TRACES OF THE SABBATH DURING THE DARK AGES.
The Dark Ages defined—Difficulty of tracing the people
of God during this period—The Sabbath effectually
suppressed in the Catholic church at the close of the fifth
century—Sabbath-keepers in Rome about A. D. 600—The Culdees
of Great Britain—Columba probably a Sabbath-keeper—The
Waldenses—Their antiquity—Their wide extent—Their
peculiarities—Sabbatarian character of a part of this
people—Important facts respecting the Waldenses and the
Romanists—Other bodies of Sabbatarians—The Cathari—The
Arnoldistæ—The Passaginians—The Petrobruysians—Gregory VII.
about A. D. 1074 condemns the Sabbath-keepers—The Sabbath
in Constantinople in the eleventh century—A portion of the
Anabaptists—Sabbatarians in Abyssinia and Ethiopia—The
Armenians of the East Indies—The Sabbath retained through the
Dark Ages by those who were not in the communion of the Romish
church.
With the accession of the Roman bishop to supremacy began the Dark
Ages;[864] and as he increased in strength, the gloom of darkness settled
with increasing intensity upon the world. The highest elevation of the
papal power marks the latest point in the Dark Ages before the first
gray dawn of twilight.[865] That power was providentially weakened
preparatory to the reformation of the sixteenth century, when the light
of advancing day began to manifestly dissipate the gross darkness which
covered the earth. The difficulty of tracing the true people of God
through this period is well set forth in the following language of
Benedict:—
“As scarcely any fragment of their history remains, all we
know of them is from accounts of their enemies, which were
always uttered in the style of censure and complaint; and
without which we should not have known that millions of them
ever existed. It was the settled policy of Rome to obliterate
every vestige of opposition to her doctrines and decrees;
everything heretical, whether persons or writings, by which the
faithful would be liable to be contaminated and led astray.
In conformity to this their fixed determination, all books
and records of their opposers were hunted up and committed
to the flames. Before the art of printing was discovered in
the fifteenth century, all books were made with the pen; the
copies, of course, were so few that their concealment was much
more difficult than it would be now; and if a few of them
escaped the vigilance of the inquisitors, they would soon be
worn out and gone. None of them could be admitted and preserved
in the public libraries of the Catholics, from the ravages of
time and of the hands of barbarians with which all parts of
Europe were at different periods overwhelmed.”[866]
The first five centuries of the Christian era accomplished the
suppression of the Sabbath in those churches which were under the
special control of the Roman pontiff. Thenceforward we must look for the
observers of the Sabbath outside the communion of the church of Rome. It
was predicted that the Roman power should cast down the truth to the
ground.[867] The Scriptures set forth the law of God as his truth.[868]
The Dark Ages were the result of this work of the great apostasy. So
dense and all-pervading was the darkness, that God’s pure truth was more
or less obscured even with the true people of God in their places of
retirement.
About the year 600, as we have seen, there was in the city of Rome
itself a class of Sabbath-keeping Christians who were very strict in
the observance of the fourth commandment. It has been said of them that
they joined with this a strict abstinence from labor on Sunday. But Dr.
Twisse, a learned first-day writer who has particularly examined the
record respecting them, asserts that this Sunday observance pertained to
“other persons, different from the former.”[869] These Sabbath-keepers
were not Romanists, and the pope denounced them in strong language.
The Christians of Great Britain, before the mission of Augustine to that
country, A. D. 596, were not in subjection to the bishop of Rome. They
were in an eminent degree Bible Christians. They are thus described:—
“The Scottish church, when it first meets the eye of
civilization, is not Romish, nor even prelatical. When the
monk Augustine, with his forty missionaries, in the time of
the Saxon Heptarchy, came over to Britain under the auspices
of Gregory, the bishop of Rome, to convert the barbarian
Saxons, he found the northern part of the island already
well-nigh filled with Christians and Christian institutions.
These Christians were the Culdees, whose chief seat was the
little island of Hi or Iona, on the western coast of Scotland.
An Irish presbyter, Columba, feeling himself stirred with
missionary zeal, and doubtless knowing the wretched condition
of the savage Scots and Picts, in the year 565, took with him
twelve other missionaries, and passed over to Scotland. They
fixed their settlement on the little island just named, and
from that point became the missionaries of all Scotland, and
even penetrated into England.[870]
“The people in the south of England converted by Augustine and
his assistants, and those in the north who had been won by
Culdee labor, soon met, as Christian conquest advanced from
both sides; and when they came together, it was soon seen
that Roman and Culdee Christianity very decidedly differed in
a great many respects. The Culdees, for the most part, had a
simple and primitive form of Christianity, while Rome presented
a vast accumulation of superstitions, and was arrayed in her
well-known pomp.[871]
“The Culdee went to Iona that in quiet, with meditation, study,
and prayer, he might fit himself for going out into the world
as a missionary. Indeed, Iona was a great mission institute,
where preachers were trained who evangelized the rude tribes of
Scotland in a very short time. To have done such a work as this
in less than half a century implies apostolic activity, purity,
and success.[872]
“After the success of Agustine and his monks in England, the
Culdees had shut themselves up within the limits of Scotland,
and had resisted for centuries all the efforts of Rome to win
them over. At last, however, they were overthrown by their own
rulers.”[873]
There is strong incidental evidence that Columba, the leading minister
of his time among the Culdees, was an observer of the ancient Sabbath
of the Bible. On this point I quote two standard authors of the Roman
Catholics. They certainly have no motive to put such words as I here
quote, fraudulently into the mouth of Columba, for they claim him as a
saint, and they are no friends of the Bible Sabbath. Nor can we see how
Columba could have used these words with satisfaction, as he evidently
did, when dying, had he all his life long been a violator of the ancient
rest-day of the Lord. Here are the words of Dr. Alvan Butler:—
“Having continued his labors in Scotland thirty-four years,
he clearly and openly foretold his death, and on Saturday the
ninth of June said to his disciple Diermit: ‘This day is called
the Sabbath, that is, the day of rest, and such will it truly
be to me; for it will put an end to my labors.’”[874]
Another distinguished Catholic author gives us his dying words thus:—
“To-day is Saturday, the day which the Holy Scriptures call the
Sabbath, or rest. And it will be truly my day of rest, for it
shall be the last of my laborious life.”[875]
These words show, 1. That Columba believed that Saturday was the true
Bible Sabbath. 2. That he did not believe the Sabbath had been changed to
Sunday. 3. That this confession of faith respecting the Bible Sabbath was
made with evident satisfaction, though in view of immediate death. Did
any first-day man ever recur with pleasure on his death-bed to the fact
that Saturday is the Bible Sabbath?
But Gilfillan quotes these words of Columba as spoken in behalf of
Sunday! In giving a list of eminent men who have asserted the change of
the Sabbath, or who have called Sunday the Sabbath, and have taught that
it should be observed as a day of sacred rest, he brings in Columba
thus:—
“The testimony of Columba is specially interesting, as it
expresses the feelings of the heart at a moment which tests
the sincerity of faith, and the value of a creed: ‘This day,’
he said to his servant, ‘in the sacred volume is called the
Sabbath, that is, rest; and will indeed be a Sabbath to me,
for it is to me the last day of this toilsome life, the
day on which I am to rest (sabbatize), after all my labors
and troubles, for on this coming sacred night of the Lord
(_Dominica nocte_), at the midnight hour, I shall, as the
Scriptures speak, go the way of my fathers.’”[876]
But this day which Columba said “will indeed be a Sabbath to me” was not
Sunday but Saturday.
Among the dissenters from the Romish church in the period of the Dark
Ages, the first place perhaps is due to the Waldenses, both for their
antiquity and the wide extent of their influence and doctrine. Benedict
quotes from their enemies respecting the antiquity of their origin:—
“We have already observed from Claudius Seyssel, the popish
archbishop, that one Leo was charged with originating the
Waldensian heresy in the valleys, in the days of Constantine
the Great. When those severe measures emanated from the Emperor
Honorious against rebaptizers, the Baptists left the seat of
opulence and power, and sought retreats in the country, and in
the valleys of Piedmont; which last place in particular became
their retreat from imperial oppression.”[877]
Dean Waddington quotes the following from Rainer Saccho, a popish writer,
who had the best means of information respecting them:—
“There is no sect so dangerous as the Leonists, for three
reasons: first, it is the most ancient—some say as old as
Sylvester [pope in Constantine’s time], others as the apostles
themselves. Secondly, it is very generally disseminated: there
is no country where it has not gained some footing. Thirdly,
while other sects are profane and blasphemous, this retains the
utmost show of piety; they live justly before men, and believe
nothing respecting God which is not good.”[878]
Mr. Jones gives Saccho’s own opinion as follows:—
“Their enemies confirm their great antiquity. Reinerius Saccho,
an inquisitor, and one of their most cruel persecutors, who
lived only eighty years after Waldo [A. D. 1160], admits
that the Waldenses flourished five hundred years before that
preacher. Gretser, the Jesuit, who also wrote against the
Waldenses, and had examined the subject fully, not only admits
their great antiquity, but declares his firm belief that the
Toulousians and Albigenses condemned in the years 1177 and
1178, were no other than the Waldenses.”[879]
Jortin dates their withdrawal into the wilderness of the Alps as follows:—
“A. D. 601. In the seventh century, Christianity was propagated
in China by the Nestorians; and the Valdenses, who abhorred the
papal usurptions, are supposed to have settled themselves in
the valleys of Piedmont. Monkery flourished prodigiously, and
the monks and popes were in the firmest union.”[880]
President Edwards says:—
“Some of the popish writers themselves own, that this people
never submitted to the church of Rome. One of the popish
writers, speaking of the Waldenses, says, The heresy of the
Waldenses is the oldest heresy in the world. It is supposed
that they first betook themselves to this place among the
mountains, to hide themselves from the severity of the heathen
persecutions which existed before Constantine the Great. And
thus the woman fled into the wilderness from the face of the
serpent. Rev. 12:6, 14. ‘And to the woman were given two wings
of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into
her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and
half a time, from the face of the serpent.’ The people being
settled there, their posterity continued [there] from age to
age; and being, as it were, by natural walls, as well as by
God’s grace, separated from the rest of the world, they never
partook of the overflowing corruption.”[881]
Benedict makes other quotations relative to their origin:—
“Theodore Belvedre, a popish monk, says that the heresy had
always been in the valleys. In the preface to the French Bible
the translators say that they [the Waldenses] have always had
the full enjoyment of the heavenly truth contained in the Holy
Scriptures ever since they were enriched with the same by the
apostles; having in fair MSS. preserved the entire Bible in
their native tongue from generation to generation.”[882]
Of the extent to which they spread in the countries of Europe, Benedict
thus speaks:—
“In the thirteenth century, from the accounts of Catholic
historians, all of whom speak of the Waldenses in terms of
complaint and reproach, they had founded individual churches,
or were spread out in colonies in Italy, Spain, Germany,
the Netherlands, Bohemia, Poland, Lithuania, Albania,
Lombardy, Milan, Romagna, Vicenza, Florence, Veleponetine,
Constantinople, Philadelphia, Sclavonia, Bulgaria, Diognitia,
Livonia, Sarmatia, Croatia, Dalmatia, Briton and Piedmont.”[883]
And Dr. Edgar gives the words of an old historian as follows:—
“The Waldensians, says Popliner, spread, not only through
France, but also through nearly all the European coasts, and
appeared in Gaul, Spain, England, Scotland, Italy, Germany,
Bohemia, Saxony, Poland, and Lithuania.”[884]
According to the testimony of their enemies, they were to some extent
divided among themselves. Dr. Allix quotes an old Romish writer who says
of that portion of them who were called Cathari:—
“They are also divided amongst themselves; so what some of them
say is again denied by others.”[885]
And Crosby makes a similar statement:—
“There were several sects of Waldenses or Albigenses, like as
there are of Dissenters in England. Some of these did deny all
baptism, others only the baptism of infants. That many of them
were of this latter opinion, is affirmed in several histories
of this people, as well ancient as modern.”[886]
Some of their enemies affirm that they reject the Old Testament;
but others, with much greater truthfulness, bear a very different
testimony.[887] Thus a Romish inquisitor, as quoted by Allix, bears
testimony concerning those in Bohemia:—
“They can say a great part of the Old and New Testaments
by heart. They despise the decretals, and the sayings and
expositions of holy men, and only cleave to the text of
Scripture.... [They say] that the doctrine of Christ and
the apostles is sufficient to salvation, without any church
statutes and ordinances. That the traditions of the church
are no better than the traditions of the Pharisees; and that
greater stress is laid on the observation of human traditions
than on the keeping of the law of God. Why do you transgress
the law of God by your traditions?... They contemn all
approved ecclesiastical customs which they do not read of in
the gospel, as the observation of Candlemas, Palm Sunday, the
reconciliation of penitents, the adoration of the cross on
Good Friday. They despise the feast of Easter, and all other
festivals of Christ and the saints, because of their being
multiplied to that vast number, and say that one day is as
good as another, and work upon holy days, where they can do it
without being taken notice of.”[888]
Dr. Allix quotes a Waldensian document of A. D. 1100, entitled the “Noble
Lesson,” and remarks:—
“The author upon supposal that the world was drawing to an
end, exhorts his brethren to prayer, to watchfulness, to a
renouncing of all worldly goods....
“He sets down all the judgments of God in the Old Testament
as the effects of a just and good God; and in particular the
decalogue as a law given by the Lord of the whole world. He
repeats the several articles of the law, not forgetting that
which respects idols.”[889]
Their religious views are further stated by Allix:—
“They declare themselves to be the apostles’ successors,
to have apostolical authority, and the keys of binding and
loosing. They hold the church of Rome to be the whore of
Babylon, and that all that obey her are damned, especially
the clergy that are subject to her since the time of Pope
Sylvester.... They hold that none of the ordinances of the
church that have been introduced since Christ’s ascension
ought to be observed, as being of no worth; the feasts, fasts,
orders, blessings, offices of the church and the like, they
utterly reject.”[890]
A considerable part of the people called Waldenses bore the significant
designation of _Sabbati_, or _Sabbatati_, or _Insabbatati_. Mr. Jones
alludes to this fact in the following words:—
“Because they would not observe saints’ days, they were falsely
supposed to neglect the Sabbath also, and called _Insabbatati_
or _Insabbathists_.”[891]
Mr. Benedict makes the following statement:—
“We find that the Waldenses were sometimes called
_Insabbathos_, that is, regardless of Sabbaths. Mr. Milner
supposes this name was given to them because they observed
not the Romish festivals, and rested from their ordinary
occupations only on Sundays. A Sabbatarian would suppose that
it was because they met for worship on the seventh day, and did
regard not the first-day Sabbath.”[892]
Mr. Robinson gives the statements of three classes of writers respecting
the meaning of these names, which were borne by the Waldenses. But
he rejects them all, alleging that these persons were led to these
conclusions by the apparent meaning of the words, and not by the facts.
Here are his words:—
“Some of these Christians were called _Sabbati_, _Sabbatati_,
_Insabbatati_, and more frequently _Inzabbatati_. Led astray
by sound without attending to facts, one says they were so
named from the Hebrew word Sabbath, because they kept the
Saturday for the Lord’s day. Another says they were so called
because they rejected all the festivals or Sabbaths in the low
Latin sense of the word, which the Catholic church religiously
observed. A third says, and many with various alterations and
additions have said after him, they were called so from _sabot_
or _zabot_, a shoe, because they distinguished themselves
from other people by wearing shoes marked on the upper part
with some peculiarity. Is it likely that people who could not
descend from their mountains without hazarding their lives
through the furious zeal of the inquisitors, should tempt
danger by affixing a visible mark on their shoes? Besides the
shoe of the peasants happens to be famous in this country; it
was of a different fashion, and was called abarca.”[893]
Mr. Robinson rejects these three statements, and then gives his own
judgment that they were so called because they lived in the mountains.
These four views cover all that has been advanced relative to the meaning
of these names. But Robinson’s own explanation is purely fanciful, and
seems to have been adopted by no other writer. He offers, however,
conclusive reasons for rejecting the statement that they took their name
from their shoes. There remain, therefore, only the first and second
of these four statements, which are that they were called by these
names because they kept the Saturday for the Lord’s day, and because
they did not keep the sabbaths of the papists. These two statements
do not conflict. In fact, if one of them be true, it almost certainly
follows that the other one must be true also. There would be in such
facts something worthy to give a distinguishing name to the true
people of God, surrounded by the great apostasy; and the natural and
obvious interpretation of the names would disclose the most striking
characteristic of the people who bore them.
Jones and Benedict agree with Robinson in rejecting the idea that the
Waldenses received these names from their shoes. Mr. Jones held, on
the contrary, that they were given them because they did not keep the
Romish festivals.[894] Mr. Benedict favors the view that it was because
they kept the seventh day.[895] But let us now see who they are that
make these statements respecting the observance of the Sabbath by the
Waldenses, that Robinson alludes to in this place. He quotes out of
Gretser the words of the historian Goldastus as follows:—
“Insabbatati [they were called] not because they were
circumcised, but because they kept the Jewish Sabbath.”[896]
Goldastus was “a learned historian and jurist, born near Bischofszell in
Switzerland in 1576.” He died in 1635.[897] He was a Calvinist writer of
note.[898] He certainly had no motive to favor the cause of the seventh
day. Gretser objects to his statement on the ground that the Waldenses
exterminated every festival; but this was the most natural thing in the
world for men who had God’s own rest-day in their keeping. Gretser still
further objects that the Waldenses denied the whole Old Testament; but
this charge is an utter misrepresentation, as we have already shown in
the present chapter.
Robinson also quotes on this point the testimony of Archbishop Usher.
Though that prelate held that the Waldenses derived these names from
their shoes, he frankly acknowledges that MANY understood that they
were given to them because they worshiped on the Jewish Sabbath. This
testimony is valuable in that it shows that many early writers asserted
the observance of “the Saturday for the Lord’s day” by the people who
were called Sabbatati.[899]
In consequence of the persecutions which they suffered, and because also
of their own missionary zeal, the people called Waldenses were widely
scattered over Europe. They bore, however, various names in different
ages and in different countries. We have decisive testimony that some
of these bodies observed the seventh day. Others observed Sunday. Eneas
Sylvius says that those in Bohemia hold “that we are to cease from
working on no day except the Lord’s day.”[900] This statement, let it
be observed, relates only to Bohemia. But it has been asserted that
the Waldenses were so distinct from the church of Rome they could not
have received the Sunday Lord’s day from thence, and must, therefore,
have received it from the apostles! But a few words from D’Aubigné will
suffice to show that this statement is founded in error. He describes an
interview between Œcolampadius and two Waldensian pastors who had been
sent by their brethren from the borders of France and Piedmont, to open
communication with the reformers. It was at Basle, in 1530. Many things
which they said pleased Œcolampadius, but some things he disapproved.
D’Aubigné makes this statement:—
“The barbes [the Waldensian pastors] were at first a little
confused at seeing that the elders had to learn of their
juniors; however, they were humble and sincere men, and the
Basle doctor having questioned them on the sacraments, they
confessed that through weakness and fear _they had their
children baptized by Romish priests_, and that _they even
communicated with them and sometimes attended mass_. This
unexpected avowal startled the meek Œcolampadius.”[901]
When the deputation returned word to the Waldenses that the reformers
demanded of them “a stricter reform,” D’Aubigné says that it was
“supported by some, and rejected by others.” He also informs us that the
demand that the Waldenses should “separate entirely from Rome” “caused
divisions among them.”[902]
This is a very remarkable statement. The light of many of these ancient
witnesses was almost ready to go out in darkness when God raised up the
reformers. They had suffered that woman Jezebel to teach among them, and
to seduce the servants of God. They had even come to practice infant
baptism, and the priests of Rome administered the rite! And in addition
to all this, they sometimes joined with them in the service of the mass!
If a portion of the Waldenses in southern Europe at the time of the
Reformation had exchanged believers’ baptism for the baptism of children
by Romish priests, it is not difficult to see how they could also accept
the Sunday-Lord’s day from the same source in place of the hallowed
rest-day of the Lord. All had not done this, but some certainly had.
D’Aubigné makes a very interesting statement respecting the French
Waldenses in the fifteenth century. His language implies that they had
a different Sabbath from the Catholics. He tells us some of the stories
which the priests circulated against the Waldenses. These are his words:—
“Picardy in the north and Dauphiny in the south were the two
provinces of France best prepared [at the opening of the
Protestant Reformation] to receive the gospel. During the
fifteenth century many Picardins, as the story ran, went to
_Vaudery_. Seated round the fire during the long nights,
simple Catholics used to tell one another how the _Vaudois_
(Waldenses) met in horrible assembly in solitary places, where
they found tables spread with numerous and dainty viands. These
poor Christians loved indeed to meet together from districts
often very remote. They went to the rendezvous by night and
along by-roads. The most learned of them used to recite some
passages of Scripture, after which they conversed together
and prayed. But such humble conventicles were ridiculously
travestied. ‘Do you know what they do to get there,’ said the
people, ‘so that the officers may not stop them? The devil
has given them a certain ointment, and when they want to go
to _Vaudery_, they smear a little stick with it. As soon as
they get astride it, they are carried up through the air, and
arrive at _their Sabbath_ without meeting anybody. In the midst
of them sits a goat with a monkey’s tail: this is Satan, who
receives their adoration.’... These stupid stories were not
peculiar to the people: they were circulated particularly by
the monks. It was thus that the inquisitor Jean de Broussart
spoke in 1460 from a pulpit erected in the great square at
Arras. An immense multitude surrounded him; a scaffold was
erected in front of the pulpit, and a number of men and women,
kneeling and wearing caps with the figure of the devil painted
on them, awaited their punishment. Perhaps the faith of these
poor people was mingled with error. But be that as it may, they
were all burnt alive after the sermon.”[903]
It seems that these Waldenses had a Sabbath peculiar to themselves. And
D’Aubigné himself alludes to something peculiar in their faith which he
cannot confess as the truth, and does not choose to denounce as error. He
says, “Perhaps the faith of these poor people was mingled with error.” To
speak of the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord by
New-Testament Christians, subjects a conscientious first-day historian to
this very dilemma. We have a further account of the Waldenses in France,
just before the commencement of the Reformation of the sixteenth century:—
“Louis XII., king of France, being informed by the enemies of
the Waldenses inhabiting a part of the province of Provence,
that several heinous crimes were laid to their account, sent
the Master of Requests, and a certain doctor of the Sorbonne,
who was confessor to His Majesty, to make inquiry into this
matter. On their return, they reported that they had visited
all the parishes where they dwelt, had inspected their places
of worship, but that they had found there no images, nor
signs of the ornaments belonging to the mass, nor any of the
ceremonies of the Romish church; much less could they discover
any traces of those crimes with which they were charged. On the
contrary, they kept the Sabbath day, observed the ordinance
of baptism according to the primitive church, instructed
their children in the articles of the Christian faith and the
commandments of God. The king having heard the report of his
commissioners, said with an oath that they were better men than
himself or his people.”[904]
We further read concerning the Vaudois, or Waldenses, as follows:—
“The respectable French historian, De Thou, says that the
Vaudois keep the commandments of the decalogue, and allow among
them of no wickedness, detesting perjuries, imprecations,
quarrels, seditions, &c.”[905]
It maybe proper to add that in 1686 the Waldenses were all driven out
of the valleys of Piedmont, and that those who returned and settled in
those valleys three years afterward, and from whom the present race of
Waldenses is descended, fought their way back, sword in hand, pursuing
in all respects a course entirely different from that of the ancient
Waldenses.[906]
Another class of witnesses to the truth during the Dark Ages, bore the
name of Cathari, that is, Puritans. Jones speaks of them as follows:—
“They were a plain, unassuming, harmless, and industrious race
of Christians, patiently bearing the cross after Christ, and,
both in their doctrines and manners, condemning the whole
system of idolatry and superstition which reigned in the
church of Rome, placing true religion in the faith, hope and
obedience of the gospel, maintaining a supreme regard to the
authority of God in his word, and regulating their sentiments
and practices by that divine standard. Even in the twelfth
century their numbers abounded in the neighborhood of Cologne,
in Flanders, the South of France, Savoy, and Milan. ‘They were
increased,’ says Egbert, ‘to great multitudes, throughout all
countries.’”[907]
That the Cathari did retain and observe the ancient Sabbath, is certified
by their Romish adversaries. Dr. Allix quotes a Roman Catholic author of
the twelfth century concerning three sorts of heretics, the Cathari, the
Passagii, and the Arnoldistæ. Allix says of this Romish writer that,
“He lays it down also as one of their opinions, ‘that the
law of Moses is to be kept according to the letter, and that
the keeping of the Sabbath, circumcision, and other legal
observances, ought to take place. They hold also that Christ
the Son of God is not equal with the Father, and that the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, these three persons, are not one
God and one substance; and as a surplus to these their errors,
they judge and condemn all the doctors of the church, and
universally the whole Roman church. Now since they endeavor
to defend this their error by testimonies drawn from the New
Testament and prophets, I shall with [the] assistance of the
grace of Christ stop their mouths, as David did Goliah’s, with
their own sword.’”[908]
Dr. Allix quotes another Romish author to the same effect:—
“Alanus attributes to the Cathari almost the very same opinions
[as those just enumerated] in his first book against heretics,
which he wrote about the year 1192.”[909]
Mr. Elliott mentions an incident concerning the Cathari, which is in
harmony with what these historians assert respecting their observance of
the seventh day. He says:—
“In this year [A. D. 1163] certain heretics of the sect of the
Cathari, coming from the parts of Flanders to Cologne, took
up their abode secretly in a barn near the city. But, as _on
the Lord’s day_ they did not go to church, they were seized
by the neighbors, and detected. On their being brought before
the Catholic church, when, after long examination respecting
their sect, they would be convinced by no evidence however
convincing, but most pertinaciously persisted in their doctrine
and resolution, they were cast out from the church, and
delivered into the hands of laics. These, leading them without
the city committed them to the flames: being four men and one
little girl.”[910]
These statements are made respecting three classes of Christian people
who lived during the Dark Ages: The Cathari, or Puritans, the Arnoldistæ,
and the Passaginians. Their views are presented in the uncandid language
of their enemies. But the testimony of ancient Catholic historians is
decisive that they were observers of the seventh day. The charge that
they observed circumcision also, will be noticed presently. Mr. Robinson
understands that the Passaginians were that portion of the Waldenses who
lived in the passes of the mountains. He says:—
“It is very credible that the name Passageros or Passagini ...
was given to such of them as lived in or near the passes or
passages of the mountains, and who subsisted in part by guiding
travelers or by traveling themselves for trade.”[911]
Mr. Elliott says of the _name_ Passagini:—
“The explanation of the term as meaning _Pilgrims_, in both the
spiritual and missionary sense of the word, would be but the
translation of their recognized Greek appellation εκδημοι, and
a title as distinctive as beautiful.”[912]
Mosheim gives the following account of them:—
“In Lombardy, which was the principal residence of the Italian
heretics, there sprung up a singular sect, known, for what
reason I cannot tell, by the denomination of Passaginians, and
also by that of the circumcised. Like the other sects already
mentioned, they had the utmost aversion to the dominion and
discipline of the church of Rome; but they were at the same
time distinguished by two religious tenets which were peculiar
to themselves. The first was a notion that the observance
of the law of Moses, in everything except the offering of
sacrifices, was obligatory upon Christians; in consequence
of which they circumcised their followers, abstained from
those meats the use of which was prohibited under the Mosaic
economy, and celebrated the Jewish Sabbath. The second tenet
that distinguished this sect was advanced in opposition to the
doctrine of three persons in the divine nature.”[913]
Mr. Benedict speaks of them as follows:—
“The account of their practicing circumcision is undoubtedly
a slanderous story forged by their enemies, and probably
arose in this way: because they observed the seventh day they
were called by way of derision, Jews, as the Sabbatarians are
frequently at this day; and if they were Jews, it followed of
course that they either did, or ought to, circumcise their
followers. This was probably the reasoning of their enemies;
but that they actually practiced the bloody rite is altogether
improbable.”[914]
An eminent church historian, Michael Geddes, thus testifies:—
“This [act] of fixing something that is justly abominable
to all mankind upon her adversaries, has been the constant
practice of the church of Rome.”[915]
Dr. Allix states the same fact, which needs to be kept in mind whenever
we read of the people of God in the records of the Dark Ages:—
“I must desire the reader to consider that it is no great sin
with the church of Rome to spread lies concerning those that
are enemies of that faith.”[916]
“There is nothing more common with the Romish party than to
make use of the most horrid calumnies to blacken and expose
those who have renounced her communion.”[917]
Of the origin of the Petrobrusians, we have the following account by Mr.
Jones:—
“But the Cathari or Puritans were not the only sect which,
during the twelfth century, appeared in opposition to the
superstition of the church of Rome. About the year 1110,
in the south of France, in the provinces of Languedoc and
Provence, appeared Peter de Bruys, preaching the gospel of the
kingdom of Heaven, and exerting the most laudable efforts to
reform the abuses and remove the superstition which disfigured
the beautiful simplicity of the gospel worship. His labors
were crowned with abundant success. He converted a great
number of disciples to the faith of Christ, and after a most
indefatigable ministry of twenty years’ continuance, he was
burned at St. Giles, a city of Languedoc in France, A. D.
1130, by an enraged populace, instigated by the clergy, who
apprehended their traffic to be in danger from this new and
intrepid reformer.”[918]
That this body of French Christians, who, in the very midnight of the
Dark Ages witnessed for the truth in opposition to the Romish church,
were observers of the ancient Sabbath is expressly certified by Dr.
Francis White, lord bishop of Ely. He was appointed by the king of
England to write against the Sabbath in opposition to Brabourne, who had
appealed to the king in its behalf. To show that Sabbatic observance is
contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic church—a weighty argument with
an Episcopalian—he enumerates various classes of heretics who had been
condemned by the Catholic church for keeping holy the seventh day. Among
these heretics he places the Petrobrusians:—
“In St. Bernard’s days it was condemned in the
Petrobruysans.”[919]
We have seen that, according to Catholic writers, the Cathari held to the
observance of the seventh day. Dr. Allix confirms the statement of Dr.
White that the Petrobrusians observed the ancient Sabbath, by stating
that the doctrines of these two bodies greatly resembled each other.
These are his words:—
“Petrus Cluniacensis has handled five questions against the
Petrobrusians which bear a great resemblance with the belief of
the Cathari of Italy.”[920]
The Sabbath-keepers in the eleventh century were of sufficient importance
to call down upon themselves the anathema of the pope. Dr. Heylyn says
that,
“Gregory, of that name the seventh [about A. D. 1074],
condemned those who taught that it was not lawful to do work on
the day of the Sabbath.”[921]
This act of the pope corroborates the testimonies we have adduced in
proof of the existence of Sabbath-keepers in the Dark Ages. Gregory the
Seventh was one of the greatest men that ever filled the papal chair.
Whatever class he anathematized was of some consequence. Gregory wasted
nothing on trifles.[922]
In the eleventh century, there were Sabbath-keepers also in
Constantinople and its vicinity. The pope, in A. D. 1054, sent
three legates to the emperor of the East, and to the patriarch of
Constantinople, for the purpose of re-uniting the Greek and the Latin
churches. Cardinal Humbert was the head of this legation. The legates,
on their arrival, set themselves to the work of refuting those doctrines
which distinguish the church of Constantinople from that of Rome. After
they had attended to the questions which separated the two churches,
they found it also necessary to discuss the question of the Sabbath. For
one of the most learned men of the East had put forth a treatise, in
which he maintained that ministers should be allowed to marry; that the
Sabbath should be kept holy; and that leavened bread should be used in
the supper; all of which the church of Rome held to be deadly heresies.
We quote from Mr. Bower a concise statement of the treatment which this
Sabbatarian writer received:—
“Humbert, likewise answered a piece that had been published
by a monk of the monastery of Studium, [near Constantinople,]
named Nicetas, who was deemed _one of the most learned men
at the time in the east_. In that piece the monk undertook
to prove, that leavened bread only should be used in the
eucharist, _that the Sabbath ought to be kept holy_, and that
priests should be allowed to marry. But the emperor, who wanted
by all means to gain the pope, for the reasons mentioned above,
was, or rather pretended to be, so fully convinced with the
arguments of the legate, confuting those alleged by Nicetas,
that he obliged the monk publickly to recant, and anathematize
_all who held the opinion_ that he had endeavored to establish,
with respect to unleavened bread, the Sabbath, and the marriage
of priests.
“At the same time Nicetas, in compliance with the command
of the emperor, anathematized all who should question the
primacy of the Roman church with respect to all other Christian
churches, or should presume to censure her ever orthodox faith.
The monk having thus retracted all he had written against
the Holy See, his book was burnt by the emperor’s order,
and he absolved, by the legates, from the censures he had
incurred.”[923]
This record shows that, in the dense darkness of the eleventh century,
“one of the most learned men at that time in the east” wrote a book
to prove that “the Sabbath ought to be kept holy,” and in opposition
to the papal doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy. It also shows how
the church of Rome caste down the truth of God by means of the sword of
emperors and kings. Though Nicetas retracted, under fear of the emperor
and the pope, it appears that there were others who held the same
opinions, for he was “obliged” to anathematize all such, and there is no
evidence that any of these persons turned from the truth because of the
fall of their leader. Indeed, if there had not been a considerable body
of these Sabbatarians, the papal legate would never have deemed it worthy
of his dignity to write a reply to Nicetas.
The Anabaptists are often referred to in the records of the Dark Ages.
The term signifies rebaptizers, and was applied to them because they
denied the validity of infant baptism. The designation is not accurate,
however, because those persons whom they baptized, they considered as
never having been baptized before, although they had been sprinkled or
even immersed in infancy. This people have been overwhelmed in obloquy in
consequence of the fanatical insurrection which broke out in their name
in the time of Luther. Of those engaged in this insurrection, Buck says:—
“The first insurgents groaned under severe oppressions, and
took up arms in defense of their civil liberties; and of
these commotions the Anabaptists seem rather to have availed
themselves, than to have been the prime movers. That a great
part were Anabaptists seems indisputable; at the same time
it appears from history that a great part also were Roman
Catholics, and a still greater part of those who had scarcely
any religious principles at all.”[924]
This matter is placed in the true light by Stebbing:—
“The overthrow of civil society, and fatal injuries to religion
were threatened by those who called themselves Anabaptists. But
large numbers appear to have disputed the validity of infant
baptism who had nothing else in common with them, yet who for
that one circumstance were overwhelmed with the obloquy, and
the punishment richly due to a fanaticism equally fraudulent
and licentious.”[925]
The ancient Sabbath was retained and observed by a portion of the
Anabaptists, or, to use a more proper term, Baptists. Dr. Francis White
thus testifies:—
“They which maintain the Saturday Sabbath to be in force,
comply with some Anabaptists.”[926]
In harmony with this statement of Dr. White, is the testimony of a French
writer of the sixteenth century. He names all the classes of men who have
borne the name of Anabaptists. Of one of these classes he writes thus:—
“Some have endured great torments, because they would not keep
Sundays and festival days, in despite of Antichrist: seeing
they were days appointed by Antichrist, they would not hold
forth any thing which is like unto him. Others observe these
days, but it is out of charity.”[927]
Thus it is seen that within the limits of the old Roman Empire, and in
the midst of those countries that submitted to the rule of the pope, God
reserved unto himself a people that did not bow the knee to Baal, and
among these the Bible Sabbath was observed from age to age. We are now
to search for the Sabbath among those who were never subjected to the
Roman pontiff. In Central Africa, from the first part of the Christian
era—possibly from the time of the conversion of the Ethiopian officer of
great authority[928] but very certainly as early as A. D. 330[929]—have
existed the churches of Abyssinia and Ethiopia. About the time of the
accession of the Roman Bishop to supremacy, they were lost sight of by
the nations of Europe. “Encompassed on all sides,” says Gibbon, “by the
enemies of their religion, the Ethiopians slept near a thousand years,
forgetful of the world, by whom they were forgotten.”[930] In the latter
part of the fifteenth century, they were again brought to the knowledge
of the world by the discovery of Portuguese navigators. Undoubtedly
they have been greatly affected by the dense darkness of pagan and
Mahometan errors with which they are encompassed; and in many respects
they have lost the pure and spiritual religion of our divine Redeemer. A
modern traveler says of them: “They have divers errors and many ancient
truths.”[931] Michael Geddes says of them:—
“The Abyssinians do hold the Scriptures to be the perfect rule
of the Christian faith; insomuch that they deny it to be in
the power of a general council to oblige people to believe
anything as an article of faith without an express warrant from
thence.”[932]
They practice circumcision, but for other reasons than that of a
religious duty.[933] Geddes further states their views:—
“Transubstantiation and the adoration of the consecrated bread
in the sacrament, were what the Abyssinians abhorred.... They
deny purgatory, and know nothing of confirmation and extreme
unction; they condemn graven images; they keep both Saturday
and Sunday.”[934]
Their views of the Sabbath are stated by the ambassador of the king of
Ethiopia, at the court of Lisbon, in the following words, explaining
their abstinence from all labor on that day:—
“Because God, after he had finished the creation of the world,
rested thereon; which day, as God would have it called the holy
of holies, so the not celebrating thereof with great honor
and devotion, seems to be plainly contrary to God’s will and
precept, who will suffer heaven and earth to pass away sooner
than his word; and that especially, since Christ came not to
destroy the law, but to fulfill it. It is not therefore in
imitation of the Jews, but in obedience to Christ and his holy
apostles, that we observe that day.”[935]
The ambassador states their reasons for first-day observance in these
words:—
“We do observe the Lord’s day after the manner of all other
Christians in memory of Christ’s resurrection.”[936]
He had no scripture to offer in support of this festival, and evidently
rested its observance upon tradition. This account was given by the
ambassador in 1534. In the early part of the next century the emperor of
Abyssinia was induced to submit to the pope in these words: “I confess
that the pope is the vicar of Christ, the successor of St. Peter, and the
sovereign of the world. To him I swear true obedience, and at his feet I
offer my person and kingdom.”[937] No sooner had the Roman bishop thus
brought the emperor to submit to him than that potentate was compelled
to gratify the popish hatred of the Sabbath by an edict forbidding its
further observance. In the words of Geddes, he “set forth a proclamation
prohibiting all his subjects upon severe penalties to observe Saturday
any longer.”[938] Or as Gibbon expresses it, “The Abyssinians were
enjoined to work and to play on the Sabbath.” But the tyranny of the
Romanists, after a terrible struggle, caused their overthrow and
banishment, and the restoration of the ancient faith. The churches
resounded with a song of triumph, “‘that the sheep of Ethiopia were now
delivered from the hyænas of the West;’ and the gates of that solitary
realm were forever shut against the arts, the science, and the fanaticism
of Europe.”[939]
We have proved in a former chapter that the Sabbath was extensively
observed as late as the middle of the fifth century in the so-called
Catholic church, especially in that portion most intimately connected
with the Abyssinians; and that from various causes, Sunday obtained
certain Sabbatic honors, in consequence of which the two days were
called sisters. We have also shown in another chapter that the effectual
suppression of the Sabbath in Europe is mainly due to papal influence.
And so for a thousand years we have been tracing its history in the
records of those men which the church of Rome has sought to kill.
These facts are strikingly corroborated by the case of the Abyssinians.
In consequence of their location in the interior of Africa, the
Abyssinians ceased to be known to the rest of Christendom about the fifth
century. At this point, the Sabbath and the Sunday in the Catholic church
were counted sisters. One thousand years later, these African churches
are visited, and though surrounded by the thick darkness of pagan and
Mahometan superstition, and somewhat affected thereby, they are found at
the end of this period holding the Sabbath and first-day substantially
as held by the Catholic church when they were lost sight of by it. The
Catholics of Europe on the contrary had, in the meantime, trampled the
ancient Sabbath in the dust. Why was this great contrast? Simply because
the pope ruled in Europe, while central Africa, whatever else it may have
suffered, was not cursed with his presence nor with his influence. But
so soon as the pope learned of the existence of the Abyssinian churches,
he sought to gain control of them, and when he had gained it, one of
his first acts was to suppress the Sabbath! In the end, the Abyssinians
regained their independence, and thenceforward till the present time have
held fast the Sabbath of the Lord.
The Armenians of the East Indies are peculiarly worthy of our attention.
J. W. Massie, M. R. I. A., says of the East Indian Christians:—
“Remote from the busy haunts of commerce, or the populous
seats of manufacturing industry, they may be regarded as the
eastern Piedmontese, the Vallois of Hindoostan, the witnesses
prophesying in sackcloth through revolving centuries, though
indeed their bodies lay as dead in the streets of the city
which they had once peopled.”[940]
Geddes says of those in Malabar:—
“The three great doctrines of popery, the pope’s supremacy,
transubstantiation, the adoration of images, were never
believed nor practiced at any time in this ancient apostolical
church.... I think one may venture to say that before the time
of the late Reformation, there was no church that we know of,
no, not that of the Vaudois, ... that had so few errors in
doctrine as the church of Malabar.” He adds concerning those
churches that “were never within the bounds of the Roman
Empire,” “It is in those churches that we are to meet with the
least of the leaven of popery.”[941]
Mr. Massie further describes these Christians:—
“The creed which these representatives of an ancient line of
Christians cherished was not in conformity with papal decrees,
and has with difficulty been squared with the thirty-nine
articles of the Anglican episcopacy. Separated from the western
world for a thousand years, they were naturally ignorant of
many novelties introduced by the councils and decrees of the
Lateran; and _their conformity with the faith and practice of
the first ages_, laid them open to the unpardonable guilt of
heresy and schism, as estimated by the church of Rome. ‘We
are Christians and not idolaters,’ was their expressive reply
when required to do homage to the image of the Virgin Mary....
La Croze states them at fifteen hundred churches, and as many
towns and villages. They refused to recognize the pope, and
declared they had never heard of him; they asserted the purity
and primitive truth of their faith since they came, and their
bishops had for thirteen hundred years been sent from the place
where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians.”[942]
The Sabbatarian character of these Christians is hinted by Mr. Yeates.
He says that Saturday “amongst them is a festival day, _agreeable to the
ancient practice of the church_.”[943]
“The ancient practice of the church,” as we have seen, was to hallow
the seventh day in memory of the Creator’s rest. This practice has been
suppressed wherever the great apostasy has had power to do it. But the
Christians of the East Indies, like those of Abyssinia, have lived
sufficiently remote from Rome to be preserved in some degree from its
blasting influence. The same fact is further hinted by the same writer in
the following language:—
“The inquisition was set up at Goa in the Indies, at the
instance of Francis Xaverius [a famous Romish saint] who
signified by letters to Pope John III., Nov. 10, 1545, ‘That
the JEWISH WICKEDNESS spread every day more and more in the
parts of the East Indies subject to the kingdom of Portugal,
and therefore he earnestly besought the said king, that to cure
so great an evil he would take care to send the office of the
inquisition into those countries.’”[944]
“The Jewish wickedness” was doubtless the observance of Saturday as “a
festival day agreeable to the ancient practice of the church” of which
this author had just spoken. The history of the past, as we have seen,
shows the hatred of the papal church toward the Sabbath. And the struggle
of that church to suppress the Sabbath in Abyssinia, and to subject that
people to the pope which at this very point of time was just commencing,
shows that the Jesuits would not willingly tolerate Sabbatic observance
in the East Indies, even though united with the observance of Sunday
also.
It appears therefore that this Jesuit missionary desired the pope and the
king of Portugal to establish the inquisition in that part of the Indies
subject to Portugal, in order to root out the Sabbath from those ancient
churches. The inquisition was established in answer to this prayer, and
Xavier was subsequently canonized as a saint! Nothing can more clearly
show the malignity of the Roman pontiff toward the Sabbath of the Lord;
and nothing more clearly illustrates the kind of men that he canonizes as
saints.
Since the time of Xavier, the East Indies have fallen under British rule.
A distinguished clergyman of the church of England some years since
visited the British Empire in India, for the purpose of acquainting
himself with these churches. He gave the following deeply interesting
sketch of these ancient Christians, and in it particularly marks their
Sabbatarian character:—
“The history of the Armenian church is very interesting.
Of all the Christians in Central Asia, they have preserved
themselves most free from Mahometan and papal corruptions. The
pope assailed them for a time with great violence, but with
little effect. The churches in lesser Armenia indeed consented
to an union, which did not long continue; but those in Persian
Armenia maintained their independence; and they retain their
ancient Scriptures, doctrines, and worship, to this day. ‘It
is marvelous,’ says an intelligent traveler who was much among
them, ‘how the Armenian Christians have preserved their faith,
equally against the vexatious oppression of the Mahometans,
their sovereigns, and against the persuasions of the Romish
church, which for more than two centuries has endeavored,
by missionaries, priests and monks, to attach them to her
communion. It is impossible to describe the artifices and
expenses of the court of Rome to effect this object, but all in
vain.’
“The Bible was translated into the Armenian language in the
fifth century, under very auspicious circumstances, the history
of which has come down to us. It has been allowed by competent
judges of the language, to be a most faithful translation. La
Cruze calls it the ‘Queen of Versions.’ This Bible has ever
remained in the possession of the Armenian people; and many
illustrious instances of genuine and enlightened piety occur in
their history....
“The Armenians in Hindoostan are our own subjects. They
acknowledge our government in India, as they do that of the
Sophi in Persia; and they are entitled to our regard. They
have preserved the Bible in its purity; and their doctrines
are, as far as the author knows, the doctrines of the Bible.
Besides, they maintain the solemn observance of Christian
worship throughout our empire, ON THE SEVENTH DAY, and they
have as many spires pointing to heaven among the Hindoos as we
ourselves. Are such a people then entitled to no acknowledgment
on our part, as fellow Christians? Are they forever to be
ranked by us with Jews, Mahometans, and Hindoos?”[945]
It has been said, however, that Buchanan might have intended Sunday by
the term “seventh day.” This is a very unreasonable interpretation of
his words. Episcopalian clergymen are not accustomed to call Sunday
the seventh day. We have, however, testimony which cannot with candor
be explained away. It is that of Purchas, written in the seventeenth
century. The author speaks of several sects of the eastern Christians
“continuing from ancient times,” as Syrians, Jacobites, Nestorians,
Maronites, and Armenians. Of the Syrians, or Surians, as he variously
spells the name, who, from his relation, appear to be identical with the
Armenians, he says:—
“They keep Saturday holy, nor esteem Saturday fast lawful but
on Easter even. They have solemn service on Saturdays, eat
flesh, and feast it bravely like the Jews.”[946]
This author speaks of these Christians disrespectfully, but he uses the
uncandid statements of their adversaries, which, indeed, are no worse
than those often made in these days concerning those who hallow the
Bible Sabbath. These facts clearly attest the continued observance of
the Sabbath during the whole period of the Dark Ages. The church of Rome
was indeed able to exterminate the Sabbath from its own communion, but
it was retained by the true people of God, who were measurably hidden
from the papacy in the wilds of Central Europe; while those African and
East Indian churches, that were never within the limits of the pope’s
dominion, have steadfastly retained the Sabbath to the present day.