POSITION OF THE REFORMERS CONCERNING THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY.
The Reformation arose in the Catholic church—The Sabbath had
been crushed out of that church, and innumerable festivals
established in its stead—Sunday as observed by Luther,
Melancthon, Zwingle, Beza, Bucer, Cranmer, and Tyndale—The
position of Calvin stated at length and illustrated—Knox agreed
with Calvin—Sunday in Scotland A. D. 1601—How we should view
the Reformers.
The great Reformation of the sixteenth century arose from the bosom of
the Catholic church itself. From that church the Sabbath had long been
extirpated; and instead of that merciful institution ordained by the
divine Law-giver for the rest and refreshment of mankind, and that man
might acknowledge God as his Creator, the papacy had ordained innumerable
festivals, which, as a terrible burden, crushed the people to the earth.
These festivals are thus enumerated by Dr. Heylyn:—
“These holy days as they were named particularly in Pope
Gregory’s decretal, so was a perfect list made of them in the
Synod of Lyons, A. D. 1244, which being celebrated with a
great concourse of people from all parts of Christendom, the
canons and decrees thereof began forthwith to find a general
admittance. The holy days allowed of there, were these that
follow; viz., the feast of Christ’s nativity, St. Stephen,
St. John the evangelist, the Innocents, St. Sylvester, the
circumcision of our Lord, the Epiphany, Easter, together with
the week precedent, and the week succeeding, the three days in
rogation week, the day of Christ’s ascension, Whitsunday, with
the two days after, St. John the Baptist, the feasts of all the
twelve apostles, all the festivities of our Lady, St. Lawrence,
ALL THE LORD’S DAYS IN THE YEAR, St. Michael the Archangel, All
Saints, St. Martin’s, the wakes, or dedication of particular
churches, together with the feasts of such topical or local
saints which some particular people had been pleased to honor
with a day particular amongst themselves. On these and every
one of them, the people were restrained as before was said from
many several kinds of work, on pain of ecclesiastical censures
to be laid on them which did offend, unless on some emergent
causes, either of charity or necessity they were dispensed with
for so doing.... Peter de Aliaco, Cardinal of Cambray, in a
discourse by him exhibited to the council of Constance [A. D.
1416] made public suit unto the fathers there assembled, that
there might [be] a stop in that kind hereafter; as also that
excepting Sundays and the greater festivals it might be lawful
for the people, after the end of divine service to attend their
business; the poor especially, as having little time enough
on the working days to get their living. But these were only
the expressions of well-wishing men. The popes were otherwise
resolved, and did not only keep the holy days which they found
established, in the same state in which they found them, but
added others daily as they saw occasion.... Thus stood it as
before I said, both for the doctrine and the practice, till men
began to look into the errors and abuses in the Roman church
with a more serious eye than before they did.”[947]
Such was the state of things when the reformers began their labors. That
they should give up these festivals and return to the observance of the
ancient Sabbath, would be expecting too much of men educated in the bosom
of the Romish church. Indeed, it ought not to surprise us that, while
they were constrained to strike down the authority of these festivals,
they should nevertheless retain the most important of them in their
observance. The reformers spoke on this matter as follows: The Confession
of the Swiss churches declares that,
“The observance of the Lord’s day is founded not on any
commandment of God, but on the authority of the church; and,
That the church may alter the day at pleasure.”[948]
We further learn that,
“In the Augsburg Confession which was drawn up by Melancthon
[and approved by Luther], to the question, ‘What ought we to
think of the Lord’s day?’ it is answered that the Lord’s day,
Easter, Whitsuntide, and other such holy days, ought to be kept
because they are appointed by the church, that all things may
be done in order; but that the observance of them is not to
be thought necessary to salvation, nor the violation of them,
if it be done without offense to others, to be regarded as a
sin.”[949]
Zwingle declared “that it was lawful on the Lord’s day, after divine
service, for any man to pursue his labors.”[950] Beza taught that “no
cessation of work on the Lord’s day is required of Christians.”[951]
Bucer goes further yet, “and doth not only call it a superstition, but an
apostasy from Christ to think that working on the Lord’s day, in itself
considered, is a sinful thing.”[952] And Cranmer, in his Catechism,
published in 1548, says:—
“We now keep no more the Sabbath on Saturday as the Jews do;
but we observe the Sunday, and certain other days as the
magistrates do judge convenient, whom in this thing we ought to
obey.”[953]
Tyndale said:—
“As for the Sabbath, we be lords over the Sabbath, and may yet
change it into Monday, or into any other day as we see need,
or may make every tenth day holy day only if we see cause
why.”[954]
It is plain that both Cranmer and Tyndale believed that the ancient
Sabbath was abolished, and that Sunday was only a human ordinance which
it was in the power of the magistrates and the church lawfully to change
whenever they saw cause for so doing. And Dr. Hessey gives the opinion
of Zwingle respecting the present power of each individual church to
transfer the so-called Lord’s day to another day, whenever necessity
urges, as, for example, in harvest time. Thus Zwingle says:—
“If we would have the Lord’s day so bound to time that it
shall be wickedness to transfer it to another time, in which
resting from our labors equally as in that, we may hear the
word of God, if necessity haply shall so require, this day so
solicitously observed, would obtrude on us as a ceremony. For
we are no way bound to time, but time ought so to serve us,
that it is lawful, and permitted to each church, when necessity
urges (as is usual to be done in harvest time), to transfer the
solemnity and rest of the Lord’s day, or Sabbath, to some other
day.”[955]
Zwingle could not, therefore, have considered Sunday as a divinely
appointed memorial of the resurrection, or, indeed, as anything but a
church festival.
John Calvin said, respecting the origin of the Sunday festival:—
“However, the ancients have not without sufficient reason
substituted what _we_ call the Lord’s day in the room of the
Sabbath. For since the resurrection of the Lord is the end and
consummation of that true rest, which was adumbrated by the
ancient Sabbath; the same day which put an end to the shadows,
admonishes Christians not to adhere to a shadowy ceremony. Yet
I do not lay so much stress on the septenary number that I
would oblige the church to an invariable adherence to it; nor
will I condemn those churches, which have other solemn days
for their assemblies, provided they keep at a distance from
superstition.”[956]
It is worthy of notice that Calvin does not assign to Christ and his
disciples the establishment of Sunday in the place of the Sabbath. He
says this was done by the “ancients,”[957] or as another translates it,
“the old fathers.” Nor does he say “the day which _John_ called the
Lord’s day,” but “the day which _we_ call the Lord’s day.” And what is
worthy of particular notice he did not insist that the day which should
be appropriated to worship should be one day in every seven; for he
was not tied to “the septenary number.” The day might come once in six
days, or once in eight. And this proves conclusively that he did not
regard Sunday as a divine institution in the proper sense of the word;
for if he had, he would most assuredly have felt that the festival must
be septenary, that is, weekly, and that he must urge “the church to an
invariable adherence to it.” But Calvin does not leave the matter here.
He condemns as “FALSE PROPHETS” those who attempt to enforce the Sunday
festival by means of the fourth commandment; and who to do this say
that the ceremonial part, which requires the observance of the definite
seventh day, is abolished, while the moral part, which simply commands
the observance of one day in seven, still remains in force. Here are his
words:—
“Thus vanish all the dreams of false prophets, who in past
ages have infected the people with a Jewish notion, affirming
that nothing but the ceremonial part of the commandment, which
according to them is the appointment of the seventh day, has
been abrogated, but that the moral part of it, that is the
observance of one day in seven, still remains. But this is only
changing the day in contempt of the Jews, while they retain the
same opinion of the holiness of a day.”[958]
Yet these very “dreams of false prophets,” to use the words of Calvin,
constitute the foundation of the modern doctrine of the change of the
Sabbath. For whatever may be said of first-day sacredness in the New
Testament, the fourth commandment can only be made to recognize that
day by means of this very doctrine of one day in seven which Calvin
so sharply denounces. Now I state another important fact. Calvin’s
commentaries on the New Testament cover all the books from which
quotations are made in behalf of Sunday except the book of Revelation.
What does Calvin say concerning the change of the Sabbath in the record
of Christ’s resurrection?[959] Not one word. He does not even hint at
any sacredness in the day, nor any commemoration of the day. Does he say
that the meeting “after eight days” was upon Sunday? He does not say what
day it was.[960] What does he say of Sunday in treating of the day of
Pentecost?[961] Nothing. He does not so much as say that this festival
was on the first day of the week. What does he say of the breaking of
bread at Troas? He thinks it took place upon the ancient Sabbath! He
says:—
“Either he doth mean the first day of the week, which was
next after the Sabbath, or else some certain Sabbath. Which
latter thing may seem to me more probable; for this cause,
because _that day was more fit for an assembly, according to
custom_.”[962]
He says, however, that this place might “very well” be translated “the
morrow after the Sabbath.” But he adheres to his own translation, “one
day of the Sabbaths,” and not “first day of the week.” He says further:—
“For to what end is there mentioned of the Sabbath, save only
that he may note the opportunity and choice of the time? Also,
it is a likely matter that Paul waited for the Sabbath, that
the day before his departure he might the more easily gather
all the disciples into one place.”[963]
“Therefore, I think thus, that they had appointed a solemn
day for the celebrating of the holy supper of the Lord among
themselves, which might be commodious for them all.”[964]
This shows conclusively that Calvin believed the Sabbath, and not the
first day of the week, to have been the day for meetings in the apostolic
church. But what does he say of the laying by in store on the first day
of the week? He says that Paul’s precept relates, not to the first day
of the week, but to the Sabbath! And he marks the Sabbath as the day on
which the sacred assemblies were held, and the communion celebrated, and
says that on account of these things this was the most convenient day for
collecting their contribution. Thus he writes:—
“_On one of the Sabbaths._ The end is this—that they may have
their alms ready in time. He therefore exhorts them not to
wait till he came, as any thing that is done suddenly, and in
a bustle, is not done well, but to contribute on the Sabbath
what might seem good, and according as every one’s ability
might enable—that is on the day on which they held their sacred
assemblies.[965]
“For he has an eye, first of all, to convenience, and farther,
that the sacred assembly, in which the communion of saints
is celebrated, might be an additional spur to them. Nor am I
inclined to admit the view taken by Chrysostom—that the term
_Sabbath_ is employed here to mean the _Lord’s day_ (Rev.
1:10), for the probability is, that the apostles, at the
beginning, retained the day that was already in use, but that
afterwards, constrained by the superstition of the Jews, they
set aside that day, and substituted another. Now the _Lord’s
day_ was made choice of chiefly because our Lord’s resurrection
put an end to the shadows of the law. Hence the day itself puts
us in mind of our Christian liberty.”[966]
These words are very remarkable. They show first, that by the Sabbath
day Calvin means, not the first day, but the seventh; second, that in his
judgment as late as the time of this epistle, and of the meeting at Troas
[A. D. 60], the Sabbath was the day for the sacred assemblies of the
Christians, and for the celebration of the communion; third, “but that
AFTERWARDS, constrained by THE SUPERSTITION OF THE JEWS, they set aside
that day, and substituted another.”
Calvin did not therefore believe that Christ changed the Sabbath to
Sunday to commemorate his resurrection; for he says that the resurrection
abolished the Sabbath,[967] and yet he believes that the Sabbath was the
sacred day of the Christians to the entire exclusion of Sunday as late as
the year 60. Nor could he believe that the apostles set apart Sunday to
commemorate the resurrection of Christ, for he thinks that they did not
make choice of that day till after the year 60, and even then they did it
merely because constrained so to do by the superstition of the Jews!
Dr. Hessey illustrates Calvin’s ideas of Sunday observance by the
following incident:—
“Knox was the intimate friend of Calvin—visited Calvin, and, it
is said, on one occasion found him enjoying the recreation of
bowls on Sunday.”[968]
Without doubt Calvin was acting in exact harmony with his ideas of the
nature of the Sunday festival. But the famous case of Michael Servetus
furnishes us a still more pointed illustration of his views of the
sacredness of that day. Servetus was arrested in Geneva on the personal
application of John Calvin to the magistrates of that city. Such is the
statement of Theodore Beza, the life-long friend of Calvin.[969] Beza’s
translator adds to this fact the following remarkable statement:—
“Promptness induced him to have this heresiarch arrested on a
Sunday.”[970]
The same fact is stated by Robinson:—
“While he waited for a boat to cross the lake in his way to
Zurich, by some means Calvin got intelligence of his arrival;
and although it was on a Sunday, yet he prevailed upon the
chief syndic to arrest and imprison him. On that day by the
laws of Geneva no person could be arrested except for a capital
crime; but this difficulty was easily removed, for John Calvin
pretended that Servetus was a heretic, and that heresy was a
capital crime.”[971]
“The doctor was arrested and imprisoned on Sunday the
thirteenth of August [A. D. 1553]. That very day he was brought
into court.”[972]
Calvin’s own words respecting the arrest are these:—
“I will not deny but that he was made prisoner upon my
application.”[973]
The warmest friends of first-day sacredness will not deny that the
least sinful part of this transaction was that it occurred on Sunday.
Nevertheless the fact that Calvin caused the arrest of Servetus on that
day shows that he had no conviction that the day possessed any inherent
sacredness.
John Barclay,[974] a learned man of Scotch descent, and a moderate Roman
Catholic, who was born soon after the death of Calvin, and whose early
life was spent in eastern France, not very remote from Geneva, published
the statement that Calvin and his friends at Geneva
“Debated whether the reformed, for the purpose of estranging
themselves more completely from the Romish church, should not
adopt Thursday as the Christian Sabbath.”
Another reason assigned by Calvin for this proposed change was,
“That it would be a proper instance of Christian liberty.”[975]
This statement has been credited by many learned Protestants,[976] some
of whom must be acknowledged as men of candor and judgment. But Dr.
Twisse[977] discredits Barclay because he did not name the individuals
with whom Calvin consulted, and produce them as witnesses; and because
that King James I. of England at one time suspected Barclay of treachery
toward him. But no such crime was ever proved, nor does it appear that
the king continued always to hold him in that light.[978] His veracity
has never been impeached. The statement of Barclay may possibly be
incorrect, but it is not inconsistent with Calvin’s doctrine that the
church is not tied to a festival that should come once in _seven_ days,
even as Tyndale said that they could change the Sabbath into Monday or
could “make every tenth day holy day, only if we see cause why,” and it
is in perfect harmony with Calvin’s idea of Sunday sacredness as shown in
his acts already noticed. Like the other reformers, Calvin is not always
consistent with himself in his statements. Nevertheless, we have his
judgment concerning the several texts which are used to prove the change
of the Sabbath, and also respecting the theory that the commandment may
be used to enforce, not the seventh day, but one day in seven, and it is
fatal to the modern first-day doctrine.
John Knox, the great Scottish reformer, was the intimate friend of
Calvin, with whom he lived at Geneva during a portion of his exile from
Scotland. Though the foundation of the Presbyterian church of Scotland
was laid by Knox, or rather by Calvin, for Knox carried out Calvin’s
system, and though that church is now very strict in the observance of
Sunday as the Sabbath, yet Knox himself was of Calvin’s mind as to the
obligation of that day. The original Confession of Faith of that church
was drawn up by Knox in A. D. 1560.[979] In that document Knox states the
duties of the first table of the law as follows:—
“To have one God, to worship and honor him; to call upon him in
all our troubles; to reverence his holy name; to hear his word;
to believe the same; to communicate with his holy sacraments,
are the works of the first table.”[980]
It is plain that Knox believed the Sabbath commandment to have been
stricken out of the first table. Dr. Hessey, after speaking of certain
references to Sunday in a subsequent work of his, makes this statement
respecting the present doctrine of the Sabbath in the Presbyterian
church:—
“On the whole, whatever the language held at present in
Scotland may be, it is certainly not owing to the great man
whom the Scotch regard as the apostle of the Reformation in
their country.”[981]
That church now holds Sunday to be the divinely authorized memorial of
the resurrection of Christ, enforced by the authority of the fourth
commandment. But not thus was it held by Calvin and Knox. A British
writer states the condition of things with respect to Sunday in Scotland
about the year 1601:—
“At the commencement of the seventeenth century, tailors,
shoemakers, and bakers in Aberdeen were accustomed to work
till eight or nine every Sunday morning. While violation
of the prescribed ritual observances was punished by fine,
the exclusive consecration of the Sunday which subsequently
prevailed was then unknown. Indeed, there were regular
‘play Sundays’ in Scotland till the end of the sixteenth
century.”[982]
But the Presbyterian church, after Knox’s time, effected an entire change
with respect to Sunday observance. The same writer says:—
“The Presbyterian Kirk introduced into Scotland the Judaical
observance of the Sabbath [Sunday], retaining with some
inconsistency the Sunday festival of the Catholic church,
while rejecting all the other feasts which its authority had
consecrated.”[983]
Dr. Hessey shows the method of doing this. He says:—
“Of course some difficulties had to be got over. The Sabbath
was the seventh day, Sunday was the first day of the week. But
an ingenious theory that one day in seven was the essence of
the fourth commandment speedily reconciled them to this.”[984]
The circumstances under which this new doctrine was framed, the name
of its author, and the date of its publication, will be given in their
place. That the body of the reformers should have failed to recognize the
authority of the fourth commandment, and that they did not turn men from
the Romish festivals to the Sabbath of the Lord, is a matter of regret
rather than of surprise. The impropriety of making them the standard of
divine truth is forcibly set forth in the following language:—
“Luther and Calvin reformed many abuses, especially in the
discipline of the church, and also some gross corruptions in
doctrine; but they left other things of far greater moment just
as they found them.... It was great merit in them to go as far
as they did, and it is not they but we who are to blame if
their authority induce us to go no further. We should rather
imitate them in the boldness and spirit with which they called
in question and rectified so many long-established errors; and
availing ourselves of their labors, make further progress than
they were able to do. Little reason have we to allege their
name, authority, and example, when they did a great deal and we
do nothing at all. In this we are not imitating them, but those
who opposed and counteracted them, willing to keep things as
they were.”[985]