 265, 326,
334, 335, 343, 347, 388, 389, 417, 418, 449, 451, 452, 455,
456, 463, 466.
Morton, J. W., 176.
Murdock, 465, 466.
Neale, 474, 487, 488.
Neander, 198, 230, 231, 233, 242, 243, 274, 280.
New York _Independent_, 500.
New York _Tribune_, 500.
Nicephorus, 351.
Nicetas, 421.
_North British Review_, 259, 260, 261.
Novatian, 311, 312, 314.
Origen, 225, 291, 295, 307, 313, 314, 323, 324, 325.
Origin of Septenary Institutions, Anonymous, 442.
Pagitt, 200, 201, 480-483.
Paragraph Bible, 189.
Paris, Matthew, 388, 389.
Perrone, 477, 478.
Peter of Alexandria, 287, 292.
Philalethes, Irenæus, 375.
Philo, 27, 320, 321, 322.
Pinkerton, 465.
Plato, 219, 290.
Pliny, 211, 231, 235, 236, 237, 242, 243.
Poem on Genesis, 315.
Preble, T. M., 501, 502.
Priestly, 446.
Prynne, William, 151, 181, 360, 361.
Purchas, 10, 425, 431, 432.
Records of First Baptist church in Newport, 496.
Reeves, Wm., 201, 267.
Robinson, Robert, 197, 239, 240, 408, 409, 410, 411, 417, 441, 460,
461-463.
Ruinart, 247-251, 257.
Rupp, 499.
Saccho, Rainer, 403, 404.
Samaritan Pentateuch, 14.
Sawyer’s Translation, 177, 180.
Schaff, 281.
Schrevelius, 512.
Sears, 447, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 457.
Septuagint, 14.
Shimeall, 9, 369.
Socrates, 227, 228, 330, 367.
Sozomen, 227, 367.
Spirit of Popery, 269.
Sprint, 480.
Stebbing, 423.
Stennet, 495.
Stockwood, 480.
Stuart, Prof., 233, 360.
Sunday and the Mosaic Sabbath, 349.
Swiss Confession, 434.
Syriac Documents, 288, 289, 293.
Syriac Bible, 14.
Syriac Testament, 177.
Taylor, D. T., 9.
Taylor, Jer., 269, 270, 337, 343.
Taylor, W. B., 192, 203, 236, 237.
Tertullian, 222, 223, 224, 236, 263, 264, 276, 277, 278, 279, 285,
286, 287, 290, 295, 296, 298, 299, 305, 306, 307, 310, 311,
313, 315, 316, 322, 362.
Theophilus, 212, 310.
Thomas, 410.
Treatise of Thirty Controversies, Anonymous, 203.
Twisse, 17, 24, 247, 333, 334, 374, 400, 442.
Tyndale, 435.
Usher, 410, 411.
Utter, G. B., 467, 468, 483, 484, 486, 490, 491, 496, 499.
Van Braght, 468.
Verstegan, 259, 260.
Victorinus, 307, 308, 329.
Waddington, 403, 404.
Wall, 468.
Webster, 15, 259, 260, 347.
West, Francis, 374.
_Westminster Review_, 444, 445.
White, Dr. Francis, 339, 340, 365, 371, 372, 419, 423, 456, 457,
484-486.
Whiting’s Translation, 180.
Wilkins, 388.
Wood, 488.
Worcester, 15, 259, 260.
Wycliffe’s Translation, 10.
Xavier, 429.
Yeates, 429.
Zonaras, 287.
Zwingle, 431, 435, 436.
INDEX OF SCRIPTURES.
Pages
GENESIS.
1:, 11, 47, 107
1:1, 10
1:1-13, 11
1:14-23, 12
1:1, 26, 22, 119
1:24-31, 13
1:28, 17
2:, 47, 34
2:1-3, 7, 21-23, 122
2:1-3, 14, 15, 19, 25, 36, 41, 119, 126, 140, 144, 191, 299, 489
2:7-9, 13
2:15, 17
2:18-22, 13
3:, 28, 34
3:19, 324
3:20, 13
4:, 34
5:, 34
5:24, 15, 29
6:, 34
6:9, 29
7:, 34
7:4, 10, 31, 40
8:10, 12, 31, 40
9:1-4, 58, 170
9:5, 7, 29
10:25, 34
11:1-9, 36, 166
11:10-16, 34
12:1-3, 35
15:, 36
17:, 42
17:7, 8, 56
17:9-14, 35
18:19, 32, 35
26:5, 29, 32, 36
26:24, 56
28:13, 56
29:27, 28, 31, 40
34: 42, 170
34:14, 35
50:10, 31, 40
EXODUS.
1:, 36
2:, 36
2:23-25, 49
3:, 36
3:6, 7, 49
3:6, 13-16, 18, 56
4:, 36, 42
4:31, 49
5:, 36
5:3, 56
7:25, 31, 40
12:, 41, 70, 78, 83
12:15, 16, 84, 88
12:25, 70, 86
12:29-42, 36
12:41, 42, 107
12:43, 44, 42
12:43-48, 52
12:48, 49, 102
13:, 78
13:2, 55
16:, 24, 41, 67
16:4-30, 36-39, 185
16:22, 23, 21, 24, 31, 70, 94, 123, 189, 191
16:22, 35, 40
16:29, 100, 307
18:16, 36
19:, 44, 45, 67, 75, 76, 162
19:3-8, 37
19:5, 6, 166
19:12, 23, 18, 55
20:, 44, 51, 76, 81, 140, 162, 184
20:1-17, 45
20:2, 37
20:8-11, 14, 20, 24, 25, 37, 40, 52, 77, 81, 88, 126, 191, 380
20:18-21, 53, 67
20-24:, 51
23:10, 11, 85
23:12, 51, 69, 123
23:14-17, 72
24:, 75
24:3-8, 37, 52, 67
24:3-13, 53
24:10, 37, 45
24:12, 62, 162
24:16, 52
24:12-18, 53
24:21-23, 53
25-31:, 53
25:1-21, 62, 160
25:21, 22, 161
29:9, 70
31:12-18, 54
31:13, 88
31:16, 70
31:17, 14, 43, 47, 305
31:18, 162
32:, 64, 65, 67
32-34:, 44, 59
34:1, 60, 79
34:10-28, 60
34:15, 16, 170
34:21, 59
34:28, 45, 60, 80
35:1-3, 67, 71
LEVITICUS.
3:17, 58, 70, 170
8:30, 15
11:45, 56
16:, 160, 162
16:29-31, 85
17:13, 14, 170
19:1-3, 30, 71
19:29, 170
20:9, 10, 58
22:6, 7, 108
22:32, 33, 36, 45
23:, 72, 185
23:3, 42, 71, 307
23:7, 8, 84
23:10-21, 83, 84
23:24, 25, 85, 88
23:32, 88, 107, 148
23:27-32, 85
23:34-43, 84
23:37, 38, 89, 140
23:39, 85, 88
24:5-9, 68, 70, 97, 120
24:15-17, 58
25:2-7, 85
25:8-54, 86
26:1, 2, 72
26:34, 35, 43, 86
NUMBERS.
9:, 70
10:10, 84
11, 21:, 67
13, 14:, 72
14:, 64, 65, 67
14:35, 73
15:41, 36, 45
15:30, 36, 73, 74
19:21, 70
23:9, 35
25:2, 170
28:9, 10, 68, 120
28:11-15, 84
28:17, 18, 25, 84
28:26-31, 83, 84
29:1-7, 85
DEUTERONOMY.
1:, 76
4:12, 13, 61, 79
4:20, 36
5:, 81
5:1-3, 75
5:4-22, 45
5:14, 37, 52
5:12-15, 76, 81
5:22, 46, 61, 70, 80
6:1, 70
7:, 70
7:6, 45
9:, 59
9:10, 80
9:24, 67
10:, 162
10:1-5, 45, 60, 62, 79, 80, 139, 160
13:6-18, 58
14:2, 45
16:, 70
16:6, 108
16:9-12, 83
16:13-15, 84
16:16, 90, 135
17:2-7, 58
23:2, 108
24:13, 15, 108
24:17,18, 78
28:64, 102
31:24-26, 139
32:7, 8, 34
32:16-35, 104
33:2, 44, 62, 380
33:27, 28, 35
JOSHUA.
5:, 70
5:2-8, 64
6:, 95
5:12, 40, 67
6:15, 96
8:29, 108
10:12-14, 96
10:26, 27, 108
20:7, 17
24:2, 14, 23, 35, 64
JUDGES.
5:5, 44
14:18, 108
1 SAMUEL.
15:29, 9
19:11, 181
20:5, 24, 27, 84
21:1-6, 97
26:7, 8, 107
2 SAMUEL.
3:35, 108
7:23, 45
24:1, 60
1 KINGS.
8:2, 65, 30
8:9, 160
8:53, 45
2 KINGS.
4:23, 93, 100
10:20, 21, 18
11:5-9, 100, 148
16:18, 101
23:5, 262
1 CHRONICLES.
9:1-32, 93
9:25, 148
9:32, 94, 97, 99, 120
21:1, 60
23:31, 99
2 CHRONICLES.
2:4, 99
5:3, 30
7:8, 9, 30
7:12, 90
8:13, 72, 99
18:34, 108
20:7, 35
23:4-8, 100
31:3, 99
36:16-20, 105
36:21, 86
EZRA.
3:1-6, 30
NEHEMIAH.
8:, 84
8:2, 9-12, 14-18, 30
9:6-13, 44
9:7, 8, 35
9:13, 14, 37, 49, 106
9:38, 106
10:1-31, 106
10:31, 33, 99, 107
13:15-22, 91, 103, 108, 126
13:19, 108
ESTHER.
2:14, 181
JOB.
2:13, 31, 40
14:12, 22
31:26, 260
37:18, 11
38:7, 13
38:22, 23, 58
PSALMS.
2:7-9, 511
6:, 292, 293, 325, 326
8:[title], 186
12:[title], 292, 293, 325, 326
19:7, 163
33:9, 26
37:9-11, 18-22, 34, 511
40:, 163
40:6-8, 162
68:17, 44, 62
78:106, 67
81:3, 84
90:2, 9, 36
90:4, 299
92:, 100
95:, 64
105:43-45, 36
116:15, 490
118:22-24, 155
119:91, 12
119:142, 151, 145, 400
122:, 90
136:6, 11
147:, 69
147:16-19, 68
147:19, 20, 45
ISAIAH.
1:13, 14, 89, 299, 306
8:18, 57
14:1, 102
28:17, 58
29:13, 397
40:28, 14
41:8, 35
41:17, 45
42:21, 123
45:3, 56
53:, 138
56:, 52, 91, 126
56:2, 306
56:1-8, 89, 101
58:13, 14, 28, 69, 88, 89, 103, 123, 126, 192, 306
57:15, 9
65:, 511
65:16, 145
66:22, 23, 100, 141, 305, 512
JEREMIAH.
3:14, 37
7:23-28, 103
10:10-12, 9, 26, 43
11:16, 165
17:19-27, 91, 104, 126
26:14, 15, 490
31:32, 37
31:33, 163, 309
31:31-34, 159
33:25, 12
36:22, 69
43:13, 262
LAMENTATIONS.
1:7, 88, 90
2:5-7, 90
EZEKIEL.
20:, 54, 64, 74, 126
20:5, 49
20:12, 43
20:13, 64
20:12-24, 65, 72, 73, 104, 305
21:19-22, 347
22:7, 8, 26, 104
23:38, 39, 104, 105
23:48, 109
40-48:, 105
43:7-11, 105
44:24, 105
45:17, 99, 105
46:1, 100, 106, 143, 175
46:1, 3, 4, 12, 105
DANIEL.
7:, 369, 511
7:18, 27, 305, 369
7:25, 501
8:12, 400
8:13-16, 62, 107
9:24-27, 115, 132, 138, 159
HOSEA.
2:11, 87, 88, 90
6:6, 121
JOEL.
1:14, 18
2:15, 18
AMOS.
3:1, 2 45
5:25-27, 64
8:4-6, 100, 101
MICAH.
5:2, 9
ZEPHANIAH.
1:7, 18
3:3, 181
MALACHI.
4:1-3, 511
2 ESDRAS.
6:38, 10
ECCLESIASTICUS.
49:16, 32
1 MACCABEES.
1:41-43, 110
2:29-38, 110
2:41, 110
9:43-49, 112
13:22, 69
2 MACCABEES.
5:25, 26, 111
6:11, 111
7:28, 10
8:23-28, 112
15:, 112
MATTHEW.
5-7:, 310
5:17-19, 123, 126, 140, 141, 159, 160, 315
7:12, 126
8:5-15, 117
8:11, 103
8:16, 108
12:1-8, 118
12:3, 4, 97
12:9-14, 69, 124
15:9, 397
17:1, 148
19:3-9, 122
19:17, 126
19:26, 145
23:23, 131
24:15-21, 69, 132, 135, 138
24:37-39, 34
26:, 180
27:, 138
28:, 438
28:1, 49, 142
28:19, 20, 159
MARK.
1:14, 15, 115
1:21, 42
1:21-31, 117
1:32-34, 108, 118
2:23-28, 118
2:25, 26, 97
2:27, 28, 22, 48, 69, 118, 121, 140, 192
3:1-6, 124
6:1-6, 125
13:18, 69
14:30, 107
16:, 438
16:1, 2, 9, 49, 143
16:14, 145
16:15, 159
LUKE.
2:8-11, 107
2:34, 57
4:14-16, 42, 116
4:30-39, 117
4:40, 108, 118
6:1-5, 97, 118
6:6-11, 124
9:28, 148
13:10-17, 130
14:1-6, 69, 131
16:17, 126
17:26, 27, 34
21:20, 132
21:24, 102
21:28, 152
22:34, 107
23:46-53, 141
23:54-56, 48, 141, 143, 182
24:, 145, 148
24:1, 48, 143, 182, 438
24:49-53, 150
JOHN.
1:1-3, 22, 119
1:1-10, 115
5:1-18, 126
5:19, 127
7:2-14, 37, 30
7:21-23, 42, 127
8:1-9, 58
8:56, 156
9:1-16, 129
17:5, 24, 115
18:18, 69
19:38-42, 141
20:, 438
20:1, 19, 143, 145
20:26, 147
21:, 147
21:20-23, 201
21:25, 190
ACTS.
1:, 150
1:3, 147
1:12, 42
2:1, 2, 149, 438
2:1-11, 166, 185
2:1-18, 83
2:42-46, 180
7:38, 53, 59
7:41-43, 64
8:26-40, 424
9-11:, 159
10:28, 35
10:2, 4, 7, 22, 30-35, 175
11:2, 3, 35
13:5, 172
13:14, 27, 167
13:42-44, 168, 175
14:1, 172, 175
14:16, 17, 35
15:, 58, 169, 170
15:10, 28, 29, 170, 171
15:21, 42
16:11, 178
16:13-15, 172, 175
17:1-4, 173
17:4, 10-12, 175
17:10, 17, 172
17: 26, 34, 48
17:29, 30, 35
18:3, 4, 174
18:19, 172
19:8, 172
20:6-13, 151, 178, 179, 203, 438, 439
20:29, 30, 192
21:25, 170
23:31, 32, 181
26:12-17, 159
ROMANS.
1:18-32, 26, 35, 146
2-4:, 45
2:17, 185
3:, 184
3:1, 2, 45
3:19, 31, 141, 161, 162, 164, 165
4:1, 185
4:13-17, 35, 160, 165
5:, 163
5:8-12, 28, 161
6:3-5, 154
6:23, 58
7:1, 185
7:12, 13, 167, 184
7:21-25, 309
8:1-7, 309
8:3, 4, 161, 163
8:23, 152
9:4, 5, 45
11:13, 159
11:17-24, 165
13:8-10, 161
14:, 186
14:1-6, 183
1 CORINTHIANS.
5:6-8, 83, 334
10:13, 22
11:9, 122
11:23-26, 153, 159, 180
15:27, 186
16:1, 2, 175, 203, 439
2 CORINTHIANS.
3:3, 163
8:14, 15, 40
GALATIANS.
3:7-9, 165
3:13, 14, 152, 161
3:17, 36
3:19, 59
4:4, 5, 115, 126
4:8-11, 186
EPHESIANS.
1:7, 152
1:13, 14, 152
1:20-23, 156
2:12, 102
2:11-22, 35, 156, 159
4:30, 152
6:2, 3, 161
COLOSSIANS.
1:13-16, 22
2:, 185
2:12, 154
2:14-17, 87, 138, 159
1 THESSALONIANS.
1:7, 8, 174
2:14, 173
5:16, 156
2 THESSALONIANS.
2:3, 4, 7, 8, 195, 369
3:10, 324
1 TIMOTHY.
1:17, 9
6:16, 9
2 TIMOTHY.
3:16, 17, 202
4:2-4, 195
TITUS.
1:2, 145
HEBREWS.
1:, 11, 115
2:2, 59
2:13, 57
3:4, 26
3:16, 67
4:9, 323, 512
7-10, 141, 160, 162, 163
8:1-5, 160
8:8-12, 159
9:, 163
9:1-7, 160
9:10, 28
9:18-20, 52
9:23, 24, 160
9:27, 22
9:28, 102
11:3, 11, 26
11:4-7, 34
11:8-16, 103
JAMES.
1:25, 163
2:8-12, 141, 161, 167, 170, 184
2:23, 35
1 PETER.
1:1, 237
1:9, 102
2:4-7, 156
2:9, 10, 166
3:6, 130
3:20, 34
2 PETER.
2:, 195
2:5, 34
3:, 511
3:5, 6, 11, 34
1 JOHN.
2:1, 2, 165
2:18, 195
3:4, 5, 63, 160, 161, 162, 165, 184
JUDE.
4, 195
14, 15
REVELATION.
1:10, 186, 187, 192, 203, 206, 439
4:10, 11, 510
5:9, 152
7:9-14, 84
11:19, 160
12:, 370
12:6, 14, 404, 405
13:1-5, 369
16:17-21, 58
21, 22:, 103, 511
22:1, 2, 512
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
Abyssinians, pp. 424-427
Adam, his influence upon the patriarchs, 3, 31, 32
Adam must have heard the Creator when he set apart the seventh day,
16-19
“After eight days,” John 20, 147-149
Anabaptists, 422, 423
Analysis of Exodus 16, 39-44
Annual sabbaths enumerated, 84, 85
Apostasies, the two great patriarchal, 33-35
Apostasy in the early church, 193-203
Apostasy, progress of, 324, 329-331, 361, 362
Ark in the heavenly temple contains the law, 161-163
Armenians of the East Indies, 427-432
Article, the, in Mark 2:27, 22, 121, 122
Atonement, day of, no mention of its observance, 30, 86
Atonement, the, relates to the decalogue, 62-64
Atonement, the, relates to the fourth commandment, 62-64
Bampfield, Francis, sufferings of, 487, 488
Barnabas, epistle of, 231-235
Barnabas thought the Sabbath too pure for this wicked world, 299-301
Bohemian Sabbath-keepers, 463, 464
Bound, Dr., theory of, concerning the Sabbath, 472-475
Calvin caused Servetus to be arrested on Sunday, 440, 441
Calvin’s doctrine and practice concerning Sunday, 436-443
Calvin’s interpretation of first-day texts, 438-440
Calvin’s view of the one-day-in-seven theory, 437
Carlstadt’s faults, extent of, 448, 449, 453, 454
Carlstadt a Sabbatarian, 456, 457
Cathari, 415-417
Causes which made the Sunday usurpation a success, 329-331
Change of the Sabbath not taught in Ps. 118, 155-157
Change of the Sabbath not recorded lest it make the Bible too large,
190
Change of the Sabbath unheard of in the first centuries, 204-206,
283-293
Christian Sabbath, Origen thus calls the seventh day, 323, 324
Christ’s teaching with respect to the Sabbath, 115-138
Christ in the field of corn, 118-124
Christ’s work on the Sabbath like that of the Father, 126, 127
Chrysostom and Jerome on Sunday labor, 363, 364
Clement’s numbering of the days explained out of Philo, 318-327
Clement on the Lord’s day, 219-222
Climate of Palestine, 69
Col. 2:14-17, exposition of, 138-141
Columba probably a Sabbath-keeper, 401-403
Constantine’s Sunday law, 343-349, 353
Contrast between the origin of the Sabbath and Sunday, 332, 333, 352,
353
Councils of the church, character of, 362, 363
Covenant not made with their fathers, 75
Creation, six days of, 9-13
Creation, nature of, 9, 10
Culdees of Great Britain, 400-403
Danish and Norwegian Sabbath-keepers, 505, 509
Dark Ages defined, 398, 399
Days, names of, 16
Days, how many, different ones, 16
Decalogue, a complete moral code, 61, 62
Decalogue, perpetuity of in the fathers, 309-312
Deluge, why sent, 33-35
Destruction of Jerusalem caused by Sabbath-breaking, 103-108
Dionysius on the Lord’s day, 214, 215
_Dominicum_ defined, 246-248, 255-257
_Dominicum servasti?_, 244-258
Dutch Sabbath-keepers, 467, 468
English Sabbath-keepers, 467, 469, 470, 479-492, 500
Entrance of Sunday into the early church, 261-266
Error not changed into truth by age, 195, 196
Eternity, 9
Eusebius author of the doctrine that Christ changed the Sabbath,
355-359
“Every day” may include simply the six working days, 185
Every man fully persuaded in his own mind, 183-186
Famous falsehood examined, 243-258
Fathers, authority of, 199-201
Festivals of the church enumerated, 433, 434
Festivals of the Hebrews enumerated, 82, 83
Fires on the Sabbath forbidden, nature of the statute, 67-71
Firmament defined, 11
First-day history and papal history compared, 213, 282, 283
First-day observance in the exact words of the fathers, 283-289
First mention of the Sabbath after Moses, 99
Flight of disciples not to be on the Sabbath day, 132-138
Fourth commandment expounded, 46-50
Fourth commandment in the New Testament, 141, 142
Fraud in the Bible Dict. of the Tract Society, 211, 212
Frauds in Justin Edwards, 212, 213, 216, 217, 244, 245
Fraudulent testimonials to the Sunday Lord’s day, 211-219
French Sabbath-keepers, 468
Frith, the martyr, judgment on the Sabbath, 459, 460
Genesis, bearing of upon the Sabbath, 28-30
Gentiles admitted into the commonwealth of Israel, 159, 160
Gentiles blessed for observing the Sabbath, 101, 102
German Sabbath-keepers, 467, 499, 500, 509
Gilfillan’s inexcusable fraud, 250-258
Globe, our, the Sabbath on, 48
Gregory VII., A. D. 1074, condemns Sabbath-keepers, 420
Hallowed identical with sanctified, 17
Hebrews, how God favored them, 44, 45
Hebrews, why made the depositaries of the truth, 33-37, 46, 55, 56
Honors pertaining to the Sabbath law, 61
Hungarian Sabbath-keepers, 500
Hypsistarii, 339, 340
Ignatius never uses the term Lord’s day, 211
Ignatius, epistles of, 237-242
Illustration of the alleged sanctification of the seventh day in the
wilderness, 24
Irenæus mentions no Lord’s day, 216-218, 271-274
Irenæus falsely quoted, 271-274
Jericho, Sabbath not violated at taking of, 95, 96
Jews, eminent, on the origin of the Sabbath, 26, 27
Jubilee, no record of its observance in the Bible, 30, 86
Justin Edwards’ Sunday Sabbath, B. C. 63, 112
Justin Martyr on Sunday, 267-270
Justin Martyr a no-Sabbath man, 270, 271
Justin Martyr mentions no Lord’s day, 212
Knox and the Scotch of the sixteenth century, 443-445
Laodicea, Council of, curses Sabbath-keepers, 360, 361
Laying by in store on first-day, 175-178
Lord’s day of John, 187, 192
Lord’s day first applied to Sunday, 222-224
Lord’s Supper the ground of controversy between Luther and Carlstadt,
451-453
Luther and Carlstadt, 446-459
Luther might have profited greatly by Carlstadt, 457-459
Luther on Gen. 2:3, 17
Man, meaning of, in Mark 2:27, 22, 121, 122
Manna, falling of, not the occasion of the Sabbath, 38, 39
Martyrdom of John James, 489-491
Melito of Sardis, 215, 216
Miracles and judgments in support of Sunday, 374, 378, 379, 392, 393
Miracles pertaining to the Sabbath in the wilderness, 40
Modern historians on Sabbath in the early church, 333-338, 341
Moral obligation of the Sabbath, 50
Morrow defined, 181
Moses rehearses the law, 74-79
Moses in the Mount, 51-61
Mosheim and Neander, 229, 230, 242, 243
Mount Sinai at the giving of the law, 44-46
Mystical Lord’s day, 219-222, 224, 226
Nazarenes, 338, 339
Nehemiah’s Sabbath reform, 106-109
New Covenant has a temple and an ark, 160
Offerings for the dead as ancient as the Sunday-Lord’s day, 223, 224
Olive tree, the good, 165, 166
Omissions, remarkable, 30
Oracles of God preserved by the Hebrews, 158, 159
Origen on Lord’s day, 225, 226, 291
Other readings of Gen. 2:2, 14
Palæologus, 462, 463
Papal usurpation began with reference to Sunday, 274, 275
Patriarchal age, its great light, 31-34
Passaginians, 415-418
Passover festival defined, 83
Penalty of the law, 58
Pentecost, day of, Acts 2:1, 149-151
Petrobrusians, 418-420
Pentecost defined, 83
Perpetual statute for their generations, a parallel precept, 58
Perpetuity and observance of the Sabbath in the fathers, 315-329
Pliny, epistle of, 211, 235-237
Pope Innocent III. responsible for the roll from heaven, 388-391
Precepts given to Israel classified, 51
Presbyterians and Episcopalians contend over Sunday, 471-477
Presbyterians get Sunday into the fourth commandment, 472-476
Priceless value of the Sabbath, 509, 510
Prophets taught the people on the Sabbath, 100
Protestant Sunday-keeping as viewed by a learned Catholic theologian,
477, 478
Reasons for Sunday stated in the words of the fathers, 289-294
Reasons out of the fathers for rejecting the Sabbath, 299-309
Records of ancient Sabbath-keepers destroyed, 399
Redemption no argument for change of Sabbath, 151-155
Reformation differently viewed by Luther and Carlstadt, 451
Reformers all brought something from Rome, 478
Reformers, just view of, 445, 446
Rest of the Creator, reason for it, 14, 15
Restoration of Israel, if they keep the Sabbath, 102
Resurrection of Christ did not affect the Sabbath, 142-147
Roll from heaven in behalf of Sunday, 385-389
Roman church turns the Sabbath into a fast, 280, 281
Romanists have corrupted the fathers, 200, 201
Rule of faith of the man of God, 202
Rule of faith of the Romanist, 202
Russian Sabbath-keepers, 464-467
Sabbatarian principles, 480, 483, 487, 489
Sabbatarians, ancient bodies of, 338-340, 354
Sabbatati or Insabbatati defined, 407-411
Sabbath a sign, 43, 44, 53-58
“Sabbath between,” 168
Sabbath-breaking in the wilderness, effect of, 65-67
Sabbath at creation in the early fathers, 312-315
Sabbath defined, 20
Sabbath during Dark Ages, 398-432
Sabbath during the forty years, 64-74
Sabbath given, meaning of the term, 42, 43
Sabbath-keepers in Constantinople, A. D. 1054, 420-422
Sabbath-keepers in Rome, A. D. 600, 374, 375, 400
Sabbath in ancient writers means Saturday, 370, 371
Sabbath in the book of Acts, 167-182
Sabbath in the fourth century, 359-362
Sabbath in the fifth century, 367, 368
Sabbath in the prophetic Scriptures, 100-106
Sabbath in the time of Maccabees, 110-112
Sabbath made known, meaning of the term, 49
Sabbath may be kept over the earth, 102
Sabbath more ancient than circumcision, 128
Sabbath not a memorial of deliverance from Egypt, 76-79
Sabbath not a shadow of redemption, 27, 28
Sabbath not a Jewish feast, 71, 72
Sabbath not mentioned from Adam to Moses, 92-95
Sabbath not mentioned from Moses to David, 92-95
Sabbath, the acts by which it was made, 14-16
Sabbaths, weekly and annual, their difference, 86-92
Sabbath, when made, 15, 16, 20-25, 46, 47
Sabbath, why instituted, 25, 26, 509, 510
Sabbath in the new earth, 510-512
Sanctified, the word defined, 15, 17-19
Sanctification of the seventh day was at the beginning, 23-25
Second tables of stone, who wrote them, 60, 61
Self-contradiction of Justin Edwards, 177, 178
Seventh day, event on the first of time, 13, 14
Seventh day of the commandment is the seventh day of the week, 48, 49
Seventh-day Baptists of America, 493-499
Seven, signification of the number, 14, 15
Seventh-day Adventists of America, 500-509
Seventh-day Adventists of Switzerland, 509
Shew-bread eaten by David, 97, 98
Siberian Sabbath-keepers, 500
Slander of heretics no sin, 418
Sticks, the case of picking them up on the Sabbath, 72-74
Sun and moon stand still, 96, 97
Sunday a day of relief to souls in purgatory and in hell, 383, 384
Sunday an ancient heathen festival, 258-264, 277, 278, 279, 341, 342,
345-349
Sunday arguments of the Dark Ages, what became of them, 470
Sunday as the sister of the Sabbath, 361, 362
Sunday authoritatively established as Lord’s day, 349-351
Sunday at the Council of Nice, 275, 276
Sunday during the Dark Ages, 362-398
Sunday edicts of kings, emperors, popes and councils, 342-346, 349,
353, 359-361, 366, 372-398
Sunday festival, origin and growth of, 223, 224, 352, 353
Sunday festival defined by the reformers, 434-436
Sunday, first witnesses for, 228-243
Sunday, how mentioned prior to A. D. 194, 218, 219
Sunday labor in the early church not sinful, 283-289, 296, 299,
316-322, 343-345
Sunday labor in the fourth and fifth centuries, 363-366
Sunday Lord’s day not traceable to the apostles, 204-228
Sunday on a level with other festivals in the early church, 264-266,
295, 296
Sunday sustained only by the Romanists’ rule, 202, 203, 223, 224,
294, 477, 478
Sunday, when first called Sabbath, 370, 371
Superstition of the Jews concerning the Sabbath, 113, 114
Tabernacles, feast of, defined, 83, 84
Ten commandments alone on the tables of stone, 79-81
Tertullian’s excuses for Sunday observance, 277, 278
Tertullian on Lord’s day, 222-224
Tertullian’s self-contradiction, 276, 277, 305-307
Theophilus mentions no Lord’s day, 212, 213
Time defined, 9
Time, great week of, 9
Tradition characterized, and exemplified, 198, 201, 227, 228
Tradition for the passover more apostolic than for Sunday, 227, 228
Transylvanian Sabbath-keepers, 460-463
Trask, Mrs., sufferings of, 481-483
Troas, Paul at, 178-182
True God distinguished from false gods, 25, 26
Typical observances no part of the Sabbath law, 98, 99
Time to commence the Sabbath, 107, 108
Unfairness of anti-Sabbatarians, 131, 132
Waldenses, 403-415
Weeks, how and when made, 16, 30, 31
Wilderness of sin, record of, how connecting Gen. 2:1-3, and Ex.
20:8-11, 46, 47
ERRATA.
Page 141, chapter xix., in the notes, should be chapter xxvii.
” 255, “and,” in the Latin notes, should be “&.”
” 295, “exaltation.” in line 16, should be “exultation.”
” 505, for “$70,000,” read $82,000,—Auditor’s later report.
Transcriber’s Note: The errata have been corrected.
Catalogue of Publications
For sale at the Office of the Review and Herald, Battle Creek, Mich., and
at the Pacific Press, Oakland, California.
PERIODICALS.
THE ADVENT REVIEW AND SABBATH HERALD. A sixteen-page Religious Family
Newspaper, devoted to a discussion of the Prophecies, Signs of the Times,
Second Coming of Christ, Harmony of the Law and the Gospel, What we must
Do to be Saved, and other Bible questions. $2.00 a year.
GOOD HEALTH. A monthly journal of hygiene, devoted to Physical, Mental,
and Moral Culture. $1.00 a year.
THE YOUTH’S INSTRUCTOR. A four-page illustrated weekly for the
Sabbath-school and the family. 75 cts. a year.
THE ADVENT TIDENDE. A Danish semi-monthly, sixteen pages, magazine form,
devoted to expositions of prophecy, the signs of the times, and practical
religion. $1.00 a year.
ADVENT HAROLDEN. A Swedish monthly, of the same size, and devoted to the
same topics, as the _Advent Tidende_. 75 cts. a year.
STIMME DER WAHRHEIT. An eight-page German monthly. A religious family
newspaper, frequently illustrated. 50 cts. a year.
THE COLLEGE RECORD. A four-page educational monthly. 10 cts. a year.
The above are published in Battle Creek, Mich. Terms always in
advance.
THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES. A twelve-page weekly Religious Paper, devoted
to the dissemination of light upon the same great themes treated in the
_Advent Review and Sabbath Herald_. Published in Oakland, Cal. $2.00 a
year.
LES SIGNES DES TEMPS. A religious monthly journal in French. Published in
Bâle, Switzerland. $1.00 a year.
BOOKS, PAMPHLETS, AND TRACTS.
HISTORY OF THE SABBATH AND OF THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. By Elder J. N.
Andrews. This work contains an outline of the history of the Sabbath for
the period of Six Thousand years. Part First is the Biblical history of
the Sabbath and of the first day of the week. Part Second is the secular
history of these two days since the time of the apostles. This volume
has been prepared with most careful and patient study. In all cases of
quotations from secular history, book, chapter, and page are given. And
book, chapter, and verse are given of all quotations from the word of God.
528 pp. $1.00
THE SANCTUARY AND 2300 DAYS OF DAN. 8:14. By Elder U. Smith. This
question has developed the people known as Seventh-day Adventists, and is
the pivotal doctrine upon which their applications of prophecy largely
depend. It explains the past Advent movement, shows why those who looked
for the Lord in 1844 were disappointed, reveals the fact so essential to
be understood, that no prophetic period reaches to the second coming of
Christ, and shows where we are, and what we are to expect in the future.
A knowledge of this subject is indispensable to a correct application of
the more important prophecies pertaining to the present time.
352 pp. $1.00
Condensed edition, paper,
224 pp. .30
THOUGHTS ON DANIEL, CRITICAL AND PRACTICAL. By Elder U. Smith. An
exposition of the book of Daniel verse by verse.
400 pp. $1.00
THOUGHTS ON REVELATION, CRITICAL AND PRACTICAL. By Elder U. Smith. This
work presents every verse in the book of Revelation with such remarks as
serve to illustrate or explain the meaning of the text.
400 pp. $1.00
NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN. By Elder U. Smith. This work, as its title
implies, treats upon the constitution of man, his consequent condition
in death, and destiny beyond the resurrection. All the passages in
the Bible which have a bearing upon these questions are taken up and
explained in full, thus giving the most comprehensive view of this whole
question that has yet been presented.
356 pp. $1.00
LIFE SKETCHES. This work embraces sketches of the parentage, early life,
Christian experience, and extensive labors of Elder James White, and also
of his wife, Mrs. E. G. White.
416 pp. $1.00
With steel engraving of Elder W.,
1.25
LIFE OF WILLIAM MILLER, with portrait. This work comprises sketches
of the Christian Experience and Public Labors of this remarkable man,
gathered from his Memoir by the late Sylvester Bliss, with Introduction
and Notes by Elder James White. This book sets forth the true principles
and real character of the man who was the leading spirit in the great
American Second-Advent Movement.
408 pp. $1.00
LIFE OF ELDER JOSEPH BATES, with portrait. This is a reprint of his
Autobiography, with introduction, and closing chapters relative to his
public ministry and last sickness, by Elder James White. The closing
chapters relate to his labors in the ministry and in moral reforms, and
the triumphant close of his long and useful life. This book should be in
every family library. Fine tinted paper,
352 pp. $1.00
Plain white paper,
352 pp. .85
THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY; or, the Great Controversy between Christ and
his Angels, and Satan and his Angels, in four volumes. By Mrs. Ellen
G. White. These volumes cover the time from the fall of Satan to the
destruction of sin at the close of the one thousand years of Rev. 20. The
first three of these volumes are in print, and it is expected that the
fourth, the most interesting and important of the series, will soon be
ready. Each,
416 pp. $1.00
THE BIBLE FROM HEAVEN. By Elder D. M. Canright. This work is what its
name implies, an argument to show that the Bible is not the work of men,
but is in deed and in truth the word of God. It is a candid, forcible,
conclusive argument, sustained by a large array of facts and such
deductions of science as rest upon any tolerable certainty. Just the
work to put into the hands of honest skeptics, and those who are exposed
to infidel influences. Adapted to the use of any and all persons who
believe in the Bible.
400 pp. $1.00
THE BIBLICAL INSTITUTE. This is the title of a work containing a synopsis
of the lectures given at the Institute held in Oakland, Cal., April 1-17,
1877. These cover all the main points of our faith, giving facts and
dates, and the heads of the arguments.
352 pp. $1.00
HYMN BOOK. “Hymns and Tunes for those who keep the Commandments of God
and the Faith of Jesus,” is the title of this book. It has 537 hymns and
147 tunes.
416 pp. $1.00
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT; or, the Sunday, the Sabbath, the Change, and
the Restitution. A discussion between W. H. Littlejohn and the editor of
the _Christian Statesman_. This work discusses the proposed religious
amendment to the Constitution, especially in its bearing upon the
subject of the Sabbath and the first day of the week. This involves an
examination of the alleged change of the Sabbath.
384 pp. $1.00
In paper covers,
336 pp. .40
THE SOUL AND THE RESURRECTION. Showing the harmony of science and the
Bible on the nature of the soul and the doctrine of the resurrection. By
J. H. Kellogg, M. D.
224 pp. 75 cts.
GAME OF LIFE. A scene representing Satan playing with man for his soul.
Three lithograph illustrations.
In board,
50 cts.
Paper covers,
30 cts.
THE UNITED STATES IN THE LIGHT OF PROPHECY; or, an Exposition of Rev.
13:11-17. By Elder U. Smith. Dealing with our own land and applying to
our time, this is a portion of prophecy which should possess surpassing
interest for every American reader. This work shows by conclusive
arguments the position which the United States government holds in
prophecy, and the important part it is to act in the closing scenes of
time. Issues are even now arising which it is of the greatest importance
that all be prepared to meet.
160 pp. 40 cts.
In paper covers,
20 cts.
THOUGHTS ON BAPTISM. A full treatise, viewing the subject from history
and the Bible. By Elder J. H. Waggoner.
189 pp. 35 cts.
THE SONG ANCHOR. A popular collection of songs for the Sabbath-school and
praise service.
164 pp. 35 cts.
Bound in muslin,
50 cts.
POEM ON THE SABBATH. By Elder U. Smith.
30 cts.
THE SEVEN TRUMPETS. A careful and deeply interesting exposition of Rev. 8
and 9.
10 cts.
LIFE OF CHRIST, six pamphlets. By Mrs. E. G. White:—
No. 1. His First Advent and Ministry. 104 pp. 10 cts.
” 2. His Temptation in the Wilderness. 96 pp. 10 cts.
” 3. His Teachings and Parables. 126 pp. 15 cts.
” 4. His Mighty Miracles. 128 pp. 15 cts.
” 5. His sufferings and Crucifixion. 96 pp. 10 cts.
” 6. His Resurrection and Ascension. 80 pp. 10 cts.
LIFE OF THE APOSTLES, two pamphlets:—
No. 1. The Ministry of Peter. 80 pp. 10 cts.
” 2. The Teachings of Paul. 80 pp. 10 cts.
FACTS FOR THE TIMES. A collection of Valuable Extracts from Eminent
Authors.
224 pp. 25 cts.
ELEVEN SERMONS ON THE SABBATH AND LAW. By Elder J. N. Andrews.
226 pp. 25 cts.
HISTORY OF THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. By Elder D. M. Canright.
200 pp. 25 cts.
MODERN SPIRITUALISM. Nature and Tendency of Modern Spiritualism. By Elder
J. H. Waggoner.
184 pp. 20 cts.
REFUTATION OF THE AGE TO COME. By Elder J. H. Waggoner.
168 pp. 20 cts.
THE ATONEMENT. By Elder J. H. Waggoner. An examination of a remedial
system in the light of Nature and Revelation.
168 pp. 20 cts.
THE MINISTRATION OF ANGELS, AND THE ORIGIN, HISTORY, AND DESTINY OF
SATAN. By Elder D. M. Canright.
144 pp. 20 cts.
OUR FAITH AND HOPE. Sermons on the Coming and Kingdom of Christ. By Elder
James White.
182 pp. 20 cts.
MIRACULOUS POWERS. The Scripture Testimony on the Perpetuity of Spiritual
Gifts, with Narratives of Incidents and Sentiments carefully compiled
from the Eminently Pious and Learned of various denominations.
128 pp. 15 cts.
RESURRECTION OF THE UNJUST. A vindication of the doctrine. By Elder J. H.
Waggoner.
100 pp. 15 cts.
THE SPIRIT OF GOD, its Gifts and Manifestations to the end of the
Christian Age. By Elder J. H. Waggoner.
144 pp. 15 cts.
THE THREE MESSAGES OF REVELATION 14:6-12, particularly the Third Angel’s
Message and the Two-Horned Beast. By Elder J. N. Andrews.
144 pp. 15 cts.
THE TWO LAWS, as set forth in the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments. By Elder D. M. Canright.
104 pp. 15 cts.
THE MORALITY OF THE SABBATH. By Elder D. M. Canright.
96 pp. 15 cts.
THE COMPLETE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS OF THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES
CONCERNING THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. By Elder J. N. Andrews.
112 pp. 15 cts.
GEMS OF SONG. A collection of familiar hymns for religious meetings.
15 cts.
CHRIST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE SABBATH IN THE NEW. By Elder James
White.
56 pp. 10 cts.
REDEEMER AND REDEEMED. By Elder James White.
48 pp. 10 cts.
THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES FROM THE FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY. By Elder James
White.
96 pp. 10 cts.
THE TRUTH FOUND. A clear and concise argument in behalf of the seventh
day as the Sabbath of the Lord. By Elder J. H. Waggoner.
64 pp. 10 cts.
REVIEW OF GILFILLAN. Thoughts suggested by the perusal of Gilfillan and
other authors on the Sabbath. By Elder Thomas B. Brown.
64 pp. 10 cts.
MORTON’S VINDICATION OF THE SABBATH. An interesting experience of a
Presbyterian minister in embracing the Sabbath. By J. W. Morton.
68 pp. 10 cts.
THE ANCIENT SABBATH—OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. By Elder D. T. Bourdeau.
87 pp. 10 cts.
APPEAL TO THE BAPTISTS. An address to the Baptists in behalf of the
Lord’s Sabbath. By the S. D. B. Gen. Conference.
46 pp. 10 cts.
THE REJECTED ORDINANCE. A careful examination of our Lord’s memorial of
humility found in John 13. By Elder W. H. Littlejohn.
64 pp. 10 cts.
MATTHEW TWENTY-FOUR. A thorough exposition of this important chapter. By
Elder James White.
64 pp. 10 cts.
THE POET MILTON ON THE STATE OF THE DEAD. This work shows that Milton
was a decided believer in, and an able defender of, the doctrine that in
death man is unconscious.
32 pp. 5 cts.
FOUR-CENT TRACTS. Redemption—The Second Advent—The Sufferings of
Christ—The Present Truth—Origin and Progress of S. D. Adventists—The
Celestial Railroad—The Seventh Part of Time—Ten Commandments not
Abolished—The Two Covenants—Address to the Baptists—Milton on State of
the Dead—The Two Thrones—Spiritualism a Satanic Delusion—Samuel and the
Witch of Endor—The Third Message of Rev. 14—Tithes and Offerings.
THREE-CENT TRACTS.—The Second Message of Rev. 14—Who Changed the
Sabbath?—The Lost-Time Question—The Spirit of Prophecy—Scripture
References—The End of the Wicked—Infidel Cavils Considered—The Pocasset
Tragedy—Sabbaton—Wine and the Bible.
TWO-CENT TRACTS.—Christ in the Old Testament—The Sabbath in the New
Testament—The Old Moral Code not Revised—The Sanctuary of the Bible—The
Judgment—Much in Little—The Millennium—The Two Laws—Seven Reasons—The
Definite Seventh Day—Departing and Being with Christ—The Rich Man and
Lazarus—Elihu on the Sabbath—First Message of Rev. 14—The Law and the
Gospel—Alcoholic Medication—Pork.
ONE-CENT TRACTS.—The Coming of the Lord—Perfection of the Ten
Commandments—Without Excuse—Thoughts for the Candid—A Sign of the Day
of God—Brief Thoughts on Immortality—Which Day?—Can we Know, or Can
the Prophecies Be Understood?—Is the End Near?—Is Man Immortal?—The
Sleep of the Dead—The Sinner’s Fate—The Law of God—What the Gospel
Abrogated—One Hundred Bible Facts about the Sabbath—Sunday not the
Sabbath—“The Christian Sabbath”—Why not Found Out Before—Causes and Cure
of Intemperance—Moral and Social Effects of Intemperance—Tobacco-Using a
Cause of Disease—Tobacco Poisoning: Nicotiana Tabacum—Evil Effects of Tea
and Coffee—Ten Arguments on Tea and Coffee.
WORKS IN OTHER LANGUAGES.
The S. D. A. Publishing Association issues many of the foregoing
publications in Danish, Swedish, German, French, and Italian.
It has a full supply of English Bibles, of all sizes and prices. Also
Maps and Charts for Sabbath-school use, and a very carefully prepared
library of excellent reading for the young.
HEALTH AND TEMPERANCE PUBLICATIONS.
This Association publishes, and keeps on hand for sale, a long list of
books, pamphlets, and tracts treating upon the great question of Health
and Temperance. The various subjects coming under the above head are all
treated in a very clear and earnest manner, and are especially adapted
for use by those who set forth the gospel of health.
☞ Full Catalogues of ALL our publications, giving sizes, styles, and
prices, are sent free on application.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "History of the Sabbath and first day of the week" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.