Replies to Elder Canright’s Attacks on Seventh-day Adventists

WHO CHANGED THE SABBATH?

IT is often remarked that new converts are the most zealous. It is also true in general that apostates are the most bitter opponents. To this, however, there are notable exceptions; yet exceptions are never supposed to invalidate a rule. I have spent many years trying to induce people to embrace the present truth, and so hard have I labored to this end that I rejoice in every accession to the church. Of course, I cannot but feel sad over every defection. So deeply do I realize the weakness of human nature that I can well appreciate the exhortation in Galatians 6:1. Even if we cannot restore the erring, we may be led to greater watchfulness by our efforts, not knowing where next the darts of the enemy may be aimed. It is not a strange idea that the faith of every one will be tested; that a shaking time is before us in which, to use the words of Scripture on another subject, only that which cannot be shaken will remain. RCASDA 118.1

There lies before me an article by Eld. D.M. Canright, in which he assails the views held by Seventh-day Adventists on the question, “Who changed the Sabbath?” I am not at all surprised that he tries to make strong assertions to uphold weak points. Self-confidence in asserting his positions was his prominent failing, and one which has, no doubt, had much to do in placing him where he now stands. He had an unfortunate peculiarity of setting himself up as a standard of both thought and action for all who came within the range of his influence. But, most unfortunately for him, he made himself the standard for himself as well as for others, and he has not yet nearly reached the position to which such a following will lead him. RCASDA 118.2

He particularly assails us on the above question because, he says, this lies at the foundation of the main point of our faith, that Sunday-keeping will yet become the mark of the beast. Of this he says:— RCASDA 118.3

My experience is that a belief of this as a fact induces more persons to give up Sunday for Saturday than all other arguments made by the Seventh-day people. Convince a man that Sunday-keeping is only a Catholic institution, a rival to the Lord’s Sabbath, and hateful to God, and of course, if he has any conscience, he will keep it no longer. Every one of them accepts this as an historical fact in fulfillment of Daniel 7:25. Indeed, this is the one main pillar of their whole system, upon which all the rest depends. If their position on this is false, then their whole system of prophetic interpretation is also false, as they will readily admit. RCASDA 118.4

No, we will not readily admit any such thing. Nor would they who now so gladly publish his articles, because they seem to do injury to Seventh-day Adventism, so cheerfully give them circulation, if they stopped to consider the consequences to which such unguarded declarations lead. It is a fact that the Bible Banner, and the World’s Crisis, and other papers which publish his articles, fully agree with us on our “whole system of prophetic interpretation;” but they deny the correctness of our application of a single symbol. And if we could become convinced that our interpretation of Revelation 13:11-17, is wrong, we should still insist that our whole system of prophetic interpretation is right. Ours is the literal, as opposed to the mystical system of prophetic interpretation. While these papers rest their whole advent faith upon this same system, they stand committed to the position that, if our application of this symbol of Revelation 13:11-17, and of the mark of the beast which stands connected with it, is wrong, then the whole system of the literal interpretation of the prophecies is false! We do, indeed, claim that our application of this symbol is the logical result of following this system; but we will not be so ungenerous as to hold the papers to which we have referred, to the consequences of that which they have virtually indorsed, namely, if our interpretation of the two-horned beast and the mark of the beast is wrong, then the whole literal system of prophetic interpretation is also wrong. Our system of faith is largely based on our interpretation of this prophecy; but we have never gone so far as to assert that if our faith on this point is wrong, then the whole literal system of prophetic interpretation is false. It has been reserved to Eld. Canright to take that position for us. But as he has copyrighted it, we may not be able to realize the full benefit of it! RCASDA 119.1

Having shown the importance of the question to our faith, he proceeds to combat our claim that the papacy changed the Sabbath to Sunday. On this he says:— RCASDA 119.2

It would seem that such a bold and radical position should be supported by the clearest and most abundant evidence. They claim it is an actual historical fact that at a certain time, about 500 after Christ, the pope did change the Sabbath to Sunday. If this be so, of course they should be able to procure reliable historical proof for it, giving the time, place, manner, facts, and reasons for so remarkable an occurrence. I have before me two books written expressly to prove this assertion. They are “Who Changed the Sabbath?” 24 pages, and “Marvel of Nations,” 282 pages. But the only proof offered is simply quotations from Catholic catechisms, which claim that their Church made the change. And this is all the historical proof they can present on this point! Yes, for all that the Sabbatarian writers and scholars for the last 200 years have been able to find is just this and nothing more. Not one single historian in all the annals of the world has ever stated that the pope changed the Sabbath. For twenty-eight years I longed for such a testimony, but found it not. RCASDA 119.3

I have thus largely quoted, as this paragraph gives the complete substance of his whole article, that the reader may see exactly what is his claim. The paragraph affords much food for reflection, and opens before our view a large amount of false reasoning. RCASDA 120.1

1. We learn that for twenty-eight years he longed for what he considered evidence essential to establish the very foundation of the faith that he preached, “but found it not”! While this may or may not be hard on our faith, it is very discreditable to his experience in the ministry, considering that he was strong and confident in his assertions that the faith he preached was fully and completely proved. His longing for twenty-eight years for proof which he could consider satisfactory shows that he was not as confident as he assumed to be. Is he now? RCASDA 120.2

2. He does not seem to realize that the question that should govern us on all points of duty is, What say the Scriptures? I have always claimed, and still claim, that proof of the real origin of the Sunday Sabbath is a secondary matter, while it is admitted by very many of its most ardent and learned advocates that its origin cannot be traced to any requirement in the Scriptures. And whether they confess it or not, the fact remains, that it is not of Bible origin, plain to the sight of every one who reads his Bible with any care. A man, “if he has any conscience,” will not wait to settle the question of its origin, if he has set before him the evidence that God’s law requires the observance of the seventh day, and that the Bible is entirely silent in regard to any other day to be observed as a weekly Sabbath. RCASDA 120.3

3. He entirely evades the issue, instead of settling it, when he offers proof that the Christians met for worship on the first day of the week in the days immediately following the apostles. Query: Did they observe it as a Sabbath, or day of rest from secular labor? Eld. Canright knows very well that they did not. He knows also, if he has ever examined history on the subject, that in those very days Christians assembled for worship on the sixth day also, in commemoration of the death of the Lord, and that neither the first nor the sixth was held as a Sabbath till after the celebrated decree of Constantine for resting on the venerable day of the sun. After that time it was adopted by the Church of Rome, and made the “chief festival of the Church,” because it was easier to reach the people if they kept the same day that was popularized by the emperor, and to which they were allied in their adoration of the sun. RCASDA 120.4

4. He surely cannot be so ignorant of history as to believe, though he affirms it, that the observance of the first day of the week as a day of worship was universal among Christians in “the days immediately following the apostles.” I am aware that room for a world of quibbling is opened under the expression, “a day of worship;” because in that manner may be brought in the custom of holding religious worship and thence repairing to their usual avocations on that day. But that would be but a cavil, for he is now considering the erection of the first day as a Sabbath, and the fact that thy met for worship on that day is not proof, inasmuch as the proof is clear that they did not rest from labor upon it. After the time of Constantine’s decree, and after the Church of Rome had adopted it as the day of special observance, and put the seventh day under its ban, there were many in the Eastern churches who still observed the seventh day, who resisted the usurpation of the Romish Church; and the anathemas of the council held at Laodicea were among the means of bringing them to submit to the change. RCASDA 121.1

5. Before presenting direct evidence on the question, I will say something on Eld. C.’s flourish over our not being able to give time, place, manner, facts, and reasons of the papacy’s erecting the Sunday-Sabbath institution. I propose to show that all this can be done, definitely and to a certainty. But I insist that it is not necessary to our position; our faith may be fully and sufficiently established without doing half that he asks. He will find himself by no means so well prepared to defend the Sunday-Sabbath as we are to assail it. Let us institute a few comparisons:— RCASDA 121.2

Suppose that I owe Eld. Canright a sum of money; in payment I offer him a bill which he claims is counterfeit. In proof he shows: (a.) that the detector gives a very accurate description of the genuine, but this does not resemble it in a single feature. This he thinks ought to settle the matter. (b.) There is a notorious counterfeiter at hand, who has literally flooded the land with counterfeits; and he has executed them so well that the majority prefer them to the genuine. Of course this emboldens him in his work, and he does not deny his occupation; he rather boasts of his skill in counterfeiting. He comes forward and says that he made that bill; he declares that it is one of the best that he ever made. He has even held it up as evidence of his great ability as a counterfeiter. (c.) Ever since it has been in circulation, there have been officers of the Government who pronounced it a counterfeit. It is further proved that its circulation was resisted by the people, but the counterfeiter got together a company of his confederates, and they resolved to boycott, to waylay, to maltreat all those who would not receive it. And it is shown that these were the means by which it came to be regarded as of any value. (d.) It is further shown that in all places where he had the controlling influence, they abused and even put to death those who should be found in possession of the genuine. All this Eld. C. offers, to justify his refusal to accept my bill. RCASDA 122.1

But to this I make reply, that, (a.) we cannot take the word of the counterfeiter; his testimony is ruled out. (b.) It is admitted that everything alleged against the counterfeiter is true, except as regards this particular bill. (c.) It has for so long a time been received as valuable, that custom establishes the fact of its value. Evidences to the contrary are of no weight. (d.) But, as most decisive of all. I call upon Eld. C. to show the time, place, and manner in which this particular bill was made; he must show the identical tools which were used, and he must plainly declare the facts and reasons which induced the counterfeiter to make this bill. I do not claim that all this can be done in regard to the other counterfeits; it is enough that they stand condemned by the detector. But this is an exceptional case. In regard to this bill I say that he must either show all this, or accept the bill, or lose his debt. RCASDA 122.2

After all this array of “proofs,” it is just possible that Eld. Canright might prove so exacting as to still refuse to receive the bill. But every one will acknowledge that he would only be notional in so doing. It is so out of harmony with his claim in parallel cases! RCASDA 123.1

6. To show that I am correct in saying that his claim in regard to this particular institution is exceptional and unreasonable, I now call upon him to show the origin of infant baptism. Let him declare to us the time, place, and manner in which it was instituted. I shall not accept, as proof in the case, instances of its being practiced; these are evidences of its existence, but not of its institution or origin. Let him show the particular facts and reasons which first led to its practice, and when I prove that it was practiced in the days immediately following the apostles, as I hereby offer to do, let him accept it as a valid, Christian ordinance, or renounce the untenable ground upon which he stands. Nor can he evade this by saying that it may be proved that they held meeting for worship on Sunday earlier than the time of the first mention of infant baptism, for meeting for worship on that day gives it no pre-eminence over the sixth day, on which also they held meeting; and I offer to prove that infant baptism was practiced nearly two centuries before there was any observance. If he doubts my ability to do this, it can easily be tested. I am willing to be held to all my offers whenever he comes forward to give the counter evidence. RCASDA 123.2

7. Infant baptism does not stand alone antedating Sunday-keeping. With it we find sprinkling, first in connection with immersion and then as a substitute for immersion, infant communion, consecration water in baptism, belief in baptismal regeneration, and many other superstitions. Every one of these can plead the authority of the Fathers, antiquity, the days following the apostles, etc. And every one of them was considered pious and Christian before there was any idea of piety connected with any manner of keeping Sunday. And every one of them claimed, not the teachings of the apostles, but “apostolic traditions.” RCASDA 123.3

8. Not to be tedious, I will notice just one point more: Eld. C. lays great stress on finding that meetings were held on Sunday in the days immediately following the apostles, and long before the rise of the papal Church. But he cannot find any Sunday institution in those days. And if he could, what then? Paul said the mystery of iniquity was already working in his day, and every true Protestant believes that the mystery of iniquity gave rise to that man of sin — the papacy. Can Eld. Canright point to a single act in the working of that mystery of iniquity in Paul’s day, or in the days immediately following the apostles? It was working then, and continued to work until the man of sin stood in full view. But will he undertake to specify a single act in its working in those days? I confidently take this position, and respectfully ask any and all to show that it is not reasonable and just; namely, that practice or institution in the church, not ordained by divine authority, not plainly proved in the Scriptures, which can be traced to the time nearest to the days of the apostles, has the strongest claim to stand first in the working of that mystery of iniquity! Paul also said that after his departing, grievous wolves should enter in among them, and of their own selves should men arise, speaking perverse things, etc. Admitted that a practice is proved to have existed immediately after the days of Peter and Paul, if it is not authorized by the Scriptures, it is identified as being among the perverse things brought in by grievous wolves, and is to be classed as the working of the mystery of iniquity, by which that man of sin was brought to view. It was his special delight to change the times and laws of the Most High, and to multiply man-made institutions, and to compel their observance as a part of Christianity. RCASDA 123.4

I might carry much further the comparison between Sunday-keeping and other innovations and superstitions which had their origin in the effort to amalgamate Christianity and paganism. Many of the Fathers had been pagans, not a few of them pagan philosophers, and these were not slow to assume the position of teachers, and to leave their fancies and vagaries on record as the faith of the church. But with all the exhortations to cling to the law and the testimony alone, to the Scriptures of truth, they who follow these false lights away from the words of life, are without excuse. I am well aware that there is a strong effort made in the churches to separate Sunday from the other relics of pagan superstitions and human institutions, but in opening the way to gratify Eld. Canright’s long-standing desire to see proof that the papacy displaced the Sabbath of the Lord, and set up Sunday in its stead, I here state two propositions:— RCASDA 124.1

1. Among all the traditions and human innovations in the Christian church, there is none that can so clearly and positively be traced to paganism as the Sunday. RCASDA 125.1

2. Among all the institutions which have been foisted upon the church by the papal power, there is no one that is so clearly marked, so definitely outlined in its origin and enforcement, as the festival of the Sunday. RCASDA 125.2

I wish here to have it understood that I shall not take the time or the space to examine all the other traditions and superstitions that obtained a foot-hold in the church, and passed for Christian doctrines and ordinances, so as to draw the comparison and show which is the most distinctively pagan and papal. I only take it upon me to fully and clearly show that the Sunday has its origin as a day of regard and observance in paganism and the papacy. If any wish to have the comparison more fully traced, and think that they can show that other traditions have a better right to the claim of such origin, I shall be willing to carry the investigation further, for, though I hope to satisfy every reasonable requirement and every candid mind, I do not propose to exhaust the proofs which are in reach. RCASDA 125.3

1. Is it a fact that the observance of Sunday as a day of rest from secular employment is distinctively and only of pagan origin? RCASDA 125.4

To all true Protestants, who take “the Bible and the Bible alone,” who do not believe that their Christian character can be correctly formed by any standard but that which God has revealed, who do not believe there is any obedience where there is no precept or requirement, — to all such the plea of custom and tradition can have no weight. In regard to any custom, our inquiry is not, Did it exist? but, By what authority did it exist? We have little regard for what men have done; that does not reach our consciences; for that we go to history, and then we are often misinformed. We ask what they ought to have done, and to settle this we go the Bible, and are never deceived. And none can be deceived in going there, unless its testimony is covered up with inferences and traditions. I wish the reader to bear in mind what justly belongs to the examination of duty in regard to laws and institutions. The only question admissible is, What does the commandment of God say? Has it been as plainly amended or repealed as it was enacted? If not, no amount of tradition, custom, precedent, or reasoning can set it aside. But we are constantly going beyond what can be reasonably asked of us, and their conclusions unjust. RCASDA 125.5

In answering the question I have asked on the first proposition, I shall show that the authority, the name, and the sacredness of Sunday are entirely of pagan origin. RCASDA 126.1

Every one who has read the debate between Campbell and Purcell must have been struck with Mr. Campbell’s perfect familiarity with church history. The bishop appeared to be unusually fair for an advocate of “the church,” but on one point he was either inclined to take knowledge of church history and the writings of the Fathers. Mr. Campbell was an advocate of Sunday-keeping; in his theology, Sunday was the Lord’s day. But his learning often led him to make statements with which his theology was not in harmony. He was president of Bethany College, in Virginia, a denominational institution. Before a graduating class in the year 1884, he used the following language:— RCASDA 126.2

Was the first day set apart by public authority in the apostolic age? — No. By whom was it set apart, and when? — By Constantine, who lived about the beginning of the fourth century. RCASDA 126.3

These words I copied from one of their journals published in Cincinnati, the lecture having been revised by Mr. Campbell himself before its publication. According to this, Constantine was the one — the first one — who set apart by authority the first day of the week. Constantine’s Sunday decree was issued in 321. Dr. Heylyn, in his “History of the Sabbath,” an extensive and reliable work, speaking of their holding meetings on Sunday, said:— RCASDA 126.4

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. RCASDA 126.5

In a subsequent section of the same part (2) of his work, he said:— RCASDA 127.1

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 nor constitution to restrain men from labor in this day, in the Christian churches. RCASDA 127.2

These testimonies are exactly in harmony with that of Mr. Campbell. He says that Constantine was the first to set apart the first day of the week. This was in 321. Heylyn says there was no law for three hundred years. This would throw it forward to the time of Constantine. He also says it was a hundred years after Tertullian’s time. This is not definite, nor is the time of Tertullian’s death known. Authorities point to about 321, or not long after; and this again points to the time of Constantine. RCASDA 127.3

Bishop Jeremy Taylor, who, with Heylyn, was a Church of England writer, said:— RCASDA 127.4

The primitive Christians did all manner of work upon the Lord’s day, even in the times of persecutions, when they were the strictest observers of all the divine commandments; but in this they knew there was none; and therefore, when Constantine the emperor had made an edict against working on the Lord’s day, yet he excepts and still permitted all agriculture or labors of the husbandmen whatsoever. RCASDA 127.5

The Encyclopedia Britannica says:— RCASDA 127.6

It was Constantine the Great who first made a law for the proper observance of Sunday; and who; according to Eusebius, appointed it should be regularly celebrated throughout the Roman Empire. RCASDA 127.7

These are a very few of the very many testimonies at hand which definitely state that the law of Constantine was the first law which set apart the first day of the week, or required rest from secular work on Sunday. More are not necessary to quote, from the fact that not a single authority can be produced that gives any other date or authority for the first Sunday law. If Eld. Canright takes exception to this statement, will he please to name a single historian who has ever given any other date, or any other authority? Until he does at least this much — until he shows that there is some difference of opinion, some disagreement among learned and reliable authors on the subject, I shall claim that this part of my proposition is fully and sufficiently proved. The value of these testimonies is better appreciated by considering the fact that the witnesses were all friends and advocates of Sunday-keeping. RCASDA 127.8

Next we will look for the origin of the name of the institution that Constantine set apart. It is found in the law itself, which is as follows:— RCASDA 128.1

Let all the judges and towns-people, and the occupation all trades, rest upon 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. RCASDA 128.2

Thus in the first law for the observance of the day, it was designated the day of the sun. Not a very high or honorable title. How came this title to be given to it? The Religious Encyclopedia says:— RCASDA 128.3

The ancient Saxons called it by this name, because upon it they worshiped the sun. RCASDA 128.4

According to this, the title originated in heathen idolatry. Do authorities agree upon this? — Yes; there is not an author in all the rounds of history or literature who dissents from this. Webster says:— RCASDA 128.5

The heathen nations in the north of Europe dedicated this day to the sun, and hence their Christian descendants continue to call the day Sunday. RCASDA 128.6

Sunday was a name given by the heathen to the first day of the week, because it was the day on which they worshiped the sun. RCASDA 128.7

This is from the Sunday-school Union Bible Dictionary. Worcester, in his Dictionary, says:— RCASDA 128.8

Sunday; so named because anciently dedicated to the sun or its worship. RCASDA 128.9

These authors give an ancient origin to the name. Constantine was not the originator of the title which he gave to the day. Another historian, Morer, says:— RCASDA 128.10

It is not to be denied, but we borrow the name of this day from the ancient Greeks and Romans, and we allow that the old Egyptians worshiped the sun, and as a standing memorial of their veneration, dedicated this day to him. RCASDA 128.11

Thus it is shown that the title that Constantine gave to the day in the first Sunday law, is an ancient one, and is entirely of heathen origin. From this statement, also, there is no dissent. Eld. Canright cannot even get up any argument on these points. They are most telling against all the inferences by which he has endeavored to uphold himself in his present position, but he is compelled to stand silent before them. RCASDA 129.1

Now having found that the first law for Sunday rest gave it a heathen title, that the name is altogether of heathen origin, I proceed to inquire on what basis the law stood, that is, what was the nature of the edict — what the motive which actuated Constantine in giving this decree? This also can be settled to a certainty. Many interested religionists, with far more zeal than piety or regard for the precepts of Jehovah, speak of Constantine’s edict as a law for the Christian observance of the Lord’s day. The very title that he gave it, the origin of that title, and the known use of the title in those times, disprove their assertions. Indeed, their knowledge of the origin of the title ought to cause them to blush when they make such assertions. But our proof is explicit on the point of the motive that gave rise to the first Sunday law. We are not straitened for testimonies in regard to this; they are so numerous that I cannot give a tithe of them. And their importance on the subject under consideration cannot be overestimated. RCASDA 129.2

1. The fact that Constantine gave it the title by which it was known in pagan worship shows that it was not enforced as a Christian institution. RCASDA 129.3

2. It was dated March 7, 321, and March 8, he issued a decree for the examination of the entrails of beasts, for the determining of portents, or for ascertaining the causes of public calamities. This was a heathen custom, and showed the heathenism and superstition that swayed his mind at that time. RCASDA 129.4

3. At the time when these decrees were issued, he had made no profession of Christianity. Indeed, authorities have been quite willing to place the time of his professed conversion after the time when he presided over the Council of Nice, that it might be after the commission of many of his most perfidious and criminal acts. RCASDA 129.5

4. Historians freely testify that at and after the time of issuing his Sunday decree, he was a worshiper of Apollo, the sun-god, and to the close of his life, about 337, retained the title of Pontifex Maximus, or high priest of the heathen hierarchy. RCASDA 129.6

Milman, in the “History of Christianity,” b. 3, chap. 1, says:— RCASDA 130.1

It is the day of the sun which is to be observed by the general veneration, the courts were to be closed, and the noise and tumult of public business and legal litigation were no longer to violate the repose of the sacred day. 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. RCASDA 130.2

This is well expressed. It was, indeed, a new phase of paganism, for, though the venerable day of the sun had long — very long — been venerated by them and their heathen ancestors, the idea of rest from worldly labor in its worship was entirely new. Gibbon also gives clear testimony on the character of Constantine as a sun-worshiper. In chapter 20 of “History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” he says:— RCASDA 130.3

The devotion of Constantine was more peculiarly directed to the genius of the sun, the Apollo of Greek and Roman mythology; and he was pleased to be represented with the symbols of the god of light and poetry.... The altars of Apollo were crowned with the votive offerings of Constantine; and the credulous multitude were taught to believe that the emperor was permitted to behold with mortal eyes the visible majesty of their tutelary deity.... The sun was universally celebrated as the invincible guide and protector of Constantine. RCASDA 130.4

In a note on the same page is found the following:— RCASDA 130.5

The panegyric of Eumenius which was pronounced a few months before the Italian war, abounds with the most unexceptionable evidence of the pagan superstition of Constantine, and of his particular veneration of Apollo, or the sun. RCASDA 130.6

Keightley, “History of Rome,” speaking of Constantine at and after his profession of Christianity, says:— RCASDA 130.7

Constantine, however, was still a polytheist, and his principal object of worship was the sun-god, Apollo. At the same time, with the compliant spirit of polytheism, he held the God of the Christians and the Author of their faith in respect and reverence.” RCASDA 130.8

And Dr. Schaff testifies to exactly the same thing; in his “Church History,” vol. 2, pp. 14, 15, he says:— RCASDA 130.9

At first Constantine, like his father, in the spirit of Neoplatonic syncretism of dying heathendom, reverenced all the gods as mysterious powers; especially Apollo, the god of the sun, to whom, in the year 308, he presented munificent gifts. Nay, so late as the year 321, he enjoined the regular consultation of the soothsayers in public misfortunes, according to ancient heathen usage; even later, he placed his new residence, Byzantium, under the protection of the god of the martyrs, and the heathen goddess of fortune; and down to the end of his life he retained the title and dignity of Pontifex Maximus, or high priest of the heathen hierarchy. His coins bore on the one side the letters of the name of Christ, on the other side the figure of the sun-god, and the inscription, Sol Invictus. RCASDA 130.10

On this same point in regard to Constantine’s Christianity after he professed it, the Religious Encyclopedia says:— RCASDA 131.1

The notion of conversion in the sense of a real acceptance of the new religion and a thorough rejection of the old, is inconsistent with the hesitating attitude in which he stood toward both. Much of this may indeed be due to motives of political expediency, but there is a good deal that cannot be so explained. Paganism must still have been an operative belief with the man who, almost down to the close of his life, retained so many pagan superstitions. He was at best only half heathen, half Christian, who could seek to combine the worship of Christ with the worship of Apollo, having the name of the one and the figure of the other impressed upon his coins, and ordaining the observance of Sunday under the name of dies solis in his celebrated decree of March, 321, though such a combination was far from uncommon in the first Christian centuries. Perhaps the most significant illustration of the ambiguity of his religious position is furnished by the fact that in the same year in which he issued his Sunday decree, he gave orders that if lightning struck the imperial palace, or any public building, the haruspices, according to ancient usage, should be consulted as to what it might signify, and a careful report of the answer should be drawn up for his use. RCASDA 131.2

Mosheim, in “Historical Commentaries,” p. 469, on the same point says:— RCASDA 131.3

How long Constantine retained these vague and undecided views of religion and religious worship, regarding the Christian religion as excellent, and salutary to the Roman state, yet not esteeming other religions, or those of inferior gods, as vain, pernicious, and odious to God, ... it is difficult to determinate. Zosimus, as is well known, reports that Constantine did not openly profess Christianity, and show himself hostile to the Romish sacred rites, until after the slaughter of his son Crispus and his wife Fausta; which truly detestable crimes were perpetrated in the year 326. RCASDA 131.4

It cannot be disguised that, at the time of his issuing his Sunday decree, he was a pagan of no very high grade; and his profession of Christianity never raised him much above the average pagan. The Encyclopedia Britannica gives a just estimate of his character. Speaking of the title of “The Great” being conferred upon him, it says:— RCASDA 132.1

Tested by character, indeed, he stands among the lowest of all those to whom the epithet has in ancient or modern times been applied. RCASDA 132.2

Dr. Schaff is justly esteemed as a man of extensive learning, and whose testimony regarding facts, no one would call in question. He is a theologian, and a warm friend of Sunday-keeping. But his theological relations have not prevented his giving the facts in regard to the first Sunday law. He says:— RCASDA 132.3

He enjoined the observance, or, rather, forbade the public desecration of, Sunday, not under the name of Sabbatum or dies Domini, but under its own astrological or heathen title, dies solis, familiar to all his subjects, so that the law was as applicable to the worshipers of Hercules, Apollo, or Mithras, as to the Christians. RCASDA 132.4

And more so, for it referred to heathen, and not at all to Christian worship. Again Dr. Schaff says:— RCASDA 132.5

He enjoined the civil observance of Sunday, though not as dies Domini, but as dies solis, in conformity to his worship of Apollo, and in company with an ordinance for the regular consultation of the Haruspex, 321. RCASDA 132.6

Concerning its claim to be considered a sacred day, it is not necessary to add much to what has already been said by the writers quoted. It would be presumption in the extreme to claim that God ever conferred any blessing or sanctification directly upon it. By a system of false reasoning, they try to make out that the blessing that was conferred upon the seventh day, was transferred to the first. But of course no scripture is ever quoted to justify the claim. The authorities here given say that it was dedicated to the sun; and that dedication is its only claim to sanctity. In perfect harmony with these, is the following from the Douay Catechism:— RCASDA 132.7

It is also called Sunday from the old Roman denomination, dies solis, the day of the sun, to which it was sacred. RCASDA 133.1

Now, as far as the first proposition is concerned, I think I have done all that I proposed: I have given such proofs, and such an abundance of them, that every candid person must admit that it is clearly proved that the name, origin, authority, and sacredness of the Sunday institution are altogether and only pagan. Thus far there is not a Christian feature about it. With great confidence I approach the examination of the second question, for which the way is so well prepared. But in passing, I will say that I have carefully avoided giving the testimony of any one who was committed in favor of Sabbath-keeping. Every author quoted was in favor of the Sunday. If ever anybody had a right to feel confident in their position, we surely have in regard to the assertion that the Sunday is, in every feature, a heathen institution. Our opposers themselves have strongly entrenched us in this position, however much the facts have grated on their feelings; and so strongly have they fortified us in this position, that Eld. Canright, with all his assurance, will not attempt a denial — much less make any attempt to disprove it. RCASDA 133.2

2. Is the institution of Sunday, as a church festival, or day of Christian observance, or papal origin? In other words, did the papacy set up the Sunday in the Church as a substitute for the Sabbath of the Lord? RCASDA 133.3

It is easy to see where Eld. Canright fails to apprehend the truth on this point. I say fails to apprehend the truth, for I will not insist that he understands the truth on the subject. We know that his opportunities have been such that he might, yes, ought to have understood the subject; but many who have known him long and well, have always thought that he was more fluent than deep. His failure no doubt lies right here: he does not appreciate the fact that almost everything that is attributed to the Catholic Church, and can be traced to no other source, is more or less veiled in obscurity as to its origin. RCASDA 133.4

In addition to my request for Eld. Canright to inform us when and where infant baptism originated, I invite him to take up in order the institutions which are attributed to the papacy, even by the church to which he now belongs, and show the precise or exact origin of each. Can he do it? Will he publicly make the attempt? For instance: Does he believe that the popes of Rome ever exercised civil power? He must answer in the affirmative. Will he then inform us when and where that power was conferred? or how they took that power? And if he cannot clearly and satisfactorily do that, will he therefore deny that they ever exercised that power? Or, will he — and be more consistent with himself — assert that it must be of divine origin? A Catholic work now before me, “with the approbation of the Lord Bishop of Beverly” (Sadlier, New York), speaking of this, says:— RCASDA 133.5

And now we approach a most important topic — the rise of the temporal power of the popes. There is this which plainly marks it as the gradual, silent work of God. No one can point with precision and certainty to the precise time when it did rise.... It grew as the trees grow from the soil. You cannot say when the acorn first bursts its shell and the lordly oak springs forth. Tell me whence the broad river draws its waters; tell me of all the streams, all the little rivulets and fountains that feed it, and I will then tell you every source which gave rise to the temporal sovereignty of the popes. Like everything natural, everything providential, we can only catch indications of it here and there, in the days of its infancy; for I speak of times long before Charlemagne. RCASDA 134.1

Very few of the dogmas called papal can be traced to their origin. As seen above, the Catholics base their claim on this fact, that you cannot mark their origin; that being believed or practiced so early, they must have been derived from the apostles. This is exactly Eld. Canright’s argument against them from this very fact; inasmuch as the Scriptures thoroughly furnish the divine institution, we could easily trace them to their divine origin — to the word of God. It matters not a whit how many or who kept Sunday, or how near to the time of the apostles it was kept. Did God command it? do the Scriptures thoroughly furnish us with proofs for its observance? Lacking this, it lacks everything that is required to make it a Christian ordinance. RCASDA 134.2

I do not make these remarks because they apply to the Sunday; I do not admit that it stands with the other Papal institutions, veiled in even comparative obscurity. In this respect it has a prominence all its own — it can be traced to the papal power without the least shadow cast upon the evidence. I am confident that I can point out the two springs which, more than all others, gave rise to the baleful stream of temporal church power. But I have called attention to the obscurity of the origin of papal dogmas, solely to show that the advocates of Sunday are inconsistent and unreasonable in their claim; they ask for the Sunday what they cannot begin to give for other institutions which they freely admit are of papal origin. Fortunately, we can meet their most unreasonable demand with full and sufficient proof, as I shall now show. RCASDA 135.1

The reader will bear witness that the origin of the Sunday as a day of rest from labor, has been clearly shown: it is only pagan. We have now to consider its authority as a church institution. I shall show that the papacy took it up from the hands of the emperors, strictly enforced its observance, and took most effective steps to suppress and utterly abolish the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath. Eld. Canright says that on this point we depend entirely on the Catechisms of the Catholic Church; that after 200 years of searching, Sabbath-keepers have not been able to find an item of reliable history to prove our proposition and to justify our faith; that; after twenty-eight years of extensive research and earnest longing, he could not find a particle of proof that the Sunday-Sabbath is a child of the papacy. How extensive his research has been, and how conscientious and sincere he has been in his work of the ministry, and how ingenuous he is in his recent declarations, the reader must judge when the facts are laid before him. RCASDA 135.2

Eusebius, Bishop of Cesarea, was the first to speak of the transfer of the honors and duties of the Sabbath to Sunday. Let the reader carefully note this important fact. His words are as follows:— RCASDA 135.3

And all things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s day, as more appropriately belonging to it, because it has the precedence and is first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath. RCASDA 135.4

I cannot give the room for all the notice that this first Sunday-Sabbath testimony deserves. The Lord, in his own institution, doubtless knew best to which day was most honorable. See Isaiah 58:13. In this transaction the pronoun “we” cuts a great figure — much greater than it will be able to maintain in the day when God shall bring every work into judgement on the authority of his commandments. Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14; Romans 2:12, 16. Eusebius did not intend to disparage the transfer of Constantine, and fully coincided with his decree in favor of the venerable day of the sun; and he never failed to speak in a manner to tickle the vanity of his royal patron. He spoke the exact truth in regard to the transfer. That the church took it up and united with the emperors in enforcing its observance, Dr. Heylyn, a historian of undisputed veracity and of unbounded research, testifies thus:— RCASDA 136.1

And as the day of 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. RCASDA 136.2

Bearing in mind that it has been fully proved that the decree of Constantine was the first authority for Sunday rest, I ask if here is not a most important item of reliable history in proof of our position? Of the times more than a century later than Constantine, Heylyn speaks thus of the building up of this institution:— RCASDA 136.3

The faithful, being united better than before, became more uniform in matters of devotion; and in that uniformity did agree together to give the Lord’s day all the honors of an holy festival. Yet was not this done all at once, but by degrees; the fifth and sixth centuries being well-nigh spent before it came into that hight which hath since continued. The emperors and the prelates in these times had the same affections; being earnest to advance this day above all other; and to the edicts of the one, and ecclesiastical constitutions of the other, it stands indebted for many of those privileges and exemptions which it still enjoyeth. RCASDA 136.4

One of the most effectual means of degrading the Sabbath, and of exalting the Sunday above it, in the feelings and practice of the people, was to make the Sabbath a fast-day, and to forbid fasting on the Sunday. A rigidly enforced fast is always burdensome to any people; and while the Sabbath was made a gloomy day to them, everything was done that could be, to make the Sunday a day of personal enjoyment. It is easy to tell which day would become the popular one, under such circumstances. This was the course pursued by the governors of the church, as all historians testify. It was a shrewd step in the direction of an entire change of the day of Sabbath observance. But it was not by any one step that this change was brought about. Nor was it a brief work. As the historian says: It was not done all at once, but by degrees. Dr. Hase, in his “Church History,” thus testifies:— RCASDA 137.1

The Roman Church regarded Saturday as a fast-day in direct opposition to those who regarded it as a Sabbath. Sunday remained a joyful festival in which all fasting and worldly business were avoided as much as possible, but the original commandment of the decalogue respecting the Sabbath was not then applied to that day. RCASDA 137.2

This practice, “in direct opposition to those who regarded it as a Sabbath,” was altogether of Rome. The Eastern churches long refused to comply with this order, as Dr. Heylyn testifies:— RCASDA 137.3

In this difference it stood a long time together, till in the end the Roman Church obtained the cause, and Saturday became a fast almost through all parts of the Western world. I say the Western world, and of that alone, the Eastern churches being so far from altering their ancient custom that in the sixth council of Constantinople, A. D. 692, they did admonish those of Rome to forbear fasting on that day upon pain of censure. RCASDA 137.4

But Rome prevailed. It was decreed by the Council of Nice, and confirmed by Constantine, that “the primacy should remain with Rome;” and, though the Eastern churches long resisted the usurpations of the Roman bishops, this decree was never reversed, and the emperors were diligent to see that it was enforced. As long as the primacy of Rome was acknowledged, and maintained by the emperors, of course the faith promulgated by Rome was “catholic,” and all dissenters were heretics, to be punished with anathemas from the Church, and more immediate penalties by the emperors. The action of Justinian, who fully established the supremacy of the pope (John 2.), is proof as strong as any can require, that the emperors stood at nothing that could make effective the Roman faith. The following is from Bower’s “History of the Popes:”— RCASDA 137.5

While the Arian king was striving by the most just and equitable laws, to clear the church from all simony in the West, the Catholic emperor was employing the most unjust and unchristian means of clearing her from all heresies in the East, that of persecution, and the most cruel persecution any Christian emperor had yet set on foot or countenanced. For by an edict which he issued to unite all men in one faith, whether Jews, Gentiles, or Christians, such as did not, in the space of three months, embrace and profess the Catholic faith, were declared infamous, and, as such, excluded from all employments, both civil and military, rendered incapable of leaving anything by will, and their estates confiscated, whether real or personal. These were convincing arguments of the truth of the Catholic faith; but many, however, withstood them; and against such as did, the imperial edict was executed with the utmost rigor. Great numbers were driven from their habitations with their wives and children, stripped and naked. RCASDA 138.1

Such were the means by which people came to the unity of the faith in the early church. And it must be borne in mind that Justinian and other emperors did not declare any faith, — they simply enforced the faith which had been declared by the Catholic bishops and councils. And what was the declared faith and practice of the Catholic Church, in regard to the Sabbath and Sunday, in the time of this inhuman conduct of Justinian? Leo the Great was made pope a little less than a century before Justinian’s execrable action in behalf of the Church. Of Leo, M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia says:— RCASDA 138.2

Leo I., saint and pope, surnamed The Great, noted as the real founder of the papacy. RCASDA 138.3

He was the real founder of the papacy in this sense, that he did more than all his predecessors to subject all the churches to the authority of the Roman bishops; and Bower represents his course, in the accomplishment of this purpose, as dishonorable, unscrupulous, utterly unworthy of any one bearing the name of Christian. But it is enough that he put forth every effort to establish the papacy, that he should be sainted; it is this that covers all sins in their estimation. The character and position of Leo cannot but be appreciated in connection with the up-building of the Sunday institution. The Bibliotheca Sacra has an article on the subject of the change of the Sabbath, written by Rev. L. Coleman, author of “Ancient Christianity Exemplified.” In this he speaks as follows:— RCASDA 138.4

The reasons for keeping the first day in preference to the seventh, have already been stated from Justin Martyr. They are more fully explained by Leo the Great, of the fifth century. On this day the world had its origin. On the same day, through the resurrection of Christ, death came to an end, and life began. It was upon this day also that the apostles were commissioned by the Lord to preach the gospel to every creature, and to offer to all the world the blessing of salvation. On the same day came Christ into the midst of his disciples, and breathed upon them, saying, Receive the Holy Ghost. And finally upon this day the Holy Ghost was shed upon the apostles. So that we see as it were an ordinance from heaven evidently set before us, showing that on this day, on which all the gifts of God’s grace have been vouchsafed, we ought to celebrate the solemnities of Christian worship. RCASDA 139.1

This is, indeed, a very important document — important because of the position of the author; of the influence he exerted over the Church, which, as we here see, is not lost even to the present day; important as most fully explaining the reasons for keeping Sunday, not one of which the Scriptures ever noticed; important as an example, showing how an ordinance from heaven can be deduced from a papal “as it were.” And if such respect is paid to these words of Leo the Great, pope, in this century, by leading Protestant publication in America, what must have been their influence, their force, when Leo had supreme control over the faith of Christendom, and was backed by the authority of the emperors. In the entire absence of evidence from the Scriptures, in favor of the Sunday institution, what can we think of the knowledge or frankness of a man who will affirm that not an item of history can be produced to show that the papacy changed the Sabbath? RCASDA 139.2

As decisive as is this evidence, it is not the strongest that we have to offer. Historians, early and late, of all beliefs, have made much mention of the action of the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 364. Of this fact Eld. Canright is not ignorant. For charity’s sake we could wish that he were. It is not pleasant to have to present that which convicts one who makes so large profession of both piety and knowledge of stating as a fact that which is so clearly and abundantly proved to be not true. M’Clintock and Strong make the following statement:— RCASDA 139.3

Chrysostom (A. D. 360) concludes one of his Homilies by dismissing his audience to their respective ordinary occupations. The Council of Laodicea (A. D. 364), however, enjoined Christians to rest on the Lord’s day. RCASDA 140.1

This puts it very mild indeed. In regard to the influence of the decisions of this council, they say:— RCASDA 140.2

Sixty canons were published, which were accepted by the other churches. RCASDA 140.3

In their synopsis of these, they say:— RCASDA 140.4

Canon 29 forbids Christians’ observing the Jewish Sabbath. RCASDA 140.5

In these two statements we get the whole truth. 1. It enjoined the observance of first day of the week. 2. It forbade the observance of the Sabbath. Let it be remembered that this council was held in less than half a century of the time when Constantine issued his first decree, for the first observance of the venerable day of the sun as a day of rest from labor. As the historian says, it was taken from the hands of the emperors by popes and councils, and rest enforced upon it as a Christian festival. I am happy to be able to give the most definite information on the action of this council on this subject. I will here give three versions of this celebrated canon. First the original, as given by the council itself, in Latin:— RCASDA 140.6

Quod non oport et Christianos Judaizare, et in Sabbato otiari, sed ipsos eo die operari: diem autem Dominicum preferentes otiari, si modo possint, ut Christianos. Quod si inventi fuerint Judaizantes sint anathema apud Christos. RCASDA 140.7

The following is the German translation as given in Bishop Hefele’s “History of the Councils:”— RCASDA 140.8

Dass die Christen nicht Judaisiren und am Sabbat nicht unussig sein, sondern an diesem Tage arbeiten sollen; den Tag des Herrn aber sollen sie besonders ehren und wenn moglich an demselben nicht arbeiten, wenn sic aber als Judaisten erfunden, so sollen sie von Christus ausgeschlossen sein. RCASDA 140.9

The following is an English translation:— RCASDA 141.1

Christians ought not to Judaize, and to rest in the Sabbath, but to work in that day; but preferring the Lord’s day, should rest, if possible, as Christians. Wherefore if they shall be found to Judaize, let them be accursed from Christ. RCASDA 141.2

There is no necessity that I should take another step to establish fully my propositions. It is abundantly proved, beyond all chance of denial, that the first law of any kind for resting from worldly labor on the first day of the week, was that of Constantine, who commanded only certain classes to rest upon it as the venerable day of the sun, in conformity with his worship of Apollo, the sun god. And in less than half a century after that time, a Catholic council enacts a canon which was accepted as orthodox, which not only contains the first formal church law for the observance of the Sunday, but likewise forbids the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, under penalty of being accused from Christ! Now, if any one can imagine what would be changing the Sabbath, if this is not, I would be extremely happy to learn what it could be. In less than half a century after Constantine’s first Sunday decree, we find this sweeping canon of the Council of Laodicea. In less than a century after the publication of this canon, Leo the Great gave his decision in the most emphatic terms, that Christians ought to rest on the Sunday and not on the Sabbath. And in less than a century after Leo’s decision, Justinian subjected all, whether Jews, Gentiles, or Christians, to the Catholic faith, of which the substitution of the Sunday for the Sabbath was a prominent part, of which they had to make a public profession within three months, under penalty of being declared infamous, excluded from all employments, rendered incapable of leaving anything by will, and having their estates, of whatever nature, confiscated. RCASDA 141.3

Now, it being clearly shown that a part of the Catholic faith to which they were subjected, under such severe penalties, was, that people should not rest on the Sabbath, and that they should not work on the Sunday, is it a wonder that, under the canons of councils, the decisions of popes, given under penalty of being accursed from Christ, and enforced by the edicts of emperors, under such penalties as were rigorously inflicted by Justinian, — is it a wonder that the observance of Sunday became so prevalent throughout the empire? Is it not rather a wonder that so many clung to the Sabbath of the Lord, even in those perilous times, as history attests there did, in spite of the terrible persecutions to which they were subjected? And is it not still more wonderful that Protestant ministers, with all these facts of history within their reach, will gravely point to this prevalence of Sunday-keeping as evidence of the united faith of the Christian church in favor of the first day Sabbath? And most wondrous of all, a minister comes forward and informs the public, in all apparent seriousness, that he has left the Sabbath of the fourth commandment for a more pious observance, because that after very extensive research for more than a score of years, he has learned that Sabbatarians have never been able to produce an item of reliable history to prove that the Catholic church changed the Sabbath; that all we have to offer to prove or to defend our faith, is the evidence of the Catholic Catechism! Who can add a comment worthy of such an occasion as this? I appeal to Eld. Canright himself, if it is a cause for a professed Protestant minister to glory that keeping the Sabbath was not then a success, considering the circumstances under which Sabbath-keepers were placed by the papal authorities. RCASDA 141.4

While I have fully proved my proposition, I have presented but a tithe of the evidence that is ready at my hand. And while Eld. Canright might not have been well acquainted with the true state of the case as the facts show it to be, he could hardly be ignorant of what Coleman said in reference to the Council of Laodicea. In “Ancient Christianity Exemplified,” p.531, he says:— RCASDA 142.1

Christian emperors confirmed and extended these decrees. All public shows, theatrical exhibitions, dancing, and amusements, were strictly prohibited. Similar decrees were also passed by various councils, requiring a faithful attendance upon public worship, and a strict observance of the day, by solemn suspension of all secular pursuits, and abstinence from amusements and vain recreations. The Council of Laodicea, canon 29, about the same time forbade the observance of the Jewish Sabbath. RCASDA 142.2

Coleman is an ardent advocate of Sunday, but he has presented the most incontestable proof of the truthfulness of our position. And in these statements he has only spoken in harmony with all history, as Eld. Canright ought to know, and surely would know, if he had searched the subject as diligently and thoroughly as he professes to have done. Let us mark well the words of Coleman. Speaking of the imperial decrees, he adds: “Similar decrees were also passed by various councils, requiring a faithful attendance upon public worship, and a strict observance of the day,” etc. These were church laws, compelling the strict observance of Sunday, and faithful attendance upon public worship on that day, and holding an ecclesiastical curse over those who kept the Sabbath; and this action was taken by various councils; and yet all this, in the estimation of Eld. Canright, does not amount to a single item of historical evidence that the Catholic Church put away the Sabbath of the Lord God, and elevated the Sunday of paganism in its stead. RCASDA 143.1

It is a historical fact that the edict of Constantine, and the imprecation of the Council of Laodicea, and the letter of Leo, and the cruelties of Justinian, and other like contemporaneous acts, all together were not successful in entirely overthrowing the observance of the Sabbath, and in making the observance of the Sunday universal. Against this almost overwhelming tide of worldly power and influence and wickedness, witnesses for God’s downtrodden commandment were constantly rising up. This is made clear by the action of subsequent councils, even if we had no other testimony. But for the present we will notice further the interesting period from Constantine to Justinian. RCASDA 143.2

Sylvester was bishop of Rome during most of the reign of Constantine. He decreed that Sunday should be called the Lord’s Day. But this could affect the Church of Rome only; for the bishop of Rome had not then yet attained to any authority whatever above the other bishops. True, while the mystery of iniquity was working, and countless superstitions were being introduced, especially in the African churches, this day was called the Lord’s day, before the time of Sylvester; but his order was the first authority for calling it so. And now, in considering another decree from Constantine, I wish to call especial attention to the frauds which have so long been practiced — and are still, not only among Catholics but Protestants as well — concerning the application of this title of Lord’s day. Eusebius, Life of Constantine, says:— RCASDA 143.3

He enjoined on all the subjects of the Roman Empire to observe the Lord’s day, as a day of rest ... And since his desire was to teach his whole army zealously to honor the Saviour’s day which derives its name from light, and from the sun, he freely granted to those who were among them who were partakers of the divine faith, leisure for attendance on the services of the church of God, in order that they might be able, without impediment, to perform their religious worship. With regard to those who were yet ignorant of divine truth, he provided by a second statute that they should appear on each Lord’s day on an open plain, near the city, and there, at a given signal, offer to God with one accord a prayer which they had previously learnt. RCASDA 144.1

It has not been my lot to see the decree concerning the prayer to be recited by his pagan soldiers; though Eusebius gives the form of the prayer, which was well adapted to pagan soldiery! Nor have I thought it of sufficient consequence to search for it, if indeed it exists. But the reader might easily infer from the words here quoted, that Constantine did really give some order in regard to the Sunday under the title of the Lord’s day, though he confesses it derives its name from the sun. We shall see if he did. RCASDA 144.2

Reference has often been made by many authors to Constantine’s edict concerning the emancipation of slaves on the Lord’s day. Coleman says:— RCASDA 144.3

No sooner was Constantine established upon the throne, than he began to bestow special care upon the observance of the Lord’s day. He required his armies to spend the day in devotional exercises. No courts of judicature were to be held on this day; no suits or trials in law prosecuted; but, at the same time, works of mercy, such as the emancipation of slaves, were declared lawful. RCASDA 144.4

These words of Coleman are not marked with that accuracy that should mark the words of a faithful historian. It was not as soon as he was established upon his throne that he began this work. His victory over Maxentius was in A.D.312, and his first edict for a partial rest on the sun’s day, was in 321. Requiring them to say a prayer, which is contained in a few lines, and contains not a single element of Christian faith, can hardly be said to be requiring them to spend the day in devotional exercises. Neither did he bestow “special care upon the observance of the Lord’s day,” — no, not any care whatever. Every reader knows that his edict of March 7, 321, had no reference to the Lord’s day, but to the venerable day of the sun, which had long been known and venerated as the day of the sun by the pagans. If he did indeed say anything in behalf of the Lord’s day, the reader may suppose that it was in his second edict — that which referred to the emancipation of slaves. Again I say, We shall see. RCASDA 144.5

Of this decree I have a copy, together with an “interpretation” thereof, as found in the Justinian Code. I will give the interpretation first, as follows:— RCASDA 145.1

Interpretation: Quamvis sancta die Dominica omnes lites ac repetitiones quiescere jusserimus, emancipare tamen ac manumittere minime prohibemus, et de his rebus gesta, confici pari ordinatione permittimus”. RCASDA 145.2

(Cod. Theod. Lib.II. Tit. VIII. de Feriis. Lex I. — Baron. Annal. Tom III., p.232.) RCASDA 145.3

“There!” exclaims the friend of Sunday; “now we have it from the most unquestionable historical data, that Constantine did indeed issue a decree in favor of the Lord’s day by name; for this is his decree, coming to us through high authority. Here are the very words — sancta die Dominica, the Lord’s holy day. This justifies all that Eusebius, Coleman and the other numerous first-day writers, have said concerning Constantine”. RCASDA 145.4

And is it, then, so great cause of rejoicing that Constantine, who was confessedly a pagan at that time, called the Sunday the Lord’s day? One might think that they had found a divine warrant for so calling it. But let us look further; perhaps the facts may cut off even this morsel of consolation. Fortunately for the truth of history, the original edict of Constantine has been preserved. In the work which now lies before me, immediately before the interpretation copied above, is the edict itself, as follows:— RCASDA 145.5

Imp. Constantinus Aug. Helpidio. RCASDA 145.6

Sicut indignissimum videbatur, diem Solis, venerationis suae celebrem, altercantibus jurgiis et noxiis partium contentionibus occupari, eta gratum ac jocundum est, co die, quae sunt maxime votiva compleri. Atque ideo emancipandi et manumittendi die festo cuncti licentiam habeant, et super his rebus actus non prohibeantur. PP.I.V. Non Junii Caralis, Crispo II. et Constantino II. Coss. (A Chr. 32l) RCASDA 145.7

And thus it is, that that which, in the interpretation, and in the writings of “Christian historians” almost without number, is the “sacred Dominical day,” is, in the original, the very plain, old-fashioned pagan, diem solis! Not upon Baronius, nor the compiler of the Code, nor Justinian, nor altogether of the Dark Ages, does the responsibility of this deception rest most heavily; but upon those professed Protestants of this enlightened age, who perpetuate the deception, and leave the word of God, and take their rule of faith and practice from the words of heathen emperors and the man of sin, the son of perdition. I will notice one more like instance. RCASDA 146.1

Morer was a writer of the Church of England. His book, “Dialogues on the Lord’s Day,” was written to vindicate their forms of church worship, especially the observance of Sunday. On page 257 he undertakes to show “the piety of all ages in this particular, and the care they had to have the Lord’s day kept,” by declaring “the Canons, Decrees, Edicts and Laws,” in behalf of the day. He proceeds thus:— RCASDA 146.2

I begin with the Emperor Constantine, who, as soon as he had espoused the interest of Christianity, made it his particular business that his subjects should reverence this Festival, and so he issued out this decree: “Let all Judges, Citizens, and Tradesmen rest upon the venerable Lord’s day. But for such as live remote in the country,” [etc.] RCASDA 146.3

Perhaps the first edict of Constantine was not so well known in Morer’s day as it is in ours, and his mutilation would not attract much notice. Dishonest as it manifestly is, it is in perfect keeping with “the piety of all ages in this particular,” for the Sunday Sabbath is a fraud at best, and nothing but fraud can give it even the appearance of an institution entitled to our respect. RCASDA 146.4

The occasion is worthy of a little reflection. All history attests that Constantine was a devoted worshiper of Apollo, the sun god. Suppose that he had issued a decree directly in favor of the worship of Apollo, by that name, what would be thought of the historian who, suppressing the name of Apollo, should refer to this decree as evidence that Constantine commanded the worship of the Lord, the true God? One of two things we should have to conclude, namely, that the historian could not distinguish between Apollo and the true God, or else that he had perverted the facts to serve a purpose. But the advocates of Sunday have not scrupled to ascribe to Constantine the honor of bestowing “special care upon the observance of the Lord’s day,” when there is not in existence a word of evidence to justify the assertion; his only care was for the venerable day of the sun — a heathen festival day. Yet not a few Protestant ministers in America gravely assert that Constantine made a law forbidding that desecration of the Christian Sabbath! They treat his language as they do the words of Scripture. They affirm that John alluded to the first day of the week when he said, “I was in the Spirit of the Lord’s day,” though they have never even offered a particle of proof that John, or anybody else in his day, thought of applying that title to the first day of the week. RCASDA 146.5

But the mutilation of history and of the edict of Constantine is but a small matter, compared to what the author of Sunday worship has led its advocates to do in its behalf. From his heathen edict they have struck the venerable day of the sun, which, aside from its object, would be no offense at all, and inserted the Lord’s day in its stead. From the infinitely higher edict, the law of Jehovah himself, they have struck out both the name of the Lawgiver, and the subject of the law. They have cancelled the words, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” and substituted a day which never was, and cannot be, the Sabbath day of the Lord, — a day upon which he did not rest from his work, which he never sanctified and blessed, and which he never commanded man to keep. RCASDA 147.1

It is due to the reader that I give a translation of Constantine’s second Sunday edict, and of the interpretation. Realizing that there are difficulties in these old Latin documents, I procured a translation from the professors of Basel University. I will give their translation as they gave it, in German:— RCASDA 147.2

Wie es als hochst unwurdig erscheint, den Tag der Sonne, an sich feierlich und ehrwurdig, zu Zankreden und leidigen Parteistreitigkeiten zu verwenden, so ist es lieb und werth, an diesem Tag das allerwunschenswertheste auszufuhren. Deshalb soll allen gestattet sein, an diesem festichen Tage frei und los zu lassen, und niemand soll an Verhandlungen daruber verhindert werden. RCASDA 147.3

Auslegung. Obgleich wir befohlen haben, dass am heiligen Herrntage alle Fragen um Mein und dein und sonstige Rechtsforderungen ruben sollen, verbieten wir doch keineswegs frei und los zu lassen und gestatten zugleich durch diese Verordnung die Verhandlungen hieruber in Ausfuhrung zu bringen. RCASDA 148.1

As it appears most unfitting to employ the day of the sun, in itself solemn and venerable, for controversies of noxious party strifes, so it is agreeable and fitting to carry out on this day that which is most of all desirable. Therefore all should be permitted on this festival day to set free and let loose slaves, and nobody should be hindered in transactions pertaining thereto. RCASDA 148.2

Interpretation: Although we have commanded that on the holy day of the Lord all questions concerning mine and thine, and all other law claims should rest, we by no means forbid to set free and release slaves; and at the same time permit by this ordinance to carry out transactions pertaining thereto. RCASDA 148.3

But is has been assumed with much confidence that the claim that the papacy changed the Sabbath is unfounded, even admitting that there was no law for resting on Sunday before that of Constantine; for the papacy did not exist until after that law was made, and therefore the law antedated the papacy. RCASDA 148.4

As far as the Sunday Sabbath is concerned, this assumption does not help it at all; unless its friends would value it more highly from the hands of paganism than from the papacy. But the statement is open to two grave objections. It was Constantine himself that laid the foundation of the papacy. Bower minutely details the order of the hierarchy, its divisions, and the orders of its officers, as established by Constantine, making it an ecclesiastical government closely modeled after the civil. Although the exarchs and metropolitan bishops were over all the bishops in their dioceses and provinces, there was no one bishop over all. Yet it was declared by the Council of Nice that the primacy should rest in the bishop of Rome, in honor of that city. The title was then an empty one, except in the honor of the name; but it became fruitful both of dignity and power. The bishop of Rome soon became the representative of the faith of the church. To be in harmony with Rome was to be orthodox; disagreement with Rome was heresy. But the bishop of Rome had to be governed by the councils. Constantine also made the bishop a civil magistrate, and allowed the Church to obtain possessions of lands. RCASDA 148.5

A certain writer well observed that Constantine would have proved himself a noble ruler if he had rested with the acts of toleration of Christianity; but he followed this up with acts of intolerance against all Christians but those who happened to enjoy his favor, who composed that party which could best serve the interests of the empire. This party, of course, was represented by the bishop of Rome; for it would have been absurd to think of best serving the empire by conferring the primacy on any bishop but that of the imperial city. It was Constantine who convened the Council of Nice, where the famous creed of the Church was formed. Thus was laid the foundation of the papacy, or papal hierarchy. RCASDA 149.1

But the most decisive objection that I bring against the assumption herein noticed is, that Constantine did nothing whatever that can be construed into changing the Sabbath.. This is important ground, upon which we are strongly fortified, as I propose to show. There is absolutely nothing to give the least color of plausibility to the assumption except the words of Eusebius, wherein he says that “we” have transferred the duties of the Sabbath to the Lord’s day. But he gives us no hint whereby we may judge to whom the “we” refers; not does he produce a single act of anybody which can possibly be construed into such a transfer. He speaks of Constantine’s care for the Lord’s day as evidence of his great interest in Christianity, — a declaration in which there is not a particle of truth. The “Encyclopedia Britannica” justly says of Eusebius:— RCASDA 149.2

He was undoubtedly more of a courtier than was becoming in a Christian bishop, and in his Life of Constantine has written an extravagant panegyric, rather than a biography, of the emperor. RCASDA 149.3

Considering the character of Constantine, the adulations of Eusebius are anything but pleasing to the Christian reader. Of the disposition of the bishops, who were intoxicated with the favors they received from the emperor, to flatter him, Neander says:— RCASDA 149.4

One of them congratulated him, as constituted by God as ruler over all in the present world, and destined to reign with the Son of God in the world to come. RCASDA 150.1

When such flatterers state what Constantine did in behalf of Christianity, we must ask to have the distinct actions set forth, and then we must judge by the actions, and not by the statements. Concerning the matter in question, the action is entirely wanting, and the statement is extravagant. The statement contains the first idea of the transfer of the duties of the Sabbath, but no evidence of the change. RCASDA 150.2

Now we will consider what Constantine did, and the bearing of those actions. RCASDA 150.3

1. It is proved that the law of Constantine was the first law enforcing rest on the Sunday; and as Dr. Schaff says, it was made in accordance with his worship of Apollo, the sun god. RCASDA 150.4

2. It enforced rest on the judges, artisans, tradespeople, etc. of the towns or cities. But it had no regard for classes, — no relation at all to the professors of Christianity. It was in no sense a law of, or for, the church. RCASDA 150.5

3. It did not restrain from labor in the country; and there, as in the cities, it had no regard for classes. In the towns it forbade all labor, whether by pagans or Christians. In the country it permitted all to labor, both pagans and Christians. RCASDA 150.6

4. Constantine, in his decrees, said not one word either for or against keeping the Sabbath of the Bible. To this he did not refer in any way. Let not the reader suppose that he may have spoken concerning this in some other decree. I have now on my table a compilation of all the imperial and kingly decrees concerning the Sunday, compiled directly from the Codes, given in the originals. But two decrees of this nature are set down to Constantine, and these are both given in this article. The second was made in June, 321, as an explanation or modification of the first. RCASDA 150.7

5. In the time of Constantine, Bishop Sylvester ordained that Sunday should be called the Lord’s day. But of labor or rest on that day, he did not speak. RCASDA 150.8

It is safe to affirm that there was nothing done in the time of Constantine, either by himself or any other, that has the least appearance of changing the Sabbath. It is said that he advised to have nothing in common with the Jews; perhaps he did, but it is certain that he did not refer in any way to the Sabbath in any law. It would have been well for the church and for Christianity if they had feared the Jews less, and refused to have anything in common with the pagans. RCASDA 150.9

Constantine died A.D. 337. The date assigned to the Council of Laodicea is A.D. 364, 27 years later. The canons of this council were accepted by the churches (vide M’Clintock & Strong), and have always been considered Catholic. This was a church assembly, an ecclesiastical congress. Did it do anything that appeared like changing the Sabbath? — It did. It required Christians to rest on the Lord’s day, meaning Sunday, and forbade them resting on the Sabbath under penalty of being accursed from Christ! — the severest penalty that they could pronounce. It peremptorily required the keeping of the Sunday. If that council had had supreme power, and had avowed its intention to change the Sabbath, what could it have done more than it did in this canon? And if Eld. Canright yet denies that this was changing the Sabbath, will he please to frame a canon that would have had the effect to change the Sabbath, — an improvement on this canon 29 of Laodicea? I would very much like to see him make the attempt. Now, I claim that I have completely met his demand; I have shown the time, the place, and the power that changed the Sabbath. And to make this matter sure, this voice of the Council of Laodicea has met a continual response from the Catholic Church in all ages, as it is easy to show. Charlemagne did more than any other emperor to make this part of the faith of the Church effective, and in his first decree he referred directly to this canon of the Council of Laodicea. RCASDA 151.1

Here I will notice that some capital has been made of the expression in this canon that they should rest on the Sunday as far as they were able, as if it was not peremptory. This is but a thoughtless cavil; for we must remember that there was a law of the empire that permitted labor in the country on Sunday, and over this law the council had no control. If Christians were under service in the country, to unbelieving masters, they could not rest from labor on the Sunday. The mandate was peremptory as far as the power of the Church could reach. RCASDA 151.2

In this manner the matter stood for several centuries. The law of Constantine was the law of rest for the empire, and the canon of Laodicea the Sabbath law or law of rest for the Church; though the Sunday did not for many centuries bear the name of the Sabbath. RCASDA 152.1

For the sake of brevity, I will pass over the decrees from the time of Constantine to that of Leo the Great. They were all in effect similar to that of Constantine, taking notice of a few particulars as occasion seemed to require; but none of them made any restriction on Sunday labor, they left it just where he left it. As for the Church, everything was done that “Christian emperors,” kings, popes, councils, synods, could do to uphold the canon of Laodicea, and add to the sanctity of the day of the sun. As to the canon itself, that could not be improved. It required them to “rest as Christians.” All that was added, was to specify how Christians should spend the day. RCASDA 152.2

The letter of Pope Leo I., and the decree of Emperor Leo I., demand special notice because they have received so much attention from Christian writers. RCASDA 152.3

And first of Pope Leo. Justin Edwards, in his so-called “Sabbath Manual,” says:— RCASDA 152.4

Leo, Bishop of Rome, in behalf of the Church, about the year 440, said, “We ordain, according to the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, and of the apostles as thereby directed, that on the sacred day, wherein our own integrity was restored, all do rest and cease from labor; that neither husbandmen nor other person on that day put their hands to forbidden works,” etc. RCASDA 152.5

Of this quotation I some time stood in doubt; for (1.) I knew that Justin Edwards was not a careful writer; in this case he gave no reference to any authority, making himself responsible for the statement. (2.) The opening words were scarcely such as would be used by a bishop in that age, even one as assuming as Leo was. (3.) The bishop of Rome had no authority to forbid what the law of the empire permitted; for the law of Constantine, permitting husbandmen to labor, was still the law of the empire. Against these reasons, I had no sufficient evidence that Leo I. was the author of these words. As Leo of Thrace came to the throne several years before Pope Leo died, it seemed reasonable that they had been confounded, and the words of Leo the emperor had passed for those of Leo the pope. And the probability seemed strengthened by the fact that Morer gives part of these words substantially to the emperor, Leo I., in his decree of A.D. 469. RCASDA 152.6

But the difficulty was not thus solved; for on examining the decree of this emperor, these words were not found there! Dr. Heylyn, more accurate than the others, has given the truth in the case. They are in a decree of Leo, surnamed The Philosopher, who came to the throne of Constantinople in A.D. 886. Therefore their date is four centuries and a half later than that assigned to them by Justin Edwards! RCASDA 153.1

At first glance it may be thought of not much importance to identify the source of these words. But it is; for thereby the fact is revealed that labor by husbandmen on Sunday was not forbidden in the fifth century, as they would have us believe who assign the words to the Leos of that century. The decree of Leo the Philosopher, about the end of the ninth century, was the first authority suspending country labor on Sunday in the Eastern empire. He reversed that part of Constantine’s decree because, as he said, “The fruits of the earth do not so much depend on the diligence and pains of the men, as on the efficacy of the sun, and the blessing of God.” RCASDA 153.2

Having cleared away this mist, we come to what the Leos of the fifth century really said. And first, Pope Leo the Great. This pope did not, as might be supposed from references often made to him, give two several orders concerning the Sunday. Nor was the Sunday itself the subject of his celebrated letter. The subject was the conferring of holy orders; the time best adapted to this service, he decided was Sunday. He gave two reasons for this selection; the first is not noticed by those who quote him, though it is of equal interest with the other. And first, he says their minds were already solemnized by the fast of the Sabbath; he cited Acts 13:3, to show that the apostolic practice was to set apart to sacred offices by fasting and prayer; he required that, on such occasions, the usual Sabbath fast should continue until the evening or till the Sunday morning, that both the person to be ordained and those officiating might come to the service with sober minds. This is the first reason. The second is, that the Sunday itself is most fitting for such a service; and here follow the words that I have copied in the quotation from Coleman — only with this difference, that Coleman closes his quotation with the words, on this day “we ought to celebrate the solemnities of Christian worship,” thus making it general, whereas the letter itself closes with reference, not to the solemnities of Christian worship in general, but to the solemn services of ordinations. RCASDA 153.3

It is interesting to notice that in this celebrated letter Leo twice uses the word “Sabbath” as the day of fasting, and calls the following day Sunday. He does not call it the Lord’s day. RCASDA 154.1

Dr. Schaff says: “The passage of Leo (Ep. IX., etc) which Hessey has chosen as the motto for his work, is the most beautiful patristic expression concerning Sunday.” It is a fact worthy of special notice that the learned Hessey, in his “Bampton Lectures,” preached before the University of Oxford, on “The Origin, History, and Obligation of the Lord’s Day,” took his motto from the letter of Pope Leo I. This is another proof — and they are not few — that it is not an idle boast of the Catholics that the Sunday festival is that institution by which the Protestants do homage to the Catholic Church. American Protestant authors are not slow to render the same homage by quoting this letter as the best presentation of the reasons for keeping Sunday. But his reasons are all outside of any revelation given in the Scriptures. They are devised of the heart of man. How different is the case in regard to the Sabbath. Ask a Sabbath-keeper for the best presentation of the reasons for keeping the seventh day, and he will turn to the Bible, — to the commandment spoken by Jehovah himself. It is “the holy of the Lord, honorable.” RCASDA 154.2

This letter of Pope Leo was dated A.D. 445. The edict of Emperor Leo was dated 469. In some respects it was the most important that was given up to that time. But here I must digress to show the actual position of the emperors in relation to the Church, lest their edicts be supposed to have a secular aspect merely. RCASDA 154.3

Eusebius, in his “Life of Constantine”, B. IV., ch.24, says that in his hearing the emperor thus addressed a company of bishops:— RCASDA 154.4

You are bishops whose jurisdiction is within the Church; I also am a bishop, ordained of God to overlook whatever is external to the Church. RCASDA 154.5

Constantine considered — or at least affected to consider — himself ordained of God to order matters pertaining to the Church, no less than the bishops themselves. No doubt the flattery of such courtly bishops as Eusebius helped on the conceit. And it was for this reason that he called the Council of Nice, and took such a leading part in its deliberations, though personally he had never allied himself to Christianity. And this position he bequeathed to his successors, — a position which the bishops were only too glad to accord to the emperors; for all the glory of the emperors, in this respect, tended to their own aggrandizement. It was greatly to their personal interest, and most of all to that of the bishop of Rome, to keep the Church in close union with the State. But in order to this,it was necessary to recognize the right of the emperor to order matters in relation to the Church. For many centuries no general or important council was called except by the emperor, or with his consent. Hence the custom of calling them “Christian emperors;” and their right to this title did not depend on their private characters, or their personal relation to Christianity. RCASDA 155.1

The emperor, Leo I., who is called the Great, was not lacking in political sagacity, and thinking, no doubt, to add thereby to his dignity in the eyes of the people, he was crowned by the patriarch of Constantinople. This was the beginning of what proved to be one of the most dangerous prerogatives claimed by the Church. Of course, Leo was zealous for the advancement of the orthodox faith, and took decided ground in favor of the Sunday. Some have inferred, and for it they have only inference, that the decree of Leo was wider in its scope than those which had preceded, because of the severity of the penalty which was attached. His words were:— RCASDA 155.2

If any will presume to offend in the premises, if he be a military man, let him lose his commission; or if other, let his estate or goods be confiscated. RCASDA 155.3

He did not restrict that labor that was allowed by Constantine; and Heylyn proves, by facts in the history of the times, that his decree largely referred to those things which should have been prohibited on every day of the week. And moreover, his edict did not refer to the Sunday alone; for thus it ran:— RCASDA 155.4

It is our will and pleasure that the holy days dedicated to the highest Majesty, should not be spent in sensual recreations, or otherwise profaned by suits of law, especially the Lord’s day, which we decree to be a venerable day. RCASDA 156.1

Separating from the Pope and Emperor Leo, of the fifth century, all that has unjustly been assigned to them, we do not find in the letter of the one and the decree of the other, nearly as much as they are generally supposed to contain. Were it not that the letter of the pope has been so freely used as the most beautiful expression in behalf of Sunday, and offered as the best presentation of the reasons for keeping that day, there would be nothing of special interest in it. RCASDA 156.2

Having written thus much, and considering that the matter of Leo the Great has been so greatly misunderstood, I think I could not do a better service to the reader in this connection, than to give him the benefit of a translation of this letter of Pope Leo. It is from an authorized and commended edition of the letters of the popes in German. It is No. IX. of Leo’s letters, and is in two chapters; but the second chapter relates altogether to the mass, and that is of no interest in this discussion. It is as follows:— RCASDA 156.3

Leo, the Bishop, sends to Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, Greeting: RCASDA 156.4

What great love in the Lord we cherish for your love, you can gather from this, that we wish to establish more firmly the beginning of your office, in order that nothing may be wanting to the perfection of your love, since, as we became convinced, the merits of spiritual grace attend you. The fatherly and brotherly conferring (of the office) must accordingly be most desirable to your holiness, and be so received by you, as you see it proceed from us. For we must be one in thought and action, in order to verify what we read (to wit), that we have one heart and one soul. ¹ “For inasmuch as Peter received from the Lord the apostolic primacy, and since the Roman Church adheres to the institutions of this apostle, it is not to be supposed that his holy disciple Mark, who was the first to lead the Alexandrian church, shaped his institutions in accordance with other rules, for undoubtedly did the spirit of the disciple and that of the master both draw from one and the same fount of grace, and the ordained could teach nothing else but what he received from who ordained him.” (7 Decret. cf. C. XXIV. qu.I, c. 16.) We do not therefore suffer that we, who indeed profess the same faith in one body, should differ in anything from one another, nor that the institutions of the disciples should be distinguished from those of the teacher. RCASDA 156.5

I CHAPTER. On which day the consecration of priests and Levites is to be held. RCASDA 157.1

That which therefore, as we know, has been observed by our fathers with a devoted care, we wish to know to be likewise cherished by you; namely, that the consecration of priests and Levites be not undertaken on any day indiscriminately, but that (for this purpose) after the Sabbath day, the beginning of that night be chosen in which the morning of the first day of the week begins to dawn, when the ones to be consecrated, fasting, will receive the holy consecration by those who (themselves have) fasted. But the rule will even then be observed, when the consecration will be given, under a continuation of the fasting of Saturday, on Sunday morning, from which time the beginning of the preceding night is not distant, which no doubt, as becomes evident from the Passah of the Lord, belongs to the day of the resurrection. (8 Decret. cf. D. LXXV.c.4.) For besides the authority of custom, which evidently springs from the teachings of the apostles, the Holy Scriptures ¹ also state very plainly, that the apostles, at the time they sent Paul and Barnabas by command of the Holy Spirit to proclaim the gospel among the heathen, laid their hands upon them by fasting and prayer, in order that we might know with what devotion the one giving and the one receiving it must take care, lest a sacrament so rich in blessing should appear to be performed thoughtlessly. For this reason you will observe the apostolic institutions in a devout and commendable way, when you observe this rule in the ordination of priests, in the churches over which the Lord has made you overseer; namely, that the one to be ordained receives the consecration solely and only on the day of the resurrection of the Lord, which, as you know, begins from the evening of the Sabbath, and is made sacred by so many divine mysteries, that whatever of greater prominence was commanded by the Lord, took place on this exalted day. On this day the world had its beginning; on it, through the resurrection of Christ, death found its end and life its beginning (9 Decret. cf. D. LXXV.c.5); on it the apostles received their commission from the Lord to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and to dispense to the entire world the sacrament of the regeneration. On it, as the holy evangelist John testifies, the Lord, after he had joined the assembled disciples by closed doors, breathed upon them and said: “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins you retain, they are retained.” On this day, finally, came the Holy Spirit, which the Lord had promised to the apostles in order that we might recognize, as it were, inculcated and taught by a divine (heavenly) rule, that we are to undertake on that day the mysteries of the priestly consecration, on which all gifts and graces were imparted. RCASDA 157.2

How much has been drawn from this letter that is not justified by its words, the reader can judge for himself. Though it is made almost the gospel of Protestant Sunday-keeping, it certainly was not written to prove that it is a day of general observance. RCASDA 158.1

I have already noticed that there was no specific law in the Eastern empire against Sunday labor in the country, until the decree of Leo VI., called the Philosopher, near the close of the ninth century. I do not speak of the effect that may have resulted from the general enforcement of the Catholic faith; but only of Sunday law. In the West this work began with the third Council of Orleans, AD. 538; and it is an interesting fact that this council, which was first to give a decision in favor of refraining from labor in the country on Sunday, gave as the reason that the people might attend the services of the church, and also proceeded to mitigate the rigors of the observance of the day which many had superstitiously thrown over it. But from this time forward there was a greater restraint placed upon Sunday labor, and the severity of the penalties was greatly increased. The emperors and kings, being the guardians and actual heads of the churches, were often most forward to advance the Sunday cause, granting even more than the church dignitaries had asked in the way of legal exactions; but there was little modesty on either side in this respect, for the history of the enforcement of Sunday and of opposition to the Sabbath, is one of remorseless cruelty, from the very time when the Council of Laodicea showed the true spirit of the papacy in its curse upon Sabbath-keepers. RCASDA 158.2

And it was not Sunday alone that was thus cared for; “other festivals of the saints” were enforced with no less rigor than was Sunday, and they were justly classed together in imperial and church action. And they were so classed together by the Reformers. Coleman gives the following testimony to their faith in this respect:— RCASDA 158.3

The Augsburg Confession classes the Lord’s day under the same category as Easter, Whitsuntide, and the like; merely human ordinances. RCASDA 159.1

The Reformers were deeply versed in the history and literature of the church, and were well qualified to judge whether the Sunday Lord’s day was an institution of the papacy. Speaking of the Puritan idea of a Christian Sabbath, Coleman further says:— RCASDA 159.2

The law of the Sabbath was indeed a religious principle, after which the Christian church had, for centuries, been darkly groping. Pious men of every age had felt the necessity for divine authority for sanctifying the day. — Anc. Ch. Exemp.,p.533. RCASDA 159.3

Yes, and as far as any divine authority for sanctifying the Sunday is concerned, the necessity is no less deeply felt at the present time. This is manifested by the straits into which they are brought to defend the day; the contradictions which abound in the arguments of its advocates; the frauds by which it has been popularized, which are endorsed even in this enlightened age. And this is a most striking confession from Coleman. It is strange indeed that the piety and erudition of almost fifteen centuries, from the time of the apostles to the rise of the Puritans, had not succeeded in discovering the law of the Sunday-Sabbath, if such a law existed by divine authority. RCASDA 159.4

The papacy is always best prepared to meet such emergencies, and this was met in its own peculiar way. In the year 1201 was produced the law, in the form of a letter sent down from heaven. Absurd as was this pretense, and ridiculous as was the law itself, it had more to do with establishing Sunday-keeping on a permanent basis in England and Scotland, than any other cause. And Protestant churches are eating the fruits of this shameful deception at the present time. RCASDA 159.5

And this law did not stand alone. Miracles, such as the papal Church always has on hand for times of need, were freely produced in the line of terrible calamities which befell those who neglected to obey this letter, in not keeping Sunday and the other festivals of the Church. But the want of truly divine, of scriptural, authority for keeping the Sunday-Sabbath, still remains. RCASDA 159.6

From this flood of falsehood and wickedness of worldly power, we turn, as has been said, with just satisfaction to the record of the Sabbath of the Lord, and to the means of its proclamation. Its history is untainted by deception, unstained by crime. No contradictions, no subterfuges, are found in its advocates. Resting upon the broad and solid basis of the commandment of God, it needs no emperors, no popes, no councils, to add to its dignity, its sacredness, or its authority. RCASDA 159.7

Although I have noticed but a small part of the edicts, canons, exactions, and especially of the penalties, with which the history of Sunday abounds, I have done all that is necessary to meet my present purpose. I did not propose to give an extended view of these matters; it is enough that I have furnished the most incontestable proof that the Catholic Church, and it alone, changed the Sabbath. And I will repeat what I affirmed, that of all the unscriptural institutions foisted upon the church, none is so distinctively papal as the Sunday-Sabbath, — the preceptive rest of the so-called Lord’s day. No other institution of human origin can so clearly be traced to the papal power. If any one doubts this statement, I shall be pleased to see a comparison of evidences instituted. If this were not the case, — if other traditional precepts could be more clearly traced to that source, — that would not invalidate a single point of my argument. Whatever may be said of other innovations, our position stands strong; our proof is clear and well defined. The question, Who changed the Sabbath? is sufficiently answered. RCASDA 160.1

And now I appeal to the reader; of all the proofs presented, how much have I relied upon the Catholic Catechism? Who that reads the mere culling of proofs that I have furnished, can give any credit to the statement, that Sabbatarians, in searching 200 years, have not been able to find an item of reliable history to prove their position, — that their sole reliance is the Catholic Catechisms? I truly pity the man who has had the ability and the opportunity to read, who can find it in his heart to make such a reckless statement. RCASDA 160.2

It will be noticed that Eld. Canright, in his article, “Who changed the Sabbath?” entirely concealed from his readers the arguments and evidences which have been presented by the advocates of the Sabbath. And I ask him to give me the credit of following his example. All the testimonies that I have presented, all the decrees or canons of councils, all the edicts of emperors, all historical statements, are from the pens of those who were not favorable to the Sabbath. And while I have given but a small part of the evidence of this kind, what an array is presented! How can the friends of Sunday withstand the facts and the evident conclusion? Any one can answer this question who has read Eld. Canright’s articles. It is no lack of charity to say — for it is only truth — that he has concealed the facts, denied or belittled the great and truthful, and magnified the insignificant and conjectural. His whole pretended argument is the weakest kind of sophistry. Not a single sound principle of just reasoning is advanced; not a single plain truth of the Bible is vindicated; not a single comprehensive view of history is taken, in all his argument. RCASDA 160.3

I will draw this article to a close by giving a summary of the historical points compiled from a recently written history. RCASDA 161.1

The Sunday is not mentioned by this name in the Old Testament, neither has the day under the name of the first day of the week in that book received any prominent place; and it was not appointed a rest day at all through any law before the year A.D. 321. The old name of the day, which was afterward christened, is the day of the sun; yet this name does not originate from the creation of the sun, since the sun was made on the fourth day of creation. RCASDA 161.2

At the dawn of creation it introduces the week, but the account does not give it any higher rank than the other days, ... Our Sunday meets us from the very beginning as a common day. With the last day of the week, the seventh, it is somewhat different. Of this it is said with emphasis: “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” RCASDA 161.3

The day of our Lord’s resurrection is indeed a commemorative day, which will never be forgotten or passed by in his church; but from this — as one may think — it does not follow that we should give up the Sabbath, which God himself has ordained, and plainly pointed out at creation, nor that we should move it unto any other day of the week, because that day is a commemorative day. To do this we need just as plain a commandment of God declaring that the first day is repealed. But where do we find such a commandment? It is true that no such a commandment is found. RCASDA 161.4

In the laws of the state we afterward find the prohibition against Sunday work further and further extended, and the people threatened with more and more punishment if they disregarded it. Besides the giving of laws, we also find a new theological doctrine concerning Sunday: That Sunday-keeping is founded on the Sabbath-keeping which God ordained through Moses. Yet this doctrine does not seem through all the sixth century to have become a definite dogma in the church. RCASDA 162.1

If we try now to collect that which may be learned from history concerning Sunday and the development of Sunday-keeping, then the sum is this: Neither the apostles nor the first Christians nor the ancient councils have marked the Sunday with the name and mark of the Sabbath, but the church and scholastic doctors of the Middle Ages have done this. RCASDA 162.2

1. That Sunday is not the Sabbath of the Old Testament, and that this is not the common belief in the Christian church; but it is rather a mistaken idea, that the Sabbath should be changed from the seventh to the first day of the week. RCASDA 162.3

2. That keeping Sunday with rest from labor and divine worship, has not by the most renowned ancient Fathers been founded in the Sabbath of the Old Testament, neither reference to the Sabbath of the Old Testament entered into the confession of the church before the sixth century after Christ. RCASDA 162.4

3. That this doctrine first arose in the papal Church, that Sunday-keeping is commanded in the third commandment, and that the essential and prominent part of this commandment is a decree from God; to wit, to keep a holy day once a week. RCASDA 162.5

Some may question the correctness of the statement here made, that the doctrine that the fourth commandment requires a seventh part of time, and is so far moral, and not the particular day, which was ceremonial, had its origin in the Catholic Church. Coleman says that Dr. Bound was the first to promulgate this doctrine, in a book published in 1595. But Coleman was certainly incorrect in this, for the same doctrine was taught by Thomas Aquinas more than three centuries before Dr. Bound, and Dr. Heylyn attributes it to the school-men of the Middle Ages. It is found distinctly stated in the Catholic Catechism entitled, “Abridgment of Christian Doctrine.” There is no room for just doubt that they who argue thus — and the majority of Protestant Sunday-keepers do so argue — are following the lead of the papal doctors. When this writer says that the Sunday is not the Sabbath of the Old Testament, he means that it is not required by, or does not grow out of, the Sabbath commandment in the Old Testament. RCASDA 162.6

From the decided tone and substance of the above extracts, it may be thought that I have now entered upon a new line, and given the conclusion and the summary of some advocate of the seventh-day Sabbath. But not so. The expression “our Sunday,” shows its origin. This is copied from a work, “History of Sunday,” by Rev. A. Grimlund, lately a Lutheran bishop of Norway. And the work itself was written to counteract the influence of Sabbath teachers, and to vindicate the action of the church in retaining a practice so well established by custom. Why, then, if such was his object, did he give such an overwhelming testimony against the Sunday, and so strongly vindicate the Sabbath? In return, I ask, How can any one give a genuine history of Sunday and do otherwise? All honest historians — and of such I take Rev. Grimlund to be one — are compelled by the facts of the Bible and of history to defend the Sabbath and to condemn the Sunday. Their theological opinions and associations may lead in another direction; their choice might be of another conclusion; but that other conclusion they can never reach by any fair treatment of the Bible and of history. In their cases we are reminded of the prophecy of Balaam. He started out to serve the king of Moab, and to curse Israel; but the Spirit of God turned it into a blessing. Balaam, though his heart was not in union with the message of the Lord, was not yet entirely left of the Lord to follow his own way. And so of these: they are not in sympathy with the commandment of God; they start out to serve the Sunday; but the truth of God turns their witness into a vindication of the Sabbath. And I here state it as my firm conviction, that when an individual, who has ever been instructed in the truth on this subject, can no longer find evidence in the Bible to support the Sabbath of the Lord, and can find evidence in history to uphold Sunday, it is because the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of truth, has left him to his own way, to walk in the way of his own heart’s devisings. RCASDA 163.1

I will here answer a question that has been proposed; it is said the Reformers, represented in the Augsburg Confession, and other authors quoted, were no-Sabbath men; they held that the Sabbath was entirely abrogated, and that it has no divine substitute in the gospel. In giving their testimony, do you not bind yourself to accept their conclusion, and to reject the Sabbath altogether? Or, why accept them in statement and deny their conclusion? In answering this, I can but express my surprise that the questioners do not perceive any difference between a historical statement of fact, and a theological opinion. In accepting the history of Neander, I do not thereby bind myself to accept his theology. To be consistent, the questioners must reject the history of Gibbon, or turn skeptics. The Reformers were all raised in the bosom of the Catholic Church. They were piously trained from infancy to regard the seventh day as a Jewish Sabbath, and to call the Sunday the Lord’s Day. Now, as to whether the Saviour abolished the ten commandments, and with them the Sabbath, is a theological question; it is only a matter of Scripture interpretation. In that we think the Reformers retained a grievous error of their early training; but that does not invalidate their testimony in regard to a matter of fact with which they were well acquainted. RCASDA 163.2

In closing these remarks, I wish to say to the reader that I have quoted very little from history that has not already been quoted by the advocates of the Sabbath; while I have left unnoticed a vast amount of historical testimony that is well known to the readers of the writings of the Seventh-day Adventists and the Seventh-day Baptists. When Eld. Canright says that the Sabbatarians, in searching 200 years, have not been able to find an item of proof that the papacy changed the Sabbath, much of the reflection was intended to fall on the Seventh-day Baptists; for they, and not the Adventists, have been advocating the Sabbath for 200 years. But if he has any knowledge of the authors and the literature of the Seventh-day Baptists (and if he has not, he is without excuse), he knows that his assertion does great injustice to that denomination. Amongst their authors are numbered men eminent for ability, for education, and for deep research, not to speak of their evident piety and conscientious regard for the truth of God’s word. They have laid before the world a large amount of rich instruction from the Bible and from history on this important subject. RCASDA 164.1

Now if I had exhausted the evidence, if no more historical proof could be given than I have given in this article, even then I could confidently appeal to the reader that Eld. Canright’s assertion is made in sheer recklessness. Many of his friends have marked for years, with much regret, this tendency in him to make confident assertions where proofs would have served a better purpose; but never was a word more carelessly spoken than this, that Sabbatarians have never presented an item of historical evidence that the papacy changed the Sabbath. I know that I have not a particle of personal feeling in the matter, but I do not know how to palliate such a statement coming from one who has read Eld. J. N. Andrews’s “History of the Sabbath and the First Day of the Week.” RCASDA 164.2

I have avoided complicating my argument by noticing minor or incidental points. All minor points and objections can be easily met, but it has been my object to keep the main issue in view. And it is, in every sense, a main issue. Eld. Canright did not exaggerate when he said that we consider this a material question. We do indeed so consider it. And with the clear evidence before us that the papacy did change the Sabbath, and the fact that the Sunday institution will in every feature meet the description of such an institution in Revelation 13:11-17, and that no other will, we are constrained to believe — we cannot avoid it — that the Sunday-Sabbath is the burden of the awful warning found in Revelation 14:9-11. This is an issue that every one will have to meet. It cannot always be turned aside with empty assertions. In the providence of God it is going to every nation, and men can do nothing against it. I trust that the Lord will make this present effort on the part of Eld. Canright the means of awakening inquiry, and of bringing the truth yet more clearly before thousands who will weigh the arguments with candor, and conscientiously make their decisions. Let men oppose as they may, God’s counsel will stand; his law will be vindicated; it will be victorious; the call of the prophetic word will be heeded, and a company will take their stand on “the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus,” who will be permitted to rejoice when the Son of man appears on the great white cloud to reap the harvest of the earth. Revelation 14:12-16. RCASDA 165.1