The Change of the Sabbath

THE advocates of the sacredness of Sunday suppose they have gained their cause if they have found some evidences that this day was observed with some respect in the dark ages of the church. They seem to be certain that the day was then regarded as the Christian Sabbath, and that it had taken the place of the Sabbath of the Lord. They even argue that the testimonies which they produce out of the so-called fathers of the church, are ample proof that the apostles changed the law of God, though the New Testament bears testimony in every way to the contrary of this. The strongest testimony in behalf of this supposed apostolic change of the Sabbath is produced out of Mosheim, and is as follows:—

"All Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week, on which the triumphant Saviour arose from the dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship. This pious custom, which was derived from the example of the church at Jerusalem, was founded upon the express appointment of the apostles, who consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose, and was observed universally throughout all the Christian churches, as appears from the united testimony of the most credible writers."—Maclaine's Mosheim, cent. i, part ii, chap. iv, sec. 4.

This statement of Mosheim is often cited in the most triumphant manner to prove the change of the Sabbath, and to establish, by apostolic authority, the sacredness of Sunday. Now it is a very remarkable fact, that we are able, from the testimony of Mosheim himself, to show that this sanctity of Sunday was at that time utterly unknown. The proof on this point is very direct and plain. Mosheim unwittingly exposes the fallacy of this supposed Sunday sacredness in the following statement respecting the law of Constantine, which was enacted in A. D. 321. He says of the law:—

"The first day of the week, which was the ordinary and stated time for the public assemblies of the Christians was in consequence of a peculiar law enacted by Constantine, observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly been."—Mosheim, cent. iv. part ii, chap. iv, sec. 5.

Here is an express statement that the law of Constantine made Sunday observance more strict than it had formerly been, and caused its observance to be attended with greater solemnity. Now carefully read this edict which thus made Sunday a day of greater solemnity than before. Here is the edict:—

"Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all trades, rest on the venerable day of the sun; but let those who are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty, attend to the business of agriculture; because it often happens that no other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines; lest the critical moment being let slip, men should lose the commodities granted by Heaven."—Encyclopedia Britannica, article, Sunday.

Certainly here is something worthy of the notice of those whose respect for Sunday rests upon the authority of Mosheim. Constantine's Sunday law caused the day to be observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly been. But what was the nature of this law? It gave to the farmer full liberty to carry on his business on the first day of the week. How, then, did it cause the day to be observed with greater solemnity? Take notice of the answer. It forbade those who were merchants and mechanics from carrying on their business on Sunday. It follows, therefore, from Mosheim's own showing, that up to this time all classes of men had labored on Sunday. And as he makes this statement with special reference to the case of the Christians it is also evident that up to this time the whole body of those who bore the name of Christians did freely labor on that day, but that from that time the mechanics were restrained in their business on Sunday, while the farmer was allowed, "freely and at full liberty," to carry on his farming.

We prove, therefore, from the most valued witness in behalf of Sunday observance that it was not kept as a day of sacredness during the first three centuries of the church, but was, with exception of time employed in religious meetings on that day, simply a day of ordinary business. And what Mosheim thus unwittingly, but truthfully, states, to the utter discomfiture of his own previous effort in behalf of the sacredness of the day, is also stated by many writers. Bishop Jeremy Taylor, an eminent prelate of the church of England, thus states the case:—

"The Primitive Christians did all manner of works upon the Lord's day, even in the times of persecution, when they are the strictest observers of all divine commandments; but in this they knew there was none; and, therefore, when Constantine the emperor had made an edict against working upon the Lord's day, yet he excepts and still permitted all agriculture or labors of the husbandman whatsoever."—Ductor Dubitantium, part i, book ii, chap. ii, sec. 59.

This is a very important statement. The first day of the week was a day of ordinary business in the early ages of the church. And this very fact proves that, though it is now called "the Lord's day," it could not have been considered thus in those ages; for men can never innocently appropriate to their own business that time which God claims as his own. Here is another testimony on this same point:—

"The Lord's day had no command that it should be sanctified, but it was left to God's people to pitch on this or that day for public worship. And being taken up and made a day of meeting for religious exercises, yet for three hundred years there was no law to bind them to it, and for want of such a law, the day was not wholly kept in abstaining from common business; nor did they any longer rest from their ordinary affairs (such was the necessity of those times) than during the divine service."—Morer's Lord's Day, p. 233.

That Sunday was not kept as a day of abstinence from worldly business before the time of Constantine is expressly stated by Sir William Domville. Thus he says:—

"Centuries of the Christian era passed away before the Sunday was observed as a Sabbath. History does not furnish us with a single proof or indication that it was at any time so observed previous to the Sabbatical edict of Constantine, in A. D. 321."—Examination of the Six Texts, p. 291.

These testimonies show most conclusively that Sunday was a day of ordinary business prior to the time of Constantine, except such portions of it as were used in public worship. All, therefore, which can be said of Sunday observance in the first three centuries, is in substance this: that it was a day on which, very generally, the professed people of God held religious assemblies, but on which, also, they attended to their ordinary labor, when not in the house of worship. But not Sunday alone was thus honored as a day of religious meetings in the early church. Wednesday and Friday were honored in the same manner, not as days of abstinence from labor, but as days for public assemblies of the church. Thus Mosheim says of them:—

"Many also observed the fourth day of the week, on which Christ was betrayed; and the sixth, which was the day of his crucifixion."—Ecclesiastical History, cent. i, part ii, chap. iv, note.1".

And Dr. Peter Heylyn says of those who thus chose Sunday:—

"Because our Saviour rose that day from amongst the dead, so chose they Friday for another, by reason of our Saviour's passion; and Wednesday, on which he had been betrayed; the Saturday, or ancient Sabbath, being meanwhile retained in the eastern churches."—History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. i, sec. 12.

Here were three days observed as voluntary festivals in the early church; viz., Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday. Of the comparative sacredness of these three festivals, Dr. Heylyn says:—

"If we consider either the preaching of the word, the ministration of the sacraments, or the public prayers, the Sunday in the eastern churches had no great prerogative above other days, especially above the Wednesday and the Friday, save that the meetings were more solemn, and the concourse of people greater than at other times, as is most likely."—History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. iii, sec. 4.

These three ancient festivals were not thought in those days to rest upon any divine command, nor was any one of them considered as worthy to fill the place of the ancient Sabbath, as a day of sacred time, made such by the commandment of God, or by the authority of the apostles. And thus Dr. Heylyn states the case:—

"Take which you will, either the Fathers or the moderns, and we shall find no Lord's day instituted by any apostolic mandate; no Sabbath set on foot by them upon the first day of the week."—History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. i, sec. 10.

And Sir Wm. Domville bears the following remarkable testimony on this point:—

"Not any ecclesiastical writer of the first three centuries attributed the origin of Sunday observance either to Christ or to his apostles."—Examination of the Six Texts, supplement, pp. 6, 7.

These testimonies show very clearly the real foundation of Sunday observance. It is not found in God's commandment, but in the tradition of men that makes that commandment void. We have listened to the strong testimony of Mosheim in behalf of this so-called Christian Sabbath. And we have also seen that though he designates Sunday as set apart by "the express appointment of the apostles," he elsewhere informs us that it was, even with Christians, a day of ordinary labor till the time of Constantine, A. D. 321. As to "the express appointment of the apostles," we have seen in a former discourse that no trace of this exists in the New Testament, and there is certainly no claim on the part of the early ecclesiastical writers that such appointment ever was made. Let us now hear what Neander, the most distinguished of church historians, has to say on this point:—

"The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intention of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect; far from them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin."—Rose's Translation of Neander p. 168.

These statements are sufficient to place this subject in a very clear light. We may be certain from them that those who first observed these festivals had no idea of what was afterward to grow out of them. Neander speaks of the beginning of the idea that men should not labor on Sunday. He cites Tertullian alone, with whom this idea appears to have originated. These are Tertullian's words as translated in Kitto's Cyclopedia, article, Lord's Day. He says:—

"On the day of the Lord's resurrection alone we ought to abstain, not only from kneeling, but from all devotion to care and anxiety, putting off even business, lest we should give place to the devil." This is the first mention of anything like abstinence from labor, and this is at the end of the second century. Tertullian is the first writer who calls Sunday, Lord's Day. Dr. Heylyn, however, speaks thus of him:—

"Tertullian tells us that they did devote the Sunday partly unto mirth and recreation, not to devotion altogether; when in a hundred years after Tertullian's time, there was no law or constitution to restrain men from labor on this day in the Christian church." History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. viii, sec. 13.

One grand element of success in the advancement of the Sunday festival is found in the fact that it was the day most generally observed by the gentile nations in honor of their chief god, the sun. Even Tertullian, when advocating the observance of Sunday, finds it necessary to state that he has not the same religion as the Persians who worship the sun. He says:—

"But if we, like them, celebrate Sunday as a festival and day of rejoicing, it is for a reason vastly distant from that of worshiping the sun."—Wm. Reeves' Translation of the Apologies of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others, vol. i, pp. 238, 239.

The name of Sunday is given to the first day of the week, "because this day was anciently dedicated to the sun or to its worship." See Webster's Dictionary. The North British Review, an able quarterly, terms Sunday "the wild solar holiday of all pagan times." Vol. xviii, p. 409.

This same writer, speaking of the fact that Sunday was the day generally observed in the Gentile world at the time when it was also springing up as a festival in the Christian church, thus defends the establishment of Sunday in that church:—

"That very day was the Sunday of their heathen neighbors and respective countrymen: and patriotism gladly united with expediency in making it at once their Lord's day, and their Sabbath. . . . . That primitive church, in fact, was shut up to the adoption of the Sunday, until it became established and supreme, when it was too late to make another alteration; and it was no irreverent nor undelightful thing to adopt it, inasmuch as the first day of the week was their own high day, at any rate; so that their compliance and civility were rewarded by the redoubled sanctity of their quiet festival." Vol. xviii, p. 409.

Morer thus speaks of this important fact in the establishment of Sunday in the church:—

"Sunday being the day on which the Gentiles solemnly adored that planet, and called it Sunday, partly from its influence on that day especially, and partly in respect to its divine body (as they conceived it), the Christians thought fit to keep the same day, and the same name of it, that they might not appear causelessly peevish and by that means hinder the conversion of the Gentiles, and bring a greater prejudice than might be otherwise taken against the gospel."—Morer's Lord's Day, pp. 22, 23.