THE SABBATH IN THE RECORD OF THE EARLY FATHERS.
The first reasons for neglecting the Sabbath are now
mostly obsolete—A portion of the early fathers taught the
perpetuity of the decalogue, and made it the standard of moral
character—What they say concerning the origin of the Sabbath
at Creation—Their testimony concerning the perpetuity of the
ancient Sabbath, and concerning its observance—Enumeration of
the things which caused the suppression of the Sabbath and the
elevation of Sunday.
The reasons offered by the early fathers for neglecting the observance
of the Sabbath show conclusively that they had no special light on the
subject by reason of living in the first centuries, which we in this
later age do not possess. The fact is, so many of the reasons offered by
them are manifestly false and absurd that those who in these days discard
the Sabbath, do also discard the most of the reasons offered by these
fathers for this same course. We have also learned from such of the early
fathers as mention first-day observance, the exact nature of the Sunday
festival, and all the reasons which in the first centuries were offered
in its support. Very few indeed of these reasons are now offered by
modern first-day writers.
But some of the fathers bear emphatic testimony to the perpetuity of the
ten commandments, and make their observance the condition of eternal
life. Some of them also distinctly assert the origin of the Sabbath at
creation. Several of them moreover either bear witness to the existence
of Sabbath-keepers, or bear decisive testimony to the perpetuity and
obligation of the Sabbath, or define the nature of proper Sabbatic
observance, or connect the observance of the Sabbath and first day
together. Let us now hear the testimony of those who assert the authority
of the ten commandments. Irenæus asserts their perpetuity, and makes them
a test of Christian character. Thus he says:—
“For God at the first, indeed, warning them [the Jews] by
means of _natural precepts_, which _from the beginning he had
implanted in mankind_, that is, by means of _the_ DECALOGUE
(_which, if any one does not observe, he has no salvation_),
did then demand nothing more of them.”[661]
This is a very strong statement. He makes the ten commandments the law
of nature implanted in man’s being at the beginning; and so inherited
by all mankind. This is no doubt true. It is the presence of the carnal
mind or law of sin and death, implanted in man by the fall, that has
partially obliterated this law, and made the work of the new covenant a
necessity.[662] He again asserts the perpetuity and authority of the ten
commandments:—
“Preparing man for this life, the Lord himself did speak in
his own person to all alike the words of the Decalogue: and
therefore, in like manner, do they remain permanently with us,
receiving, by means of his advent in the flesh, extension and
increase, but not abrogation.”[663]
By the “extension” of the decalogue, Irenæus doubtless means the
exposition which the Saviour gave of the meaning of the commandments in
his sermon on the mount.[664] Theophilus speaks in like manner concerning
the decalogue:—
“For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and _every
one_ who _keeps_ these _can be saved_, and, obtaining the
resurrection, can inherit incorruption.”[665]
“We have learned a holy law; but we have as Law-giver him who
is really God, who teaches us to act righteously, and to be
pious, and to do good.”[666]
“Of this great and wonderful law which tends to all
righteousness, the TEN HEADS are such as we have already
rehearsed.”[667]
Tertullian calls the ten commandments “the rules of our regenerate life,”
that is to say, the rules which govern the life of a converted man:—
“They who theorize respecting numbers, honor the number ten
as the parent of all the others, and as imparting perfection
to the human nativity. For my own part, I prefer viewing this
measure of time in reference to God, as if implying that the
ten months rather initiated man into _the ten commandments_; so
that the numerical estimate of the time needed to consummate
our natural birth should correspond to the numerical
classification of _the rules of our regenerate life_.”[668]
In showing the deep guilt involved in the violation of the seventh
commandment, Tertullian speaks of the sacredness of the commandments
which precede it, naming several of them in particular, and among them
the fourth, and then says of the precept against adultery that
It stands “in the very forefront of _the most holy law_, among
the _primary counts_ of the _celestial edict_.”[669]
Clement of Rome, or rather the author whose works have been ascribed to
this father, speaks thus of the decalogue as a test:—
“On account of those, therefore, who, by neglect of their own
salvation, please the evil one, and those who, by study of
their own profit, seek to please the good One, ten things have
been prescribed as a test to this present age, according to the
number of the ten plagues which were brought upon Egypt.”[670]
Novatian, who wrote about A. D. 250, is accounted the founder of the sect
called _Cathari_ or Puritans. He wrote a treatise on the Sabbath, which
is not extant. There is no reference to Sunday in any of his writings. He
makes the following striking remarks concerning the moral law:—
“The law was given to the children of Israel for this purpose,
that they might profit by it, and RETURN _to those virtuous
manners_ which, although _they had received them from their
fathers_, they had corrupted in Egypt by reason of their
intercourse with a barbarous people. Finally, also, those _ten
commandments_ on the tables teach nothing _new_, but _remind
them of what had been obliterated_—that righteousness in them,
which had been put to sleep, might revive again as it were by
the afflatus of the law, after the manner of a fire [nearly
extinguished].”[671]
It is evident that in the judgment of Novatian, the ten commandments
enjoined nothing that was not sacredly regarded by the patriarchs
before Jacob went down into Egypt. It follows, therefore, that, in his
opinion, the Sabbath was made, not at the fall of the manna, but when
God sanctified the seventh day, and that holy men from the earliest ages
observed it.
The Apostolical Constitutions, written about the third century, give us
an understanding of what was widely regarded in the third century as
apostolic doctrine. They speak thus of the ten commandments:—
“Have before thine eyes the fear of God, and always remember
the ten commandments of God,—to love the one and only Lord
God with all thy strength; to give no heed to idols, or any
other beings, as being lifeless gods, or irrational beings or
dæmons.”[672]
“He gave a plain law to assist the law of nature, such a
one as is pure, saving, and holy, in which his own name was
inscribed, perfect, which is never to fail, being complete in
ten commands, unspotted, converting souls.”[673]
This writer, like Irenæus, believed in the identity of the decalogue
with the law of nature. These testimonies show that in the writings of
the early fathers are some of the strongest utterances in behalf of the
perpetuity and authority of the ten commandments. Now let us hear what
they say concerning the origin of the Sabbath at creation. The epistle
ascribed to Barnabas, says:—
“And he says in another place, ‘If my sons keep the Sabbath,
then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them.’ The Sabbath is
mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: ‘And God
made in six days the works of his hands, and made an end on
the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it.’”[674]
Irenæus seems plainly to connect the origin of the Sabbath with the
sanctification of the seventh day:—
“These [things promised] are [to take place] in the times of
the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, which has been
sanctified, in which God rested from all his works which he
created, which is the true Sabbath, in which they shall not be
engaged in any earthly occupation.”[675]
Tertullian, likewise, refers the origin of the Sabbath to “the
benediction of the Father”:—
“But inasmuch as birth is also completed with the seventh
month, I more readily recognize in this number than in the
eighth the honor of a numerical agreement with the Sabbatical
period; so that the month in which God’s image is sometimes
produced in a human birth, shall in its number tally with the
day on which God’s creation was completed and _hallowed_.”[676]
“For even in the case before us he [Christ] fulfilled the law,
while interpreting its condition; [moreover] he exhibits in a
clear light the different kinds of work, while doing what the
law excepts from the sacredness of the Sabbath, [and] while
imparting to the Sabbath day itself which _from the beginning
had been consecrated by the benediction of the Father_, an
additional sanctity by his own beneficent action.”[677]
Origen, who, as we have seen, believed in a mystical Sabbath, did
nevertheless fix its origin at the sanctification of the seventh day:—
“For he [Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and
rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s
creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and
in which all those will keep festival with God who have done
all their works in their six days.”[678]
The testimony of Novatian which has been given relative to the sacredness
and authority of the decalogue plainly implies the existence of the
Sabbath in the patriarchal ages, and its observance by those holy men of
old. It was given to Israel that they might “RETURN to those _virtuous
manners_ which, although _they had received them from their fathers_,
they had corrupted in Egypt.” And he adds, “Those ten commandments on
the tables teach _nothing new_, but _remind_ them of what had been
obliterated.”[679] He did not, therefore, believe the Sabbath to have
originated at the fall of the manna, but counted it one of those things
which were practiced by their fathers before Jacob went down to Egypt.
Lactantius places the origin of the Sabbath at creation:—
“God completed the world and this admirable work of nature in
the space of six days (as is contained in the secrets of holy
Scripture) and CONSECRATED the seventh day on which he had
rested from his works. But this is the Sabbath day, which, in
the language of the Hebrews, received its name from the number,
whence the seventh is the legitimate and complete number.”[680]
In a poem on Genesis written about the time of Lactantius, but by an
unknown author, we have an explicit testimony to the divine appointment
of the seventh day to a holy use while man was yet in Eden, the garden of
God:—
“The seventh came, when God
At his work’s end did rest, DECREEING IT
SACRED UNTO THE COMING AGE’S JOYS.”[681]
The Apostolical Constitutions, while teaching the present obligation of
the Sabbath, plainly indicate its origin to have been at creation:—
“O Lord Almighty, thou hast created the world by Christ, and
_hast appointed the Sabbath in memory thereof_, because that
on that day thou hast made us rest from our works, for the
meditation upon thy laws.”[682]
Such are the testimonies of the early fathers to the primeval origin of
the Sabbath, and to the sacredness and perpetual obligation of the ten
commandments. We now call attention to what they say relative to the
perpetuity of the Sabbath, and to its observance in the centuries during
which they lived. Tertullian defines Christ’s relation to the Sabbath:—
“He was called ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ because he maintained the
Sabbath as his own institution.”[683]
He affirms that Christ did not abolish the Sabbath:—
“Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath: he kept the law
thereof, and both in the former case did a work which was
beneficial to the life of his disciples (for he indulged
them with the relief of food when they were hungry), and in
the present instance cured the withered hand; in each case
intimating by facts, ‘I came not to destroy the law, but to
fulfill it.’”[684]
Nor can it be said that while Tertullian denied that Christ abolished
the Sabbath he did believe that he transferred its sacredness from the
seventh day of the week to the first, for he continues thus:—
“He [Christ] exhibits in a clear light the different kinds of
work, while doing what the law excepts from the sacredness
of the Sabbath, [and] while imparting to the Sabbath day
itself, which from the beginning had been consecrated by the
benediction of the Father, an additional sanctity by his own
beneficent action. For he furnished _to this day_ DIVINE
SAFEGUARDS—_a course which his adversary would have pursued
for some other days_, to avoid honoring the Creator’s Sabbath,
and restoring to the Sabbath the works which were proper for
it.”[685]
This is a very remarkable statement. The modern doctrine of the change
of the Sabbath was unknown in Tertullian’s time. Had it then been in
existence, there could be no doubt that in the words last quoted he was
aiming at it a heavy blow; for the very thing which he asserts Christ’s
adversary, Satan, would have had him do, that modern first-day writers
assert he did do in consecrating another day instead of adding to the
sanctity of his Father’s Sabbath.
Archelaus of Cascar in Mesopotamia emphatically denies the abolition of
the Sabbath:—
“Again, as to the assertion that the Sabbath has been
abolished, we deny that he has abolished it plainly; for he was
himself also Lord of the Sabbath.”[686]
Justin Martyr, as we have seen, was an out-spoken opponent of Sabbatic
observance, and of the authority of the law of God. He was by no means
always candid in what he said. He has occasion to refer to those who
observed the seventh day, and he does it with contempt. Thus he says:—
“But if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such
institutions as were given by Moses (from which they expect
some virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reason of
the hardness of the people’s hearts), along with their hope
in this Christ, and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural
acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live with the
Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing
them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the
Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold
that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with
them in all things as kinsmen and brethren.”[687]
These words are spoken of Sabbath-keeping Christians. Such of them as
were of Jewish descent no doubt generally retained circumcision. But
there were many Gentile Christians who observed the Sabbath, as we shall
see, and it is not true that they observed circumcision. Justin speaks
of this class as acting from “weak-mindedness,” yet he inadvertently
alludes to the keeping of the commandments as the performance of
“the ETERNAL and NATURAL ACTS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS,” a most appropriate
designation indeed. Justin would fellowship those who act thus, provided
they would fellowship him in the contrary course. But though Justin, on
this condition, could fellowship these “weak-minded” brethren, he says
that there are those who “_do not venture to have any intercourse with,
or to extend hospitality to, such persons_; but I do not agree with
them.”[688] This shows the bitter spirit which prevailed in some quarters
toward the Sabbath, even as early as Justin’s time. Justin has no word of
condemnation for these intolerant professors; he is only solicitous lest
those persons who perform “the eternal and natural acts of righteousness
and piety” should condemn those who do not perform them.
Clement of Alexandria, though a mystical writer, bears an important
testimony to the perpetuity of the ancient Sabbath, and to man’s present
need thereof. He comments thus on the fourth commandment:—
“And the fourth word is that which intimates that the world
was created by God, and that _he gave us the seventh day as a
rest_, on account of the trouble that there is in life. For
God is incapable of weariness, and suffering, and want. _But
we who bear flesh need rest._ The seventh day, therefore, is
proclaimed a rest—abstraction from ills—preparing for the
primal day, our true rest.”[689]
Clement recognized the authority of the moral law; for he treats of the
ten commandments, one by one, and shows what each enjoins. He plainly
teaches that the Sabbath was made for man, and that he now needs it as a
day of rest, and his language implies that it was made at the creation.
But in the next paragraph, he makes some curious suggestions, which
deserve notice:—
“Having reached this point, we must mention these things by
the way; since the discourse has turned on the seventh and the
eighth. For the eighth may possibly turn out to be properly the
seventh, and the seventh manifestly the sixth, and the latter
properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work. For the
creation of the world was concluded in six days.”[690]
This language has been adduced to show that Clement called the eighth
day, or Sunday, the Sabbath. But first-day writers in general have not
dared to commit themselves to such an interpretation, and some of them
have expressly discarded it. Let us notice this statement with especial
care. He speaks of the ordinals seventh and eighth in the abstract, but
probably with reference to the days of the week. Observe then,
1. That he does not intimate that the eighth day has _become_ the Sabbath
in place of the seventh which was _once_ such, but he says that the
eighth day may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh.
2. That in Clement’s time, A. D. 194, there was not any confusion in the
minds of men as to which day was the ancient Sabbath, and which one was
the first day of the week, or eighth day, as it was often called, nor
does he intimate that there was.
3. But Clement, from some cause, says that possibly the eighth day
should be counted the seventh, and the seventh day the sixth. Now, if
this should be done, it would change the numbering of the days, not only
as far back as the resurrection of Christ, but all the way back to the
creation.
4. If, therefore, Clement, in this place, designed to teach that Sunday
is the Sabbath, he must also have held that it always had been such.
5. But observe that, while he changes the numbering of the days of the
week, he does not change the Sabbath from one day to another. He says
the eighth may possibly be the seventh, and the seventh, properly the
sixth, and the latter, or this one [Greek, ἡ μὲν κυρίως εἶυαι σάββατου,],
properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work.
6. By the latter must be understood the day last mentioned, which he says
should be called, not the seventh, but the sixth; and by the seventh
must certainly be intended that day which he says is not the eighth, but
the seventh, that is to say, Sunday.
There remains but one difficulty to be solved, and that is why he should
suggest the changing of the numbering of the days of the week by striking
one from the count of each day, thus making the Sabbath the sixth day
in the count instead of the seventh; and making Sunday the seventh day
in the count instead of the eighth. The answer seems to have eluded the
observation of the first-day and anti-Sabbatarian writers who have sought
to grasp it. But there is a fact which solves the difficulty. Clement’s
commentary on the fourth commandment, from which these quotations are
taken, is principally made up of curious observations on “the perfect
number six,” “the number seven motherless and childless,” and the number
eight, which is “a cube,” and the like matters, and is taken with some
change of arrangement almost word for word from Philo Judæus, a teacher
who flourished at Alexandria about one century before Clement. Whoever
will take pains to compare these two writers will find in Philo nearly
all the ideas and illustrations which Clement has used, and the very
language also in which he has expressed them.[691] Philo was a mystical
teacher to whom Clement looked up as to a master. A statement which we
find in Philo, in immediate connection with several curious ideas, which
Clement quotes from him, gives, beyond all doubt, the key to Clement’s
suggestion that possibly the eighth day should be called the seventh, and
the seventh day called the sixth. Philo said that, according to God’s
purpose, the first day of time was not to be numbered with the other days
of the creation week. Thus he says:—
“And he allotted each of the six days to one of the portions
of the whole, TAKING OUT THE FIRST DAY, which he does not even
call the first day, _that it may not be numbered with the
others_, but entitling it ONE, he names it rightly, perceiving
in it, and ascribing to it, the nature and appellation of the
limit.”[692]
This would simply change the numbering of the days, as counted by Philo,
and afterward partially adopted by Clement, and make the Sabbath, not
the seventh day, but the sixth, and Sunday, not the eighth day, but the
seventh; but it would still leave the Sabbath day and the Sunday the same
identical days as before. It would, however, give to the Sabbath the
name of sixth day, because the first of the six days of creation was not
counted; and it would cause the eighth day, so called in the early church
because of its coming next after the Sabbath, to be called seventh day.
Thus the Sabbath would be the sixth day, and the seventh a day of work,
and yet the Sabbath would be the identical day that it had ever been,
and the Sunday, though called seventh day, would still, as ever before,
remain a day on which ordinary labor was lawful. Of course, Philo’s
idea that the first day of time should not be counted, is wholly false;
for there is not one fact in the Bible to support it, but many which
expressly contradict it, and even Clement, with all deference to Philo,
only timidly suggests it. But when the matter is laid open, it shows that
Clement had no thought of calling Sunday the Sabbath, and that he does
expressly confirm what we have fully proved out of other of the fathers,
that Sunday was a day on which, in their judgment, labor was not sinful.
Tertullian, at different periods of his life, held different views
respecting the Sabbath, and committed them all to writing. We last quoted
from him a decisive testimony to the perpetuity of the Sabbath, coupled
with an equally decisive testimony against the sanctification of the
first day of the week. In another work, from which we have already quoted
his statement that Christians should not kneel on Sunday, we find another
statement that “some few” abstained from kneeling on the Sabbath. This
has probable reference to Carthage, where Tertullian lived. He speaks
thus:—
“In the matter of _kneeling_ also, prayer is subject to
diversity of observance, through the act of some few who
abstain from kneeling on the Sabbath; and since this dissension
is particularly on its trial before the churches, the Lord will
give his grace that the dissentients may either yield, or else
indulge their opinion without offense to others.”[693]
The act of standing in prayer was one of the chief honors conferred upon
Sunday. Those who refrained from kneeling on the seventh day, without
doubt did it because they desired to honor that day. This particular
act is of no consequence; for it was adopted in imitation of those who,
from tradition and custom, thus honored Sunday; but we have in this an
undoubted reference to Sabbath-keeping Christians. Tertullian speaks of
them, however, in a manner quite unlike that of Justin in his reference
to the commandment-keepers of his time.
Origen, like many other of the fathers, was far from being consistent
with himself. Though he has spoken against Sabbatic observance, and has
honored the so-called Lord’s day as something better than the ancient
Sabbath, he has nevertheless given a discourse expressly designed to
teach Christians the proper method of observing the Sabbath. Here is a
portion of this sermon:—
“But what is the feast of the Sabbath except that of which
the apostle speaks, ‘There remaineth therefore a Sabbatism,’
that is, the observance of the Sabbath by the people of
God? Leaving the Jewish observances of the Sabbath, let us
see how the Sabbath ought to be observed by a Christian. On
the Sabbath day all worldly labors ought to be abstained
from. If, therefore, you cease from all secular works, and
execute nothing worldly, but give yourselves up to spiritual
exercises, repairing to church, attending to sacred reading
and instruction, thinking of celestial things, solicitous for
the future, placing the Judgment to come before your eyes, not
looking to things present and visible, but to those which are
future and invisible, this is the observance of the Christian
Sabbath.”[694]
This is by no means a bad representation of the proper observance of the
Sabbath. Such a discourse addressed to Christians is a strong evidence
that many did then hallow that day. Some, indeed, have claimed that these
words were spoken concerning Sunday. They would have it that he contrasts
the observance of the first day with that of the seventh. But the
contrast is not between the different methods of keeping two days, but
between two methods of observing one day. The Jews in Origen’s time spent
the day mainly in mere abstinence from labor, and often added sensuality
to idleness. But the Christians were to observe it in divine worship, as
well as sacred rest. What day he intends cannot be doubtful. It is DIES
SABBATI, a term which can signify only the seventh day. Here is the first
instance of the term Christian Sabbath, _Sabbati Christiani_, and it is
expressly applied to the seventh day observed by Christians.
The longer form of the reputed epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians
was not written till after Origen’s time, but, though not written by
Ignatius, it is valuable for light which it sheds upon the existing
state of things at the time of its composition, and for marking the
progress which apostasy had made with respect to the Sabbath. Here is its
reference to the Sabbath and first day:—
“Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish
manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for ‘he that does not
work, let him not eat.’ For say the [holy] oracles, ‘In the
sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.’ But let every one
of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in
meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring
the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the
day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a
prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits
which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the
Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s day as a
festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all
the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet
declared, ‘To the end, for the eighth day,’ on which our life
both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained
in Christ.”[695]
This writer specifies the different things which made up the Jewish
observance of the Sabbath. They may be summed up under two heads. 1.
Strict abstinence from labor. 2. Dancing and carousal. Now, in the light
of what Origen has said, we can understand the contrast which this writer
draws between the Jewish and Christian observance of the Sabbath. The
error of the Jews in the first part of this was that they contented
themselves with mere bodily relaxation, without raising their thoughts to
God, the Creator, and this mere idleness soon gave place to sensual folly.
The Christian, as Origen draws the contrast, refrains from labor on the
Sabbath that he may raise his heart in grateful worship. Or, as this
writer draws it, the Christian keeps the Sabbath in a spiritual manner,
rejoicing in meditation on the law; but to do thus, he must hallow it
in the manner which that law commands, that is, in the observance of
a sacred rest which commemorates the rest of the Creator. The writer
evidently believed in the observance of the Sabbath as an act of
obedience to that law on which they were to meditate on that day. And
the nature of the epistle indicates that it was observed, at all events,
in the country where it was written. But mark the work of apostasy. The
so-called Lord’s day for which the writer could offer nothing better than
an argument drawn from the title of the sixth psalm (see its marginal
reading) is exalted above the Lord’s holy day, and made the queen of all
days!
The Apostolical Constitutions, though not written in apostolic times,
were in existence as early as the third century, and were then very
generally believed to express the doctrine of the apostles. They do
therefore furnish important historical testimony to the practice of the
church at that time, and also indicate the great progress which apostasy
had made. Guericke speaks thus of them:—
“This is a collection of ecclesiastical statutes purporting
to be the work of the apostolic age, but in reality formed
gradually in the second, third, and fourth centuries, and is of
much value in reference to the history of polity, and Christian
archæology generally.”[696]
Mosheim says of them:—
“The matter of this work is unquestionably ancient; since the
manners and discipline of which it exhibits a view are those
which prevailed amongst the Christians of the second and third
centuries, especially those resident in Greece and the oriental
regions.”[697]
These Constitutions indicate that the Sabbath was extensively observed in
the third century. They also show the standing of the Sunday festival in
that century. After solemnly enjoining the sacred observance of the ten
commandments, they thus enforce the Sabbath:—
“Consider the manifold workmanship of God, which received its
beginning through Christ. Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on
account of Him who ceased from his work of creation, but ceased
not from his work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of
the law, not for idleness of the hands.”[698]
This is sound Sabbatarian doctrine. To show how distinctly these
Constitutions recognize the decalogue as the foundation of Sabbatic
authority we quote the words next preceding the above, though we have
quoted them on another occasion:—
“Have before thine eyes the fear of God, and always remember
the ten commandments of God,—to love the one and only Lord
God with all thy strength; to give no heed to idols, or any
other beings, as being lifeless gods, or irrational beings or
dæmons.”[699]
But though these Constitutions thus recognize the authority of the
decalogue and the sacred obligation of the seventh day, they elevate the
Sunday festival in some respects to higher honor than the Sabbath, though
they claim for it no precept of the Scriptures. Thus they say:—
“But keep the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day festival; because the
former is the memorial of the creation, and the latter of the
resurrection.”[700]
“For the Sabbath is the ceasing of the creation, the completion
of the world, the inquiry after laws, and the grateful praise
to God for the blessings he has bestowed upon men. All which
the Lord’s day excels, and shows the Mediator himself, the
Provider, the Law-giver, the Cause of the resurrection, the
First-born of the whole creation.”[701]
“So that the Lord’s day commands us to offer unto thee, O Lord,
thanksgiving for all. For this is the grace afforded by thee,
which, on account of its greatness, has obscured all other
blessings.”[702]
Tested by his own principles, the writer of these Constitutions was far
advanced in apostasy; for he held a festival, for which he claimed no
divine authority, more honorable than one which he acknowledged to be
ordained of God. There could be but one step more in this course, and
that would be to set aside the commandment of God for the ordinance of
man, and this step was not very long afterward actually taken. One other
point should be noticed. It is said:—
“Let the slaves work five days; but on the Sabbath day and
the Lord’s day let them have leisure to go to church for
instruction in piety.”[703]
The question of the sinfulness of labor on either of these days is not
here taken into the account; for the reason assigned is that the slaves
may have leisure to attend public worship. But while these Constitutions
elsewhere forbid labor on the Sabbath on the authority of the decalogue,
they do not forbid it upon the first day of the week. Take the following
as an example:—
“O Lord Almighty, thou hast created the world by Christ, and
hast appointed the Sabbath in memory thereof, because that _on
that day_ thou hast made us _rest from our works_, for the
meditation upon thy laws.”[704]
The Apostolical Constitutions are valuable to us, not as authority
respecting the teaching of the apostles, but as giving us a knowledge of
the views and practices which prevailed in the third century. As these
Constitutions were extensively regarded as embodying the doctrine of the
apostles, they furnish conclusive evidence that, at the time when they
were put in writing, the ten commandments were very generally revered
as the immutable rule of right, and that the Sabbath of the Lord was by
many observed as an act of obedience to the fourth commandment, and as
the divine memorial of the creation. They also show that the first-day
festival had, in the third century, attained such strength and influence
as to clearly indicate that ere long it would claim the entire ground.
But observe that the Sabbath and the so-called Lord’s day were then
regarded as distinct institutions, and that no hint of the change of the
Sabbath from the seventh day to the first is even once given.
Thus much out of the fathers concerning the authority of the decalogue,
and concerning the perpetuity and observance of the ancient Sabbath. The
suppression of the Sabbath of the Bible, and the elevation of Sunday to
its place, has been shown to be in no sense the work of the Saviour. But
so great a work required the united action of powerful causes, and these
causes we now enumerate.
1. _Hatred toward the Jews._ This people, who retained the ancient
Sabbath, had slain Christ. It was easy for men to forget that Christ, as
Lord of the Sabbath, had claimed it as his own institution, and to call
the Sabbath a Jewish institution which Christians should not regard.[705]
2. _The hatred of the church of Rome toward the Sabbath, and its
determination to elevate Sunday to the highest place._ This church, as
the chief in the work of apostasy, took the lead in the earliest effort
to suppress the Sabbath by turning it into a fast. And the very first act
of papal aggression was by an edict in behalf of Sunday. Thenceforward,
in every possible form, this church continued this work until the pope
announced that he had received a divine mandate for Sunday observance
[the very thing lacking] in a roll which fell from Heaven.
3. _The voluntary observance of memorable days._ In the Christian church,
almost from the beginning, men voluntarily honored the fourth, the sixth,
and the first days of the week, and also the anniversary of the Passover
and the Pentecost, to commemorate the betrayal, the death, and the
resurrection, of Christ, and the descent of the Holy Spirit, which acts
in themselves could not be counted sinful.
4. _The making of tradition of equal authority with the Scriptures._ This
was the great error of the early church, and the one to which that church
was specially exposed, as having in it those who had seen the apostles,
or who had seen those who had seen them. It was this which rendered the
voluntary observance of memorable days a dangerous thing. For what began
as a voluntary observance became, after the lapse of a few years, a
standing custom, established by tradition, which must be obeyed because
it came from those who had seen the apostles, or from those who had seen
others who had seen them. This is the origin of the various errors of the
great apostasy.
5. _The entrance of the no-law heresy._ This is seen in Justin Martyr,
the earliest witness to the Sunday festival, and in the church of Rome of
which he was then a member.
6. _The extensive observance of Sunday as a heathen festival._ The first
day of the week corresponded to the widely observed heathen festival
of the sun. It was therefore easy to unite the honor of Christ in the
observance of the day of his resurrection with the convenience and
worldly advantage of his people in having the same festival day with
their heathen neighbors, and to make it a special act of piety in that
the conversion of the heathen was thereby facilitated, while the neglect
of the ancient Sabbath was justified by stigmatizing that divine memorial
as a Jewish institution with which Christians should have no concern.