Sermons on the Sabbath and the Law

SERMON TEN — THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH

“The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he will magnify the law and make it honorable” Isaiah 42:21. SOSL 127.1

“And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” Daniel 7:25. SOSL 127.2

THE first of these prophecies relates to the work of Christ; the second relates to that of Antichrist. Each of these works pertains to the law of God. No one will dispute that the first of these prophecies predicts what Christ shall do to the law of his Father. That Antichrist is the agent presented in the second prophecy, all are agreed. The nature of the work here attributed to him shows conclusively that the laws which he should think to change are those of God. It is a part of his work against the Most High. 1. He shall speak great words against the Most High. 2. He shall wear out the saints of the Most High. 3. He shall think to change times and laws. And the prophecy adds, “They shall be given into his hands” for a certain period of time. The nature of the work of this wicked power as here presented by Daniel, clearly determines whose are the times and laws which he shall think to change. It is a part of his warfare against the cause of God. He blasphemes the name of God, he wears out his saints, and he thinks to change his law. And this is rendered yet more evident by the form of expression used. It does not say, “He shall change times and laws.” He actually performs the work in the matter of blasphemy and of persecution. But when we come to the changing of the law, it is said, “He shall THINK” to do it. How evident that he could not do this in reality. He could blaspheme God; he could wear out his saints; but he could not change the law of God. He thinks himself able to do this, which is, indeed, the very language of the Douay Bible. How expressive, therefore, is this language of the Holy Spirit. He shall think to do it. Were these the laws of men, there would be no propriety in saying, “He shall think to change” them; for he could change them in reality, and to his heart’s content. And, indeed, there would be no propriety in introducing the laws of men into such a connection. It is the warfare of Antichrist against the name, and saints, and laws, of the God of Heaven that is the theme of this prophecy. SOSL 127.3

This great Antichrist is the papal power. Of this there can be no just doubt. The four beasts of Daniel 7 are in that chapter explained to be the four great kingdoms that have successively ruled the whole world. The ten horns of this fourth beast are the ten kingdoms into which the fourth empire is divided. The little horn arises in the midst of these ten kingdoms, a different power from these, ruled by a priest-king;, and warring against the cause of God. Paul, in 2 Thessalonians 2, presents us this great monster of iniquity as “that Man of Sin,” and as “that Wicked,” “whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and destroy with the brightness of his coming.” He tells us, moreover, that the mystery of iniquity had, even in his time, begun to manifest itself, but that it was restrained by the existing hindrances, i.e., by the pagan government that then controlled the world. Several hundred years of apostasy and rebellion against God were necessary to develop and mature this “Man of Sin,” before he was able to fill the place assigned to him in the prophecy of Daniel. Many acts of rebellion against God, and of wicked and blasphemous conduct toward his law, may, therefore, justly be expected of this great apostasy long before it reaches the place where it can stand up in the midst of the ten kingdoms of the fourth empire, in fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy, to war against God, and his law, and his saints. SOSL 128.1

Here are the actors in these two prophecies — Christ and Antichrist. Their character is not more unlike than is their work. One shall magnify the law and make it honorable; the other shall think himself able to change it. One shall act in perfect subjection to its precepts; the other shall deem himself superior to the law, and able to change it to suit his own purpose. The work of Christ has no connection with that of Antichrist. The work of changing the law of God is wrought alone by Antichrist. In this work, the Son of God has no part. SOSL 129.1

It is the work of Christ to magnify the law and make it honorable. Our Lord did this when he testified that not one jot or one tittle should pass from it till heaven and earth should pass away. He did it when he taught that those who do and teach the commandments should be highly esteemed in the kingdom of Heaven, and those who break them and teach men so should not be thus esteemed. Matthew 5:17-19. He magnified the law when he showed that it extends even to the intents of the heart. Matthew 5:21, 22, 27, 28. He also magnified the law when he founded the golden rule upon it. Matthew 7:12. In like manner he did this when he made the keeping of the commandments the condition of entering eternal life. Matthew 19:17. He did it when he taught that any worship which makes void God’s commandments is vain in his sight. Matthew 15:1-9. He did not only magnify the law by such teaching as all this; he did it by his acts. He kept the law of God in every particular. 1 John 3:4, 5. And well he might, for this law was written upon his heart. Psalm 40:8, 10. And yet, by something greater than all this did he honor the law of God. He took the sins of men upon himself, and let the law of God strike him down in the place of the sinner. And by this act he attested his sense of the absolute perfection of the law, and that it was unchangeable and eternal. Such was the work of Christ toward the law of the Father. There is no fellowship between him and the Man of Sin, and no connection between the work of the one and that of the other respecting the law of God. Whatever, therefore, is done by way of striking down the law of God, or changing it, pertains solely to the Antichrist, and not, in any degree or in any sense, to the Son of God. The following propositions are worthy of the attention of all thoughtful persons: SOSL 129.2

1. It was no part of the work of Christ to change the law of God. SOSL 130.1

2. It was his express mission to magnify the law of his Father. SOSL 130.2

3. The record given in the New Testament shows not one trace of changing the commandments of God on the part of the Saviour. SOSL 130.3

4. But it does show that by his doctrine his obedience, and his death, he did in the highest degree magnify the moral law. SOSL 130.4

5. The change of God’s law is the work of Antichrist alone; and with that change Christ has no connection. SOSL 130.5

6. The apostasy which produced this Antichrist began, according to Paul’s testimony, in the days of the apostles. SOSL 130.6

7. We may, therefore, expect to find early traces of the grand heresy which distinguishes Antichrist; viz., the doctrine of the change of the law of God, or of its repeal. SOSL 131.1

8. In the beginning, the work of apostasy pertained to efforts to change or set aside the second and the fourth commandment as ceremonial; but when the power of Antichrist had reached its greatest height, he was declared to be able to change even virtues into vices and vices into virtues. SOSL 131.2

The advocates of the sacredness of Sunday suppose they have gained their cause if they have found some evidences that this day was observed with some respect in the early ages of the church. They seem to be certain that the day was then regarded as the Christian Sabbath, and that it had taken the place of the Sabbath of the Lord. They even argue that the testimonies which they produce out of the so-called fathers of the church are ample proof that the apostles changed the law of God, though the New Testament bears testimony in every way to the contrary of this. The strongest testimony in behalf of this supposed apostolic change of the Sabbath is produced out of Mosheim, and is as follows: SOSL 131.3

“All Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week, on which the triumphant Saviour arose from the dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship. This pious custom, which was derived from the example of the church at Jerusalem, was founded upon the express appointment of the apostles, who consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose, and was observed universally throughout all the Christian churches, as appears from the united testimony of the most credible writers.” — Maclaine’s Mosheim, cent. i, part ii, chap.iv, sec.4. SOSL 131.4

This statement of Mosheim is often cited in the most triumphant manner to prove the change of the Sabbath, and to establish, by apostolic authority, the sacredness of Sunday. Now it is a very remarkable fact, that we are able, from the testimony of Mosheim himself, to show that this sanctity of Sunday was at that time utterly unknown. The proof on this point is very direct and plain. Mosheim unwittingly exposes the fallacy of this supposed Sunday sacredness in the following statement respecting the law of Constantine, which was enacted in A. D. 321. He says of the law: SOSL 131.5

“The first day of the week, which was the ordinary and stated time for the public assemblies of the Christians, was, in consequence of a peculiar law enacted by Constantine, observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly been.” — Mosheim, cent. iv, part ii, chap.iv. sec.5. SOSL 132.1

Here is an express statement that the law of Constantine made Sunday observance more strict than it had formerly been, and caused its observance to be attended with greater solemnity. Now carefully read this edict which thus made Sunday a day of greater solemnity than before. Here is the edict: SOSL 132.2

“Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all trades, rest on the venerable day of the sun: but let those who are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty, attend to the business of agriculture; because it often happens that no other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines; lest the critical moment being let slip, men should lose the commodities granted by Heaven.” — Encyclopedia Britannica, article Sunday. SOSL 132.3

Certainly, here is something worthy of the notice of those whose respect for Sunday rests upon the authority of Mosheim. Constantine’s Sunday law caused the day to be observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly been. But what was the nature of this law? It gave to the farmer full liberty to carry on his business on the first day of the week. How, then, did it cause the day to be observed with greater solemnity? Take notice of the answer. It forbade those who were merchants and mechanics from carrying on their business on Sunday. It follows, therefore, from Mosheim’s own showing, that up to this time all classes of men had labored on Sunday. And as he makes his statement with special reference to the case of the Christians, it is also evident that up to this time the whole body of those who bore the name of Christians did freely labor on that day, but that from that time the mechanics were restrained in their business on Sunday, while the farmer was allowed, “freely and at full liberty,” to carry on his farming. We prove, therefore, from the most valued witness in behalf of Sunday observance that it was not kept as a day of sacredness during the first three centuries of the church, but was, with the exception of the time employed in religious meetings on that day, simply a day of ordinary business. And what Mosheim thus unwittingly, but truthfully, states, to the utter discomfiture of his own previous effort in behalf of the sacredness of the day, is also stated by many writers. Bishop Jeremy Taylor, an eminent prelate of the church of England, thus states the case: SOSL 132.4

“The primitive Christians did all manner of works upon the Lord’s day, even in the times of persecution, when they are the strictest observers of all divine commandments; but in this they knew there was none; and, therefore, when Constantine the emperor had made an edict against working upon the Lord’s day, yet he excepts and still permitted all agriculture or labors of the husbandman whatsoever.”— Ductor Dubitantium, part i, book ii, chap. ii, sec. 59. SOSL 133.1

This is a very important statement. The first day of the week was a day of ordinary business in the early ages of the church. And this very fact proves that, though it is now called “the Lord’s day,” it could not have been considered thus in those ages; for men can never innocently appropriate to their own business that time which God claims as his own. Here is another testimony on this same point: SOSL 133.2

“The Lord’s day had no command that it should be sanctified, but it was left to God’s people to pitch on this or that day for the public worship. And being taken up and made a day of meeting for religious exercises, yet for three hundred years there was no law to bind them to it, and for want of such a law, the day was not wholly kept in abstaining from common business; nor did they any longer rest from their ordinary affairs (such was the necessity of those times) than during the divine service.” — Morer’s Day, p. 233. SOSL 134.1

That Sunday was not kept as a day of abstinence from worldly business before the time of Constantine is expressly stated by Sir. Wm. Domville. Thus he says: SOSL 134.2

“Centuries of the Christian era passed away before the Sunday was observed as a Sabbath. History does not furnish us with a single proof or indication that it was at any time so observed previous to the Sabbatical edict of Constantine, in A. D. 321.” — Examination of the Six Texts, p. 291. SOSL 134.3

These testimonies show most conclusively that Sunday was a day of ordinary business prior to the time of Constantine, except such portions of it as were used in public worship. All, therefore, which can be said of Sunday observance in the first three centuries, is in substance this: that it was a day on which, very generally, the professed people of God held religious assemblies, but on which, also, they attended to their ordinary labor, when not in the house of worship. But not Sunday alone was thus honored as a day of religious meetings in the early church. Wednesday and Friday were honored in the same manner, not as days of abstinence from labor, but as days for public assemblies of the church. Thus Mosheim says of them: SOSL 134.4

“Many also observed the fourth day of the week, on which Christ was betrayed; and the sixth, which was the day of his crucifixion.” — Ecclesiastical History, cent. i, part ii, chap.iv, note == (i.e. a cross with two cross-bars). SOSL 134.5

And Dr. Peter Heylyn says of those who thus chose Sunday: SOSL 135.1

“Because our Saviour rose that day from amongst the dead, so chose they Friday for another, by reason of our Saviour’s passion; and Wednesday, on which he had been betrayed; the Saturday, or ancient Sabbath, being meanwhile retained in the eastern churches.” — History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. i, sec. 12. SOSL 135.2

Here were three days observed as voluntary festivals in the early church; viz;., Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday. Of the comparative sacredness of these three festivals, Dr. Heylyn says: SOSL 135.3

“If we consider either the preaching of the word, the ministration of the sacraments, or the public prayers, the Sunday in the eastern churches had no great prerogative above other days, especially above the Wednesday and the Friday, save that the meetings were more solemn, and the concourse of people greater than at other times, as is most likely.” — History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap.iii, sec. 4. SOSL 135.4

These three ancient festivals were not thought in those days to rest upon any divine command, nor was any one of them considered as worthy to fill the place of the ancient Sabbath, as a day of sacred time, made such by the commandment of God, or by the authority of the apostles. And thus Dr. Heylyn states the case: SOSL 135.5

“Take which you will, either the fathers or the moderns, and we shall find no Lord’s day instituted by any apostolical mandate; no Sabbath set on foot by them upon the first day of the week.” — History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. i, sec. 10. SOSL 135.6

And Sir Wm. Domville bears the following remarkable testimony on this point: SOSL 135.7

“Not any ecclesiastical writer of the first three centuries attributed the origin of Sunday observance either to Christ or to his apostles.” — Examination of the Six Texts, supplement, pp.6,7. SOSL 136.1

These testimonies show very clearly the real foundation of Sunday observance. It is not found in God’s commandment, but in the tradition of men that makes that commandment void. We have listened to the strong testimony of Mosheim in behalf of this so-called Christian Sabbath. And we have also seen that though he designates Sunday as set apart by “the express appointment of the apostles,” he elsewhere informs us that it was, even with Christians, a day of ordinary labor till the time of Constantine, A.D. 321. As to “the express appointment of the apostles,” we have seen in a former discourse that no trace of this exists in the New Testament, and there is certainly no claim on the part of the early ecclesiastical writers that such appointment ever was made. Let us now hear what Neander, the most distinguished of church historians, has to say on this point: SOSL 136.2

“The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intention of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect; far from them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.” — Rose’s Translation of Neander, p.186. SOSL 136.3

These statements are sufficient to place this subject in a very clear light. We may be certain from them that those who first observed these festivals had no idea of what was afterward to grow out of them. Neander speaks of the beginning of the idea that men should not labor on Sunday. He cites Tertullian alone, with whom this idea appears to have originated. These are Tertullian’s words as translated in Kitto’s Cyclopedia, article, Lord’s Day. He says: SOSL 136.4

“On the day of the Lord’s resurrection alone we ought to abstain, not only from kneeling, but from all devotion to care and anxiety, putting off even business, lest we should give place to the devil.” SOSL 137.1

This is the first mention of anything like abstinence from labor, and this is at the end of the second century. Tertullian is the first writer who calls Sunday, Lord’s day. Dr. Heylyn, however, speaks thus of him: SOSL 137.2

“Tertullian tells us that they did devote the Sunday partly unto mirth and recreation, not to devotion altogether; when in a hundred years after Tertullian’s time, there was no law or constitution to restrain men from labor on this day in the Christian church.” — History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap.viii, sec. 13. SOSL 137.3

One grand element of success in the advancement of the Sunday festival is found in the fact that it was the day most generally observed by the Gentile nations in honor of their chief god, the sun. Even Tertullian, when advocating the observance of Sunday, finds it necessary to state that he has not the same religion as the Persians who worshiped the sun. He says: SOSL 137.4

“But if we, like them, celebrate Sunday as a festival and day of rejoicing, it is for a reason vastly distant from that of worshiping the sun.” — Wm. Reeves’ Translation of the Apologies of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others, vol.i, pp. 238, 239. SOSL 137.5

The name of Sunday is given to the first day of the week “because this day was anciently dedicated to the sun or to its worship.” See Webster’s Dictionary. The North British Review, an able quarterly, terms Sunday “the wild solar holiday of all pagan times.” Vol. xviii, p. 409. SOSL 137.6

This same writer, speaking of the fact that Sunday was the day generally observed in the Gentile world at the time when it was also springing up as a festival in the Christian church, thus defends the establishment of Sunday in that church: SOSL 137.7

“That very day was the Sunday of their heathen neighbors and respective countrymen; and patriotism gladly united with expediency in making it at once their Lord’s day, and their Sabbath.... That primitive church, in fact, was shut up to the adoption of the Sunday, until it became established and supreme, when it was too late to make another alteration; and it was no irreverent nor undelightful thing to adopt it, inasmuch as the first day of the week was their own high day, at any rate; so that their compliance and civility were rewarded by the redoubled sanctity of their quiet festival.” Vol.xviii, p. 409. SOSL 138.1

Morer thus speaks of this important fact in the establishment of Sunday in the church: SOSL 138.2

“Sunday being the day on which the Gentiles solemnly adored that planet, and called it Sunday, partly from its influence on that day especially, and partly in respect to its divine body (as they conceived it), the Christians thought fit to keep the same day, and the same name of it, that they might not appear causelessly peevish, and by that means hinder the conversion of the Gentiles, and bring a greater prejudice than might be otherwise taken against the gospel.” — Morer’s Lord’s Day, pp. 22, 23. SOSL 138.3

It is a remarkable fact that the edict of Constantine in behalf of Sunday was in every respect a heathen law. According to the testimony of Mosheim, Constantine did not renounce heathenism till A. D. 323, two years after his famous Sunday edict. He had previously adopted the opinion that Christ ought to be worshiped; but up to A. D. 323, he “combined the worship of Christ with that of the ancient gods.” Mosheim’s “Historical Commentaries,” cent. iv, sec. 7. That he was a heathen in A. D. 321, when he enacted his edict for Sunday, is further attested in that the day after this edict, he issued a decree commanding the practice of heathen divination. See “Blair’s Chronological Tables,” p.196; “Ross’ Index of Dates,” p. 830. But the edict speaks for itself. Constantine does not command men to keep the Lord’s day, or the Christian Sabbath, or the day of Christ’s resurrection. He uses very different language. He commands those to whom his decree relates, to “rest on the VENERABLE DAY OF THE SUN.” Here is a plain and explicit reference to the day observed by the heathen world from ancient times in honor of the sun. Milman, the editor of Gibbon, says of this edict: SOSL 138.4

“The rescript commanding the celebration of the Christian Sabbath, bears no allusion to its peculiar sanctity as a Christian institution. It is the day of the sun which is to be observed.... But the believer in the new paganism, of which the solar worship was the characteristic, might acquiesce without scruple in the sanctity of the first day of the week.... In fact, as we have before observed, the day of the sun would be willingly hallowed by almost all the pagan world.” — History of Christianity, book iii, chapters i and iv. SOSL 139.1

These facts are sufficient to show how greatly indebted is Sunday to the ancient worship of the chief god of heathenism on that day. Let us now consider some things pertaining directly to the church of Rome in connection with the Sunday institution. The earliest mention of Sunday in the Christian church is by Justin Martyr, A. D. p. 140. And it is remarkable that it is written at Rome, and is especially descriptive of the celebration of the Sunday festival in that church. He says: SOSL 139.2

“And upon the day called Sunday, all that live either in city or country meet together at the same place, where the writings of the apostles and prophets are read as much as time will give leave; when the reader is done, the bishop makes a sermon,” etc. — Justin Martyr’s First Apology, translated by Wm. Reeves, p. 127. SOSL 139.3

It was only 56 years after this time that “the bishop” of Rome attempted to rule the Christian church by AN EDICT IN BEHALF OF SUNDAY. It was the custom of all the churches to celebrate the Passover. But while the eastern churches did this upon the fourteenth day of the first month, the western churches, among which the church of Rome was chief, celebrated the Passover on the Sunday following that day, unless, indeed, the day happened to fall on Sunday. But in the year 196, Victor, bishop of Rome, took upon himself to impose the Roman custom upon all the churches; that is, to compel them to observe the Passover upon Sunday. It is a most significant fact that the first attempt of the bishop of Rome to rule the Christian church was by this edict in favor of Sunday. Bower says of it: SOSL 140.1

“This bold attempt we may call the first essay of papal usurpation.” — History of the Popes, vol. i, p. 18. SOSL 140.2

And Dowling, in his “History of Romanism,” p.32, terms it the “earliest instance of Romish assumption.” This was only one generation after the time of Justin Martyr, and it was just prior to the time of Tertullian, the first writer who gives Sunday the title of Lord’s day, and the first one who speaks of refraining from business on that day. Surely, Sunday made some advancement at Rome from A. D. 140, to A. d. 196, when Victor issued his Sunday edict. But the churches of Asia informed the Roman bishop that they could not comply with his lordly mandate. Upon the receipt of this letter, Victor gave way to an ungovernable passion, and excommunicated the bishops of all those churches. But he could not compel them to submit to him. Thus the matter rested till the Council of Nice, in A. D. 325, when the church of Rome, by the powerful aid of the Emperor Constantine, was able to carry this point. Heylyn says of this struggle: SOSL 140.3

“The Lord’s day found it no small matter to obtain the victory.” — History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. ii, sec.5. SOSL 141.1

The next act of the Roman church in warring against the Sabbath, was to turn that day into a fast. Dr. Hase says: SOSL 141.2

“The Roman church regarded Saturday as a fast day, in direct opposition to those who regarded it as a Sabbath.” — Ancient Church History. part i, division ii, sec.69. SOSL 141.3

This was at the beginning of the third century. It was only after a long struggle that the church of Rome prevailed, in turning the Sabbath into a fast. And thus Heylyn states the result: SOSL 141.4

“In the end the Roman church obtained the cause, and Saturday became a fast almost through all parts of the western world.” — History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. ii, sec. 3. SOSL 141.5

The object of this was to render the Sabbath despicable in the eyes of men. This was the first great effort of the Roman church toward the suppression of the ancient Sabbath of the Bible. SOSL 141.6

We have seen the rapid advancement which the Sunday festival made in the early history of the Roman church. We have also seen how exactly adapted to the advancement of Sunday to its final supremacy was the regard of the heathen world for that day. And when the edict of Constantine in behalf of the venerable day of the sun had elevated that heathen festival to the throne of the Roman empire, the advocates of Sunday, in the church, were not slow to take advantage of the fact. At a later period, Constantine declared himself a Christian, and his Sunday law, being unrepealed, was enforced as a Christian law. In the meantime, another important event in the history of Sunday usurpation occurred. Sylvester was bishop of Rome while Constantine was emperor. “Lucius’ Ecclesiastical History,” pp. 739, 740, informs us that Sylvester changed the name of the day, giving it the imposing title of “LORD’S DAY.” The observers of Sunday are, therefore, greatly indebted to Constantine and to Sylvester. The one elevated it, as a heathen festival, to the throne of the empire; the other changed it into a Christian institution, giving it the dignified appellation of Lord’s day. Certainly, these are very important facts. Now let us listen to the statement of Dr. Peter Heylyn, a member of the church of England, which he, an observer of what he calls the Lord’s day, traces the steps by which it rose to power. He says: SOSL 141.7

“Thus do we see upon what grounds the Lord’s day stands: on custom first, and voluntary consecration of it to religious meetings; that custom countenanced by the authority of the church of God, which tacitly approved the same; and finally confirmed and ratified by Christian princes throughout their empires. And as the day for rest from labors and restraint from business upon that day [it] received its greatest strength from the supreme magistrate as long as he retained that power which to him belongs; as after from the canons and decrees of councils, the decretals of popes and orders of particular prelates, when the sole managing of ecclesiastical affairs was committed to them. I hope it was not so with the former Sabbath, which neither took original from custom, that people being not so forward to give God a day; nor required any command from the kings of Israel to confirm and ratify it. The Lord had spoken the word that he would have the seventh day from the world’s creation to be a day of rest unto all his people; which said, there was no more to do but gladly to submit and obey his pleasure. But this was not done in our present business. The Lord’s day had no such command that it should be sanctified, but was left plainly for God’s people to pitch on this, or any other, for the public use. And being taken up amongst these, and made a day of meeting in the congregation for religious exercises, yet for three hundred years there was neither law to bind them to it, nor any rest from labor or from worldly business required upon it. And when it seemed good unto Christian princes, the nursing fathers of God’s church, to lay restraint upon their people, yet at the first they were not general, but only thus that certain men, in certain places, should lay aside their ordinary and daily works, to attend God’s service in the church; those whose employments were most toilsome and most repugnant to the true nature of a Sabbath, being allowed to follow and pursue their labors, because most necessary to the commonwealth. And in the following times, when as the prince and prelate in their several places endeavored to restrain them from that also which formerly they had permitted, and interdicted almost all kinds of bodily labor upon that day, it was not brought about without much struggling and an opposition of the people; more than a thousand years being past, after Christ’s ascension, before the Lord’s day had attained that state in which now it standeth. And being brought into that state, wherein now it stands, it doth not stand so firmly and on such sure grounds but that those powers which raised it up, may take it lower if they please, yea, take it quite away as unto the time, and settle it on any other day as to them seems best.” — History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. iii, sec. 12. SOSL 142.1

These remarks of Dr. Heylyn ought to make a deep impression upon every reader who keeps the first day as the Sabbath. Here we have a candid and truthful statement of the grounds of first-day observance. It is simply the customs, and traditions, and ordinances, of men, but not at all the ordinance of God, which enter into the framework of this institution. Dr. Heylyn thinks the men who built up this Sunday festival were pious men; and that the institution constructed by them was the Lord’s day. Yet he frankly testifies that, as it owes its existence to the precepts of men, the very same hands that set it up are capable of taking it down altogether, or of simply transferring it to any other day which may suit them better. Dr. Heylyn has given us a truthful view of the persons by whom the so-called Lord’s day was established among men. It was popes, councils, and self-styled Christian princes. How evident that it was the work of the great apostasy! The institution began with the apostasy; the two increased in strength together; and each of them stands upon the same foundation; viz., the traditions of men, which make void the commandments of God. SOSL 143.1

It is now proper that we inquire concerning the Sabbath of the Lord in these ages in which the foundation of the great apostasy was laid. The very same work that undermined the Sabbath and the law of God, laid the foundation of the Romish apostasy. It does not appear that the change of the Sabbath to Sunday was contemplated by those who first made Sunday, a day of religious assemblies. Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday, were thus honored with very nearly equal honors. But as the work spread to the Gentiles, and as the first love of the disciples was succeeded by a spirit of seeking convenience and worldly good, it was perfectly natural that they should prefer that one of the three festivals to which they had ever been accustomed, and which was, indeed, the day of general observance by their fellow-men. And, when this day was established by the authority of Constantine, and hallowed by the act of Pope Sylvester, it was not strange that it should effectually supplant the ancient Sabbath. Sunday was observed as a voluntary festival, while the Sabbath of the Lord was cherished as a divine institution; but, when the Sunday festival became strong enough, then it attempted the utter destruction of the Sabbath. Giesler thus states the position of those two days in the early church: SOSL 144.1

“While the Jewish Christians of Palestine retained the entire Mosaic law, and consequently the Jewish festivals, the Gentile Christians observed also THE SABBATH and the Passover, with reference to the last scenes of Jesus’ life, but without Jewish superstition. In addition to these, Sunday, as the day of Christ’s resurrection, was devoted to religious services.” — Ecclesiastical History, vol. i, chap. ii, sec.30. SOSL 144.2

Morer speaks thus, concerning the Sabbath at this time: SOSL 145.1

“The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons. And it is not to be doubted but they derived this practice from the apostles themselves.” — Morer’s Lord’s Day, p.189. SOSL 145.2

Here is a further statement of the case by Coleman: SOSL 145.3

“The last day of the week was strictly kept in connection with that of the first day, for a long time after the overthrow of the temple and its worship. Down even to the fifth century, the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church, but with a rigor and solemnity gradually diminishing, until it was wholly discontinued.” — Ancient Christianity, chap. xxvi, sec. 2. SOSL 145.4

It thus appears evident that the Sabbath of the Lord was long observed, even by the body of the Christian church. And though they had regard to the first day of the week, yet it was a long time before this became a sacred day. Thus the same writer further states the case: SOSL 145.5

“During the early ages of the church, it was never entitled ‘the Sabbath,’ this word being confined to the seventh day of the week, the Jewish Sabbath, which, as we have already said, continued to be observed for several centuries by the converts to Christianity.” — Id. SOSL 145.6

This historian thus states the utter lack of divine authority for the change from the seventh to the first day of the week: SOSL 145.7

“No law or precept appears to have been given by Christ or the apostles, either for the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath, or the institution of the Lord’s day, or the substitution of the first for the seventh day of the week.” — Id. SOSL 146.1

This is a very important acknowledgment for a first-day historian. It does not very well accord with Mosheim’s statement that the observance of Sunday “was founded upon the express appointment of the apostles.” Now let us listen while this historian relates how the Sabbath of the Lord was crowded out and superseded by a day which he acknowledges had no divine warrant for its observance. Thus he states the facts: SOSL 146.2

“The observance of the Lord’s day was ordered while yet the Sabbath of the Jews was continued; nor was the latter superseded until the former had acquired the same solemnity and importance which belonged at first to that great day which God originally ordained and blessed.... But in time, after the Lord’s day was fully established, the observance of the Sabbath of the Jews was gradually discontinued, and was finally denounced as heretical.” — Id. Ib. SOSL 146.3

This is a very extraordinary statement. Were it made by an observer of the Sabbath, it might be suspected of being unfairly stated. Coming from an observer of the first day of the week, it is open to no such suspicion. The period of five hundred years was sufficient to work a marvelous change in the relative position of these two days. At the commencement of that period, the one stood in its strength, a divine institution, clothed with the majesty of the law of God, and the other was only a voluntary festival, having no support in the law of God, or the precepts of the apostles. At the end of this period, the law of God itself had become of little authority; even in the professed church of Christ; the observance of the Sabbath had become heretical, and its right even to exist at all was vehemently disputed; while the first day of the week had become the Lord’s day, and was clothed with the authority of the civil law of the empire, and backed by the authority of the church now far advanced in the work of apostasy. SOSL 146.4

The following testimony of Bishop Jeremy Taylor, though expressing his opinion concerning the abrogation of the fourth commandment, is nevertheless an explicit statement of the continued observance of the Sabbath for several centuries. He says: SOSL 147.1

“The Lord’s day did not succeed in the place of the Sabbath; but the Sabbath was wholly abrogated, and the Lord’s day was merely an ecclesiastical institution. It was not introduced by virtue of the fourth commandment, because they, for almost three hundred years together, kept that day which was in that commandment; but they did it, also, without any opinion of prime obligation; and, therefore, they did not suppose it moral.” — Ductor Dubitantium, part i, book ii, chap. ii, sec.51. SOSL 147.2

Here, also, is the testimony of another competent witness, who, though an observer of Sunday, and a believer in the abrogation of the Sabbath, makes a very plain and express statement respecting the observance of the Sabbath by the early church. It is Edward Brerewood, professor in Gresham college, London, who speaks thus: SOSL 147.3

“The ancient Sabbath did remain, and was observed, together with the celebration of the Lord’s day, by the Christians of the east church, above three hundred years after our Saviour’s death; and, besides that, no other day, for more hundred years than I spoke of before, was known in the church by the name of Sabbath, but that. Let the collection thereof, and conclusion of all, be this: the Sabbath of the seventh day as teaching the obligation of God’s solemn worship to it, was ceremonial; that Sabbath was religiously observed in the east church three hundred years after our Saviour’s passion. That church being a great part of Christendom, and having the apostles’ doctrine and example to instruct them, would have restrained it if it had been deadly.” — Learned Treatise of the Sabbath, p. 77, edition of 1631. SOSL 147.4

Even after the enactment of Constantine’s Sunday law, in A. D. 321, the Sabbath of the Lord again rallied, and its observance became very general. Thus, Prof. Stuart writes of the period between Constantine’s edict and the council of Laodicea, A. D. 364. He says: SOSL 148.1

“The practice of it [the keeping of the Sabbath] was continued by Christians who were jealous for the honor of the Mosaic law, and finally became, as we have seen, predominant throughout Christendom. It was supposed at length that the fourth commandment did require the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath (not merely a seventh part of time), and reasoning as Christians of the present day are wont to do; viz., that all which belongs to the ten commandments was immutable and perpetual, the churches in general came gradually to regard the seventh-day Sabbath as altogether sacred.”— Appendix to Gurney’s History of the Sabbath, pp.115, 116. SOSL 148.2

Now it was time for the advocates of Sunday to come to the rescue. And this they did at the council of Laodicea, A. D. 364. Here an awful curse was pronounced upon those who should observe the Sabbath and should not observe Sunday. William Prynne, in his “Dissertation on the Lord’s Sabbath,” pp.34, 44, edition of 1633, thus states the action of this council: SOSL 148.3

“The seventh-day Sabbath was solemnized by Christ, the apostles, and primitive Christians, till the Laodicean council did in a manner quite abolish the observation of it.... The council of Laodicea, A. D. 364, first settled the observation of the Lord’s day, and prohibited the keeping of the Jewish Sabbath under an anathema.” SOSL 148.4

But even at this time, Sunday labor was considered perfectly lawful. Thus Dr. Heylyn, in his “History of the Sabbath,” part ii, chap. iii, sec. 9, speaking of the latter part of the fourth century, says: SOSL 148.5

“St. Chrysostom confessed it to be lawful for a man to look to his worldly business on the Lord’s day, after the congregation was dismissed.” SOSL 149.1

Dr. Francis White, bishop of Ely, thus testifies concerning Sunday labor at the beginning of the fifth century: SOSL 149.2

“In St. Jerome’s days, and in the very place where he was residing, the devoted Christians did ordinarily work upon the Lord’s day, when the service of the church was ended.” — Treatise of the Sabbath, p. 219. SOSL 149.3

St. Augustine was the contemporary of Jerome, and he gives a summary of the reasons which were urged at that time for Sunday observance, as follows: SOSL 149.4

“It appears from the sacred Scriptures, that this day was a solemn one; it was the first day of the age, that is, of the existence of our world; in it the elements of the world were formed; on it the angels were created; on it Christ rose also from the dead; on it the Holy Spirit descended from Heaven upon the apostles, as manna had done in the wilderness. For these, and other such circumstances, the Lord’s day is distinguished; and therefore the holy doctors of the church have decreed that all the glory of the Jewish Sabbath is transferred to it. Let us, therefore, keep the Lord’s day as the ancients were commanded to do the Sabbath.” — Cox’s Sabbath Laws, p. 284. SOSL 149.5

St. Augustine did not regard the Sunday festival as a divine institution. He gave the credit of the work, not to Christ or his inspired apostles, but to the holy doctors of the church, who, of their own accord, had transferred the glory of the ancient Sabbath to the venerable day of the sun. Of the fifth and sixth centuries, Heylyn bears the following testimony: SOSL 149.6

“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 fully spent before it came unto that height which hath since continued. The emperors and the prelates in these times had the same affections; both [being] earnest to advance this day above all others; and to the edicts of the one, and to the ecclesiastical constitution of the other, it stands indebted for many of those privileges and exemptions which it still enjoyeth.”— History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. iv, sec.1. SOSL 149.7

But the first day of the week had not yet acquired the title of Sabbath. Thus Brerewood bears testimony: SOSL 150.1

“The name of the Sabbath remained appropriated to the old Sabbath; and was never attributed to the Lord’s day, not of many hundred years after our Saviour’s time.” — Learned Treatise of the Sabbath, edition of 1631. SOSL 150.2

And Dr. Heylyn, in his “History of the Sabbath,” part ii, chap. ii, sec. 12, says of the term Sabbath in the ancient church: SOSL 150.3

“The Saturday is called amongst them by no other name that that which formerly it had, the Sabbath. So that whenever, for a thousand years and upwards, we meet with Sabbatum in any writer of what name soever, it must be understood of no day but Saturday.” SOSL 150.4

Of Sunday labor in the eastern church, Heylyn says: SOSL 150.5

“It was near nine hundred years from our Saviour’s birth, before restraint of husbandry on this day had been first thought of in the East; and probably being thus restrained did find no more obedience then than it had done before in the western parts.” — History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. v, sec.6. SOSL 150.6

Of Sunday labor in the western church, Dr. Francis White, bishop of Ely, in his “Treatise of the Sabbath-day,” pp. 217, 218, thus testifies: SOSL 150.7

“The Catholic church, for more than six hundred years after Christ, permitted labor, and gave license to many Christian people to work upon the Lord’s day, at such hours as they were not commanded to be present at the public worship by the precept of the church.” SOSL 151.1

The history of the dark ages is full of the edicts of emperors and princes, and of the decrees of popes, bishops, and councils, all directed to the one object of establishing the sacredness of Sunday. Miracles, prodigies, and judgments, were not wanting with which to confirm these edicts and decrees. Banishment, confiscation of goods, stripes, slavery, the loss of one hand, and then of the other, and the like, were the penalties by which Sunday observance was, by these edicts, forced upon the people. One of these miracles is thus given in Francis West’s “Historical and Practical Discourse on the Lord’s day.” He says: SOSL 151.2

“Gregory of Tours [about 590] reporteth that a husbandman, who, upon the Lord’s day, went to plough his field, as he cleaned his plough with an iron, the iron stuck so fast in his hand that for two years he could not be delivered from it, but carried it about continually to his exceeding great pain and shame.” SOSL 151.3

According to Morer’s “Lord’s Day,” p. 271, the council of Paris, A. D. 829, brought forward that Sunday argument, which in these days is often and largely used to supply the place of Scripture testimony. They announced God’s judgment upon those who labor on that day: SOSL 151.4

“For, say they, many of us by our own knowledge, and some by hearsay, know that several countrymen following their husbandry on this day, have been killed with lightning, others, being seized with convulsions in their joints, have miserably perished. Whereby it is apparent how high the displeasure of God was upon their neglect of this day.” SOSL 151.5

To strengthen the sacredness of this “venerable day,” the doctors of the church were not wanting. Heylyn makes the following statement: SOSL 152.1

“It was delivered of the souls in purgatory by Petrus Damiani, who lived A. D. 1056, that very Lord’s day they were manumitted from their pains, and fluttered up and down the lake Avernus, in the shape of birds.” — History of the Sabbath, part ii, chap. v, sec. 2. SOSL 152.2

And even hell itself could be benefited if those yet living upon earth would keep Sunday well. Morer, in his “Lord’s Day,” p. 68, speaks thus: SOSL 152.3

“Yet still the others went on their way; and, to induce their proselytes to spend the day with greater exactness and care, they brought in the old argument of compassion and charity to the damned in hell, who, during the day, have some respite from their torments, and the ease and liberty they have is more or less, according to the zeal and degrees of keeping it well. SOSL 152.4

In A. D. 1095, Pope Urban II consecrated the Sabbath to the weekly service of the Virgin Mary. This was a great indignity to the Creator of the heavens and the earth. In the following century an apparition from St. Peter charged the king of England to allow “no buying or selling, and no servile work,” on Sunday. Morer’s “Lord’s Day,” p. 288. But in the very midnight of the dark ages, when the papal power had reached its highest elevation, Pope Innocent III, in A. D. 1202, sent into England by one Eustachius a roll which fell from Heaven, containing the long-needed divine authority for Sunday. Here is this remarkable document: SOSL 152.5

“A HOLY MANDATE, touching the Lord’s day, which came down from Heaven unto Jerusalem, found on St. Simeon’s altar in Golgotha, where Christ was crucified for the sins of all the world, which, lying there three days and three nights, struck with such terror all that saw it, that falling on the ground they besought God’s mercy. At last the patriarch and Akarias, the archbishop (of I know not whence), ventured to take into their hands that dreadful letter, which was written thus. Now wipe your eyes and look awhile on the contents: SOSL 152.6

” ‘I am the Lord who commanded you to keep the Lord’s day, and you have not kept it, neither repented of your sins; I caused repentance to be preached unto you, and you believed not; then I sent the pagans among you, who spilt your blood on the earth, and yet you believed not; and because you did not observe the Lord’s holy day, I punished you awhile with famine; but in a short time I gave you fullness of bread, and then you behaved yourselves worse than before. I again charge you that from the ninth hour [i.e., three o’clock, P.M.] on Saturday, until sunrising on the Monday, no man presume to do any work, but what is good, or if he do, let him repent for the same. Verily I say unto you, and swear by my seat and throne, and by the cherubim which surround it, that if you do not hearken to this my mandate, I will send no other letter unto you, but will open the heavens, and rain upon you stones, wood, and scalding water, by night, so that none shall be able to provide against them. I say ye shall die the death for the Lord’s day, and other festivals of my saints which ye have not kept; and I will send among you beasts with the heads of lions, and the hair of women, and the tails of camels, which being very hungry shall devour your flesh. And you shall desire to flee to the sepulchers of the dead, and hide you for fear of those beasts. And I will take the light of the sun from your eyes, and send such darkness that, not being able to see, you shall destroy each other. And I will turn my face away and not in the least pity you. I will burn your bodies and hearts of all them who do not keep the Lord’s day. Hear then my words, and do not perish for neglecting this day. I swear to you by my right hand, that if you do not observe the Lord’s day and festivals of my saints, I will send pagan nations to destroy you.” — History of the Sabbath. part ii, chap. vii, sec. 6; Morer, pp.288-290; Wilkin’s “Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae,” vol. i, p. 510; Matthew Paris, p. 141, and many other writers. SOSL 153.1

We have two very remarkable facts in the history of Sunday, and of the Romish apostasy: 1. The first act of papal aggression was in behalf of Sunday. 2. When the papal power had reached its utmost hight of usurpation, it furnished the world with a roll from Heaven commanding the observance of Sunday under awful penalties. The two arose together from very small beginnings to vast power and greatness. But God was not in either. The mission of Eustachius was attested by miracles and prodigies. Thus we read in Heylyn’s “History of the Sabbath,” part ii, chap. vii, sec. 6, as follows: SOSL 154.1

“A carpenter making a wooden pin, and a woman making up her web, both after three on Saturday in the afternoon [for the pope in this letter had fixed ‘the Lord’s day’ from three o’clock on Saturday afternoon until sunrise on Monday], are suddenly smitten with the palsy. A certain man, of Nafferton, baking a cake on Saturday night and keeping part until the morrow, no sooner brake it for his breakfast but it gushed out blood. A miller, of Wakefield, grinding corn on Saturday after three of the clock, instead of meal found his bin full of blood; his mill-wheel standing still of its own accord.” SOSL 154.2

But God did not leave himself without witnesses to his truth, even in the dark ages. A portion of the Waldenses bore the title of Sabbatati. Mr. Benedict, in his “General History of the Baptist Denomination,” vol. ii, pp. 412, 413, edition of 1813, says of this term: SOSL 154.3

“Mr. Milner supposes this name was given to them because they observed not the Romish festivals, and rested from their ordinary occupations only on Sundays. A Sabbatarian would suppose that it was because they met for worship on the seventh day, and did regard not the first-day Sabbath.” SOSL 154.4

Mr. Robinson, in his “Ecclesiastical Researches,” chap. x. pp. 303, 304, speaks thus of this designation of the Waldenses: “One says they were so named from the Hebrew word Sabbath, because they kept the Saturday for the Lord’s day.” Other writers allude to this term in the same manner. SOSL 155.1

The Cathari, or Puritans, were a body of witnesses who during the dark ages protested against Rome. The papal writers, to whom we are indebted for our knowledge of this people, say of them, that they kept the Sabbath and held also to circumcision. The same statement is made concerning the Passaginians, a branch of the Waldenses. Mr. Benedict speaks of them as follows: SOSL 155.2

“The account of their practicing circumcision is undoubtedly a slanderous story forged by their enemies, and probably arose in this way: because they observed the seventh day, they were called, by way of derision, Jews, as the Sabbatarians are frequently at this day; and if they were Jews, it followed of course that they either did, or ought to, circumcise their followers. This was probably the reasoning of their enemies; but that they actually practiced the bloody rite, is altogether improbable.” — General History of the Baptist Denomination, vol. ii, pp. 412-418, SOSL 155.3

Dr. Francis White, bishop of Ely, says that the Petrobrusians, and a portion of the people known as Anabaptists, were observers of the seventh day. “Treatise of the Sabbath-day,” pp.8,132. Thus, within the limits of the Roman empire, God preserved faithful men who kept his commandments during the dark ages. And it is a remarkable fact that the Abyssinians of Africa have held fast to the Sabbath to the present time, as have also the Armenians of the East Indies. See Geddes’ “Church History of Ethiopia,” pp. 87, 88; “Buchanan’s Christian Researches in Asia,” pp.159, 160. SOSL 155.4

When the Reformation of the sixteenth century had lifted the vail of darkness that covered the nations of Europe, Sabbath-keepers were found in Transylvania, Germany, Holland, France, and England. It was not the Reformation that gave existence to these Sabbatarians, for the leaders of the Reformation, as a body, were not friendly to the Sabbath of the Lord. On the contrary, these observers of the Sabbath appear to be remnants of the ancient Sabbath-keeping churches that had witnessed for the truth during the dark ages. SOSL 156.1

And now we come to a remarkable event in the history of Sunday. In the latter part of the sixteenth century, a controversy arose between the Episcopalians and Presbyterians of England, that compelled the latter either to give up the first day of the week, or defend it by the Bible. They chose the latter course. Hengstenberg’s “Lord’s Day,” p. 66. It was at this juncture that Dr. Nicholas Bound, of Norton, England, discovered what he called the “True Doctrine of the Christian Sabbath.” This was nothing else than that the law of God does not require the seventh day, but only one day in seven, or a seventh part of time. With the aid of this theory, Sunday has, since that time, wrapped itself in the authority of the fourth commandment, and challenged the obedience of the world as the veritable Sabbath of the Lord. SOSL 156.2

Sabbath-keepers still remain in England, and for more than two centuries have they been found in the United States. The Seventh-day Baptists during this period have stood as witnesses to this great memorial of the Bible, the Sabbath of the Lord. During the past twenty-four years have arisen also the people known as Seventh-day Adventists, who are interested in the proclamation of God’s commandments and the faith of Jesus, as presented in the third angel’s message. They hope to induce many to turn away their feet from trampling down the Sabbath of the Lord. And when the Sabbath shall be observed in the new earth by the whole host of the redeemed, they hope to be of that number who shall assemble on that day, every week, to worship in the heavenly Jerusalem before the Lord of hosts. Revelation 14:12; Isaiah 58:13; 66:22, 23. SOSL 156.3