The Change of the Sabbath

IT is a remarkable fact that the edict of Constantine in behalf of Sunday was in every respect a heathen law. According to the testimony of Mosheim, Constantine did not renounce heathenism till A. D. 323, two years after his famous Sunday edict. He had previously adopted the opinion that Christ ought to be worshiped; but up to A. D. 323, he "combined the worship of Christ with that of the ancient gods." Mosheim's "Historical Commentaries," cent. iv, sec. 7. That he was a heathen in A. D. 321, when he enacted his edict for Sunday, is further attested in that the day after this edict, he issued a decree commanding the practice of heathen divination. See "Blair's Chronological Tables," p. 196; "Ross' Index of Dates," p. 830. But the edict speaks for itself. Constantine does not command men to keep the Lord's day, or the Christian Sabbath, or the day of Christ's resurrection. He uses very different language. He commands those to whom his decree relates, to "rest on the VENERABLE DAY OF THE SUN." Here is a plain and explicit reference to the day observed by the heathen world from ancient times in honor of the sun. Milman, the editor of Gibbon, says of this edict:—

"The rescript commanding the celebration of the Christian Sabbath, bears no allusion to its peculiar sanctity as a Christian institution. It is the day of the sun which is to be observed. . . . But the believer in the new paganism, of which the solar worship was the characteristic, might acquiesce without scruple in the sanctity of the first day of the week. . . . In fact, as we have before observed, the day of the sun would be willingly hallowed by almost all the pagan world." —History of Christianity, book, iii, chapters i and iv.

These facts are sufficient to show how greatly indebted is Sunday to the ancient worship of the chief god of heathenism on that day. Let us now consider some things pertaining directly to the church of Rome in connection with the Sunday institution. The earliest mention of Sunday in the Christian church is by Justin Martyr, A. D. 140. And it is remarkable that it is written at Rome, and is especially descriptive of the celebration of the Sunday festival in that church. He says:—

"And upon the day called Sunday, all that live either in city or country meet together at the same place, where the writings of the apostles and prophets are read as much as time will give leave; when the reading is done, the bishop makes a sermon," etc.— Justin Martyr's First Apology, translated by Wm. Reeves, p. 127.

It was only fifty-six years after this time that "the bishop" of Rome attempted to rule the Christian church by AN EDICT IN BEHALF OF SUNDAY. It was the custom of all the churches to celebrate the passover. But while the eastern churches did this upon the fourteenth day of the first month, the western churches, among which the church of Rome was chief, celebrated the passover on the Sunday following that day, unless, indeed, the day happened to fall on Sunday. But in the year 196, Victor, bishop of Rome, took upon himself to impose the Roman custom upon all the churches; that is, to compel them to observe the passover upon Sunday. It is a most significant fact that the first attempt of the bishop of Rome to rule the Christian church was by this edict in favor of Sunday. Bower says of it:—

"This bold attempt we may call the first essay of papal usurpation."—History of the Popes, vol. 1, p. 18

And Dowling in his "History of Romanism," p. 32, terms it the "earliest instance of Romish assumption." This was only one generation after the time of Justin Martyr, and it was just prior to the time of Turtullian, the first writer who gives Sunday the title of Lord's day, and the first one who speaks of refraining from business on that day. Surely, Sunday made some advancement at Rome from A. D. 140 to A. D. 196, when Victor issued his Sunday edict. But the churches of Asia informed the Roman bishop that they could not comply with his lordly mandate. Upon the receipt of this letter, Victor gave way to an ungovernable passion, and excommunicated the bishops of all those churches. But he could not compel them to submit to him. Thus the matter rested till the Council of Nice, in A. D. 325, when the church of Rome, by the powerful aid of the Emperor Constantine, was able to carry this point. Heylyn says of this struggle:—

"The Lord's day found it no small matter to obtain the victory."—History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. ii, sec. 5.

The next act of the Roman church in warring against the Sabbath, was to turn that day into a fast. Dr. Hase says:—

"The Roman church regarded Saturday as a fast day, in direct opposition to those who regarded it as a Sabbath."—Ancient Church History, part i, division ii, sec. 69.

This was at the beginning of the third century. It was only after a long struggle that the church of Rome prevailed, in turning the Sabbath into a fast. And thus Heylyn states the result:—

"In the end the Roman church obtained the cause, and Saturday became a fast almost through all parts of the western world."—History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. ii, sec. 3.

The object of this was to render the Sabbath despicable in the eyes of men. This was the first great effort of the Roman church toward the suppression of the ancient Sabbath of the Bible.

We have seen the rapid advancement which the Sunday festival made in the early history of the Roman church. We have also seen how exactly adapted to the advancement of Sunday to its final supremacy, was the regard of the heathen world for that day. And when the edict of Constantine in behalf of the venerable day of the sun, had elevated that heathen festival to the throne of the Roman empire, the advocates of Sunday, in the church, were not slow to take advantage of the fact. At a later period, Constantine declared himself a Christian, and his Sunday law, being unrepealed, was enforced as a Christian law. In the meantime, another important event in the history of Sunday usurpation occurred. Sylvester was bishop of Rome while Constantine was emperor. "Lucius' Ecclesiastical History," pp. 739, 740, informs us that Sylvester changed the name of the day, giving it the imposing title of "LORD's DAY." The observers of Sunday are, therefore, greatly indebted to Constantine and to Sylvester. The one elevated it, as a heathen festival, to the throne of the empire; the other changed it into a Christian institution, giving it from his apostolic authority the dignified appellation of Lord's day. Certainly, these are very important facts. Now let us listen to the statement of Dr. Peter Heylyn, a member of the church of England, while he, an observer of what he calls the Lord's day, traces the steps by which it rose to power. He says:—

"Thus do we see upon what grounds the Lord's day stands; on custom first, and voluntary consecration of it to religious meetings; that custom countenanced by the authority of the church of God, which tacitly approved the same; and finally confirmed and ratified by Christian princes throughout their empires. And as the day for rest from labors and restraint from business upon that day, [it] received its greatest strength from the supreme magistrate as long as he retained that power which to him belongs; as after from the canons and decrees of councils, the decretals of popes, and orders of particular prelates, when the sole managing of ecclesiastical affairs was committed to them.

"I hope it was not so with the former Sabbath, which neither took original from custom, that people being not so forward to give God a day; nor required any command from the kings of Israel to confirm and ratify it. The Lord had spoken the word that he would have the seventh day from the world's creation to be a day of rest unto all his people; which said, there was no more to do but gladly to submit and obey his pleasure. But this was not done in our present business. The Lord's day had no such command that it should be sanctified, but was left plainly for God's people to pitch on this, or any other, for the public use. And being taken up amongst them, and made a day of meeting in the congregation for religious exercises, yet for three hundred years there was neither law to bind them to it, nor any rest from labor or from worldly business required upon it. And when it seemed good unto Christian princes, the nursing fathers of God's church, to lay restraint upon their people, yet at the first they were not general, but only thus that certain men, in certain places, should lay aide their ordinary and daily works, to attend God's service in the church; those whose employments were most toilsome and most repugnant to the true nature of a Sabbath, being allowed to follow and pursue their labors, because most necessary to the commonwealth."

"And in the following times, when as the prince and prelate in their several places endeavored to restrain them from that also which formerly they had permitted, and interdicted almost all kinds of bodily labor upon that day, it was not brought about without much struggling and an opposition of the people; more than a thousand years being past, after Christ's ascension, before the Lord's day had attained that state in which now it standeth. And being brought into that state, wherein now it stands, it doth not stand so firmly and on such sure grounds but that those powers which raised it up, may take it lower if they please, yea, take it quite away as unto the time, and settle it on any other day as to them seems best."—History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. iii, sec, 12.

These remarks of Dr. Heylyn ought to make a deep impression upon every reader who keeps the first day as the Sabbath. Here we have a candid and truthful statement of the grounds of first-day observance. It is simply the customs, and traditions, and ordinances, of men, but not at all the ordinance of God, which enter into the framework of this institution. Dr. Heylyn thinks the men who built up this Sunday festival were pious men; and that the institution constructed by them was the Lord's day. Yet he frankly testifies that, as it owes its existence to the precepts of men, the very same hands that set it up are capable of taking it down altogether, or of simply transferring it to any other day which may suit them better. Dr. Heylyn has given us a truthful view of the persons by whom the so-called Lord's day was established among men. It was popes, councils, and self-styled Christian princes. How evident that it was the work of the great apostasy! The institution began with the apostasy; the two increased in strength together; and each of them stands upon the same foundation; viz., the traditions of men, which make void the commandments of God.