MANNER OF OBSERVING THE SABBATH.
Notwithstanding God has given the Sabbath for the spiritual and
temporal benefit of man, it is manifest that we may suffer a woful
loss of all the good it proposes, if we neglect to make a proper
improvement of it. Like all the other means of grace, it may prove a
savor of death unto death to those who abuse it. It therefore becomes
a momentous inquiry, How shall this holy day be observed?
This great institution is to be regarded as a weekly testimony of our
allegiance to Him who created us. It thus becomes the mark of
distinction between the worshipers of Jehovah and heathens. This being
the case, it becomes a matter of thrilling importance that the
testimony of our allegiance be sincere, characterized by nothing of
hypocrisy or formality. If, in all our acts of worship, we must be
careful to worship "in spirit and in truth," surely it is of the
highest importance to do so on this solemn occasion, when the Great
King comes down to test our loyalty. Let it be remembered, too, that
in this business there can properly be no uninterested spectators. It
is not for a few to go through with the solemn act of dedicating
themselves, while the rest make it a mere holiday, in which they look
on, as boys witness the manouverings of soldiers on parade day. But
_all_ the sons and daughters of Adam--for all are alike the
workmanship of the Divine Being--are equally bound to direct their
eyes and their hearts to Him who made them, and to say, "Come, let us
join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be
forgotten."
On this day we should by no means omit to celebrate the praise of
creation. To be a memorial of this great work of the Almighty, the
Sabbath was originally instituted. Shall we then lose sight of the
original design of the institution, or even throw it into the shade as
a matter of secondary importance? Is not the soundness of that system
of theology to be suspected, which would teach us to do so? Some, it
is true, teach us that the work of Redemption being much more
stupendous than that of creation, is therefore to be made the chief
object of our praise. But however plausible this sentiment may seem,
it is a sufficient answer to say it is not contained in the
Scriptures. How much more vast the work of Redemption is than that of
creation, we pretend not to say, as we are not able to measure the
extent of either. To say which work makes the most powerful impression
upon our minds, and fills us with more sublime ideas, is more easy.
But that is no criterion by which to judge of their relative
magnitude. Let it even be conceded that Redemption exceeds in glory
the work of creation, still, whence do we _derive_ those powers by
which we estimate its glory? Whence did we obtain those faculties by
which we contemplate the great scheme of Redemption, and know that it
is glorious? Is it not to the wisdom and goodness of God as displayed
in creation, that we are indebted for all these? And what are the
_objects_ upon which Redemption is accomplished? Are they not
_created_ objects? And what is the _effect_ which redemption has upon
them? Is it not that of putting an end to the disorders which sin has
introduced, and bringing them to their original glory? Is not the
final result of redemption to be that of bringing man back to that
state of holiness and rectitude which the work of creation originally
bestowed upon him? How then can the praise of Redemption be
celebrated, without celebrating the praise of creation also? The one
certainly leads directly to the other. So that if Redemption
accomplish its proper fruits upon us, it will lead us to be still more
devout in observing the proper memorial of the Creator's works.
But let it not be thought, because the work of creation holds so
prominent a place in our Sabbath meditations, that redemption is
therefore cast into the shade. It is rather the contrary. For as those
powers by which we contemplate the work of creation, and become
acquainted with its grandeur and with its author, are impaired by sin,
so it is impossible for us to enter into the subject profitably,
except by the aid which Redemption affords. If we attempt to bring our
mental powers to act upon the works of creation, and to "look through
nature up to Nature's God," we shall find them slow and lifeless to
perform their duty, until first purified and invigorated by the
influence of the great Atonement. Much, therefore, as it is our duty
to celebrate the praise of creation, we cannot do so to the glory of
God, without recognizing at the same time the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus, as the means by which we do it. From which it appears,
that the praises of creation and of redemption go hand in hand in this
matter. There is no clashing,--no contrariety,--nor even such an
elevation of one above the other in respect to glory, that they cannot
be celebrated together, and upon the very day which most fitly serves
as the memorial of the former; which memorial cannot be transferred to
another day without manifest incongruity.
It is manifest from the slightest consideration of the nature and
design of the Sabbatic institution, that Redemption cannot be excluded
from our meditations on this holy day, but must hold a very prominent
place. For one great design of the Sabbath is, to promote our
conformity to holiness. But man partakes of no holiness except through
the gospel. The mediation of Christ is the only channel through which
it is communicated to him, and this always in connection with the most
vigorous action of his mind on the subject.
Another very important thing among the duties of the Sabbath, is the
cultivation of a right spirit with reference to it. We should "_count
it a delight_," Isa. lviii. 13. Can that man be called a Christian,
who counts it an irksome season? Is he spiritually minded to whom it
is an unwelcome interruption of his worldly business, who in the
avariciousness of his heart says "when will the Sabbath be gone that
we may set forth wheat?" Amos. viii. 5. Surely not. His temper is any
thing but in accordance with the sacredness of the Sabbath season. His
thoughts, his feelings are a direct violation of that law which says,
"Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy." To a real Christian,
however, the Sabbath is the most delightful season he enjoys on earth.
It is something like a heaven below; for the things of God and Christ
come then into direct contact with his holy soul. He is as eager for
the approach of this holy season, as a child is for his holiday.
Instead of it being too long for him, it is too short; and with joy
does he look forward to a Sabbath which shall never end, that which
remaineth for the people of God, Heb. iv. 9. Such a spirit ought ever
to be cultivated. In no other way can the Sabbath become a means of
grace to the soul. What will mere abstinence from labor do? It will
only contribute to the renovation of the corporeal system; which, it
is true, is one design of the institution. But this is a small part.
Shall we take care of the body, and not of the soul! Yet the soul
suffers unto death, if there be no care to cherish a right spirit with
reference to the day which is "the holy of the Lord." Our very
thoughts must be put under restraint, and the greatest care taken that
nothing of a worldly nature intrude into the mind.
This leads us to observe, that our conversation should have no
reference to worldly things, but should be upon such subjects as are
spiritual and tend to the furtherance of the soul in the divine life.
"Not speaking thine own words," Isa. lviii. 13. But, alas! we shall
enter the dwellings of some, and when the Sabbath approaches, we shall
not know it by any difference that we can discover in their
conversation. It is still upon subjects that have not the remotest
connection with the glory of God. Follow them to the place of public
worship, and up to the very threshhold of the door, their speech still
savors of this world. Follow them through the whole of the day--the
state of their crops, the currency of the country, the political
aspect of things, banks, bonds, mortgages; these are the themes upon
which they expatiate. These render them animated, and even eloquent.
"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Reader,
thinkest thou that such persons can say in truth, "O how I love thy
law." That law says, Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.
Thinkest thou that the love of God reigns in their hearts? This is the
love of God, that we keep his commandments. John. v. 3.
All visiting for pleasure is inconsistent with a right observance of
the Sabbath. Express and plain is the word of God--"Not finding thine
own pleasure." Isa. lxviii. 13. Visiting the sick for the purpose of
alleviating their sufferings, and rendering what help we can, either
as it regards their bodies or their souls, is not only allowable, but
is a Sabbath duty. But even this is liable to abuse. Multitudes take
the Sabbath to visit the sick, merely because they are not willing to
take time on any other day; and it is to be feared that if there were
no Sabbath, the sick would be sadly neglected by them. Others go
merely because the rigid improvement of the day at home is irksome to
them. They watch the occasion, and convert it as much as possible into
a visit for their own pleasure, while they quiet their consciences by
the reflection that they have been visiting the sick. Reader! be
careful how you seek to evade the restraints of Heaven's law. Every
attempt on your part to convert the season of holy rest into a day of
pleasure, evinces a heart that counts the commandments of God
grievous. Is this a _renewed_ heart? Impossible. Remember, too, that
while you visit others for your own pleasure, you drive them to a
violation of the Sabbath, as well as yourself. You take them from
their closet, their reading, their meditations.
All traveling, for business or for pleasure, is also forbidden by the
Sabbath law. Such traveling as may be necessary in order to promote
the due sanctification of the day, is of course not included.
Harnessing our horses and riding to our accustomed places of worship,
may be necessary to promote the sanctification of the Sabbath, and is,
therefore, no breach of it. It stands on the same level with the
labor performed by the priests of the Old Economy in the temple, for
which they were "blameless." Matt. xii. 5. Yet traveling one half the
distance for pleasure, is a profanation of the day, inasmuch as the
word of God says, "not finding thine own pleasure." For the same
reason, and because there are six days in which men ought to work,
journeying for business on the Sabbath, is a violation of it. Take the
following case: Brother A. is out on a journey. The Sabbath comes, and
instead of putting up and resting until the sacred season is past, he
keeps right forward just as he had done every other day of the week.
True, he professes to regret the necessity of traveling on this day,
but pleads in excuse that he cannot afford to stop at a public house
during the time. He is too poor; or, he says, the tavern is a noisy,
bustling place, and unfavorable to his religious enjoyment, and,
therefore, he concludes it will be no greater violation of the Sabbath
to proceed quietly on his journey than it would be to spend it in such
a situation. But, brother, let me talk with you about this. How much
would it cost you to stop at the public house? A dollar, or two
dollars; or it may be, if your family is with you, five dollars. Well,
will you barter away the sanctity of the Sabbath for five dollars!
Poor as you are, will you make sale of the ordinance of God for money?
For this is what you do in reality. Turn it and turn it whichever way
you will, it comes at last to this. Pause, then, and consider whether,
under such circumstances, and actuated by such principles, you can
class yourself with those who "esteem the law of God better to them
than thousands of gold and silver." Ps. cxix. 72. The true Christian
would rather impoverish himself to the last farthing than violate one
of God's precepts. "But the tavern was noisy and bustling." How came
you to put up at such a tavern? Those who _remember_ the Sabbath, and
are anxious to spend it to the glory of God, will carefully look out
and make their inquiries beforehand, and in most cases will not have
much difficulty in lodging themselves at a quiet place. But if through
circumstances beyond their own control, they are lodged in a place of
different character, their duty is to submit to it, and do the best
they can. Your enjoyment may not be so great; but what of that? Your
spiritual prosperity does not always depend on your enjoyment; nor
does God's glory depend upon it. God's glory depends upon your
obedience to his law, and so does your prosperity. It is a mistaken
notion that Christians are never in the way of duty but when they are
in the way of enjoyment. Besides, dare you prescribe terms to the
Almighty, and say you will obey him, provided he will grant you such
enjoyments and privileges as you want, otherwise you will not? How
daring the impiety! What if God lodged you at such a wicked place on
purpose that you might, by your conduct and your words, be a reproof
to the ungodly sinners that frequented there. Will you be ashamed of
your duty, and shrink from the trial? "He that is ashamed of me and of
my words, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed." Luke ix. 26.
Remember, my brother, God's law says, "Remember the Sabbath to keep it
holy." The exceptions which you make, God has not made.
After what has been offered, it seems almost needless to add, that
Sabbath-keeping includes abstinence from labor. The Divine law enjoins
us "to keep it holy." The plain meaning of which is, that it is a day
peculiarly sacred to the Lord. For the word _holy_, when applied to
things inanimate, or to portions of time, denotes them to be set apart
exclusively for religious purposes. If, then, the day in question,
according to the divine mandate, is to be kept holy, it is manifestly
a sin to devote it, or any part of it, to secular pursuits. Wherefore
the law is express--"in it thou shalt not do any work." All that work
which on other days is perfectly lawful, is on the holy Sabbath to be
laid aside, except such as may be absolutely necessary for the
prevention of distress, or the relief of objects of mercy. But alas!
what kind of commentary upon this law is the conduct of many who call
themselves by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us see.--Neighbor
B. has a large grass farm, and milks daily from thirty to fifty cows.
The product of his dairy is cheese, of which he makes one or perhaps
two each day during the proper season. The Sabbath comes, and the cows
must be milked. Well, that is right and necessary for the prevention
of distress. But then the milk must be subjected to the same operation
as on other days, and the accustomed cheese must be made, because
otherwise it would be lost. Lost!--well, suppose it should be, how
much is it worth? Why, five dollars, more or less. And so he barters
away the sanctity of the Sabbath for _five dollars_! Well, Judas sold
his master for thirty pieces of silver, and how much better is your
conduct than his? Or what better is your conduct than mine would be in
the following case? I have a valuable horse, which I will sell for one
hundred dollars. A traveler passes my door on Sabbath day, and offers
me my price. Now the times are hard, and by closing the bargain it
will be a profit to me of twenty or twenty-five dollars. By refusing
to do so, I lose the chance of selling him, and he remains on my
hands. Rather than lose so good an opportunity, I strike the bargain,
Sabbath though it be. Thus have I sold the sanctity of the Sabbath for
twenty dollars! Neighbor B., who makes his cheese on the Sabbath, is
horror-struck, and comes over to admonish me. But, "_Physician heal
thyself_."
We might multiply cases to illustrate our argument, but it is
needless. Every instance of departure from God's law, we believe, will
be found to have originated in selfishness. But that manner of keeping
the day which looks at our own interest, rather than the honor of God,
can in no way be called "keeping it holy." For if it is holy, it is
consecrated to the Lord, not to ourselves. But in all the foregoing
instances, it is manifest, the individual looks first to himself. Such
selfishness is idolatry, and is the very spirit that governs the
carnal mind. But God, in the just retributions of his providence,
sometimes defeats the very end proposed to be obtained by it. For
instance, the cheese, which is the product of Sabbath labor, spoils on
the dairyman's hands; or if that does not take place, he fails of
getting his pay for it. The farmer who was in haste to gather in his
hay or his grain on the Sabbath for fear of a shower, has no sooner
secured it than the storm begins, and a single flash of lightning
consumes the whole. Or, it may be, when winter comes, he takes it to
market, trusts it out, and finally gets nothing for it. The man who
could not afford the expense of stopping at the hotel over Sabbath
while on his journey, gets home, and finds perhaps that on the very
day he was profaning God's holy institution, some person's cattle
broke into his grain-field and destroyed enough to pay for his lodging
at the hotel half a dozen times. What then did he gain by it? That
such retributions overtake those who violate the law of God, is not
merely imaginary. On the contrary, it is believed, that were men more
close observers of the dealings of Providence, they would be sensible
that such things take place often. But, alas! "God speaketh once, yea,
twice, and man perceiveth it not."
It seems almost superfluous to say any thing about public worship, as
an important part of Sabbath exercises. If it were necessary to their
spiritual prosperity that Jews should meet together in "holy
convocation," Lev. xxii. 3, and be instructed in the testimonies
concerning a Messiah to come, it cannot be less important that
Christians should now assemble and celebrate the fulfilment of those
testimonies, and "the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ." Our
Lord has ordained public worship to be a means of promoting the growth
of his people in holiness; and if the Sabbath is a means to the same
end, they ought both to go together, unless our situation render it
impossible. If on the holy Sabbath we cannot say, "How amiable are thy
tabernacles, O Lord of hosts," when can we? If on this holy day we
cannot say, "I had rather be a door-keeper in the house of my God,
than to dwell in the tents of wickedness," when will it ever be the
language of our hearts?
But we cannot enlarge. Our essay has already exceeded the limits we
had designed. We submit the subject to your consideration, as being
one of incalculable importance. Reader, what course will you take? God
Almighty has separated one day in particular from all others, and
pronounced it holy. Will you then say that all days are alike? Or will
you assume to yourself the prerogative of setting apart whatever
portion of time you choose, in open disregard of that particular
portion which God "sanctified and blessed," saying, "it is the Sabbath
of the Lord thy God?" Will you suffer your convenience or your
selfishness to come into conflict with the claims of your Maker? Who
is it that said, "If any man will come after me, let him DENY
himself?" Pause then, before you suffer yourself to be lulled into
indifference on this matter. A vain sophistry insinuates that it is a
subject of minor importance--a _non-essential_. But be not deceived.
God has magnified its importance throughout his holy oracles. It is
God the Lord that speaks, will you obey or will you turn again to
folly?
[1] Wilson.
[2] Burnside.
[3] "The Decalogue, as to the form of it, and as delivered through the
hand and ministry of Moses, only concerned that people (Israel), and
was calculated for their use; though, as to the matter of it, and so
far as it is of a moral nature, and agrees with the law and light of
nature, it is equally binding on the Gentiles."--_Dr. Gill._
[4] Bap. Advocate of Jan. 16, 1841.
[5] Christ inculcates only the precepts of the second table of the
law, not because they are of more importance than those of the first,
but because they are less easily counterfeited. Such duties are by far
too weighty to be permanently sustained by the hollow-heartedness of
the hypocrite.
[6] Most writers on this subject, though they admit the morality of
the Sabbath, and the claims it has upon all men indiscriminately,
appear to reason in a manner entirely different, when they come to
contend for a change from the seventh to the first day of the week.
Their arguments which before were predicated upon the nature and
fitness of things, and the requirements of God, as the natural
Lawgiver of mankind, are suddenly changed and based upon the new
dispensation of Jesus Christ. Now this is an inconsistency; but it is
one to which they are necessarily driven, in order to give
plausibility to the claims of their new Sabbath. The fact that Christ
introduced a new dispensation, does not argue a change of the Sabbath,
or an institution of a new one, unless it can be proved that the old
Sabbath was a church ordinance. If it was, then, as there is a new
church state, of course we must look for new church ordinances.
How, then, will it be proved, that the old Sabbath was a church
ordinance? Will it be said that the observance of it was indispensable
to membership in the Jewish church? Very true. But the same may be
said of the laws concerning murder, and theft, and adultery. Yet these
were not, properly speaking, church ordinances. Concerning these
things men were bound, though no church had ever existed. The sin of
murder lay at Cain's door, long before any church was formed. The
earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence,
before the Jews were organized into a church; and the sin of
dishonoring his father blackened the character of Ham, long before the
fifth commandment was published from Sinai. So, too, the Sabbath was
set apart by God sanctifying it and blessing it, more than two
thousand years before it entered into the statute law of Israel. It
cannot, therefore, be a church ordinance.
Will it be said, that the Sabbath, though not altogether a church
ordinance, is nevertheless so in part? If this can be established,
then certainly so much of it as partook of this character must
necessarily have been abolished by the death of Christ, and that part
only remains which had no such character. But I ask, what part of the
Sabbath law can claim to be a church ordinance, peculiar to the old
dispensation. It will be said that the particular day of the week set
apart for observance, was such. This, as all the world confesses, was
the seventh in distinction from every other. But the same rule which
determines every other part of the Sabbath law to be something else
than a church ordinance, determines the same thing with regard to the
seventh day of the week. If the Sabbath was not a church ordinance,
but obligatory upon all men indiscriminately, long before any church
existed, the same is true of the seventh day of the week. One part of
the law was not brought into existence without the other, nor one part
before the other. We conclude, therefore, that the particular day
which was consecrated, partook no more of the nature of a church
ordinance, than all the rest of the law did.
[7] "The reason of positive institutions in general, is very obvious;
though we should not see the reason why such particular ones are
pitched upon, gather than others. Whoever, therefore, instead of
caviling at words, will attend to the thing itself, may clearly see,
that positive institutions in general, as distinguished from this or
that particular one, have the nature of moral commands, since the
reasons of them appear. Thus, for instance, the _external_ worship of
God is a moral duty, though no particular mode of it be so. Care then
is to be taken, when a comparison is made between moral and positive
duties, that they be compared no farther than as they are
different--no farther than as the former are positive, or arise out of
mere external command, the reasons of which we are not acquainted
with; and as the latter are moral, or arise out of the apparent reason
of the case, without such external command. Unless this caution be
observed, we shall run into endless confusion."--_Butler's Analogy of
Religion to Nature. Part II. Chap. 1._
It is very commonly said, that positive institutions are changeable,
and therefore are unlike moral precepts, which are unchangeable and
eternal in their nature. But we deny that positive precepts are
changeable, so long as the relation subsists in which they originate.
Such positive institutions as originated in the peculiar relation
which God sustained towards the Jews, by reason of the Sinaitic
covenant, remained unchanged and unchangeable so long as that relation
subsisted. Such as originate in the relation He sustains towards man
as his Redeemer through Jesus Christ, also remain unchangeable so long
as such relation remains. On the same principle, such as originate in
the natural relation He bears to man as his Creator, remain just as
long as this relation exists; which is forever.
[8] President Dwight observes, [Sermon 185,] "The distinction between
_moral_ and _positive commands_, has been less clearly made by moral
writers than most other distinctions." He says the law of the Sabbath
is entirely of a moral nature, as to the whole end to which it aims,
so far as man is concerned; that "it makes no difference here, whether
we could have known it without information from God, that one day in
seven would be the best time and furnish the best performance of these
[religious] things, or no. It is sufficient that we know them."
"The decalogue exhibits _a perfect standard of morality_; and a
standard of morality not providing for the public acknowledgement and
stated worship of God as the Creator, would be _essentially
defective_."--_Parkinson's Letters to Elder W. B. Maxson._
THE SIXTH-DAY NIGHT.
"Sweet to the soul the parting ray,
Which ushers placid evening in,
When with the still expiring day,
The Sabbath's peaceful hours begin;
How grateful to the anxious breast,
The sacred hours of holy rest!
I love the blush of vernal bloom,
When morning gilds night's sullen tear:
And dear to me the mournful gloom
Of Autumn--Sabbath of the year;
But purer pleasures, joys sublime,
Await the dawn of holy time.
Hushed is the tumult of the day,
And worldly cares, and business cease.
While soft the vesper breezes play
To hymn the glad return of peace;
O season blest! O moments given,
To turn the vagrant thoughts to Heaven.
What though involved in lurid sight,
The loveliest forms in nature fade,
Yet mid the gloom shall heavenly light
With joy the contrite heart pervade;
O thou, great source of light divine,
With beams etherial gladden mine.
Oft as this hallowed hour shall come,
O raise my thoughts from earthly things,
And bear them to my heavenly home,
On living faith's immortal wings--
Till the last gleam of life decay
In one eternal Sabbath Day!"
No. 3.
THE SABBATH:
AUTHORITY FOR THE CHANGE OF THE DAY.
It being clear from the Scriptures, that the seventh day was
instituted by divine authority for a weekly Sabbath, and religiously
regarded throughout the times of the Old Testament, those who now
relinquish its observance, and keep the first day of the week, take
the ground that the Sabbath was either abrogated and a new institution
introduced in its room, or that the time of its observance was changed
from the seventh to the first day of the week, in commemoration of the
resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. To be consistent with
themselves, therefore, they are bound to evince one or the other of
these positions. The burden of proof evidently lies on their part. For
unless it can be shown, that the fourth commandment, which requires
the sanctification of the seventh day, has been abolished, or amended
by the substitution of the first for the seventh day of the week, it
is clear that the original appointment remains obligatory and is now
binding on the entire human family. And to substantiate either of
these points, the proof must be clear and decisive. It will not do to
rest upon doubtful deductions. We have an unquestionable right to
demand that divine warrant, in either case, which pertained to the
institution as originally delivered.
We will therefore first examine the proofs adduced in favor of the
abrogation of the former weekly Sabbath and the introduction of a new
institution.
* * * * *
To sustain this position, the broad ground is taken by some, that the
Decalogue itself, in which the law of the Sabbath is contained, was
abrogated; and that, under the new dispensation, no part of it is
binding but what is newly enjoined or expressly recognized, either by
Christ or his Apostles.
The perpetual obligation of the Decalogue implies, of course, the
perpetual obligation of the Sabbath as enjoined in the fourth
commandment. But if _that_ was abrogated, the Sabbath which it
enjoined was also abrogated; and, consequently, it ceases to be
binding, unless renewed under the new economy. What, then, is the
proof here relied upon? One of the principal passages in which this
proof is supposed to be contained is 2 Corinthians 3:7, 8, 13. "But if
the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was
glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold
the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to
be done away, how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather
glorious?... And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that
the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that
which is abolished." It is argued from this passage, that the clauses
"which glory was to be done away," and "to the end of that which is
abolished," refer to the whole law, _moral_ as well as _ritual_,
because mention is made of "that which was written and engraven in
stones," which is an evident allusion to the Decalogue. But, on
careful examination, it will be found that "that which was to be done
away," was not the _Decalogue itself_, but "the _ministration_ of it,"
which was then appointed--the same being emblematically illustrated by
the glory of Moses' countenance, which was merely temporary. This
clause refers expressly to the glory of his countenance, and not to
the glory of the law itself. So also the clause "that which is
abolished," does not refer to the Decalogue, but to the ministration
of Moses, including the appended rites and usages, the priesthood and
its sacrifices, which were useful merely for the time being. It cannot
be supposed that the Decalogue was abolished, without expressly
contradicting Christ's testimony, Matt. 5:17-19, as well as many other
representations of the Scriptures. The abolishment spoken of,
therefore, evidently respected no other than what the Apostle calls in
another place "the law of commandments contained in ordinances,"
inclusive of the entire ministration of Moses. There is unquestionably
a reference in this chapter to the Decalogue, but not as abolished. It
was merely the ministration of it, or the then instituted manner of
teaching, illustrating, and enforcing it, which was abolished, to be
succeeded by a new ministration of the same law by the Spirit. For it
is written, "I will put my law"--(the very law of the ten
commandments)--"in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts."
Again, "We are not without law to God, but under the law to Christ."
What law but the Decalogue is here referred to? Evidently none. For
surely we are not under the Mosaic ritual. Again, "Do we make void the
law through faith?... Yea, we establish the law." The same, no doubt,
which was contained in the Decalogue. Hence, the Apostle James says,
"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself, ye shall do well." Here the title "the
royal law" is given by way of eminence to the Decalogue; and its
permanent obligation is manifestly recognized; for the precept alluded
to is a summary of the last six commandments of this code, and the
allusion is so made as to imply the continued obligation of the first
four, which are summed up in supreme love to God. Again, the Apostle
John testifies, "Hereby do we know that we know him, if we keep his
commandments." And again, "Blessed are they that do his commandments,
that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through
the gates into the city." In both these passages reference is
evidently had to the precepts of the Decalogue, as the essential and
permanent rule of obedience for Christians. The doing away or
abolishment, therefore, spoken of in the above passage, cannot refer
to the Decalogue or the moral law _itself_, but to the Mosaic
dispensation or ritual.
Another of the proofs alledged for the abrogation of the Decalogue,
and consequently of the Sabbath, is Colossians 2:14-17. "Blotting out
the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary
to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and,
having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them
openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in
meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon,
or of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the
body is of Christ."
By "the hand-writing of ordinances," is most evidently meant the
ceremonial law--not the Decalogue, or the moral law. This is never
characterized as "the hand-writing of ordinances." Therefore, the
"blotting out," "taking away," and "nailing to the cross," spoken of,
have no reference to this law, but to the Mosaic ritual. This is
particularly distinguished from the Decalogue, and fitly described as
"the law of commandments contained in ordinances." It was this, and
this only, which was "blotted out" and "nailed to the cross." As,
therefore, the reference made by the Apostle is expressly to this law,
it follows, by a fair inference, that "the sabbath days" alluded to,
or, strictly rendered, "sabbaths," are those which were contained in
this law, or among these "ordinances," and do not include the Sabbath
of the fourth commandment. There were, besides the weekly Sabbath,
various other sabbaths appointed, which belonged to that ritual, and
not to the Decalogue. Accordingly, these were expressly included in
"the hand-writing of ordinances," and like the rest were "a shadow of
things to come," and ceased to be obligatory at the death of Christ.
There is evidently no authority in this passage for including any
sabbaths but what properly belonged to the Mosaic ritual. This view of
the matter is corroborated by a more literal rendering of the 17th
verse, viz: "Let no one therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or
in a part or division of a festival, or of a new moon, or of
sabbaths." The sabbaths alluded to are obviously those which are found
in the same place with meats and drinks, festivals and new moons, and
which were of the same general character. The weekly Sabbath,
therefore, is not affected at all by their abrogation, but remains in
full force, as does every other precept of the Decalogue.
We find the same distinction as to the law which was abolished, in
Ephesians 2:14, 15. "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and
hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having
abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments
contained in ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new man,
so making peace." Here the middle wall of partition between Jews and
Gentiles, called "the enmity," is expressly defined, as before, to be
"the law of commandments contained in ordinances." This, and this
only, therefore, was abolished, leaving the Decalogue, or the moral
law, in its original character and obligation. This is the language of
the whole Bible. There is no proof in any of these passages, that the
law of the ten commandments was abolished, or that the Sabbath
enjoined therein was done away.
Nor is there such proof in Romans 14:5, 6. "One man esteemeth one day
above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be
fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth
it to the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth
not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God
thanks: and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth
God thanks." This passage is frequently adduced as proof that the
obligation to keep the ancient Sabbath has ceased, and that under the
Gospel dispensation there is no divinely authorized distinction in the
days of the week; that there is no one constituted _holy_ in
distinction from the _rest_; and consequently that every one is left
at his own liberty to keep a Sabbath or not. It will be easily
perceived, that if this argument has any weight in reference to the
_seventh_ day as the Sabbath, it operates equally against the
obligation to keep the _first_ day, either as a substitute for the
seventh, or as a memorial of the resurrection, seeing it places all
distinctions whatever as to days on the same ground with the
confessedly obsolete rites of the Mosaic ritual. According to this
view of the passage, we have under the Gospel dispensation _no Sabbath
at all_--not so much as an _authorized_ memorial of the resurrection.
He who claims the least authority for the observance of the _first_
day of the week for _any_ purpose, takes a course which completely
overthrows the argument based upon this passage. But, in reality, this
text has nothing more to do with the subject before us, than either of
those which have been examined. It respects merely the distinctions
which formerly existed in regard to the six working days of the
week--some of them being appointed in the Mosaic ritual as sabbaths,
others as days of atonement and purification, and others as festivals.
Some of the early Christians thought these distinctions still binding,
as also the distinctions in regard to meats and drinks; others thought
they were not. Hence the exhortation which is subjoined to mutual
forbearance. That the distinctions referred to as to days, were those
noted in the Mosaic ritual, and did not include the one contained in
the fourth commandment, is manifest from the whole scope of the
chapter. There is particular reference made to one's freely eating all
things, while another would eat only herbs; and accordingly the
following rule, to be respectively observed, is laid down: "Let not
him that eateth, despise him that eateth not; and let not him that
eateth not, judge him that eateth; for God hath received him." This
quotation clearly evinces that the Apostle was treating of _ritual_
distinctions, and not of _that_ distinction of days which was
constituted by the ancient law of the Sabbath.
Again, the abrogation of the Decalogue is supposed to be taught in
Romans 7:4, 5, 6. "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to
the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another,
even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth
fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sin
which were by the law, did work in our members, to bring forth fruit
unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead
wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and
not in the oldness of the letter." But if the term law here includes
the _moral_ as well as the _ceremonial_ law, it is manifest that
believers are not said to be delivered from it, considered in any
other light than as _a covenant of works_. Certainly they are not
delivered from it as _a rule of obedience_. To suppose this, is
inconsistent with Christ's sermon on the mount, before alluded to, and
many other decisive proofs of the perpetual obligation of the
Decalogue. It is probable the Apostle had special reference to the
deliverance of believers from the _curse_ of the moral law. This is
reasonably inferred from the clause, "that being dead wherein we were
held." If any thing more pertaining to this law be intended, it must
be its original character when given to Adam as a covenant of works or
of life. For surely we are not and cannot be delivered from it as a
rule of obedience, so long as God is what he is, and we are what we
are. Seeing that as long as the relation constituted by his character
as Supreme Ruler, and by ours as moral subjects, exists, we shall be
bound to love him supremely, and our neighbor as ourselves, which is
the fulfilling of this law. And to suppose that this law, as a rule of
obedience, was actually annulled, and that those precepts only are now
to be considered obligatory, which are enacted or published anew under
the Gospel, is to suppose that God, at a certain time, actually
rescinded the rule requiring supreme love to him, and to our neighbor
as ourselves, which is palpably inconsistent, and contrary both to the
current of Scripture and the nature of things. It would be maintaining
that to be changed which is manifestly unchangeable. It would imply
that, for the time being, the obligation recognized by the law did not
exist; that the tie by which God and moral beings are united, was
sundered, not by rebellion on the part of his subjects, but by his own
act of abrogation. Can this be admitted?
But if it _were_ admissible, and if no part of this law is binding on
Christians but what is newly enacted or particularly recognized under
the Gospel dispensation, the Sabbath of the fourth commandment could
not in this way be set aside; because its continued obligation is
plainly taught in the New Testament. It is altogether a mistake, that
we have no express recognition of this precept under the Christian
dispensation. It is plainly recognized by the Savior in Matthew
5:17-19, where he says, that he "came not to destroy the law, but to
fulfill;" that "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the
law, till all be fulfilled;" and that "whosoever shall break one of
these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called the
least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them,
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." If any commandment of
this law is binding, the fourth is binding of course, even if it
should be called the least. It is also recognized in the following
declaration of Christ, Mark 2:27--"The Sabbath was made for man, and
not man for the Sabbath." The word _man_ is here obviously used for
the entire race--not for a part--not for the Jews in distinction from
the Gentiles--not for those who lived under the Old Testament
dispensation, or till the time of Christ's death; but for man in his
protracted existence during all future periods of time, i. e. _for
mankind in general_. This is the plain import of the declaration. And
if we render the original with the article, it is still more evident
that the entire race is included. "The Sabbath was made for _the
man_," i. e. for Adam, the original parent of man, including, of
course, his posterity. But, according to either rendering, the entire
human race is manifestly included in the term. The Sabbath, then, was
as truly made for the Gentiles as for the Jews; and for those who
should live after the crucifixion, as for those who lived before;
which is an explicit recognition of its perpetual obligation.
The same recognition also appears from its continued observance under
the ministry of the Apostles, and there being not the least hint or
stir in reference to its abrogation, or to the substitution of another
day in its room. The weekly Sabbath is frequently mentioned in the
Apostolic records, as a part of practical duty, and it was
unquestionably the seventh day. Thus we have the continued obligation
of the Sabbath sanctioned by Apostolic example. If, therefore, a new
edition, or an express recognition of the Sabbath of the fourth
commandment be considered necessary, to bind the consciences of men
under the new dispensation, the foregoing considerations will show
that we have such an edition or recognition, as truly as we have of
the other precepts of the Decalogue. So that nothing is gained in
regard to setting aside the seventh day of the week, by attempting to
show the abrogation of the Decalogue. If those precepts of that law
which require that we should have no other gods before the Lord--that
we should not kill, nor commit adultery, nor steal--are newly enjoined
or expressly recognized under the present dispensation, and,
consequently, universally binding, the same is true of the fourth
commandment, which requires the keeping of the seventh day.
Again, an attempt is made to prove the abrogation of the original
Sabbath, by showing that the entire Decalogue was peculiar to the
Jewish nation, constituting a national covenant, which, at the coming
of Christ, was annulled, and a new covenant introduced. But admitting
that it was delivered immediately to them, in the form of a national
covenant, this does not in the least imply that it was not equally
binding, as a rule of obedience, upon other portions of the human
family. We might as well argue that the New Testament belonged merely
to the primitive Christians, because it was delivered directly to
them, and constituted the rule of their conduct and the basis of their
hopes. Yea, we might as well suppose that no nation except the Jews
were bound not to have any other gods before the Lord, not to kill,
not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to bear false witness, as to
suppose that the Decalogue was purely of a national character, and
binding merely on that people during their continuance as a national
church. And, as the Decalogue was not merely national _as a whole_, so
there was nothing national in the fourth commandment. It belonged,
equally with the other nine, to the entire family of man, inasmuch as
the essential reasons of all and of either of the commandments, were
of universal obligation.
Again, that the original Sabbath was peculiar to the Jews, and
consequently abrogated by the introduction of the new dispensation, is
argued from its being specially urged upon them by the consideration
of their deliverance from Egypt. But this argument is of no force,
because the same reason is urged in the preface to the entire
Decalogue.
For the same purpose, also, an argument is founded upon the fact that
the fourth commandment was enforced with a deadly penalty. But this
argument also fails; because a similar penalty was annexed to the
breach of the other precepts of this law. The truth of the case is,
that these penalties belonged not to the Decalogue itself as first
promulgated, any more than they belong to it now under the milder
dispensation of the Gospel. They were added in the Mosaic ritual, and
constituted a part of the political arrangements for the time being.
Their abrogation, therefore, affects not the original law. Though
there be no civil power now given to the church to enforce obedience
to this precept by temporal punishments, as formerly, the sacredness
and obligation of the institution are not thereby at all affected. The
sin of disobedience will be visited in God's own time.
Again, some have inferred the abrogation of the former Sabbath, or at
least its change, from our Lord's vindication of the act of the
disciples, in plucking the ears of corn, and rubbing them in their
hands, as they passed through the corn-fields on the Sabbath day, and
from his saying, that "the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath
day," Mark 2:23-28. But there is evidently nothing in this narrative,
or in this declaration, to justify such an inference. It must be
admitted on all hands, that the fourth commandment was obligatory, as
originally given, till the death of Christ, if no further; and
therefore Christ, who "was made under the law," was bound to obey it
in its original strictness. Admitting that he possessed the right, in
a given instance, to intermit its obligation, it is not consistent to
maintain that he did it; because he came to render perfect and
universal obedience. Hence he affirmed, that one jot or one tittle
should in no wise pass from the law "till all be fulfilled." His whole
life was a perfect comment on the requirements of the law. Had he
failed in the least particular, he would have been inadequate to the
great purposes of our salvation. It is obvious, therefore, that the
transaction alluded to was not, under the circumstances, a breach of
the fourth commandment, but in perfect accordance with its
prescriptions--the labor implied by the act of the disciples being a
matter of urgent necessity. "It is lawful," said he, "to do well on
the Sabbath day." Neither does the declaration, that "the Son of Man
is Lord also of the Sabbath day," imply that he abrogated or changed
it, but rather that he was bound and engaged to protect it as a divine
institution, and to enforce an enlightened and strict obedience to its
requirements.
The foregoing being the principal proofs adduced for the abrogation of
the Decalogue, and the original Sabbath, it is evident that this view
of the subject cannot be sustained. It is not sanctioned by any plain
scriptural evidence. It is, therefore, palpably absurd to rest so
important a matter upon so slender a basis. It is laying violent hands
on a code of moral and immutable precepts, given by God, and
promulgated under peculiar and terrible signs of purity and majesty,
to vindicate a practice which was introduced long after the
commencement of the Christian era.
Another portion of the observers of the first day, seeing the
absurdity of holding to the abrogation of the Decalogue, and,
consequently, of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, readily admit
its perpetual obligation, but alledge that the Sabbath is changed,
under the new dispensation, from the _seventh_ to the _first_ day of
the week--thus transferring the authority for keeping the seventh day
to the first. It is not pretended that we have an explicit warrant
from God, pointing out and authorizing the change in question, but
that we have what is tantamount to such a warrant. We will examine the
principal arguments for this supposed change.
In the first place, this change is inferred from the resurrection of
Christ on the first day of the week, which is supposed to be an event
of such magnitude as to constitute an _equal_ and even _greater_
reason for observing the first day of the week as the weekly Sabbath
under the new dispensation, than that which existed for observing the
seventh under the old. But what does this argument amount to? It is
not perfectly clear that the resurrection occurred on the first day of
the week. Very plausible reasons may be assigned for the opinion, that
it occurred on the evening of the seventh day, although it was not
publicly declared till the morning of the first. But admitting that it
occurred on the morning of the first day, how does this prove that it
was substituted for the seventh day as the Sabbath? Is the inference
absolutely necessary? Is there any designation of the first day for a
sabbatic purpose? If another than the seventh day was in any wise
admissible, as according better with the Christian dispensation and
the work of redemption, why should we fix upon the day of Christ's
resurrection, rather than the day of his birth, or of his crucifixion,
or of his ascension? Will it be alledged, as a reason for the
preference, that he finished the work of redemption on the day of his
resurrection? This reason might be offered with equal if not superior
propriety, for commemorating the day of his crucifixion; because, when
he bowed his head and gave up the ghost; he said, "_It is finished_,"
which is more than is said in reference to the day of his
resurrection. If a day were to be selected as a weekly Sabbath, which
was "validly the day of redemption," it seems most proper to select
the day of his death, which was the end of his temptation and conflict
with the powers of darkness, and the severest test of his obedience;
or the day of his final ascension, when he emphatically entered into
his rest, and was crowned King in Zion. If, therefore, a day were to
be selected, under the new economy, for the appropriate commemoration
of the work of redemption, as the seventh day was for the
commemoration of the work of creation, it is by no means clear that it
should be the day of the resurrection. It might with equal, perhaps
greater propriety, be some other day of the week. And hence, the
different preferences of Christians might clash, and by that means
counteract in a great measure the design of a Sabbath. But, in truth,
the argument from the resurrection in favor of the first day of the
week, rests upon the wisdom of man and not upon the appointment of
God. It seems to men befitting the ends of a weekly Sabbath, under the
Christian dispensation, to observe the first rather than the seventh
day, and hence a change is inferred, without any express authority
from God to that effect; as though it were lawful to change a divine
institution when it _appears to us_ that greater reasons exist for a
change, than for its unamended continuance--a principle which would
justify all the innovations and extravagancies of Popery. But no such
power is given unto men. However many and important the reasons which
exist in human view for the change in the Sabbath contended for, it is
invading God's prerogative to make a change without his express
warrant. So long, therefore, as there is no divine enactment which
goes to authorize this change, but the permanent and unvaried nature
of the entire Decalogue expressly forbids it, as does the continued
practice of the primitive church, it is grossly erroneous and
presumptuous to make it. This argument for the supposed change is
surely without any validity.
In the next place, it is alledged that Christ's appearance to the
disciples, after his resurrection, on the first day of the week, marks
this as the Christian Sabbath. This argument is adopted both by those
who hold to the abrogation of the former institution, and those who
contend for its change. But, in reality, it is as devoid of solid
weight as the one previously examined. It is easy to account for his
appearing in the course of the day of his resurrection, or of the
first declaration of it, because the earliest information of this
great event was of the utmost importance to the afflicted and
desponding disciples. It was important, also, as a testimony to the
truth of the Savior's prediction that he would rise on the third day.
There is nothing in his several appearances during that day, which
seems intended for any other purpose than giving the necessary proof
of his resurrection, and the light and consolation which the
circumstances of the disciples required. There is nothing in either of
them which favors the idea of a new Sabbath. But the circumstance of
his appearing to the two disciples who were on a journey to Emmaus,
and traveling a while with them, which was a distance much too long
for a Sabbath day's journey, expressly forbids it, as it shows that it
was regarded as a day for labor. And as to his appearance the
following evening, there is nothing in that circumstance which savors
of a newly appointed Sabbath. The disciples were not assembled
together to keep a Sabbath, but "for fear of the Jews." Besides,
according to the Jewish method of reckoning time, this evening
actually belonged to the second day of the week. So that all which is
said concerning his appearances on this day and evening, is perfectly
devoid of proof of a change of the Sabbath.
As to the next appearance recorded, there is no evidence that it
occurred on the first day of the week. The record states, that "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." Surely the phrase, "and after eight days,"
cannot be fairly construed to mean a week. Who can tell but that he
appeared on the _ninth_ day after his first appearance? But even if it
could be so interpreted as to mean precisely a week, and hence to show
that his second appearance took place on the first day, as before, it
would be no proof of the point in question, because the subject of the
Sabbath was not introduced in any form.
The next instance of his appearing is very far from corroborating the
opinion that he sanctioned the first day as the New Testament Sabbath
by appearing on it; for the disciples, or some of them, were fishing
at the sea of Tiberias, and consequently were not observing the first
day as a Sabbath. Indeed, this appearance must have taken place as
late as the second day of the week, if not later; for they had been
engaged in fishing, as the record will show, the day before he
appeared to them. And they could not have been so engaged on the
_seventh_ day, because it would have been contrary to the universal
and unbroken practice of their nation. Hence it could not have been on
the first day of the week that Christ appeared to them. It must have
been on the second or some later day of the week. The argument,
therefore, from the several appearances of Christ, amounts to nothing.
The next, and the principal argument for the change of the Sabbath, is
the supposed Apostolic practice of meeting on the first day of the
week for public worship and the breaking of bread. It is often
confidently affirmed, that the keeping of the first day instead of the
seventh is sanctioned by Apostolic usage. The proof of this position
rests mainly on two passages. Let us examine them.
The first is Acts 20:7. "And upon the first day of the week, when the
disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready
to depart on the morrow, and continued his speech until midnight." But
is there any thing in this transaction, or the attendant
circumstances, which clearly and undeniably proves an Apostolic
example in favor of a new Sabbath, or of keeping the first day of the
week, in any manner, as a substitute for the former institution?
Surely there is not. The passage does not so much as prove that the
practice of meeting for worship on the first day of the week was then
common and general. But if it did, it would not determine the change
contended for. There is nothing said in the narrative, which
characterizes it as a Sabbath. Assembling for public worship is proper
on any day of the week; and so is the breaking of bread. The Supper
was first administered on one of the six working days; and there is
nothing in the Scriptures which restricts its subsequent
administration to a particular day--not even to the authorized
Sabbath. Besides, in this case, the breaking of bread was deferred
till after midnight. Of course, according to the Jewish reckoning of
time, it was attended actually on the second day; and this must have
been the case, also, according to the prevailing custom among
observers of the first day, of commencing the day at midnight. It
seems, therefore, that the Apostle and his brethren were not very
precise in regard to its being done on the first day. Let the most be
made of this passage, and it lacks a divine designation of the first
day as the Christian Sabbath; and hence it is entirely wanting as to
the requisite evidence of a change in the sabbatic law. Surely, if
there had been such a change, and this, with one more instance of
meeting on the first day of the week, were to contain the evidence for
all after generations, we should have been informed of the fact.
Something would have been said to determine that the first day of the
week was regarded as a Sabbath, and that it had taken the place of the
seventh. But there is nothing of this. The record is perfectly silent
in regard to either point. Besides, it is evident that the original
Sabbath continued to be observed, as already noticed, throughout the
entire period of New Testament history. This is so plain a fact, that
no one who gives the subject a candid examination will deny it. This
shows the opinion of a new Sabbath--observed, as it must have been, in
connection with the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and without a
word being said on the subject, or the least objection, stir, query,
or excitement whatever being raised--to be perfectly preposterous.
Such is the result of this reasoning from a supposed Apostolic
example, giving the passage its widest possible scope, as implying a
common practice of meeting for public worship on the first day of the
week. But in reality there is nothing in this text which proves or
implies that such a practice was common at that period. For aught
appears, it might have been an occasional meeting, appointed merely in
consequence of Paul's being about to depart on the morrow. Therefore,
to adopt a practice so important as the one in question, upon such
vague, uncertain, and inadequate testimony--especially when, in order
thereto, we must dispose of a plain and positive command of God
respecting the observance of the seventh day, and of a usage as old as
the completion of the creation--is unreasonable in the extreme.
Another passage quoted in proof of an Apostolic example of keeping the
first day of the week, and, consequently, in support of the opinion
that the Sabbath is changed, is 1 Corinthians 16:2. "Upon the first
day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath
prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." This passage,
like the others, does not imply that the first day was then commonly
and generally regarded as a day for public worship. Indeed, it does
not necessarily imply a public meeting of any kind. The direction for
"every one to lay by him in store," for the benefit of the poor saints
at Jerusalem, "on the first day of the week," necessarily amounts to
no more than an appointment of this day to make up their bounty _at
home_, so that it might be sure to be ready when the Apostle should
come--a very judicious arrangement, as the time of his coming for it
was uncertain, and he would not know how to wait. But if it be
understood to imply anything more, it is simply that they should bring
their donations together publicly on the first day of the week, so as
to be prepared in the fullest sense for the Apostle's visit.
Therefore, according to this view of the case, it proves no more than
an occasional meeting on this day for the purpose of a public
contribution for an important object of benevolence. But even if it
could be so construed as clearly to imply that it was then a common
and general practice to meet for public worship and instruction on
this day, it would not thereby be pointed out to us as the Christian
Sabbath, and a substitute for the seventh day, seeing that it contains
no information to that effect, and that no divine warrant appears on
any part of the New Testament records for the supposed change.
Meetings for public worship, taking up of collections, and even
breaking of bread, do not constitute a Sabbath, though they are proper
exercises for such a day. _To sabbatize_ is to rest from our own
secular labors, and keep a season holy to God. These proofs for a
change of the Sabbath, therefore, which are unquestionably the best
that can be produced, are utterly deficient, and the argument
therefrom, as generally presented, is deceptive, and unworthy of
confidence.
Another of the proofs adduced for the supposed change of the Sabbath,
is the following prediction. Psalm 118:22-24. "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." But this, like all
the previous quotations, wants solidity. The main points in the
argument are _assumed_. First, it is assumed, that Christ's becoming
the head of the corner refers to the day of his resurrection; whereas
there is no conclusive evidence that it refers to this rather than to
the day of his birth, or of his entrance on his public ministry, or of
his final ascension into heaven. Next, it is assumed that the day
spoken of is a natural day of twenty-four hours; whereas this word is
often used to designate an indefinite period of time--particularly the
Gospel era (John 8:56)--and may very probably be so used here. Again,
it is assumed, that the day mentioned is the first day of the week;
whereas there is nothing which designates this rather than some other
in the course of his mediatorial work, allowing a natural day to be
referred to. And even if the resurrection day be intended, it is not
certain that this occurred on the first day of the week. It is further
assumed, that the emphasis which is laid on the day alluded to as "the
day which the Lord hath made," and in which the church would "rejoice
and be glad," determines it to be the New Testament Sabbath in
distinction from the Sabbath of the fourth commandment; whereas there
is nothing in these circumstances which necessarily intimates any such
change, while there are various important considerations by which this
opinion is absolutely precluded. The entire argument, therefore, fails.
Another argument for the change of the Sabbath is based upon the
supposition that the day of Pentecost occurred on the first day of the
week, which was a remarkable season of the outpouring of the Spirit,
and of Christ's triumph as the risen and exalted Savior. But this will
appear, on a very little examination, to be wholly inconclusive. In
the first place, it is far from being conclusively proved that this
event occurred on the first day of the week. It is much more likely to
have occurred either on the _fifth_ or the _seventh_. Indeed, it is
quite manifest from the best calculations that can be made, from the
time of eating the passover supper, the first paschal sabbath, the
crucifixion and the resurrection, that it occurred on one or the other
of these days. Secondly, if the feast of Pentecost had actually
occurred on the first day of the week, this would furnish no proof of
its being the New Testament Sabbath, in the absence of a divine
warrant to that effect.
There is one other argument for the change in question, founded on the
supposed application of the title "the Lord's day," to the first day
of the week. The only passage referred to for the purpose of
sustaining it, is Revelation 1:10. "I was in the spirit on the Lord's
day." But that the day here called the Lord's day, is the first day of
the week, is merely assumed, and hence is not to be considered as
proved. It is not, in fact, _probable_ that this is the day referred
to. It is much more likely that the expression here used refers to the
day of Christ's reign; and that St. John meant to declare that in
spirit he had a view of the scenes of that period. This use of the
term _day_ is sanctioned by the Savior's declaration, "Abraham
rejoiced to see my day," (John 8:56,) as well as by the Psalmist's,
who, when speaking of the glories of Christ's kingdom, says, "This is
the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it,"
(Psalm 118:23.) The nature of the visions afterwards described also
corroborates this view of the passage, and warrants the opinion that
the expression "Lord's day," (or, as some translate it, _lordly_ day,)
here used, does not refer to a natural day, but to a longer period of
time. If, however, these words be understood to refer to a natural
day, it is more likely to be the seventh day, which God had blessed
and sanctified for his special service, than the first day. The
seventh day is called by Him "_my holy day_," and "_the holy of the
Lord_"--phrases very similar to the one in this passage. This was also
the Sabbath which was made for man, and of which Christ says he is
Lord. And since it was observed up to the close of the New Testament
history, it would be perfectly natural for John to speak of it as "the
Lord's day." Further, there is no evidence that the first day of the
week was denominated the Lord's day, at so early a period. Only one
writer mentions the expression till towards the close of the second
century; and the reputed author of this passage, when speaking, in his
Gospel, (which was written some years later than the Apocalypse,) of
the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week; never
intimates that the day should be called by any other name. The learned
Morer, though an advocate for the first day, in mentioning the
different days to which this phrase may be applied, acknowledges the
entire uncertainty as to what day is intended, and says, "It is very
likely that the more solemn and public use of the words was not
observed until about the time of Sylvester II., when, by Constantine's
command, it became an injunction." It is evident, therefore, that this
passage cannot justly be used as proof that the Sabbath had been
transferred to the first day of the week.
* * * * *
We have now examined the proofs commonly adduced for the abrogation or
change of the original Sabbath, and have found them utterly
insufficient and deceptive. Hence the claims of the Sabbath of the
fourth commandment, without alteration, are fully sustained. The
advocates for the first day are aware that if an abrogation or change
of the original Sabbath law cannot be made out, the seventh day is
still the true Sabbath. Dr. Dwight, for instance, makes the following
admission: "If we cannot find in the Scriptures plain and ample proof
of the abrogation of the original day, or the substitution of a new
one, the seventh day undoubtedly remains in full force and obligation,
and is now to be celebrated by all the race of Adam." Here, then, the
laboring oar is confessedly put into the hands of the advocates of the
first day; and with what success they have used it, the foregoing
examination will show. We ask, is it not a total failure? Has such
"plain and ample proof" been produced from the Scriptures for the
supposed abrogation or change? Indeed, it is evident that neither one
nor the other of these things is _practicable_. An _abrogation_ is not
practicable; for the Decalogue, in which the law of the Sabbath is
contained, is unchangeable. "Not one jot or one tittle shall in any
wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled;" which implies its
continued obligation, as long as moral beings exist. And the _change_
contended for is not practicable; because the substitution of another
day for the seventh would annul the institution. It contains no
warrant to keep the first day of the week as a Sabbath, but the
seventh only. Its authority is limited to the seventh day, and cannot
be transferred. The reason given for its institution, likewise, is
limited to this day. It is obvious that it will not apply to another.
The Sabbath law, therefore, contains no warrant whatever for the
observance of the first day of the week. If the day is changed, the
institution is annulled; and another institution, in some respects
similar, but not in all, is introduced, in the total absence of
_divine_ authority, and hence rests altogether upon that which is
_human_. This consideration, of itself, shows the absurdity of holding
to the change of the original day, while the validity of the entire
Decalogue is admitted.
From what has been here presented, it is evident that the Scriptures
do not authorize the abrogation or change of the original Sabbath, but
enforce its observance by precept and example. The opposite view is
supported wholly by tradition and human authority, as an impartial
examination of the history of the change will show. Have we not a
right to expect, then, that when the great body of professing
Christians shall become enlightened on this subject, and have
sufficient grace and fortitude to act up to their convictions, the
result will be, a general return to the faithful keeping of the
Sabbath of the fourth commandment?
Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,
No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.
[No. 4.]
THE SABBATH AND LORD'S DAY;
A HISTORY OF THEIR OBSERVANCE
IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
NEW YORK:
PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY,
No. 9 Spruce-Street
1852.
In the preceding numbers of this series of Tracts, we have given an
account of the institution of the Sabbath, and the reasons for
believing it to be moral and perpetually binding, together with an
examination of the authority for a change of the day. As the result of
this examination, we have been driven to the conclusion, that the
Sabbath was given to man in Paradise; that the fourth commandment was
but a reënforcement of it; that the Scriptures do not authorize a
change of the day of the Sabbath; and that, therefore, _the seventh
day of the week ought now to be observed by all men_. But there are
many persons who admit the early institution of the Sabbath, and the
absence of any authority from the Scriptures for a change, yet suppose
that the example of the early Christians, and the sayings of "the
Fathers," warrant them in observing the first day of the week, to the
neglect of the seventh. For the benefit of such, we now come to
consider the history of the Sabbath since the establishment of the
Christian Church. By consenting to do this, it is not meant to admit,
that if a regard for the first day of the week can be traced to near
the time of the Apostles, it is necessarily of apostolic authority;
for it is affirmed by St. Paul, that even in his time "the mystery of
iniquity had begun to work." We believe that "the Holy Scripture
containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is
not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of
any man;" and we cannot admit, therefore, that the early existence of
the practice is sufficient to give it divine authority, unless
sanctioned by the inspired writings. In order to establish the claims
of the first day of the week to be the Sabbath, two things are
indispensable: 1. To prove from the Scriptures that the seventh day
(which all acknowledge to have been originally the Sabbath) has been
abrogated. 2. To show from the same source that the first day has been
appointed in the place of the seventh. It is not sufficient to prove
that a religious regard was early paid to the first day. There is an
important distinction between _the Sabbath_ and a _religious
festival_; the former requiring abstinence from all ordinary labor,
and devotion of a whole day to the public and private duties of
religion; the latter requiring only the commemoration of some
important event, and allowing the time not occupied in the public
celebration of it to be devoted to labor or amusement. That this
distinction was understood to exist between the regard for the seventh
day and that for the first day, seems evident from the fact that in
the early history of the church no Christians are charged with
abandoning the Sabbath, while we are assured that after the meetings
on the first day of the week they went about their ordinary labor.
This apparently innocent regard for the day on which Christ first
appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, it is believed, has
given rise to the whole apostacy from the Sabbath. The following pages
are designed to show the steps by which it was brought about.
The Sabbath in the Apostolic Church.
Before entering upon the history of the Sabbath, as it is derived from
uninspired records, it is proper to inquire how it was regarded by
Jesus Christ and his Apostles.
That Jesus Christ embraced the observance of the Sabbath among other
duties enjoined in the Decalogue, is evident from Matt. 5:17:--"Think
not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come
to destroy, but to fulfill; for verily I say unto you, till heaven and
earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,
till all be fulfilled." He here declared the precepts of this law,
without distinction, to be permanent and unchangeable. Had he
commanded his disciples to keep the Sabbath, by enacting a new
precept, it would have been equivalent to saying that he considered it
in the light of a ceremonial and expiring institution, which, in
truth, it was not. He therefore most wisely enforced all those
precepts as inseparable, unchangeable, and unrepealable. And he
plainly said, in the connection referred to, that no person is worthy
of a place in his church, who will break any one of these
commandments, or teach others to do so. In all his subsequent
allusions to this subject, he speaks of the Sabbath as an ancient and
well-established ordinance, founded in the nature and fitness of
things, made for and adapted to the uses of mankind. (Mark 2:27.) His
_example_ was in strict conformity with his teachings on this subject.
His "_custom_" was to go to places of public worship, and to preach
the Gospel on the Sabbath. His _disciples_, being educated in the
observance of the Sabbath, could have entertained no doubts as to its
perpetuity, nor have reasons to suppose that Christianity relaxed
their obligation to observe it. It is very certain, that during the
whole time that our Lord was with his disciples before his death, he
gave no intimation to them that the duty of keeping the Sabbath was to
be in any wise affected by his death; and we find that after this
event, the disciples "rested the Sabbath day, according to the
commandment." (Luke 23:56.) Further, our Saviour himself, when
speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, an event not to take place
until forty years after his death, tells his disciples to pray that
their flight might not be on the Sabbath day. It is difficult to
conceive why this day should be spoken of at so late a period, unless
it was to continue.
The same views respecting the sacredness of the Sabbath seem to have
been entertained by the Apostles, after the resurrection of Christ,
that they held before his death; and they appear to have occupied that
day as they had formerly done, in attending places of public worship,
and preaching the Gospel. See Acts 13:14, 42, 44, where it is said,
"They came to Antioch, in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the
Sabbath day." After Paul had preached Christ as the true Messiah, "and
when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought
that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath." "And the
next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word
of God." Or, see Acts 16:13, where, "on the Sabbath we went out of the
city, by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made." Or Acts
15:21--"For Moses, of old time, hath in every city them that preach
him, being read in the synagogue every Sabbath day." This last passage
is given by St. James as a reason why they should write to the Gentile
converts only that "they abstain from things offered to idols," &c.
From this it is apparent that the custom was common, both to hold
meetings on the Sabbath day, and for the Gentile Christians to attend
those meetings. If it was not common, the reading of Moses would not
benefit them. If it was common, then they kept the Sabbath.
St. Paul, in 1 Thess. 2:14, says to the Thessalonians, "For ye,
brethren, became followers (imitators) of the churches of God, which
in Judea are in Christ Jesus." And as these Gentile Christians were
followers of the churches in Judea, so they were ensamples, or
patterns, to all the believers in Macedonia, and Achaia. (Ch. 1:7.) As
to the character of the churches in Judea touching the Sabbath, we
need only to consult Acts 21:20. It is there asserted, that there were
many thousands of the Jews who believed, and that they were all
zealous of the law. And the context shows that they were zealous of
even the ceremonies of the Jewish ritual. Hence we infer, that there
was uniformity with the Jewish and Gentile Christians, in the
observance of the Sabbath, and that the whole apostolic church
religiously kept it.
Notwithstanding the Sabbath continued to be observed until the sacred
canon was closed, it has been quite common, since the Reformation, to
refer to certain passages of Scripture as indicating that the first
day had been, or was to be, substituted for the seventh. It is said
that Christ's meeting with his disciples on the evening of his
resurrection day indicates that it was to be religiously regarded
thereafter. Those who make such use of this circumstance seem to
overlook, what it is very important to remember, that two of the
disciples traveled from Jerusalem to Emmaus and back on that day, a
distance of fifteen miles, and a part of this in company with the
Saviour. This fact alone shows that it could not have been regarded as
a Sabbath. Nor is there any thing in the circumstances of the meeting
to indicate it. The disciples were not all present, and those who were
present had assembled for other reasons, without any expectation of
seeing the Master.
The meeting "_after eight days_" affords no help. Who can say
positively that this expression means a week? Or, granting that it
does mean a week, what does the passage make for the religious
character of the first day? Jesus met his disciples on one occasion
when fishing, and was seen of them forty days. Now, if his meeting
with them proves the day of that meeting to be a Sabbath, a fishing
day would be such, and the whole forty.
In regard to those two places, (Acts 20:7, and 1 Cor. 16:2,) where the
expression "_first day of the week_" occurs, they make nothing for the
sanctification of the day, since there is no hint of any such thing.
The meetings there spoken of were for special purposes, and nothing
was done at either which might not with perfect propriety have been
done on any day. It is not quite certain that the passage, "They came
together to break bread," refers to the Lord's Supper. Indeed, both
St. Chrysostom among the ancients, and Calvin among the moderns, deny
that it was to celebrate the Supper, and refer it to a friendly meal.
The text, Rev. 1:10, where St. John was "_in the spirit on the Lord's
day_," is likewise not a good proof text. That reference is there had
to the first day of the week, is by no means certain. There are some
who refer it to a much longer period--to the gospel era; while others,
among whom is Bede, refer it to the day of judgment. The fact that
none of those who early mention the Lord's day refer to this passage,
is much against it. In these circumstances, it would not be safe to
draw conclusions in regard to practice therefrom. Indeed, none of the
earliest writers found the observance of the Lord's day upon the
Scriptures.
Observance of the Sabbath from the time of the Apostles to Constantine.
Thus far we have been guided by the inspired Scriptures, and we think
they prove beyond dispute, that the Christians of the apostolic age
had received no new doctrine concerning the Sabbath, but continued
without any change to devote the seventh day of the week to the duties
of religion. But we now enter a period in which the history of the
Sabbath must be derived from other sources. It may be difficult to
trace exactly every step which has been taken, as the histories of the
early ages are very defective on many subjects. They have come to us,
to a considerable extent, through the church of Rome; and since she
claims to have changed the day of the Sabbath, it is not to be
expected that testimony against herself would be very faithfully
preserved. In pursuing our sketch, we shall follow the best lights we
have to guide us.
After the period described in the Acts of the Apostles, Christianity
soon became widely spread in the Roman empire, which, at that time,
extended over most of the civilized world. But as it receded from the
time of the Apostles, and the number of its professors increased, the
church became gradually less spiritual, and more disposed to deck the
simple religion of Jesus with mysteries and superstitious formalities;
and the bishops or pastors became ambitious of their authority over
the churches. Those churches, even in Gentile cities, appear to have
been composed, at first, principally of converted Jews, who not only
observed the weekly Sabbath, but also the feast of the Passover,
adapted particularly to Christian worship; respecting which, there was
much contention. In the mean time, converts were greatly multiplied
from among the Gentiles and were united with those from the Jews, who,
not without reason, considered themselves entitled to some distinction
as the original founders of the gospel church, and as being better
informed in the writings of Moses and the prophets, having been in the
habit of reading them every Sabbath in the synagogues.
About three years after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, according to
the common account, Judea was invaded by the Roman armies, and
Jerusalem was besieged and destroyed, as our Lord had predicted. By
this awful calamity, it is supposed that most of the churches in Judea
were scattered; for they fled their country at the approach of their
enemies, as they were taught by Jesus Christ to do. (Matt. 24:16.)
This war resulted not only in the breaking up of the nation, and the
destruction of a great portion of the people, but also in bringing a
general odium upon the Jews wherever they were found; so that even the
Christians of Judea suffered what our Saviour taught them to expect,
(Matt. 24:9,) "And ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's
sake." These circumstances, added to the enmity which formerly existed
between the Gentiles and the Jews, produced a prejudice which had its
influence in the church in bringing into disrepute, and in fixing a
stigma upon, whatever was regarded as Judaism. "The doctrines of our
Saviour and the church, flourishing from day to day, continued to
receive constant accessions," says _Eusebius_, "but the calamities of
the Jews also continued to grow with one accumulation of evil upon
another." The insurrectionary disposition of the conquered Jews in the
reign of _Trajan_, in the early part of the second century, and the
calamities that followed them, seemed to confirm the opinion that the
Jews were given over by the Almighty to entire destruction. But their
calamities increased in the reign of _Adrian_, who succeeded _Trajan_,
in whose reign the revolt of the Jews again proceeded to many and
great excesses, and _Rufus_, the lieutenant governor of Judea, using
their madness as a pretext, destroyed myriads of men, women and
children, in crowds; and by the laws of war, he reduced their country
to a state of absolute subjection, and the degraded race to the
condition of slaves. The transformation of the church in Jerusalem is
thus described by _Eusebius_: "The city of the Jews being thus reduced
to a state of abandonment for them, and totally stripped of its
ancient inhabitants, and also inhabited by strangers; the Roman city
which subsequently arose changing its name, was called _Ælia_, in
honor of the emperor Ælias Adrian; and when the church was collected
there of the Gentiles, the first bishop after those of the
circumcision was _Marcus_." Thus was extinguished the Hebrew church in
Jerusalem, having had a succession of fifteen pastors; "all which,"
says _Eusebius_, "they say, were Hebrews from the first. At that time
the whole church under them," he adds, "consisted of faithful Hebrews,
who continued from the time of the Apostles to the siege that then
took place."
This church, which heretofore held the first rank in regard to its
influence, being now composed entirely of Gentiles, and stripped of
its apostolic character and influence, could no longer successfully
oppose the growing ambition and influence of the bishops of the church
in the metropolis of the empire.
Up to this period, and for some time after, there does not appear to
have been any change in the sentiments or practice of the church, in
any place, relative to the Sabbath; but from what is related by
subsequent writers, which will be noticed in its place, it is certain
that it was observed by the churches universally. This fact is so
generally acknowledged by those acquainted with the history of the
matter, that we need refer to only a few passages in proof.
The learned _Grotius_ says, in his Explication of the Decalogue,
"Therefore the Christians also, who believed Christ would restore all
things to their primitive practice, as Tertullian teacheth in
_Monogamia_, kept holy the Sabbath, and had their assemblies on that
day, in which the law was read to them, as appears in Acts 15:21,
which custom remained till the time of the council of Laodicea, about
A. D. 365, who then thought meet that the gospels also should be read
on that day."
_Edward Brerewood_, Professor in Gresham College, London, in a
Treatise on the Sabbath, 1630, says: "It is commonly believed that the
Jewish Sabbath was changed into the Lord's day by Christian emperors,
and they know little who do not know, that _the ancient Sabbath did
remain and was observed by the eastern churches three hundred years
after our Saviour's passion_."
At what time the first day of the week came into notice as a festival
in the church, it is not easy to determine. The first intimation we
have of this, in any ancient writer of acknowledged integrity, is from
Justin Martyr's Apology for the Christians, about A. D. 140. He is
cited as saying, "that the Christians in the city and in the country
assembled on the day called Sunday, and after certain religious
devotions, all returned home to their labors;" and he assigns as
reasons for this, that God made the world on the first day, and that
Christ first showed himself to his disciples on that day after his
resurrection. These were the best, and probably all the reasons that
could then be offered for the practice. He also speaks of Sunday only
as a festival, on which they performed labor, when not engaged in
devotions, and not as a substitute for the Sabbath. From this author
we can learn nothing as to the extent of the practice; for though he
says this was done by those "in the city and in the country," he may
have intended only the city of Rome and its suburbs, since _Justin_,
although a native of Palestine in Syria, is stated by _Eusebius_ to
have made his residence in Rome. Nor can we determine from this, that
he intended any thing more than that they did thus on the Sunday in
which the church of Rome, a short time after this, is known to have
closed the paschal feast, which was observed annually.
It is contended, however, that mention is made of keeping the first
day previous to _Justin_. The first intimation of this kind, it is
believed, is from an apocryphal writing, styled the _Epistle of
Barnabas_; but to this epistle it is objected, that there is no
evidence of its genuineness. _Eusebius_, who lived near the time when
it was written, mentions it as a spurious writing, entitled to no
credit. _Dr. Milnor_ says it is an injury to St. Barnabas to ascribe
this epistle to him. _Mosheim_ says it is the work of some
superstitious Jew of mean abilities. And we think it has but little to
recommend it besides its antiquity. Barnabas' theory for observing the
first day, rests upon the tradition that the seventh day was typical
of the seventh millennium of the age of the world, which would be
purely a holy age, and that the Sabbath was not to be kept until that
time arrived; and he says, "We keep the eighth day with gladness, in
which Jesus rose from the dead."
The citations from _Ignatius_, are as little to the purpose. In the
passage of which most use has been made, he did not say that himself
or any one else kept the Lord's day, as is often asserted. His own
words are, that "the prophets who lived before Christ came to a
newness of hope, not by keeping Sabbaths, but by living according to a
lordly or most excellent life." In this passage, Ignatius was speaking
of altogether a different thing from Sabbath-keeping. There is another
quotation from him, however, in which he brings out more clearly his
view of the relation existing between the Sabbath and Lord's day. It
is as follows: "Let us not keep the Sabbath in a Jewish manner, in
sloth and idleness; but let us keep it after a spiritual manner, not
in bodily ease, but in the study of the law, and in the contemplation
of the works of God." "And _after_ we have kept the Sabbath, let every
one that loveth Christ keep the Lord's day _festival_." From this it
seems that he would have the Sabbath kept first, _as such_, and in a
manner satisfactory to the strictest Sabbatarian, after which the
Lord's day, not as a Sabbath, but as a festival. Indeed, with this
distinction between the _Sabbath_ and a _festival_ before us, it is
easy to explain all those passages from early historians which refer
to the first day. We shall find them to be either immediately
connected with instructions about such seasons as _Good Friday_ and
_Holy Thursday_, or in the writings of those who have recommended the
observance of these festival days.
It is also said that _Pliny_, Governor of Bithynia, A. D. 102, in a
letter to _Trajan_, states that the Christians met on the first day of
the week for worship; but by no fair interpretation of his words can
he be so understood. He says, in writing about those of his own
province, "that they were accustomed to assemble on a _stated day_."
This might be referred to the first day, if there were credible
testimony that this day was alone regarded at that time; but as there
is no evidence of this, and as the Sabbath is known to have been the
stated day of religious assembling a long time after this, it seems
more proper to refer it to the Sabbath.
We will mention but one more of these misinterpreted citations, and
this is from _Dionysius_, bishop of Corinth, who lived a little after
_Justin_. His letter to _Soter_, bishop of Rome, is cited as saying,
"This day we celebrated the holy Dominical day, in which we have read
your epistle." As given by _Eusebius_, it is thus: "To-day we have
_passed the Lord's holy day_," &c. The only ground upon which this
phrase can be referred to the first day, is, that this day was at that
time known by the same title that God has given to the Sabbath, (see
Isaiah 48:13,) of which there is no proof. Therefore it is not just to
cite this passage as evidence of the observance of the first day at
that time.
It is, indeed, a well-known fact, that the first day has come into
very extensive use among the great body of Christians, as the only day
of weekly rest and worship. The origin of this practice does not
appear, however, to be as ancient, by some centuries, as many suppose;
nor was its adoption secured at once, but by slow and gradual advances
it obtained general notice in Christian countries. This is frankly
admitted by _Morer_, an English Episcopalian, in his _Dialogues on the
Lord's day_, p. 236. He says, "In _St. Jerome's_ time, (that is, in
the fifth century,) 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 constitution, 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 got a considerable
figure in the world." The same author says, on the same page: "If the
Christians in St. Jerome's time, after divine service on the Lord's
day, followed their daily employments, it should be remembered, that
this was not done till the worship was quite over, when they might
with innocency enough resume them, because the length of time and the
number of hours assigned for piety were not then so well explained as
in after ages."
It is probable that no other day could have obtained the same notice
in ancient times as the first day of the week did; for there were
circumstances, aside from the resurrection, that had an influence in
promoting its observance. It was at first a celebration of the same
character as the fourth and sixth days of the week, and the annual
festivals of saints and martyrs. These celebrations were comparatively
unobjectionable, when not permitted to interfere with a divine
appointment; but when they were made to supersede or cause a neglect
of the Sabbath, they were criminal. In respect to these days of weekly
celebration, _Mosheim_, when remarking upon this early period, and the
regard then paid to the seventh and first days, says, "Many also
observed the fourth day, in which Christ was betrayed, and the sixth
day, in which he was crucified." He adds, "The time of assembling was
generally in the evening after sunset, or in the morning before the
dawn."
_The respect which the Gentiles had for the first day_, or Sunday,
_while they were Pagans_, contributed much to render its introduction
easy, and its weekly celebration popular, among such materials as
composed the body of the church of Rome in the second, third, and
fourth centuries. The observance of the first day of the week as a
festival of the Sun, was very general in those nations from which the
Gentile church received her converts. That an idolatrous worship was
paid to the Sun and other heavenly bodies by the Gentiles, the Old
Testament abundantly testifies; and this kind of adoration paid to the
Sun in later times, is as plainly a matter of historical record.
_Thomas Bampfield_, an English writer of the seventeenth century,
quoting _Verstegan's_ Antiquities, p. 68, says: "Our ancestors in
England, before the light of the Gospel came among them, went very far
in this idolatry, and dedicated the first day of the week to the
adoration of the idol of the Sun, and gave it the name of Sunday. This
idol they placed in a temple, and there sacrificed to it." He further
states, that from his historical reading, he finds that a great part
of the world, and particularly those parts of it which have since
embraced Christianity, did anciently adore the Sun upon Sunday. It is
also stated by _Dr. Chambers_, in his Cyclopedia, that "Sunday was so
called by our idolatrous ancestors, because set apart for the worship
of the Sun." The Greeks and the Latins also gave the same name to the
first day of the week. _Dr. Brownlee_, as quoted by _Kingsbury_, on
the Sabbath, p. 223, also says, "When the descendants of Adam
apostatized from the worship of the true God, they substituted in his
place the Sun, that luminary which, more than all others, strikes the
minds of savage people with religious awe; and which, therefore, all
heathens worship." Attachment to particular days of religious
celebration, from habit merely, is well known, even in our own day, to
be very strong, and powerful convictions of duty are often required to
produce a change. This was no doubt well understood by the teachers of
Christianity in those times. _Dr. Mosheim_, when treating on that age,
says, "that the leaders imagined that the nations would the more
readily receive Christianity when they saw the rites and ceremonies to
which they had been accustomed established in the churches, and the
same worship paid to Jesus Christ and his martyrs which they had
formerly offered to their idol deities. Hence it happened, that in
those times, the religion of the Greeks and Romans differed but little
in its external appearance from that of Christians."
_Prejudice against the Jews_, was another influence against the
Sabbath, and in favor of the first day. This was very strong, and
directly calculated to lead the Gentile Christians to fix a stigma
upon every religious custom of the Jews, and to brand as _Judaism_
whatever they supposed had any connection with the Mosaic religion.
Hence it was that in those times, as often occurs in our own, to
produce disaffection and disgust to the seventh day as the Sabbath,
they spoke of it and reproached its observance as Judaizing. This
feeling in relation to Judaism led _Athanasius_, bishop of Alexandria,
in Egypt, in the fourth century, who with his people then observed the
Sabbath, to say, in his _Interpretation of the Psalms_, "We assemble
on Saturday, not that we are infected with Judaism, but to worship
Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath." In a community of Christians whose
religion was formal, and whose celebrations were designed more to act
upon their passions and senses than to improve their hearts or to
conform them to divine requirements, a more powerful argument could
scarcely be used against the Sabbath day, or one that would more
effectually promote the observance of the first day, which was raised
up as its rival. _Dr. Neander_ says distinctly, "Opposition to Judaism
introduced the particular festival of Sunday very early."
_The observance of the Passover, or Easter, by the early Christians_,
aided the introduction of the first day as a religious festival in the
church, if it was not indeed the direct cause of it. This feast was
held by the Asiatic Christians, who began it at the same time the Jews
began their Passover, and ended it in like manner, without regard to
the particular day of the week. The church of Rome does not appear to
have observed it until the latter part of the second century, when, in
the time of _Victor_, bishop of Rome, it seems that it was observed by
the Roman and western churches. _Victor_ insisted upon the fast being
closed on the first day of the week, on whatever day it might
commence; and he claimed the right, as bishop of Rome, to control all
the churches in this matter. "Hence," says _Eusebius_, "there were
synods and convocations of the bishops on this question, and all (i.
e. the western bishops) unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree,
which they communicated to all the churches in all places, that the
mystery of our Lord's resurrection should be celebrated on no other
day than the Lord's day, and that on this day alone we should observe
the close of the paschal feasts." The bishops of Asia, however,
persisted for a considerable time in observing the custom handed down
to them by apostolic tradition, until, either by the threats of
excommunication which were made, or by a desire for peace, they were
induced partially to adopt the custom of the western churches. This
change was made, as we are told, "partly in honor of the day, and
partly to express some difference between Jews and Christians." But
the question does not appear to have been fully settled; for we find
_Constantine_, in an epistle to the churches, urging them to
uniformity in the day of the celebration, wherein, after a strong
invective against the practice of the Jews, he says, "For we have
learned another way from our Saviour, which we may follow. It is
indeed most absurd that they should have occasion of insolent boasting
on account of our not being able to observe these things in any manner
unless by the aid of their instruction." "Wherefore, let us have
nothing in common with that most odious brood of the Jews." By this
contest an important point was gained for the first day, although it
was but an annual celebration. The Sabbath, however, does not appear
to have been laid aside in any place, but continued to be the
principal day of religious worship throughout the whole Christian
church.
At what time the first day began to be observed weekly, we have no
particular account; but from the favor it received from the bishops of
Rome, and some of the Christian fathers, at the close of the third and
beginning of the fourth century, we suppose it had then become a
practice in Rome and some of the western churches.
This brings us to near the close of the third century. And here it
ought to be noted, that Lord's day, or Sunday, was not the only
holy-day of the Church during these three centuries. _Origen_ (as
quoted by Dr. Peter Heylyn in his History of the Sabbath) names the
_Good Friday_ as we call it now, the _Parasceve_ as he calls it there;
the feasts of _Easter_ and of _Pentecost_. And anciently, not only the
day which is now called _Whitsunday_ or _Pentecost_, but all the fifty
days from Easter forward, were accounted holy, and solemnized with no
less observance than the Sundays were. Of the day of the _Ascension_,
or _Holy Thursday_, it may likewise be said, that soon after, it came
to be more highly esteemed of than all the rest. Such was the
estimation in which the Lord's day was held. It was on a level with
those other holy days which are now disregarded by the body of the
Protestant Church. It is to be remembered, farther, that the term
Sabbath was applied exclusively to the seventh day of the week, or
Saturday. Indeed, wherever, for a thousand years and upwards, we meet
the word _Sabbatum_ in any writer, of what name soever, it must be
understood of no day but Saturday.
The Sabbath from the time of Constantine to the Reformation.
We have seen how the matter stood until the commencement of
Constantine's career. The Sabbath was generally observed, while the
Lord's day was regarded as a festival of no greater importance or
authority than Good Friday or Holy Thursday. No text of Scripture, or
edict of emperor, or decree of council, could be produced in its
favor. But from this time forth may be found emperors and councils
combining to give importance to the Lord's day and to oppose the
Sabbath.
An important change in the regard paid to the first day was produced
soon after the accession of _Constantine_, the first Christian
emperor, in the early part of the fourth century. When he became
master of Rome, he soon gave himself up to the guidance of the
Christian clergy. According to Jones' Church History, "He built places
of public worship; he encouraged the meeting of synods and bishops;
honored them with his presence, and employed himself continually in
aggrandizing the church. He was scrupulously attentive to the
religious rites and ceremonies which were prescribed to him by the
clergy. He fasted, observed the feasts in commemoration of the
martyrs, and devoutly watched the whole night on the vigils of the
saints," and showed great anxiety for uniformity in the doctrines and
observances of religion in the church. He was, therefore, exactly
suited to the wishes of the Roman bishop and clergy, in establishing,
by his imperial authority, what they had no Scripture to support, and
what their influence had hitherto been insufficient to effect, viz. a
uniformity in the celebration of Easter and the first day. In 321,
_Constantine_ first published his edicts enjoining upon his subjects
these superstitious celebrations.
_Eusebius_, in his Life of Constantine, says: "He appointed as a
suitable time for prayers the Dominical day, which then was an
especial day, and now is undoubtedly the very first. His body guard
observed the day, and offered on it prayers written by the Emperor.
The happy prince endeavored to persuade all to do this, and by degrees
to lead all to the worship of God; wherefore he determined that those
obeying Roman power should abstain from every work upon the days named
after the Saviour, that they should venerate also the day before the
Sabbath, in memory, as seems to me, of the events occurring on those
days to our common Saviour." He says again, "An edict also, by the
will and pleasure of the Emperor, was transmitted to the Prefects of
the provinces, that they thenceforth should venerate the Dominical
day; that they should honor the days consecrated to the martyrs, and
should celebrate the solemnities of the festivals in the churches, all
which was done according to the will of the Emperor." And, as quoted
by _Lucius_, he says, that he admonished his subjects likewise that
those days which were _Sabbaths_ should be honored or worshiped.
_Sozomen_, in his Ecclesiastical History, b. 1, c. 8, says, "He
(Constantine) also made a law that on the Dominical day, which the
Hebrews call the first day of the week, the Greeks the day of the Sun,
and also on the day of Venus, (i. e. Friday,) judgments should not be
given, or other business transacted, but that all should worship God
with prayer and supplications, and venerate the Dominical day, as on
it Christ rose from the dead, and the day of Venus, as the day on
which he was fixed to the cross."
_Dr. Chambers_ says, "It was Constantine the Great who first made a
law for the observance of Sunday, and who, according to Eusebius,
appointed that it should be regularly celebrated throughout the Roman
empire. Before him, and even in his time, they observed the Jewish
Sabbath as well as Sunday, both to satisfy the law of Moses, and to
imitate the Apostles, who used to meet together on the first day." He
adds, "Indeed, some are of opinion that the Lord's day mentioned in
the Apocalypse is our Sunday, which they will have to have been so
early instituted." By Constantine's laws, made in 321, it was decreed
that for the future the Sunday should be kept a day of rest in all
cities and towns; but he allowed the country people to follow their
work. In 538, the Council of Orleans prohibited this country labor.
To give the more solemnity to the first day of the week, (as we learn
from Lucius' Ecclesiastical History,) _Sylvester_, who was bishop of
Rome while Constantine was Emperor, changed the name of Sunday, giving
it the more imposing title of _Lord's day_.
It cannot be doubted, that the laws of _Constantine_ did much to make
the first day conspicuous throughout the empire, as all public
business was forbidden upon it. They changed its character from a
special day, in which, as a weekly festival, all kinds of business and
labor were performed in city and country, to be, as _Eusebius_ says,
_the very first_. This imperial favor for the first day operated
against all who conscientiously regarded the Sabbath from respect to
the fourth commandment, in obedience to which the seventh day had
always been observed; and if it had produced a general abandonment of
its observance, it would not have been very surprising, considering
the influence of court example, and the general ignorance and darkness
of the age. This, however, does not appear to have been the case. The
Sabbath was still extensively observed; and to counteract it the
Council of _Laodicea_, about A. D. 350, passed a decree saying, "It is
not proper for Christians to Judaize, and to cease from labor on the
Sabbath, but they ought to work on that day, and put especial honor
upon the Lord's day, as Christians. If any be found Judaizing, let him
be anathematized."
But this did not produce any material change, for _Socrates_, a writer
of the fifth century, who resided at Constantinople, makes the
following remarks upon the celebration of the Sabbath at the time he
wrote, A. D. 440. He says, "There are various customs concerning
assembling; for though all the churches throughout the whole world
celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath day, yet the
Alexandrians and the Romans, from an ancient tradition, refuse to do
this; but the Egyptians who are in the neighborhood of Alexandria, and
those inhabiting Thebais, indeed have assemblies on the Sabbath, but
do not participate in the mysteries, as is the custom of the
Christians. At Cæsarea, Cappadocia, and in Cyprus, on the Sabbath and
Dominical day, at twilight, with lighted lamps, the presbyters and
bishops interpret the Scriptures. At Rome they fast every Sabbath."
This account of the manner of celebrating the Sabbath in the fifth
century, is corroborated by _Sozomen_, in his Ecclesiastical History,
b. 7, c. 9. He says, "At Constantinople, and almost among all, the
Christians assembled upon the Sabbath, and also upon the first day of
the week, excepting at Rome and Alexandria; the ecclesiastical
assemblies at Rome were not upon the Sabbath, as in almost all other
churches of the rest of the world; and in many cities and villages in
Egypt, they used to commune in the evening of the Sabbath, on which
day there were public assemblies."
In regard to fasting on the Sabbath at Rome, referred to by Socrates,
it ought to be said, that from the earliest times to the fourth
century, the practice had been to observe the Sabbath as a holiday.
But the Church of Rome, in its opposition to the Jews, made it a fast
day, that the separation might be marked and strong. In the eastern
churches they never fasted upon the Sabbath, excepting one Sabbath in
the year, which was the day before the Passover. But in the western
churches they celebrated a fast every week. It was in reference to
this that _Ambrose_ said, "When I come to Rome, I fast upon the
Sabbath; when I am here, I do not fast." _Augustine_ also said
concerning this, "If they say it is sinful to fast on the Sabbath,
then they would condemn the Roman Church, and many places near to and
far from it. And if they should think it a sin not to fast on the
Sabbath, then they would blame many eastern churches, and the far
greater part of the world." This Sabbath fasting was opposed by the
eastern church; and in the sixth general council, held at
Constantinople, it was commanded that the Sabbath and Dominical days
be kept as festivals, and that no one fast or mourn upon them. The
practice of fasting, therefore, was chiefly in the western churches,
about Rome.
It is perhaps difficult to determine exactly the relative importance
attached to the seventh and first days of the week at this time.
Sufficient may be found, however, to assure us, that the Sabbath was
observed, and that no one regarded Sunday as having taken its place.
This is shown by the provision of the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 365,
that the Gospels should be read on that day. It is shown by the action
of a Council in 517, (mentioned in _Robinson's History of Baptism_,)
which regulated and enforced the observance of the Sabbath. It is
shown by the expostulation of _Gregory of Nyssa_, "How can you look
upon the Lord's day, if you neglect the Sabbath? Do you not know that
they are sisters, and that in despising the one you affront the
other?" And as sisters we find them hand in hand in the ecclesiastical
canons. Penalties were inflicted by the council; both of Laodicea and
Trullo, on clergymen who did not observe both days as festivals.
How the first day of the week, or Lord's day, was observed in the
early part of the fifth century, we may learn from the words of _St.
Jerome_. In a funeral oration for the Lady _Paula_, he says: "She,
with all her virgins and widows who lived at Bethlehem in a cloister
with her, upon the Lord's day, repaired duly to the church, or house
of God, which was nigh to her cell; and after her return from thence
to her own lodgings, she herself and all her company _fell to work_,
and they all performed their task, which was the making of clothes and
garments for themselves and for others, as they were appointed."
_St. Chrysostom_, patriarch of Constantinople, "recommended to his
audience, after impressing upon themselves and their families what
they had heard on the Lord's day, to return to their daily employments
and trades."
_Dr. Francis White_, Lord Bishop of Ely, speaking of this matter,
says, "The Catholic Church, for more than six hundred years after
Christ, permitted labor, and gave license to many Christian people to
work upon the Lord's day, at such hours as they were not commanded to
be present at the public service by the precepts of the church."
In the sixth century efforts were made to prevent this labor. The
following promulgation of a synod held by command of King _Junthran_,
of Burgundy, will show the condition of things, and the means used to
improve it; "We see the Christian people, in an unadvised manner,
deliver to contempt the Dominical day, and, as in other days, indulge
on continual labor." Therefore they determined to teach the people
subject to them to keep the Dominical day, which, if not observed by
the lawyer, he should irreparably lose his cause, and if a countryman
or servant did not keep it, he should be beaten with heavier blows of
cudgels. The council of Orleans, held 538, prohibited the country
labor on Sunday which Constantine by his laws permitted. According to
Chambers, this council also declared, "that to hold it unlawful to
travel with horses, cattle, and carriages, to prepare food, or to do
any thing necessary to the cleanliness and decency of houses or
persons, savors more of Judaism than Christianity." According to
Lucius, in another council held in Narbonne, in France, in the seventh
century, they also forbid this country work.
Early in the seventh century, in the time of Pope _Gregory I._, the
subject of the Sabbath attracted considerable attention. There was one
class of persons who declared, "that it was not lawful to do any
manner of work upon the Saturday, or the old Sabbath; another, that no
man ought to bathe himself on the Lord's day, or their new Sabbath."
Against both of these doctrines Pope _Gregory_ wrote a letter to the
Roman citizens. _Baronius_, in his Councils, says, "This year (603) at
Rome, St. Gregory, the Pope, corrected that error which some preached,
by Jewish superstition, or the Grecian custom, that it was a duty to
worship on the Sabbath, as likewise upon the Dominical day;" and he
calls such preachers the preachers of Antichrist.
Nearly the same doctrine was preached again in the time of _Gregory
VII._, A. D. 1074, about five hundred years after what we are now
speaking of. This is sufficient to show that the Sabbath was kept
until those times of decline which introduced so many errors in faith
and practice. Indeed, it is sufficient to show, that wherever the
subject has been under discussion, the Sabbath has found its
advocates, both in _theory_ and in _practice_.