The Origin and Growth of Sunday Observance in the Christian Church

CATHOLIC CHURCH COUNCILS

It may be well to notice another objection here. It is this: “The Council of Laodicea was held in the Eastern church, and not in Rome; therefore the change was not by the Papal church.” OGSO 56.3

If anything were needed to show that they who uphold the Sunday are reduced to great straits, their offering such objections as this would surely serve the purpose. It clearly proves that they take only superficial views of the evidences on the subject, and have never considered the real relation of events and localities. Notice a few points:- OGSO 56.4

1. The council that declared that the primacy should be in the bishop of Rome was also held in Asia Minor. OGSO 56.5

2. It was by the Emperor of the East that the bishop of Rome was constituted the head of all the churches and the corrector of heretics. OGSO 57.1

3. No general council was held west of Constantinople until the twelfth century. Does this fact have any effect on the supremacy of the Popes of Rome? OGSO 57.2

4. The decrees of councils received no authority from the places where they were held, but from the consent and action of the emperors, popes, and churches. OGSO 57.3

5. No council was ever convened that better served the purposes of the Pope than the second Council of Nicæa, Asia Minor, A. D. 787, called by Irene, “Empress of the East.” Irene, crafty and unscrupulous, caused Tarasius, a layman, to be made bishop of Constantinople. Pope Hadrian, “offended at the uncanonical election and ordination of a layman, had declared that he approved of his election only upon condition that he got the holy images restored.” So says Bower. But why did the Pope look to such a source for the accomplishment of such an object? It was because he knew that Charlemagne, then ruling in the West, was opposed to the worship of images, and so were nearly all the bishops of the West, and he knew that Irene was in favor of image worship. There appeared to be no hope of their restoration, under the circumstances, except by means of a council called by the empress and patriarch of Constantinople. This council was attended by 375 bishops, all from the East, the West being represented only by the Pope’s legates. There was great unanimity in their decision; but great also was the indignation manifested throughout the West. Charlemagne convened a council at Frankfort to counteract the decision of that of Nicæa, where its decree was condemned. The emperor made every effort to induce the Pope to condemn the Council of Nicæa, but in vain. The Pope declared that “apostolic traditions” were in favor of the adoration of images; and through his influence the decision of the second Council of Nicæa became the established faith of the church. Had the Pope united with Charlemagne and bishops of the West, the canon of Nicæa would have become a dead letter. The fact that the council was held in Asia Minor, and was called by the Empress of the East, does not destroy the claim that image worship is a Papal practice. OGSO 57.4

6. The Council of Laodicea was not ecumenical, but, as says the Cyclopedia of McClintock & Strong, its canons “were received by the other churches.” The decisions of some of the most important councils, as that of Chalcedon and the second of Nicæa, were subjects of much contention. Probably the canons of no council met with greater favor than those of Laodicea; and amongst them the twenty-ninth was almost universally accepted, because the decree of Constantine had already popularized the day of the sun, and because the observance of the seventh day was stigmatized as a badge of Judaism. But it was specially received with favor in the West, the Church of Rome making the Sabbath a fast-day, which action was opposed by Constantinople. All history attests that Sunday received its strongest support from Rome, and that opposition to the Sabbath was much stronger in the West than in the East. The observance of the Sabbath continued longer in the East than in the West. As before said, the efficacy of the decisions of councils did not at all depend upon the places where they were held, but upon their being accepted and supported by the churches. As in the case of the second of Nicæa, so of that of Laodicea, Rome was the life and strength of its canons. OGSO 58.1

7. The words of historians have been herein quoted, which affirm that it was not by any one act, nor in a brief period of time, that the Sabbath was entirely supplanted by Sunday. That Rome, with all her influence, found it extremely difficult to exalt the Sunday to the place it attained, is proved by the many decrees of emperors and canons of councils which were found to be necessary to accomplish the object. Dr. Heylyn says the sixth Council of Constantinople, A. D. 690, did admonish those of Rome to forbear fasting on that day upon pain of censures. Rome had compelled fasting on the Sabbath for about three centuries before the time of that council, and she persisted and prevailed. The Sunday church festival, gradually turned into a Sunday-sabbath, is as truly a creature of the Papacy as is the custom of image worship. OGSO 59.1

8. All that part of the Protestant church at large which is represented in faith by the Baptists, has been forward to lay innovations to the charge of the Papacy. It has persistently declared that infant baptism is an institution of the Papacy. That it owes its strength and perpetuity-its general acceptance-to Rome, cannot be denied. And yet, who does not know that the practice originated in Africa, and not in Rome? So impossible is it for the advocates of Sunday to be consistent. OGSO 59.2

The sum of the matter is this: The primacy of Rome was declared in the East; the supremacy of Rome over all the churches was established in the East; all the general councils previous to the twelfth century were held in the East; all the churches, East and West, were united into one hierarchy by Constantine, and the actual division into Eastern and Western churches was not until the tenth century. Therefore, the councils held in the East were councils of the Catholic Church established by Constantine; they were councils of that church of which the bishop of Rome was primate, his primacy having been established in Asia Minor in A. D. 325. OGSO 60.1

This objection is only an evasion; a subterfuge, by which; if possible, to keep out of sight the fact that the Sabbath was changed by the church in the fourth century. Were the objection valid-were it a fact that the church represented by Rome had nothing to do in establishing this canon, it would not help the Sunday cause at all. It would still remain a fact that the Sunday institution, as a day of church observance, received its authority, (1) from the twenty-ninth canon of the Council of Laodicea; and (2) from those who enforced and gave effect to that canon. It can be traced to no other source. But, unfortunately for the cause of the objectors, they cannot possibly separate this action from the Catholic Church, of which the bishop of Rome was primate. OGSO 60.2

I should feel like asking pardon of the reader for spending so much time on such a flimsy objection, were it not that it has been urged with most amazing confidence. The confident manner of the objector has more weight than the objection itself. OGSO 60.3

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, and 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. OGSO 61.1