Chapter VII: Section V: Manner of Observing the Sabbath (2)

In the first place, this change is inferred from the resurrection of Christ on the first day of the week, which is supposed to be an event of such magnitude as to constitute an _equal_ and even _greater_ reason for observing the first day of the week as the weekly Sabbath under the new dispensation, than that which existed for observing the seventh under the old. But what does this argument amount to? It is not perfectly clear that the resurrection occurred on the first day of the week. Very plausible reasons may be assigned for the opinion, that it occurred on the evening of the seventh day, although it was not publicly declared till the morning of the first. But admitting that it occurred on the morning of the first day, how does this prove that it was substituted for the seventh day as the Sabbath? Is the inference absolutely necessary? Is there any designation of the first day for a sabbatic purpose? If another than the seventh day was in any wise admissible, as according better with the Christian dispensation and the work of redemption, why should we fix upon the day of Christ's resurrection, rather than the day of his birth, or of his crucifixion, or of his ascension? Will it be alledged, as a reason for the preference, that he finished the work of redemption on the day of his resurrection? This reason might be offered with equal if not superior propriety, for commemorating the day of his crucifixion; because, when he bowed his head and gave up the ghost; he said, "_It is finished_," which is more than is said in reference to the day of his resurrection. If a day were to be selected as a weekly Sabbath, which was "validly the day of redemption," it seems most proper to select the day of his death, which was the end of his temptation and conflict with the powers of darkness, and the severest test of his obedience; or the day of his final ascension, when he emphatically entered into his rest, and was crowned King in Zion. If, therefore, a day were to be selected, under the new economy, for the appropriate commemoration of the work of redemption, as the seventh day was for the commemoration of the work of creation, it is by no means clear that it should be the day of the resurrection. It might with equal, perhaps greater propriety, be some other day of the week. And hence, the different preferences of Christians might clash, and by that means counteract in a great measure the design of a Sabbath. But, in truth, the argument from the resurrection in favor of the first day of the week, rests upon the wisdom of man and not upon the appointment of God. It seems to men befitting the ends of a weekly Sabbath, under the Christian dispensation, to observe the first rather than the seventh day, and hence a change is inferred, without any express authority from God to that effect; as though it were lawful to change a divine institution when it _appears to us_ that greater reasons exist for a change, than for its unamended continuance--a principle which would justify all the innovations and extravagancies of Popery. But no such power is given unto men. However many and important the reasons which exist in human view for the change in the Sabbath contended for, it is invading God's prerogative to make a change without his express warrant. So long, therefore, as there is no divine enactment which goes to authorize this change, but the permanent and unvaried nature of the entire Decalogue expressly forbids it, as does the continued practice of the primitive church, it is grossly erroneous and presumptuous to make it. This argument for the supposed change is surely without any validity.

In the next place, it is alledged that Christ's appearance to the disciples, after his resurrection, on the first day of the week, marks this as the Christian Sabbath. This argument is adopted both by those who hold to the abrogation of the former institution, and those who contend for its change. But, in reality, it is as devoid of solid weight as the one previously examined. It is easy to account for his appearing in the course of the day of his resurrection, or of the first declaration of it, because the earliest information of this great event was of the utmost importance to the afflicted and desponding disciples. It was important, also, as a testimony to the truth of the Savior's prediction that he would rise on the third day. There is nothing in his several appearances during that day, which seems intended for any other purpose than giving the necessary proof of his resurrection, and the light and consolation which the circumstances of the disciples required. There is nothing in either of them which favors the idea of a new Sabbath. But the circumstance of his appearing to the two disciples who were on a journey to Emmaus, and traveling a while with them, which was a distance much too long for a Sabbath day's journey, expressly forbids it, as it shows that it was regarded as a day for labor. And as to his appearance the following evening, there is nothing in that circumstance which savors of a newly appointed Sabbath. The disciples were not assembled together to keep a Sabbath, but "for fear of the Jews." Besides, according to the Jewish method of reckoning time, this evening actually belonged to the second day of the week. So that all which is said concerning his appearances on this day and evening, is perfectly devoid of proof of a change of the Sabbath.

As to the next appearance recorded, there is no evidence that it occurred on the first day of the week. The record states, that "After eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you." Surely the phrase, "and after eight days," cannot be fairly construed to mean a week. Who can tell but that he appeared on the _ninth_ day after his first appearance? But even if it could be so interpreted as to mean precisely a week, and hence to show that his second appearance took place on the first day, as before, it would be no proof of the point in question, because the subject of the Sabbath was not introduced in any form.

The next instance of his appearing is very far from corroborating the opinion that he sanctioned the first day as the New Testament Sabbath by appearing on it; for the disciples, or some of them, were fishing at the sea of Tiberias, and consequently were not observing the first day as a Sabbath. Indeed, this appearance must have taken place as late as the second day of the week, if not later; for they had been engaged in fishing, as the record will show, the day before he appeared to them. And they could not have been so engaged on the _seventh_ day, because it would have been contrary to the universal and unbroken practice of their nation. Hence it could not have been on the first day of the week that Christ appeared to them. It must have been on the second or some later day of the week. The argument, therefore, from the several appearances of Christ, amounts to nothing.

The next, and the principal argument for the change of the Sabbath, is the supposed Apostolic practice of meeting on the first day of the week for public worship and the breaking of bread. It is often confidently affirmed, that the keeping of the first day instead of the seventh is sanctioned by Apostolic usage. The proof of this position rests mainly on two passages. Let us examine them.

The first is Acts 20:7. "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his speech until midnight." But is there any thing in this transaction, or the attendant circumstances, which clearly and undeniably proves an Apostolic example in favor of a new Sabbath, or of keeping the first day of the week, in any manner, as a substitute for the former institution? Surely there is not. The passage does not so much as prove that the practice of meeting for worship on the first day of the week was then common and general. But if it did, it would not determine the change contended for. There is nothing said in the narrative, which characterizes it as a Sabbath. Assembling for public worship is proper on any day of the week; and so is the breaking of bread. The Supper was first administered on one of the six working days; and there is nothing in the Scriptures which restricts its subsequent administration to a particular day--not even to the authorized Sabbath. Besides, in this case, the breaking of bread was deferred till after midnight. Of course, according to the Jewish reckoning of time, it was attended actually on the second day; and this must have been the case, also, according to the prevailing custom among observers of the first day, of commencing the day at midnight. It seems, therefore, that the Apostle and his brethren were not very precise in regard to its being done on the first day. Let the most be made of this passage, and it lacks a divine designation of the first day as the Christian Sabbath; and hence it is entirely wanting as to the requisite evidence of a change in the sabbatic law. Surely, if there had been such a change, and this, with one more instance of meeting on the first day of the week, were to contain the evidence for all after generations, we should have been informed of the fact. Something would have been said to determine that the first day of the week was regarded as a Sabbath, and that it had taken the place of the seventh. But there is nothing of this. The record is perfectly silent in regard to either point. Besides, it is evident that the original Sabbath continued to be observed, as already noticed, throughout the entire period of New Testament history. This is so plain a fact, that no one who gives the subject a candid examination will deny it. This shows the opinion of a new Sabbath--observed, as it must have been, in connection with the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and without a word being said on the subject, or the least objection, stir, query, or excitement whatever being raised--to be perfectly preposterous. Such is the result of this reasoning from a supposed Apostolic example, giving the passage its widest possible scope, as implying a common practice of meeting for public worship on the first day of the week. But in reality there is nothing in this text which proves or implies that such a practice was common at that period. For aught appears, it might have been an occasional meeting, appointed merely in consequence of Paul's being about to depart on the morrow. Therefore, to adopt a practice so important as the one in question, upon such vague, uncertain, and inadequate testimony--especially when, in order thereto, we must dispose of a plain and positive command of God respecting the observance of the seventh day, and of a usage as old as the completion of the creation--is unreasonable in the extreme.

Another passage quoted in proof of an Apostolic example of keeping the first day of the week, and, consequently, in support of the opinion that the Sabbath is changed, is 1 Corinthians 16:2. "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." This passage, like the others, does not imply that the first day was then commonly and generally regarded as a day for public worship. Indeed, it does not necessarily imply a public meeting of any kind. The direction for "every one to lay by him in store," for the benefit of the poor saints at Jerusalem, "on the first day of the week," necessarily amounts to no more than an appointment of this day to make up their bounty _at home_, so that it might be sure to be ready when the Apostle should come--a very judicious arrangement, as the time of his coming for it was uncertain, and he would not know how to wait. But if it be understood to imply anything more, it is simply that they should bring their donations together publicly on the first day of the week, so as to be prepared in the fullest sense for the Apostle's visit. Therefore, according to this view of the case, it proves no more than an occasional meeting on this day for the purpose of a public contribution for an important object of benevolence. But even if it could be so construed as clearly to imply that it was then a common and general practice to meet for public worship and instruction on this day, it would not thereby be pointed out to us as the Christian Sabbath, and a substitute for the seventh day, seeing that it contains no information to that effect, and that no divine warrant appears on any part of the New Testament records for the supposed change. Meetings for public worship, taking up of collections, and even breaking of bread, do not constitute a Sabbath, though they are proper exercises for such a day. _To sabbatize_ is to rest from our own secular labors, and keep a season holy to God. These proofs for a change of the Sabbath, therefore, which are unquestionably the best that can be produced, are utterly deficient, and the argument therefrom, as generally presented, is deceptive, and unworthy of confidence.

Another of the proofs adduced for the supposed change of the Sabbath, is the following prediction. Psalm 118:22-24. "The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is the Lord's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it." But this, like all the previous quotations, wants solidity. The main points in the argument are _assumed_. First, it is assumed, that Christ's becoming the head of the corner refers to the day of his resurrection; whereas there is no conclusive evidence that it refers to this rather than to the day of his birth, or of his entrance on his public ministry, or of his final ascension into heaven. Next, it is assumed that the day spoken of is a natural day of twenty-four hours; whereas this word is often used to designate an indefinite period of time--particularly the Gospel era (John 8:56)--and may very probably be so used here. Again, it is assumed, that the day mentioned is the first day of the week; whereas there is nothing which designates this rather than some other in the course of his mediatorial work, allowing a natural day to be referred to. And even if the resurrection day be intended, it is not certain that this occurred on the first day of the week. It is further assumed, that the emphasis which is laid on the day alluded to as "the day which the Lord hath made," and in which the church would "rejoice and be glad," determines it to be the New Testament Sabbath in distinction from the Sabbath of the fourth commandment; whereas there is nothing in these circumstances which necessarily intimates any such change, while there are various important considerations by which this opinion is absolutely precluded. The entire argument, therefore, fails.

Another argument for the change of the Sabbath is based upon the supposition that the day of Pentecost occurred on the first day of the week, which was a remarkable season of the outpouring of the Spirit, and of Christ's triumph as the risen and exalted Savior. But this will appear, on a very little examination, to be wholly inconclusive. In the first place, it is far from being conclusively proved that this event occurred on the first day of the week. It is much more likely to have occurred either on the _fifth_ or the _seventh_. Indeed, it is quite manifest from the best calculations that can be made, from the time of eating the passover supper, the first paschal sabbath, the crucifixion and the resurrection, that it occurred on one or the other of these days. Secondly, if the feast of Pentecost had actually occurred on the first day of the week, this would furnish no proof of its being the New Testament Sabbath, in the absence of a divine warrant to that effect.

There is one other argument for the change in question, founded on the supposed application of the title "the Lord's day," to the first day of the week. The only passage referred to for the purpose of sustaining it, is Revelation 1:10. "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day." But that the day here called the Lord's day, is the first day of the week, is merely assumed, and hence is not to be considered as proved. It is not, in fact, _probable_ that this is the day referred to. It is much more likely that the expression here used refers to the day of Christ's reign; and that St. John meant to declare that in spirit he had a view of the scenes of that period. This use of the term _day_ is sanctioned by the Savior's declaration, "Abraham rejoiced to see my day," (John 8:56,) as well as by the Psalmist's, who, when speaking of the glories of Christ's kingdom, says, "This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it," (Psalm 118:23.) The nature of the visions afterwards described also corroborates this view of the passage, and warrants the opinion that the expression "Lord's day," (or, as some translate it, _lordly_ day,) here used, does not refer to a natural day, but to a longer period of time. If, however, these words be understood to refer to a natural day, it is more likely to be the seventh day, which God had blessed and sanctified for his special service, than the first day. The seventh day is called by Him "_my holy day_," and "_the holy of the Lord_"--phrases very similar to the one in this passage. This was also the Sabbath which was made for man, and of which Christ says he is Lord. And since it was observed up to the close of the New Testament history, it would be perfectly natural for John to speak of it as "the Lord's day." Further, there is no evidence that the first day of the week was denominated the Lord's day, at so early a period. Only one writer mentions the expression till towards the close of the second century; and the reputed author of this passage, when speaking, in his Gospel, (which was written some years later than the Apocalypse,) of the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week; never intimates that the day should be called by any other name. The learned Morer, though an advocate for the first day, in mentioning the different days to which this phrase may be applied, acknowledges the entire uncertainty as to what day is intended, and says, "It is very likely that the more solemn and public use of the words was not observed until about the time of Sylvester II., when, by Constantine's command, it became an injunction." It is evident, therefore, that this passage cannot justly be used as proof that the Sabbath had been transferred to the first day of the week.

* * * * *

We have now examined the proofs commonly adduced for the abrogation or change of the original Sabbath, and have found them utterly insufficient and deceptive. Hence the claims of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, without alteration, are fully sustained. The advocates for the first day are aware that if an abrogation or change of the original Sabbath law cannot be made out, the seventh day is still the true Sabbath. Dr. Dwight, for instance, makes the following admission: "If we cannot find in the Scriptures plain and ample proof of the abrogation of the original day, or the substitution of a new one, the seventh day undoubtedly remains in full force and obligation, and is now to be celebrated by all the race of Adam." Here, then, the laboring oar is confessedly put into the hands of the advocates of the first day; and with what success they have used it, the foregoing examination will show. We ask, is it not a total failure? Has such "plain and ample proof" been produced from the Scriptures for the supposed abrogation or change? Indeed, it is evident that neither one nor the other of these things is _practicable_. An _abrogation_ is not practicable; for the Decalogue, in which the law of the Sabbath is contained, is unchangeable. "Not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled;" which implies its continued obligation, as long as moral beings exist. And the _change_ contended for is not practicable; because the substitution of another day for the seventh would annul the institution. It contains no warrant to keep the first day of the week as a Sabbath, but the seventh only. Its authority is limited to the seventh day, and cannot be transferred. The reason given for its institution, likewise, is limited to this day. It is obvious that it will not apply to another. The Sabbath law, therefore, contains no warrant whatever for the observance of the first day of the week. If the day is changed, the institution is annulled; and another institution, in some respects similar, but not in all, is introduced, in the total absence of _divine_ authority, and hence rests altogether upon that which is _human_. This consideration, of itself, shows the absurdity of holding to the change of the original day, while the validity of the entire Decalogue is admitted.

From what has been here presented, it is evident that the Scriptures do not authorize the abrogation or change of the original Sabbath, but enforce its observance by precept and example. The opposite view is supported wholly by tradition and human authority, as an impartial examination of the history of the change will show. Have we not a right to expect, then, that when the great body of professing Christians shall become enlightened on this subject, and have sufficient grace and fortitude to act up to their convictions, the result will be, a general return to the faithful keeping of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment?

Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society, No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.

[No. 4.]

THE SABBATH AND LORD'S DAY;

A HISTORY OF THEIR OBSERVANCE

IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

NEW YORK: PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY, No. 9 Spruce-Street 1852.

In the preceding numbers of this series of Tracts, we have given an account of the institution of the Sabbath, and the reasons for believing it to be moral and perpetually binding, together with an examination of the authority for a change of the day. As the result of this examination, we have been driven to the conclusion, that the Sabbath was given to man in Paradise; that the fourth commandment was but a reënforcement of it; that the Scriptures do not authorize a change of the day of the Sabbath; and that, therefore, _the seventh day of the week ought now to be observed by all men_. But there are many persons who admit the early institution of the Sabbath, and the absence of any authority from the Scriptures for a change, yet suppose that the example of the early Christians, and the sayings of "the Fathers," warrant them in observing the first day of the week, to the neglect of the seventh. For the benefit of such, we now come to consider the history of the Sabbath since the establishment of the Christian Church. By consenting to do this, it is not meant to admit, that if a regard for the first day of the week can be traced to near the time of the Apostles, it is necessarily of apostolic authority; for it is affirmed by St. Paul, that even in his time "the mystery of iniquity had begun to work." We believe that "the Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man;" and we cannot admit, therefore, that the early existence of the practice is sufficient to give it divine authority, unless sanctioned by the inspired writings. In order to establish the claims of the first day of the week to be the Sabbath, two things are indispensable: 1. To prove from the Scriptures that the seventh day (which all acknowledge to have been originally the Sabbath) has been abrogated. 2. To show from the same source that the first day has been appointed in the place of the seventh. It is not sufficient to prove that a religious regard was early paid to the first day. There is an important distinction between _the Sabbath_ and a _religious festival_; the former requiring abstinence from all ordinary labor, and devotion of a whole day to the public and private duties of religion; the latter requiring only the commemoration of some important event, and allowing the time not occupied in the public celebration of it to be devoted to labor or amusement. That this distinction was understood to exist between the regard for the seventh day and that for the first day, seems evident from the fact that in the early history of the church no Christians are charged with abandoning the Sabbath, while we are assured that after the meetings on the first day of the week they went about their ordinary labor. This apparently innocent regard for the day on which Christ first appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, it is believed, has given rise to the whole apostacy from the Sabbath. The following pages are designed to show the steps by which it was brought about.

The Sabbath in the Apostolic Church.

Before entering upon the history of the Sabbath, as it is derived from uninspired records, it is proper to inquire how it was regarded by Jesus Christ and his Apostles.

That Jesus Christ embraced the observance of the Sabbath among other duties enjoined in the Decalogue, is evident from Matt. 5:17:--"Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill; for verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." He here declared the precepts of this law, without distinction, to be permanent and unchangeable. Had he commanded his disciples to keep the Sabbath, by enacting a new precept, it would have been equivalent to saying that he considered it in the light of a ceremonial and expiring institution, which, in truth, it was not. He therefore most wisely enforced all those precepts as inseparable, unchangeable, and unrepealable. And he plainly said, in the connection referred to, that no person is worthy of a place in his church, who will break any one of these commandments, or teach others to do so. In all his subsequent allusions to this subject, he speaks of the Sabbath as an ancient and well-established ordinance, founded in the nature and fitness of things, made for and adapted to the uses of mankind. (Mark 2:27.) His _example_ was in strict conformity with his teachings on this subject. His "_custom_" was to go to places of public worship, and to preach the Gospel on the Sabbath. His _disciples_, being educated in the observance of the Sabbath, could have entertained no doubts as to its perpetuity, nor have reasons to suppose that Christianity relaxed their obligation to observe it. It is very certain, that during the whole time that our Lord was with his disciples before his death, he gave no intimation to them that the duty of keeping the Sabbath was to be in any wise affected by his death; and we find that after this event, the disciples "rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment." (Luke 23:56.) Further, our Saviour himself, when speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, an event not to take place until forty years after his death, tells his disciples to pray that their flight might not be on the Sabbath day. It is difficult to conceive why this day should be spoken of at so late a period, unless it was to continue.

The same views respecting the sacredness of the Sabbath seem to have been entertained by the Apostles, after the resurrection of Christ, that they held before his death; and they appear to have occupied that day as they had formerly done, in attending places of public worship, and preaching the Gospel. See Acts 13:14, 42, 44, where it is said, "They came to Antioch, in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day." After Paul had preached Christ as the true Messiah, "and when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath." "And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Or, see Acts 16:13, where, "on the Sabbath we went out of the city, by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made." Or Acts 15:21--"For Moses, of old time, hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogue every Sabbath day." This last passage is given by St. James as a reason why they should write to the Gentile converts only that "they abstain from things offered to idols," &c. From this it is apparent that the custom was common, both to hold meetings on the Sabbath day, and for the Gentile Christians to attend those meetings. If it was not common, the reading of Moses would not benefit them. If it was common, then they kept the Sabbath.

St. Paul, in 1 Thess. 2:14, says to the Thessalonians, "For ye, brethren, became followers (imitators) of the churches of God, which in Judea are in Christ Jesus." And as these Gentile Christians were followers of the churches in Judea, so they were ensamples, or patterns, to all the believers in Macedonia, and Achaia. (Ch. 1:7.) As to the character of the churches in Judea touching the Sabbath, we need only to consult Acts 21:20. It is there asserted, that there were many thousands of the Jews who believed, and that they were all zealous of the law. And the context shows that they were zealous of even the ceremonies of the Jewish ritual. Hence we infer, that there was uniformity with the Jewish and Gentile Christians, in the observance of the Sabbath, and that the whole apostolic church religiously kept it.

Notwithstanding the Sabbath continued to be observed until the sacred canon was closed, it has been quite common, since the Reformation, to refer to certain passages of Scripture as indicating that the first day had been, or was to be, substituted for the seventh. It is said that Christ's meeting with his disciples on the evening of his resurrection day indicates that it was to be religiously regarded thereafter. Those who make such use of this circumstance seem to overlook, what it is very important to remember, that two of the disciples traveled from Jerusalem to Emmaus and back on that day, a distance of fifteen miles, and a part of this in company with the Saviour. This fact alone shows that it could not have been regarded as a Sabbath. Nor is there any thing in the circumstances of the meeting to indicate it. The disciples were not all present, and those who were present had assembled for other reasons, without any expectation of seeing the Master.

The meeting "_after eight days_" affords no help. Who can say positively that this expression means a week? Or, granting that it does mean a week, what does the passage make for the religious character of the first day? Jesus met his disciples on one occasion when fishing, and was seen of them forty days. Now, if his meeting with them proves the day of that meeting to be a Sabbath, a fishing day would be such, and the whole forty.

In regard to those two places, (Acts 20:7, and 1 Cor. 16:2,) where the expression "_first day of the week_" occurs, they make nothing for the sanctification of the day, since there is no hint of any such thing. The meetings there spoken of were for special purposes, and nothing was done at either which might not with perfect propriety have been done on any day. It is not quite certain that the passage, "They came together to break bread," refers to the Lord's Supper. Indeed, both St. Chrysostom among the ancients, and Calvin among the moderns, deny that it was to celebrate the Supper, and refer it to a friendly meal.

The text, Rev. 1:10, where St. John was "_in the spirit on the Lord's day_," is likewise not a good proof text. That reference is there had to the first day of the week, is by no means certain. There are some who refer it to a much longer period--to the gospel era; while others, among whom is Bede, refer it to the day of judgment. The fact that none of those who early mention the Lord's day refer to this passage, is much against it. In these circumstances, it would not be safe to draw conclusions in regard to practice therefrom. Indeed, none of the earliest writers found the observance of the Lord's day upon the Scriptures.

Observance of the Sabbath from the time of the Apostles to Constantine.

Thus far we have been guided by the inspired Scriptures, and we think they prove beyond dispute, that the Christians of the apostolic age had received no new doctrine concerning the Sabbath, but continued without any change to devote the seventh day of the week to the duties of religion. But we now enter a period in which the history of the Sabbath must be derived from other sources. It may be difficult to trace exactly every step which has been taken, as the histories of the early ages are very defective on many subjects. They have come to us, to a considerable extent, through the church of Rome; and since she claims to have changed the day of the Sabbath, it is not to be expected that testimony against herself would be very faithfully preserved. In pursuing our sketch, we shall follow the best lights we have to guide us.

After the period described in the Acts of the Apostles, Christianity soon became widely spread in the Roman empire, which, at that time, extended over most of the civilized world. But as it receded from the time of the Apostles, and the number of its professors increased, the church became gradually less spiritual, and more disposed to deck the simple religion of Jesus with mysteries and superstitious formalities; and the bishops or pastors became ambitious of their authority over the churches. Those churches, even in Gentile cities, appear to have been composed, at first, principally of converted Jews, who not only observed the weekly Sabbath, but also the feast of the Passover, adapted particularly to Christian worship; respecting which, there was much contention. In the mean time, converts were greatly multiplied from among the Gentiles and were united with those from the Jews, who, not without reason, considered themselves entitled to some distinction as the original founders of the gospel church, and as being better informed in the writings of Moses and the prophets, having been in the habit of reading them every Sabbath in the synagogues.

About three years after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, according to the common account, Judea was invaded by the Roman armies, and Jerusalem was besieged and destroyed, as our Lord had predicted. By this awful calamity, it is supposed that most of the churches in Judea were scattered; for they fled their country at the approach of their enemies, as they were taught by Jesus Christ to do. (Matt. 24:16.) This war resulted not only in the breaking up of the nation, and the destruction of a great portion of the people, but also in bringing a general odium upon the Jews wherever they were found; so that even the Christians of Judea suffered what our Saviour taught them to expect, (Matt. 24:9,) "And ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake." These circumstances, added to the enmity which formerly existed between the Gentiles and the Jews, produced a prejudice which had its influence in the church in bringing into disrepute, and in fixing a stigma upon, whatever was regarded as Judaism. "The doctrines of our Saviour and the church, flourishing from day to day, continued to receive constant accessions," says _Eusebius_, "but the calamities of the Jews also continued to grow with one accumulation of evil upon another." The insurrectionary disposition of the conquered Jews in the reign of _Trajan_, in the early part of the second century, and the calamities that followed them, seemed to confirm the opinion that the Jews were given over by the Almighty to entire destruction. But their calamities increased in the reign of _Adrian_, who succeeded _Trajan_, in whose reign the revolt of the Jews again proceeded to many and great excesses, and _Rufus_, the lieutenant governor of Judea, using their madness as a pretext, destroyed myriads of men, women and children, in crowds; and by the laws of war, he reduced their country to a state of absolute subjection, and the degraded race to the condition of slaves. The transformation of the church in Jerusalem is thus described by _Eusebius_: "The city of the Jews being thus reduced to a state of abandonment for them, and totally stripped of its ancient inhabitants, and also inhabited by strangers; the Roman city which subsequently arose changing its name, was called _Ælia_, in honor of the emperor Ælias Adrian; and when the church was collected there of the Gentiles, the first bishop after those of the circumcision was _Marcus_." Thus was extinguished the Hebrew church in Jerusalem, having had a succession of fifteen pastors; "all which," says _Eusebius_, "they say, were Hebrews from the first. At that time the whole church under them," he adds, "consisted of faithful Hebrews, who continued from the time of the Apostles to the siege that then took place."

This church, which heretofore held the first rank in regard to its influence, being now composed entirely of Gentiles, and stripped of its apostolic character and influence, could no longer successfully oppose the growing ambition and influence of the bishops of the church in the metropolis of the empire.

Up to this period, and for some time after, there does not appear to have been any change in the sentiments or practice of the church, in any place, relative to the Sabbath; but from what is related by subsequent writers, which will be noticed in its place, it is certain that it was observed by the churches universally. This fact is so generally acknowledged by those acquainted with the history of the matter, that we need refer to only a few passages in proof.

The learned _Grotius_ says, in his Explication of the Decalogue, "Therefore the Christians also, who believed Christ would restore all things to their primitive practice, as Tertullian teacheth in _Monogamia_, kept holy the Sabbath, and had their assemblies on that day, in which the law was read to them, as appears in Acts 15:21, which custom remained till the time of the council of Laodicea, about A. D. 365, who then thought meet that the gospels also should be read on that day."

_Edward Brerewood_, Professor in Gresham College, London, in a Treatise on the Sabbath, 1630, says: "It is commonly believed that the Jewish Sabbath was changed into the Lord's day by Christian emperors, and they know little who do not know, that _the ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed by the eastern churches three hundred years after our Saviour's passion_."

At what time the first day of the week came into notice as a festival in the church, it is not easy to determine. The first intimation we have of this, in any ancient writer of acknowledged integrity, is from Justin Martyr's Apology for the Christians, about A. D. 140. He is cited as saying, "that the Christians in the city and in the country assembled on the day called Sunday, and after certain religious devotions, all returned home to their labors;" and he assigns as reasons for this, that God made the world on the first day, and that Christ first showed himself to his disciples on that day after his resurrection. These were the best, and probably all the reasons that could then be offered for the practice. He also speaks of Sunday only as a festival, on which they performed labor, when not engaged in devotions, and not as a substitute for the Sabbath. From this author we can learn nothing as to the extent of the practice; for though he says this was done by those "in the city and in the country," he may have intended only the city of Rome and its suburbs, since _Justin_, although a native of Palestine in Syria, is stated by _Eusebius_ to have made his residence in Rome. Nor can we determine from this, that he intended any thing more than that they did thus on the Sunday in which the church of Rome, a short time after this, is known to have closed the paschal feast, which was observed annually.

It is contended, however, that mention is made of keeping the first day previous to _Justin_. The first intimation of this kind, it is believed, is from an apocryphal writing, styled the _Epistle of Barnabas_; but to this epistle it is objected, that there is no evidence of its genuineness. _Eusebius_, who lived near the time when it was written, mentions it as a spurious writing, entitled to no credit. _Dr. Milnor_ says it is an injury to St. Barnabas to ascribe this epistle to him. _Mosheim_ says it is the work of some superstitious Jew of mean abilities. And we think it has but little to recommend it besides its antiquity. Barnabas' theory for observing the first day, rests upon the tradition that the seventh day was typical of the seventh millennium of the age of the world, which would be purely a holy age, and that the Sabbath was not to be kept until that time arrived; and he says, "We keep the eighth day with gladness, in which Jesus rose from the dead."

The citations from _Ignatius_, are as little to the purpose. In the passage of which most use has been made, he did not say that himself or any one else kept the Lord's day, as is often asserted. His own words are, that "the prophets who lived before Christ came to a newness of hope, not by keeping Sabbaths, but by living according to a lordly or most excellent life." In this passage, Ignatius was speaking of altogether a different thing from Sabbath-keeping. There is another quotation from him, however, in which he brings out more clearly his view of the relation existing between the Sabbath and Lord's day. It is as follows: "Let us not keep the Sabbath in a Jewish manner, in sloth and idleness; but let us keep it after a spiritual manner, not in bodily ease, but in the study of the law, and in the contemplation of the works of God." "And _after_ we have kept the Sabbath, let every one that loveth Christ keep the Lord's day _festival_." From this it seems that he would have the Sabbath kept first, _as such_, and in a manner satisfactory to the strictest Sabbatarian, after which the Lord's day, not as a Sabbath, but as a festival. Indeed, with this distinction between the _Sabbath_ and a _festival_ before us, it is easy to explain all those passages from early historians which refer to the first day. We shall find them to be either immediately connected with instructions about such seasons as _Good Friday_ and _Holy Thursday_, or in the writings of those who have recommended the observance of these festival days.

It is also said that _Pliny_, Governor of Bithynia, A. D. 102, in a letter to _Trajan_, states that the Christians met on the first day of the week for worship; but by no fair interpretation of his words can he be so understood. He says, in writing about those of his own province, "that they were accustomed to assemble on a _stated day_." This might be referred to the first day, if there were credible testimony that this day was alone regarded at that time; but as there is no evidence of this, and as the Sabbath is known to have been the stated day of religious assembling a long time after this, it seems more proper to refer it to the Sabbath.

We will mention but one more of these misinterpreted citations, and this is from _Dionysius_, bishop of Corinth, who lived a little after _Justin_. His letter to _Soter_, bishop of Rome, is cited as saying, "This day we celebrated the holy Dominical day, in which we have read your epistle." As given by _Eusebius_, it is thus: "To-day we have _passed the Lord's holy day_," &c. The only ground upon which this phrase can be referred to the first day, is, that this day was at that time known by the same title that God has given to the Sabbath, (see Isaiah 48:13,) of which there is no proof. Therefore it is not just to cite this passage as evidence of the observance of the first day at that time.

It is, indeed, a well-known fact, that the first day has come into very extensive use among the great body of Christians, as the only day of weekly rest and worship. The origin of this practice does not appear, however, to be as ancient, by some centuries, as many suppose; nor was its adoption secured at once, but by slow and gradual advances it obtained general notice in Christian countries. This is frankly admitted by _Morer_, an English Episcopalian, in his _Dialogues on the Lord's day_, p. 236. He says, "In _St. Jerome's_ time, (that is, in the fifth century,) Christianity had got into the throne as well as into the empire. Yet for all this, the entire sanctification of the Lord's day proceeded slowly; and that it was the work of time to bring it to perfection, appears from the several steps the church made in her constitution, and from the decrees of emperors and other princes, wherein the prohibitions from servile and civil business advanced by degrees from one species to another, till the day got a considerable figure in the world." The same author says, on the same page: "If the Christians in St. Jerome's time, after divine service on the Lord's day, followed their daily employments, it should be remembered, that this was not done till the worship was quite over, when they might with innocency enough resume them, because the length of time and the number of hours assigned for piety were not then so well explained as in after ages."

It is probable that no other day could have obtained the same notice in ancient times as the first day of the week did; for there were circumstances, aside from the resurrection, that had an influence in promoting its observance. It was at first a celebration of the same character as the fourth and sixth days of the week, and the annual festivals of saints and martyrs. These celebrations were comparatively unobjectionable, when not permitted to interfere with a divine appointment; but when they were made to supersede or cause a neglect of the Sabbath, they were criminal. In respect to these days of weekly celebration, _Mosheim_, when remarking upon this early period, and the regard then paid to the seventh and first days, says, "Many also observed the fourth day, in which Christ was betrayed, and the sixth day, in which he was crucified." He adds, "The time of assembling was generally in the evening after sunset, or in the morning before the dawn."

_The respect which the Gentiles had for the first day_, or Sunday, _while they were Pagans_, contributed much to render its introduction easy, and its weekly celebration popular, among such materials as composed the body of the church of Rome in the second, third, and fourth centuries. The observance of the first day of the week as a festival of the Sun, was very general in those nations from which the Gentile church received her converts. That an idolatrous worship was paid to the Sun and other heavenly bodies by the Gentiles, the Old Testament abundantly testifies; and this kind of adoration paid to the Sun in later times, is as plainly a matter of historical record. _Thomas Bampfield_, an English writer of the seventeenth century, quoting _Verstegan's_ Antiquities, p. 68, says: "Our ancestors in England, before the light of the Gospel came among them, went very far in this idolatry, and dedicated the first day of the week to the adoration of the idol of the Sun, and gave it the name of Sunday. This idol they placed in a temple, and there sacrificed to it." He further states, that from his historical reading, he finds that a great part of the world, and particularly those parts of it which have since embraced Christianity, did anciently adore the Sun upon Sunday. It is also stated by _Dr. Chambers_, in his Cyclopedia, that "Sunday was so called by our idolatrous ancestors, because set apart for the worship of the Sun." The Greeks and the Latins also gave the same name to the first day of the week. _Dr. Brownlee_, as quoted by _Kingsbury_, on the Sabbath, p. 223, also says, "When the descendants of Adam apostatized from the worship of the true God, they substituted in his place the Sun, that luminary which, more than all others, strikes the minds of savage people with religious awe; and which, therefore, all heathens worship." Attachment to particular days of religious celebration, from habit merely, is well known, even in our own day, to be very strong, and powerful convictions of duty are often required to produce a change. This was no doubt well understood by the teachers of Christianity in those times. _Dr. Mosheim_, when treating on that age, says, "that the leaders imagined that the nations would the more readily receive Christianity when they saw the rites and ceremonies to which they had been accustomed established in the churches, and the same worship paid to Jesus Christ and his martyrs which they had formerly offered to their idol deities. Hence it happened, that in those times, the religion of the Greeks and Romans differed but little in its external appearance from that of Christians."

_Prejudice against the Jews_, was another influence against the Sabbath, and in favor of the first day. This was very strong, and directly calculated to lead the Gentile Christians to fix a stigma upon every religious custom of the Jews, and to brand as _Judaism_ whatever they supposed had any connection with the Mosaic religion. Hence it was that in those times, as often occurs in our own, to produce disaffection and disgust to the seventh day as the Sabbath, they spoke of it and reproached its observance as Judaizing. This feeling in relation to Judaism led _Athanasius_, bishop of Alexandria, in Egypt, in the fourth century, who with his people then observed the Sabbath, to say, in his _Interpretation of the Psalms_, "We assemble on Saturday, not that we are infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath." In a community of Christians whose religion was formal, and whose celebrations were designed more to act upon their passions and senses than to improve their hearts or to conform them to divine requirements, a more powerful argument could scarcely be used against the Sabbath day, or one that would more effectually promote the observance of the first day, which was raised up as its rival. _Dr. Neander_ says distinctly, "Opposition to Judaism introduced the particular festival of Sunday very early."