diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/68714-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68714-0.txt | 21179 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 21179 deletions
diff --git a/old/68714-0.txt b/old/68714-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 6beb786..0000000 --- a/old/68714-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,21179 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of History of the Sabbath and first day -of the week, by John Nevins Andrews - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: History of the Sabbath and first day of the week - -Author: John Nevins Andrews - -Release Date: August 8, 2022 [eBook #68714] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Brian Wilson and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team - at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images - generously made available by The Internet Archive) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF THE SABBATH AND -FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK *** - - - - - - - HISTORY - OF - THE SABBATH - AND - FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. - - BY J. N. ANDREWS. - - SECOND EDITION—ENLARGED. - - STEAM PRESS - OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION, - BATTLE CREEK, MICH.: - - 1873. - - - - -PREFACE. - - -The history of the Sabbath embraces the period of 6000 years. The seventh -day is the Sabbath of the Lord. The acts which constituted it such were, -first, the example of the Creator; secondly, his placing his blessing -upon the day; and thirdly, the sanctification or divine appointment of -the day to a holy use. The Sabbath, therefore, dates from the beginning -of our world’s history. The first who Sabbatized on the seventh day is -God the Creator; and the first seventh day of time is the day which he -thus honored. The highest of all possible honors does, therefore, pertain -to the seventh day. Nor is this honor confined to the first seventh day -of time; for so soon as God had rested upon that day, he appointed the -seventh day to a holy use, that man might hallow it in memory of his -Creator. - -This divine appointment grows out of the nature and fitness of things, -and must have been made directly to Adam, for himself and wife were then -the only beings who had the days of the week to use. As it was addressed -to Adam while yet in his uprightness, it must have been given to him -as the head of the human family. The fourth commandment bases all its -authority upon this original mandate of the Creator, and must, therefore, -be in substance what God commanded to Adam and Eve as the representatives -of mankind. - -The patriarchs could not possibly have been ignorant of the facts and the -obligation which the fourth commandment shows to have originated in the -beginning, for Adam was present with them for a period equal to more than -half the Christian dispensation. Those, therefore, who walked with God in -the observance of his commandments did certainly hallow his Sabbath. - -The observers of the seventh day must therefore include the ancient -godly patriarchs, and none will deny that they include also the prophets -and the apostles. Indeed, the entire church of God embraced within the -records of inspiration were Sabbath-keepers. To this number must be added -the Son of God. - -What a history, therefore, has the Sabbath of the Lord! It was instituted -in Paradise, honored by several miracles each week for the space of forty -years, proclaimed by the great Law-giver from Sinai, observed by the -Creator, the patriarchs, the prophets, the apostles, and the Son of God! -It constitutes the very heart of the law of God, and so long as that law -endures, so long shall the authority of this sacred institution stand -fast. - -Such being the record of the seventh day, it may well be asked, How came -it to pass that this day has been abased to the dust, and another day -elevated to its sacred honors? The Scriptures nowhere attribute this work -to the Son of God. They do, however, predict the great apostasy in the -Christian church, and that the little horn, or man of sin, the lawless -one, should think to change times and laws. - -It is the object of the present volume to show, 1. The Bible record of -the Sabbath; 2. The record of the Sabbath in secular history; 3. The -record of the Sunday festival, and of the several steps by which it has -usurped the place of the ancient Sabbath. - -The writer has attempted to ascertain the exact truth in the case by -consulting the original authorities as far as it has been possible to -gain access to them. The margin will show to whom he is mainly indebted -for the facts presented in this work, though it indicates only a very -small part of the works consulted. He has given the exact words of the -historians, and has endeavored, conscientiously, to present them in such -a light as to do justice to the authors quoted. - -It is not the fault of the writer that the history of the Sunday festival -presents such an array of frauds and of iniquities in its support. These -are, in the nature of the case, essential to its very existence, for the -claim of a usurper is necessarily based in fraud. The responsibility for -these rests with those who dare commit or uphold such acts. The ancient -Sabbath of the Lord has never needed help of this kind, and never has its -record been stained by fraud or falsehood. - - J. N. A. - -_Battle Creek, Mich., Nov. 14, 1873._ - - - - -CONTENTS - - - PART I.—BIBLE HISTORY. - - PAGES. - - CHAPTER I. - - THE CREATION, 9-13 - - CHAPTER II. - - THE INSTITUTION OF THE SABBATH, 13-32 - - CHAPTER III. - - THE SABBATH COMMITTED TO THE HEBREWS, 33-44 - - CHAPTER IV. - - THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT, 44-50 - - CHAPTER V. - - THE SABBATH WRITTEN BY THE FINGER OF GOD, 51-64 - - CHAPTER VI. - - THE SABBATH DURING THE DAY OF TEMPTATION, 64-82 - - CHAPTER VII. - - THE FEASTS, NEW MOONS, AND SABBATHS, OF THE HEBREWS, 82-92 - - CHAPTER VIII. - - THE SABBATH FROM DAVID TO NEHEMIAH, 92-109 - - CHAPTER IX. - - THE SABBATH FROM NEHEMIAH TO CHRIST, 109-114 - - CHAPTER X. - - THE SABBATH DURING THE LAST OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS, 115-157 - - CHAPTER XI. - - THE SABBATH DURING THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLES, 158-192 - - PART II.—SECULAR HISTORY. - - CHAPTER XII. - - EARLY APOSTASY IN THE CHURCH, 193-203 - - CHAPTER XIII. - - THE SUNDAY-LORD’S DAY NOT TRACEABLE TO THE APOSTLES, 204-228 - - CHAPTER XIV. - - THE FIRST WITNESSES FOR SUNDAY, 228-243 - - CHAPTER XV. - - EXAMINATION OF A FAMOUS FALSEHOOD, 243-258 - - CHAPTER XVI. - - ORIGIN OF FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE, 258-281 - - CHAPTER XVII. - - THE NATURE OF EARLY FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE, 282-308 - - CHAPTER XVIII. - - THE SABBATH IN THE RECORD OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 308-331 - - CHAPTER XIX. - - THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY DURING THE FIRST FIVE CENTURIES, 332-368 - - CHAPTER XX. - - SUNDAY DURING THE DARK AGES, 368-398 - - CHAPTER XXI. - - TRACES OF THE SABBATH DURING THE DARK AGES, 398-432 - - CHAPTER XXII. - - POSITION OF THE REFORMERS CONCERNING THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY, 432-446 - - CHAPTER XXIII. - - LUTHER AND CARLSTADT, 446-459 - - CHAPTER XXIV. - - SABBATH-KEEPERS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, 459-470 - - CHAPTER XXV. - - HOW AND WHEN SUNDAY APPROPRIATED THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT, 470-479 - - CHAPTER XXVI. - - ENGLISH SABBATH-KEEPERS, 479-492 - - CHAPTER XXVII. - - THE SABBATH IN AMERICA, 493-512 - - - - -HISTORY OF THE SABBATH. - - - - -PART I—BIBLE HISTORY. - - - - -CHAPTER I. - -THE CREATION. - - Time and eternity—The Creator and his work—Events of the first - day of time—Of the second—Of the third—Of the fourth—Of the - fifth—Of the sixth. - - -Time, as distinguished from eternity, may be defined as that part of -duration which is measured by the Bible. From the earliest date in the -book of Genesis to the resurrection of the unjust at the end of the -millennium, the period of about 7000 years is measured off.[1] Before the -commencement of this great week of time, duration without beginning fills -the past; and at the expiration of this period, unending duration opens -before the people of God. Eternity is that word which embraces duration -without beginning and without end. And that Being whose existence -comprehends eternity, is he who only hath immortality, the King eternal, -immortal, invisible, the only wise God.[2] - -When it pleased this infinite Being, he gave existence to our earth. Out -of nothing God created all things;[3] “so that things which are seen -were not made of things which do appear.” This act of creation is that -event which marks the commencement of the first week of time. He who -could accomplish the whole work with one word chose rather to employ six -days, and to accomplish the result by successive steps. Let us trace the -footsteps of the Creator from the time when he laid the foundation of the -earth until the close of the sixth day, when the heavens and the earth -were finished, “and God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it -was very good.”[4] - -On the first day of time God created the heaven and the earth. The earth -thus called into existence was without form, and void; and total darkness -covered the Creator’s work. Then “God said, Let there be light; and there -was light.” “And God divided the light from the darkness,” and called the -one day, and the other night.[5] - -On the second day of time “God said, Let there be a firmament [margin, -Heb., expansion] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters -from the waters.” The dry land had not yet appeared; consequently the -earth was covered with water. As no atmosphere existed, thick vapors -rested upon the face of the water; but the atmosphere being now called -into existence by the word of the Creator, causing those elements -to unite which compose the air we breathe, the fogs and vapors that -had rested upon the bosom of the water were borne aloft by it. This -atmosphere or expansion is called heaven.[6] - -On the third day of time God gathered the waters together and caused the -dry land to appear. The gathering together of the waters God called seas; -the dry land, thus rescued from the waters, he called earth. “And God -said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the -fruit-tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon -the earth: and it was so.” “And God saw that it was good.”[7] - -On the fourth day of time “God said, Let there be lights in the firmament -of the heaven, to divide the day from the night; and let them be for -signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.” “And God made two great -lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule -the night; he made the stars also.” Light had been created on the first -day of the week; and now on the fourth day he causes the sun and moon -to appear as light-bearers, and places the light under their rule. And -they continue unto this day according to his ordinances, for all are his -servants. Such was the work of the fourth day. And the Great Architect, -surveying what he had wrought, pronounced it good.[8] - -On the fifth day of time “God created great whales, and every living -creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after -their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was -good.”[9] - -On the sixth day of time “God made the beast of the earth after his -kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the -earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” Thus the earth, -having been fitted for the purpose, was filled with every order of -living creature, while the air and waters teemed with animal existence. -To complete this noble work of creation, God next provides a ruler, the -representative of himself, and places all in subjection under him. “And -God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them -have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and -over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing -that creepeth upon the earth.” “And the Lord God formed man of the dust -of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and -man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in -Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground -made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and -good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the -tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Last of all, God created Eve, the -mother of all living. The work of the Creator was now complete. “The -heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.” “And God -saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.” Adam and -Eve were in paradise; the tree of life bloomed on earth; sin had not -entered our world, and death was not here, for there was no sin. “The -morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.” -Thus ended the sixth day.[10] - - - - -CHAPTER II. - -THE INSTITUTION OF THE SABBATH. - - Event on the seventh day—Why the Creator rested—Acts by which - the Sabbath was made—Time and order of their occurrence—Meaning - of the word _sanctified_—The fourth commandment refers the - origin of the Sabbath to creation—The second mention of the - Sabbath confirms this fact—The Saviour’s testimony—When did - God sanctify the seventh day—Object of the Author of the - Sabbath—Testimony of Josephus and of Philo—Negative argument - from the book of Genesis considered—Adam’s knowledge of the - Sabbath not difficult to be known by the patriarchs. - - -The work of the Creator was finished, but the first week of time was -not yet completed. Each of the six days had been distinguished by the -Creators work upon it; but the seventh was rendered memorable in a very -different manner. “And on the seventh[11] day God ended his work which -he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he -had made.” In yet stronger language it is written: “On the seventh day he -rested, and was REFRESHED.”[12] - -Thus the seventh day of the week became the rest-day of the Lord. How -remarkable is this fact! “The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of -the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary.”[13] He needed -no rest; yet it is written, “On the seventh day he rested, and was -refreshed.” Why does not the record simply state the cessation of the -Creator’s work? Why did he at the close of that work employ a day in -rest? The answer will be learned from the next verse. He was laying the -foundation of a divine institution, the memorial of his own great work. - -“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.” The fourth -commandment states the same fact: He “rested the seventh day; _wherefore_ -the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”[14] - -The blessing and sanctification of the seventh day were because that God -had rested upon it. His resting upon it, then, was to lay the foundation -for blessing and sanctifying the day. His being refreshed with this rest, -implies that he delighted in the act which laid the foundation for the -memorial of his great work. - -The second act of the Creator in instituting this memorial was to place -his blessing upon the day of his rest. Thenceforward it was the blessed -rest-day of the Lord. A third act completes the sacred institution. The -day already blessed of God is now, last of all, sanctified or hallowed -by him. To sanctify is “to separate, set apart, or appoint to a holy, -sacred, or religious use.” To hallow is “to make holy; to consecrate; to -set apart for a holy or religious use.”[15] - -The time when these three acts were performed is worthy of especial -notice. The first act was that of rest. This took place on the seventh -day; for the day was employed in rest. The second and third acts took -place when the seventh day was past. “God blessed the seventh day, and -sanctified it: because that in it he _had_ rested from all his work.” -Hence it was on the first day of the second week of time that God -blessed the seventh day, and set it apart to a holy use. The blessing and -sanctification of the seventh day, therefore, relate not to the first -seventh day of time, but to the seventh day of the week for time to come, -in memory of God’s rest on that day from the work of creation. - -With the beginning of time, God began to count days, giving to each an -ordinal number for its _name_. Seven _different_ days receive as many -different _names_. In memory of that which he did on the last of these -days, he sets that day apart by _name_ to a holy use. This act gave -existence to weeks, or periods of seven days. For with the seventh day, -he ceased to count, and, by the divine appointment of that day to a holy -use in memory of his rest thereon, he causes man to begin the count of a -new week so soon as the first seventh day had ceased. And as God has been -pleased to give man, _in all_, but _seven_ different days, and has given -to each one of these days a name which indicates its exact place in the -week, his act of setting apart one of these by name, which act created -weeks and gave man the Sabbath, can never—except by sophistry—be made to -relate to an indefinite or uncertain day. - -The days of the week are measured off by the revolution of _our earth_ on -its axis; and hence our seventh day, as such, can come only to dwellers -on this globe. To Adam and Eve, therefore, as inhabitants of this earth, -and not to the inhabitants of some other world, were the days of the week -given to use. Hence, when God set apart one of these days to a holy use -in memory of his own rest on that day of the week, the very essence of -the act consisted in his telling Adam that this day should be used only -for sacred purposes. Adam was then in the garden of God, placed there by -the Creator to dress it and to keep it. He was also commissioned of God -to subdue the earth.[16] When therefore the rest-day of the Lord should -return, from week to week, all this secular employment, however proper -in itself, must be laid aside, and the day observed in memory of the -Creator’s rest. - -Dr. Twisse quotes Martin Luther thus: - - “And Martin Luther professeth as much (tome vi. in Gen. 2:3). - ‘It follows from hence,’ saith he, ‘that, if Adam had stood in - his innocency, yet he should have kept the seventh day holy, - that is, on that day he should have taught his children, and - children’s children, what was the will of God, and wherein his - worship did consist; he should have praised God, given thanks, - and offered. On other days he should have tilled his ground, - looked to his cattle.’”[17] - -The Hebrew verb, _kadash_, here rendered _sanctified_, and in the fourth -commandment rendered _hallowed_, is defined by Gesenius, “To pronounce -holy, to sanctify; to institute any holy thing, to appoint.”[18] It -is repeatedly used in the Old Testament for a public appointment or -proclamation. Thus, when the cities of refuge were set apart in Israel, -it is written: “They appointed [margin, Heb., sanctified] Kedesh in -Galilee in Mount Naphtali, and Shechem in Mount Ephraim,” &c. This -sanctification or appointment of the cities of refuge was by a public -announcement to Israel that these cities were set apart for that -purpose. This verb is also used for the appointment of a public fast, -and for the gathering of a solemn assembly. Thus it is written: “Sanctify -[_i. e._, appoint] ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders -and all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the Lord your God.” -“Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify [_i. e._, appoint] a fast, call a -solemn assembly.” “And Jehu said, Proclaim [margin, Heb., sanctify] a -solemn assembly for Baal.”[19] This appointment for Baal was so public -that all the worshipers of Baal in all Israel were gathered together. -These fasts and solemn assemblies were sanctified or set apart by a -public appointment or proclamation of the fact. When therefore God set -apart the seventh day to a holy use, it was necessary that he should -state that fact to those who had the days of the week to use. Without -such announcement the day could not be set apart from the others. - -But the most striking illustration of the meaning of this word may be -found in the record of the sanctification of Mount Sinai.[20] When God -was about to speak the ten commandments in the hearing of all Israel, he -sent Moses down from the top of Mount Sinai to restrain the people from -touching the mount. “And Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot -come up to Mount Sinai; for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about -the mount, and _sanctify it_.” Turning back to the verse where God gave -this charge to Moses, we read: “And thou shalt set bounds unto the people -round about, _saying_, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into -the mount or touch the border of it.” Hence to sanctify the mount was to -command the people not to touch even the border of it; for God was about -to descend in majesty upon it. In other words, to sanctify or set apart -to a holy use Mount Sinai, was to tell the people that God would have -them treat the mountain as sacred to himself. And thus also to sanctify -the rest-day of the Lord was to tell Adam that he should treat the day as -holy to the Lord. - -The declaration, “God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it,” is not -indeed a commandment for the observance of that day; but it is the record -that such a precept was given to Adam.[21] For how could the Creator “set -apart to a holy use” the day of his rest, when those who were to use the -day knew nothing of his will in the case? Let those answer who are able. - -This view of the record in Genesis we shall find to be sustained by all -the testimony in the Bible relative to the rest-day of the Lord. The -facts which we have examined are the basis of the fourth commandment. -Thus spake the great Law-giver from the summit of the flaming mount: -“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” “The seventh day is the -Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” “For in six days the Lord made heaven and -earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: -wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”[22] - -The term Sabbath is transferred from the Hebrew language, and signifies -rest.[23] The command, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” is -therefore exactly equivalent to saying, “Remember the rest-day, to keep -it holy.” The explanation which follows sustains this statement: “The -seventh day is the Sabbath [or rest-day] of the Lord thy God.” The origin -of this rest-day is given in these words: “For in six days the Lord -made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the -seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed -it.” That which is enjoined in the fourth commandment is to keep holy -the rest-day of the Lord. And this is defined to be the day on which -he rested from the work of creation. Moreover, the fourth commandment -calls the seventh day the Sabbath day at the time when God blessed and -hallowed that day; therefore the Sabbath is an institution dating from -the foundation of the world. The fourth commandment points back to the -creation for the origin of its obligation; and when we go back to that -point, we find the substance of the fourth commandment given to Adam: -“God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it;” _i. e._, set it apart to -a holy use. And in the commandment itself, the same fact is stated: “The -Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it;” _i. e._, appointed it to -a holy use. The one statement affirms that “God blessed the seventh day, -and sanctified it;” the other, that “the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, -and hallowed it.” These two statements refer to the same acts. Because -the word Sabbath does not occur in the first statement, it has been -contended that the Sabbath did not originate at creation, it being the -seventh day merely which was hallowed. From the second statement, it has -been contended that God did not bless the seventh day at all, but simply -the Sabbath institution. But both statements embody all the truth. God -blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; and this day thus blessed and -hallowed was his holy Sabbath, or rest-day. Thus the fourth commandment -establishes the origin of the Sabbath at creation. - -The second mention of the Sabbath in the Bible furnishes a decisive -confirmation of the testimonies already adduced. On the sixth day of the -week, Moses, in the wilderness of Sin, said to Israel, “To-morrow is -the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.”[24] What had been done to -the seventh day since God blessed and sanctified it as his rest-day in -paradise? Nothing. What did Moses do to the seventh day to make it the -rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord? Nothing. Moses on the sixth day -simply states the fact that the morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath -unto the Lord. The seventh day had been such ever since God blessed and -hallowed the day of his rest. - -The testimony of our divine Lord relative to the origin and design of the -Sabbath is of peculiar importance. He is competent to testify, for he -was with the Father in the beginning of the creation.[25] “The Sabbath -was made for man,” said he, “not man for the Sabbath.”[26] The following -grammatical rule is worthy of notice: “A noun without an adjective is -invariably taken in its broadest extension, as: Man is accountable.”[27] -The following texts will illustrate this rule, and also this statement of -our Lord’s: “Man lieth down and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, -they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.” “There hath no -temptation taken you but such as is common to man.” “It is appointed unto -men once to die.”[28] In these texts man is used without restriction, -and, therefore, all mankind are necessarily intended. The Sabbath was -therefore made for the whole human family, and consequently originated -with mankind. But the Saviour’s language is even yet more emphatic in -the original: “The Sabbath was made for THE man, not THE man for the -Sabbath.” This language fixes the mind on the man Adam, who was made of -the dust of the ground just before the Sabbath was made for him, of the -seventh day. - -This is a striking confirmation of the fact already pointed out that the -Sabbath was given to Adam, the head of the human family. - -“The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; yet he made the -Sabbath for man. God made the Sabbath his by solemn appropriation, that -he might convey it back to us under the guarantee of a divine charter, -that none might rob us of it with impunity.” - -But is it not possible that God’s act of blessing and sanctifying the -seventh day did not occur at the close of the creation week? May it -not be mentioned then because God designed that the day of his rest -should be afterward observed? Or rather, as Moses wrote the book of -Genesis long after the creation, might he not insert this account of the -sanctification of the seventh day with the record of the first week, -though the day itself was sanctified in his own time? - -It is very certain that such an interpretation of the record cannot be -admitted, unless the facts in the case demand it. For it is, to say the -least, a forced explanation of the language. The record in Genesis, -unless this be an exception, is a plain narrative of events. Thus what -God did on each day is recorded in its order down to the seventh. It -is certainly doing violence to the narrative to affirm that the record -respecting the seventh day is of a different character from that -respecting the other six. He rested the seventh day; he sanctified the -seventh day because he had rested upon it. The reason why he should -sanctify the seventh day existed when his rest was closed. To say, -therefore, that God did not sanctify the day at that time, but did it in -the days of Moses, is not only to distort the narrative, but to affirm -that he neglected to do that for which the reason existed at creation, -until twenty-five hundred years after.[29] - -But we ask that the facts be brought forward which prove that the Sabbath -was sanctified in the wilderness of Sin, and not at creation. And what -are the facts that show this? It is confessed that such facts are not -upon record. Their existence is assumed in order to sustain the theory -that the Sabbath originated at the fall of the manna, and not in paradise. - -Did God sanctify the Sabbath in the wilderness of Sin? There is no -intimation of such fact. On the contrary, it is mentioned at that time -as something already set apart of God. On the sixth day Moses said, -“To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.”[30] Surely -this is not the act of instituting the Sabbath, but the familiar mention -of an existing fact. We pass on to Mount Sinai. Did God sanctify the -Sabbath when he spoke the ten commandments? No one claims that he did. -It is admitted by all that Moses spoke of it familiarly the previous -month.[31] Does the Lord at Sinai speak of the sanctification of the -Sabbath? He does; but in the very language of Genesis he goes back for -the sanctification of the Sabbath, not to the wilderness of Sin, but -to the creation of the world.[32] We ask those who hold the theory -under examination, this question: If the Sabbath was not sanctified at -creation, but was sanctified in the wilderness of Sin, why does the -narrative in each instance[33] record the sanctification of the Sabbath -at creation and omit all mention of such fact in the wilderness of Sin? -Nay, why does the record of events in the wilderness of Sin show that the -holy Sabbath was at that time already in existence? In a word, How can a -theory subversive of all the facts in the record, be maintained as the -truth of God? - -We have seen the Sabbath ordained of God at the close of the creation -week. The object of its Author is worthy of especial attention. Why -did the Creator set up this memorial in paradise? Why did he set apart -from the other days of the week that day which he had employed in rest? -“Because that in it,” says the record, “he had rested from all his -work which God created and made.” A _rest_ necessarily implies a _work -performed_. And hence the Sabbath was ordained of God as a memorial -of the work of creation. And therefore that precept of the moral law -which relates to this memorial, unlike every other precept of that law, -begins with the word, “Remember.” The importance of this memorial will -be appreciated when we learn from the Scriptures that it is the work of -creation which is claimed by its Author as the great evidence of his -eternal power and Godhead, and as that great fact which distinguishes him -from all false gods. Thus it is written: - - “He that built all things is God.” “The gods that have not - made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from - the earth, and from under these heavens.” “But the Lord is - the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting King.” - “He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the - world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his - discretion.” “For the invisible things of him from the creation - of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things - that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.” “For he - spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.” Thus - “the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things - which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”[34] - -Such is the estimate which the Scriptures place upon the work of creation -as evincing the eternal power and Godhead of the Creator. The Sabbath -stands as the memorial of this great work. Its observance is an act of -grateful acknowledgment on the part of his intelligent creatures that he -is their Creator, and that they owe all to him; and that for his pleasure -they are and were created. How appropriate this observance for Adam! And -when man had fallen, how important for his well-being that he should -“remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” He would thus have been -preserved from atheism and from idolatry; for he could never forget that -there was a God from whom all things derived their being; nor could he -worship as God any other being than the Creator. - -The seventh day, as hallowed by God in Eden, was not Jewish, but divine; -it was not the memorial of the flight of Israel from Egypt, but of -the Creator’s rest. Nor is it true that the most distinguished Jewish -writers deny the primeval origin of the Sabbath, or claim it as a Jewish -memorial We cite the historian Josephus and his learned cotemporary, -Philo Judæus. Josephus, whose “Antiquities of the Jews” run parallel with -the Bible from the beginning, when treating of the wilderness of Sin, -makes no allusion whatever to the Sabbath, a clear proof that he had no -idea that it originated in that wilderness. But when giving the account -of creation, he bears the following testimony: - - “Moses says that in just six days the world and all that is - therein was made. And that the seventh day was a rest and a - release from the labor of such operations; WHENCE it is that we - celebrate a rest from our labor on that day, and call it the - Sabbath; which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue.”[35] - -And Philo bears an emphatic testimony relative to the character of the -Sabbath as a memorial. Thus he says: - - “But after the whole world had been completed according to the - perfect nature of the number six, the Father hallowed the day - following, the seventh, praising it and calling it holy. For - that day is the festival, not of one city or one country, but - of all the earth; a day which alone it is right to call the day - of festival for all people, and the birth-day of the world.”[36] - -Nor was the rest-day of the Lord a shadow of man’s rest after his -recovery from the fall. God will ever be worshiped in an understanding -manner by his intelligent creatures. When therefore he set apart his -rest-day to a holy use, if it was not as a memorial of his work, but -as a shadow of man’s redemption from the fall, the real design of the -institution must have been stated, and, as a consequence, man in his -unfallen state could never observe the Sabbath as a delight, but ever -with deep distress, as reminding him that he was soon to apostatize from -God. Nor was the holy of the Lord and honorable, one of the “carnal -ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation;”[37] for there -could be no reformation with unfallen beings. - -But man did not continue in his uprightness. Paradise was lost, and Adam -was excluded from the tree of life. The curse of God fell upon the earth, -and death entered by sin, and passed upon all men.[38] After this sad -apostasy, no further mention of the Sabbath occurs until Moses on the -sixth day said, “To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.” - -It is objected that there is no precept in the book of Genesis for the -observance of the Sabbath, and consequently no obligation on the part -of the patriarchs to observe it. There is a defect in this argument not -noticed by those who use it. The book of Genesis was not a rule given -to the patriarchs to walk by. On the contrary, it was written by Moses -2500 years after creation, and long after the patriarchs were dead. -Consequently the fact that certain precepts were not found in Genesis -is no evidence that they were not obligatory upon the patriarchs. Thus -the book does not command men to love God with all their hearts, and -their neighbors as themselves; nor does it prohibit idolatry, blasphemy, -disobedience to parents, adultery, theft, false witness or covetousness. -Who will affirm from this that the patriarchs were under no restraint -in these things? As a mere record of events, written long after their -occurrence, it was not necessary that the book should contain a moral -code. But had the book been given to the patriarchs as a rule of life, -it must of necessity have contained such a code. It is a fact worthy of -especial notice that as soon as Moses reaches his own time in the book of -Exodus, the whole moral law is given. The record and the people were then -cotemporary, and ever afterward the written law is in the hands of God’s -people, as a rule of life, and a complete code of moral precepts. - -The argument under consideration is unsound, 1. Because based upon -the supposition that the book of Genesis was the rule of life for the -patriarchs; 2. Because if carried out it would release the patriarchs -from every precept of the moral law except the sixth.[39] 3. Because -the act of God in setting apart his rest-day to a holy use, as we have -seen, necessarily involves the fact that he gave a precept concerning -it to Adam, in whose time it was thus set apart. And hence, though the -book of Genesis contains no precept concerning the Sabbath, it does -contain direct evidence that such precept was given to the head and -representative of the human family. - -After giving the institution of the Sabbath, the book of Genesis, in its -brief record of 2370 years, does not again mention it. This has been -urged as ample proof that those holy men, who, during this period, were -perfect, and walked with God in the observance of his commandments, -statutes and laws,[40] all lived in open profanation of that day which -God had blessed and set apart to a holy use. But the book of Genesis also -omits any distinct reference to the doctrine of future punishment, the -resurrection of the body, the revelation of the Lord in flaming fire, -and the Judgment of the great day. Does this silence prove that the -patriarchs did not believe these great doctrines? Does it make them any -the less sacred? - -But the Sabbath is not mentioned from Moses to David, a period of five -hundred years, during which it was enforced by the penalty of death. -Does this prove that it was not observed during this period?[41] The -jubilee occupied a very prominent place in the typical system, yet in the -whole Bible a single instance of its observance is not recorded. What is -still more remarkable, there is not on record a single instance of the -observance of the great day of atonement, notwithstanding the work in the -holiest on that day was the most important service connected with the -worldly sanctuary. And yet the observance of the other and less important -festivals of the seventh month, which are so intimately connected with -the day of atonement, the one preceding it by ten days, the other -following it in five, is repeatedly and particularly recorded.[42] It -would be sophistry to argue from this silence respecting the day of -atonement, when there were so many instances in which its mention was -almost demanded, that that day was never observed; and yet it is actually -a better argument than the similar one urged against the Sabbath from the -book of Genesis. - -The reckoning of time by weeks is derived from nothing in nature, but -owes its existence to the divine appointment of the seventh day to -a holy use in memory of the Lord’s rest from the six days’ work of -creation.[43] This period of time is marked only by the recurrence of the -sanctified rest-day of the Creator. That the patriarchs reckoned time by -weeks and by sevens of days, is evident from several texts.[44] That they -should retain the week and forget the Sabbath by which alone the week is -marked, is not a probable conclusion. That the reckoning of the week was -rightly kept is evident from the fact that in the wilderness of Sin on -the sixth day the people, of their own accord, gathered a double portion -of manna. And Moses said to them, “To-morrow is the rest of the holy -Sabbath unto the Lord.”[45] - -The brevity of the record in Genesis causes us to overlook many facts of -the deepest interest. Adam lived 930 years. How deep and absorbing the -interest that must have existed in the human family to see the first man! -To converse with one who had himself talked with God! To hear from his -lips a description of that paradise in which he had lived! To learn from -one created on the sixth day the wondrous events of the creation week! To -hear from his lips the very words of the Creator when he set apart his -rest-day to a holy use! And to learn, alas! the sad story of the loss of -paradise and the tree of life![46] - -It was therefore not difficult for the facts respecting the six days of -creation and the sanctification of the rest-day to be diffused among -mankind in the patriarchal age. Nay, it was impossible that it should be -otherwise, especially among the godly. From Adam to Abraham a succession -of men—probably inspired of God—preserved the knowledge of God upon -earth. Thus Adam lived till Lamech, the father of Noah, was 56 years of -age; Lamech lived till Shem, the son of Noah, was 93; Shem lived till -Abraham was 150 years of age. Thus are we brought down to Abraham, the -father of the faithful. Of him it is recorded that he obeyed God’s voice -and kept his charge, his commandments, his statutes, and his laws. And -of him the Most High bears the following testimony: “I know him, that he -will command his children and his household after him, and they shall -keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment.”[47] The knowledge -of God was preserved in the family of Abraham; and we shall next find -the Sabbath familiarly mentioned among his posterity, as an existing -institution. - - - - -CHAPTER III. - -THE SABBATH COMMITTED TO THE HEBREWS. - - Object of this chapter—Total apostasy of the human family in - the antediluvian age—Destruction of mankind—The family of Noah - spared—Second apostasy of mankind in the patriarchal age—The - apostate nations left to their own ways—The family of Abraham - chosen—Separated from the rest of mankind—Their history—Their - relation to God—The Sabbath in existence when they came forth - from Egypt—Analysis of Ex. 16—The Sabbath committed to the - Hebrews. - - -We are now to trace the history of divine truth for many ages in almost -exclusive connection with the family of Abraham. That we may vindicate -the truth from the reproach of pertaining only to the Hebrews—a reproach -often urged against the Sabbath—and justify the dealings of God with -mankind in leaving to their own ways the apostate nations, let us -carefully examine the Bible for the reasons which directed divine -Providence in the choice of Abraham’s family as the depositaries of -divine truth. - -The antediluvian world had been highly favored of God. The period of -life extended to each generation was twelve-fold that of the present age -of man. For almost one thousand years, Adam, who had conversed with God -in paradise, had been with them. Before the death of Adam, Enoch began -his holy walk of three hundred years, and then he was translated that he -should not see death. This testimony to the piety of Enoch was a powerful -testimony to the antediluvians in behalf of truth and righteousness. -Moreover the Spirit of God strove with mankind; but the perversity of -man triumphed over all the gracious restraints of the Holy Spirit. “And -God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every -imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Even -the sons of God joined in the general apostasy. At last a single family -was all that remained of the worshipers of the Most High.[48] - -Then came the deluge, sweeping the world of its guilty inhabitants with -the besom of destruction.[49] So terrible a display of divine justice -might well be thought sufficient to restrain impiety for ages. Surely the -family of Noah could not soon forget this awful lesson. But alas, revolt -and apostasy speedily followed, and men turned from God to the worship -of idols. Against the divine mandate separating the human family into -nations,[50] mankind united in one great act of rebellion in the plain -of Shinar. “And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, -whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be -scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” Then God confounded -them in their impiety and scattered them abroad from thence upon the face -of all the earth.[51] Men did not like to retain God in their knowledge; -wherefore God gave them over to a reprobate mind, and suffered them to -change the truth of God into a lie, and to worship and serve the creature -rather than the Creator. Such was the origin of idolatry and of the -apostasy of the Gentiles.[52] - -In the midst of this wide-spread apostasy one man was found whose heart -was faithful with God. Abraham was chosen from an idolatrous family, as -the depositary of divine truth, the father of the faithful, the heir of -the world, and the friend of God.[53] When the worshipers of God were -found alone in the family of Noah, God gave up the rest of mankind to -perish in the flood. Now that the worshipers of God are again reduced -almost to a single family, God gives up the idolatrous nations to their -own ways, and takes the family of Abraham as his peculiar heritage. -“For I know him,” said God, “that he will command his children and his -household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do -justice and judgment.”[54] That they might preserve in the earth the -knowledge of divine truth and the memory and worship of the Most High, -they were to be a people walled off from all mankind, and dwelling in a -land of their own. That they might thus be separated from the heathen -around, God gave to Abraham the rite of circumcision, and afterward to -his posterity the whole ceremonial law.[55] But they could not possess -the land designed for them until the iniquity of the Amorites, its -inhabitants, was full, that they should be thrust out before them. The -horror of great darkness, and the smoking furnace seen by Abraham in -vision, foreshadowed the iron furnace and the bitter servitude of Egypt. -The family of Abraham must go down thither. Brief prosperity and long and -terrible oppression follow.[56] - -At length the power of the oppressor is broken, and the people of God -are delivered. The expiration of four hundred and thirty years from the -promise to Abraham marks the hour of deliverance to his posterity.[57] -The nation of Israel is brought forth from Egypt as God’s peculiar -treasure, that he may give them his Sabbath, and his law, and himself. -The psalmist testifies that God “brought forth his people with joy, and -his chosen with gladness: and gave them the lands of the heathen: and -they inherited the labor of the people: that they might observe his -statutes, and keep his laws. And the Most High says, “I am the Lord -which hallow you, that brought you out of the land of Egypt, _to be your -God_.”[58] Not that the commandments of God, his Sabbath and himself, had -no prior existence, nor that the people were ignorant of the true God and -his law; for the Sabbath was appointed to a holy use before the fall of -man; and the commandments of God, his statutes and his laws, were kept by -Abraham; and the Israelites themselves, when some of them had violated -the Sabbath, were reproved by the question, “How long refuse ye to keep -my commandments and my laws?”[59] And as to the Most High, the psalmist -exclaims, ”Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst -formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, -thou art God.”[60] But there must be a formal public espousal of the -people by God, and of his law and Sabbath and himself by the people.[61] -But neither the Sabbath, nor the law, nor the great Law-giver, by their -connection with the Hebrews, became Jewish. The Law-giver indeed became -the God of Israel,[62] and what Gentile shall refuse him adoration for -that reason? but the Sabbath still remained the Sabbath of the Lord,[63] -and the law continued to be the law of the Most High. - -In the month following their passage through the Red Sea, the Hebrews -came into the wilderness of Sin. It is at this point in his narrative -that Moses for the second time mentions the sanctified rest-day of the -Creator. The people murmured for bread: - - “Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread - from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a - certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they - will walk in my law, or no. And it shall come to pass, that - on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; - and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.... I have - heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto - them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning - ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the - Lord your God. And it came to pass, that at even the quails - came up, and covered the camp; and in the morning the dew lay - round about the host. And when the dew that lay was gone up, - behold, upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round - thing, as small as the hoar frost on the ground. And when the - children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is - manna; for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, - This is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat. This is - the thing which the Lord hath commanded, Gather of it every - man according to his eating, an omer for every man, according - to the number of your persons; take ye every man for them - which are in his tents. And the children of Israel did so, and - gathered, some more, some less. And when they did mete it with - an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that - gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according - to his eating. And Moses said, Let no man leave of it till the - morning. Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto Moses; but - some of them left of it until the morning, and it bred worms, - and stank; and Moses was wroth with them. And they gathered - it every morning, every man according to his eating; and when - the sun waxed hot, it melted. And it came to pass, that on the - sixth day they gathered twice as much bread,[64] two omers for - one man; and all the rulers of the congregation came and told - Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath - said,[65] To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the - Lord: bake that which ye will bake to-day, and seethe that ye - will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up to be kept - until the morning. And they laid it up till the morning, as - Moses bade; and it did not stink, neither was there any worm - therein. And Moses said, Eat that to-day; for to-day is a - Sabbath unto the Lord:[66] to-day ye shall not find it in the - field. Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, - which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none. And it came - to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh - day for to gather, and they found none. And the Lord said unto - Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? - See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore - he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye - every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the - seventh day. So the people rested on the seventh day.”[67] - -This narrative shows, 1. That God had a law and commandments prior to -the giving of the manna. 2. That God in giving his people bread from -heaven designed to prove them respecting his law. 3. That in this law was -the holy Sabbath; for the test relative to walking in the law pertained -directly to the Sabbath; and when God said, “How long refuse ye to -keep my commandments and my laws?” it was the Sabbath which they had -violated. 4. That in proving the people respecting this existing law, -Moses gave no new precept respecting the Sabbath, but remained silent -relative to the preparation for the Sabbath until after the people, of -their own accord, had gathered a double portion on the sixth day. 5. That -by this act the people proved not only that they were not ignorant of -the Sabbath, but that they were disposed to observe it.[68] 6. That the -reckoning of the week, traces of which appear through the patriarchal -age,[69] had been rightly kept, for the people knew when the sixth day -had arrived. 7. That had there been any doubt existing on that point, the -fall of the manna on the six days, the withholding of it on the seventh, -and the preservation of that needed for the Sabbath over that day, must -have settled that point incontrovertibly.[70] 8. That there was no act -of instituting the Sabbath in the wilderness of Sin; for God did not -then make it his rest-day, nor did he then bless and sanctify the day. -On the contrary, the record shows that the seventh day was already the -sanctified rest-day of the Lord.[71] 9. That the obligation to observe -the Sabbath existed and was known before the fall of the manna. For the -language used implies the existence of such an obligation, but does not -contain a new enactment until after some of the people had violated the -Sabbath. Thus God says to Moses, “On the sixth day they shall prepare -that which they bring in,” but he does not speak of the seventh. And on -the sixth day Moses says, “To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto -the Lord,” but he does not command them to observe it. On the seventh day -he says that it is the Sabbath, and that they should find no manna in the -field. “Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the -Sabbath, in it there shall be none.” But in all this there is no precept -given, yet the existence of such a precept is plainly implied. 10. That -when some of the people violated the Sabbath they were reproved in -language which plainly implies a previous transgression of this precept. -“How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?” 11. And that -this rebuke of the Law-giver restrained for the time the transgression of -the people. - -“See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth -you on the sixth day the bread of two days:[72] abide ye every man in -his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.”[73] As a -special trust, God committed the Sabbath to the Hebrews. It was now given -them, not now made for them. It was made for man at the close of the -first week of time; but all other nations having turned from the Creator -to the worship of idols, it is given to the Hebrew people. Nor does this -prove that all the Hebrews had hitherto disregarded it. For Christ uses -the same language respecting circumcision. Thus he says, “Moses therefore -gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the -fathers.”[74] Yet God had enjoined that ordinance upon Abraham and his -family four hundred years previous to this gift of it by Moses, and it -had been retained by them.[75] - -The language, “The Lord hath given you the Sabbath,” implies a solemn -act of committing a treasure to their trust. How was this done? No act -of instituting the Sabbath here took place. No precept enjoining its -observance was given until some of the people violated it, when it was -given in the form of a reproof; which evinced a previous obligation, and -that they were transgressing an existing law. And this view is certainly -strengthened by the fact that no explanation of the institution was given -to the people; a fact which indicates that some knowledge of the Sabbath -was already in their possession. - -But how then did God give them the Sabbath? He did this, first, by -delivering them from the abject bondage of Egypt, where they were a -nation of slaves. And second, by providing them food in such a manner as -to impose the strongest obligation to keep the Sabbath. Forty years did -he give them bread from heaven, sending it for six days, and withholding -it on the seventh, and preserving food for them over the Sabbath. Thus -was the Sabbath especially intrusted to them. - -As a gift to the Hebrews, the Creator’s great memorial became a sign -between God and themselves. “I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign -between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that -sanctify them.” As a sign, its object is stated to be, to make known -the true God; and we are told why it was such a sign. “It is a sign -between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the -Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was -refreshed.”[76] The institution itself signified that God created -the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. Its -observance by the people signified that the Creator was their God. How -full of meaning was this sign! - -The Sabbath was a sign between God and the children of Israel, because -they alone were the worshipers of the Creator. All other nations had -turned from him to “the gods that have not made the heavens and the -earth.”[77] For this reason the memorial of the great Creator was -committed to the Hebrews, and it became a sign between the Most High and -themselves. Thus was the Sabbath a golden link uniting the Creator and -his worshipers. - - - - -CHAPTER IV. - -THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT. - - The Holy One upon Mount Sinai—Three great gifts bestowed upon - the Hebrews—The Sabbath proclaimed by the voice of God—Position - assigned it in the moral law—Origin of the Sabbath—Definite - character of the commandment—Revolution of the earth upon - its axis—Name of the Sabbatic institution—Seventh day of the - commandment identical with the seventh day of the New Testament - week—Testimony of Nehemiah—Moral obligation of the fourth - commandment. - - -And now we approach the record of that sublime event, the personal -descent of the Lord upon Mount Sinai.[78] The sixteenth chapter of -Exodus, as we have seen, is remarkable for the fact that God gave to -Israel the Sabbath; the nineteenth chapter, for the fact that God gave -himself to that people in solemnly espousing them as a holy nation unto -himself; while the twentieth chapter will be found remarkable for the act -of the Most High in giving to Israel his law. - -It is customary to speak against the Sabbath and the law as Jewish, -because thus given to Israel. As well might the Creator be spoken -against, who brought them out of Egypt to be _their_ God, and who styles -himself the God of Israel.[79] The Hebrews were honored by being thus -intrusted with the Sabbath and the law, not the Sabbath and the law and -the Creator rendered Jewish by this connection. The sacred writers speak -of the high exaltation of Israel in being thus intrusted with the law of -God. - - “He showeth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments - unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for - his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the Lord!” - “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of - circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them - were committed the oracles of God.” “Who are Israelites; to - whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, - and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the - promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning - the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. - Amen.”[80] - -After the Most High had solemnly espoused the people unto himself, as -his peculiar treasure in the earth,[81] they were brought forth out of -the camp to meet with God. “And Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, -because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof -ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.” -Out of the midst of this fire did God proclaim the ten words of his -law.[82] The fourth of these precepts is the grand law of the Sabbath. -Thus spake the great Law-giver:— - - “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt - thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the - Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, - thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy - maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within - thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, - the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: - wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” - -The estimate which the Law-giver placed upon his Sabbath is seen in that -he deemed it worthy of a place in his code of ten commandments, thus -causing it to stand in the midst of nine immutable moral precepts. Nor -is this to be thought a small honor that the Most High, naming one by -one the great principles of morality until all are given, and he adds no -more,[83] should include in their number the observance of his hallowed -rest-day. This precept is expressly given to enforce the observance of -the Creator’s great memorial; and unlike all the others, this one traces -its obligation back to the creation, where that memorial was ordained. - -The Sabbath is to be remembered and kept holy because that God hallowed -it, _i.e._, appointed it to a holy use, at the close of the first week. -And this sanctification or hallowing of the rest-day, when the first -seventh day of time was past, was the solemn act of setting apart the -seventh day for time to come in memory of the Creator’s rest. Thus -the fourth commandment reaches back and embraces the institution of -the Sabbath in paradise, while the sanctification of the Sabbath in -paradise extends forward to all coming time. The narrative respecting -the wilderness of Sin admirably cements the union of the two. Thus in -the wilderness of Sin, before the fourth commandment was given, stands -the Sabbath, holy to the Lord, with an existing obligation to observe -it, though no commandment in that narrative creates the obligation. This -obligation is derived from the same source as the fourth commandment, -namely, the sanctification of the Sabbath in paradise, showing that it -was an existing duty, and not a new precept. For it should never be -forgotten that the fourth commandment does not trace its obligation to -the wilderness of Sin, but to the creation; a decisive proof that the -Sabbath did not originate in the wilderness of Sin. - -The fourth commandment is remarkably definite. It embraces, first, -a precept: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy;” second, an -explanation of this precept: “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy -work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it -thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy -man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that -is within thy gates;” third, the reasons on which the precept is based, -embracing the origin of the institution, and the very acts by which it -was made, and enforcing all by the example[84] of the Law-giver himself: -“for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that -in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the -Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” - -The rest-day of the Lord is thus distinguished from the six days on -which he labored. The blessing and sanctification pertain to the day of -the Creator’s rest. There can be, therefore, no indefiniteness in the -precept. It is not merely one day in seven, but that day in the seven on -which the Creator rested, and upon which he placed his blessing, namely, -the seventh day.[85] And this day is definitely pointed out in the name -given it by God: “The seventh day is the Sabbath [_i. e._, the rest-day] -of the Lord thy God.” - -That the seventh day in the fourth commandment is the seventh day of the -New-Testament week may be plainly proved. In the record of our Lord’s -burial, Luke writes thus:— - - “And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on. - And the women also which came with him from Galilee, followed - after, and beheld the sepulcher, and how his body was laid. - And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and - rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon - the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they - came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had - prepared, and certain others with them.”[86] - -Luke testifies that these women kept “the Sabbath day according to the -commandment.” The commandment says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of -the Lord thy God.” This day thus observed was the last or seventh day -of the week, for the following[87] day was the first day of the week. -Hence the seventh day of the commandment is the seventh day of the -New-Testament week. - -The testimony of Nehemiah is deeply interesting. “Thou camest down also -upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them -right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: and -madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, -statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant.”[88] It is -remarkable that God is said to have made known the Sabbath when he thus -came down upon the mount; for the children of Israel had the Sabbath in -possession when they came to Sinai. This language must therefore refer -to that complete unfolding of the Sabbatic institution which is given in -the fourth commandment. And mark the expression: “Madest known[89] unto -them thy holy Sabbath;” not madest the Sabbath for them: language which -plainly implies its previous existence, and which cites the mind back to -the Creator’s rest for the origin of the institution.[90] - -The moral obligation of the fourth commandment which is so often denied -may be clearly shown by reference to the origin of all things. God -created the world and gave existence to man upon it. To him he gave life -and breath, and all things. Man therefore owes everything to God. Every -faculty of his mind, every power of his being, all his strength and all -his time belong of right to the Creator. It was therefore the benevolence -of the Creator that gave to man six days for his own wants. And in -setting apart the seventh day to a holy use in memory of his own rest, -the Most High was reserving unto himself one of the seven days, when he -could rightly claim all as his. The six days therefore are the gift of -God to man, to be rightly employed in secular affairs, not the seventh -day, the gift of man to God. The fourth commandment, therefore, does not -require man to give something of his own to God, but it does require that -man should not appropriate to himself that which God has reserved for his -own worship. To observe this day then is to render to God of the things -that are his; to appropriate it to ourselves is simply to rob God. - - - - -CHAPTER V. - -THE SABBATH WRITTEN BY THE FINGER OF GOD. - - Classification of the precepts given through Moses—The Sabbath - renewed—Solemn ratification of the covenant between God and - Israel—Moses called up to receive the law which God had written - upon stone—The ten commandments probably proclaimed upon the - Sabbath—Events of the forty days—The Sabbath becomes a sign - between God and Israel—The penalty of death—The tables of - testimony given to Moses—And broken when he saw the idolatry of - the people—The idolaters punished—Moses goes up to renew the - tables—The Sabbath again enjoined—The tables given again—The - ten commandments were the testimony of God—Who wrote them—Three - distinguished honors which pertain to the Sabbath—The ten - commandments a complete code—Relation of the fourth commandment - to the atonement—Valid reason why God himself should write that - law which was placed beneath the mercy-seat. - - -When the voice of the Holy One had ceased, “the people stood afar off, -and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.” A brief -interview follows[91] in which God gives to Moses a series of precepts, -which, as a sample of the statutes given through him, may be classified -thus: Ceremonial precepts, pointing to the good things to come; judicial -precepts, intended for the civil government of the nation; and moral -precepts, stating anew in other forms the ten commandments. In this brief -interview the Sabbath is not forgotten:— - - “Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou - shalt rest; that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son - of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.”[92] - -This scripture furnishes incidental proof that the Sabbath was made -for mankind, and for those creatures that share the labors of man. -The stranger and the foreigner must keep it, and it was for their -refreshment.[93] But the same persons could not partake of the passover -until they were made members of the Hebrew church by circumcision.[94] - -When Moses had returned unto the people, he repeated all the words of -the Lord. With one voice all the people exclaim, “All the words which -the Lord hath said will we do.” Then Moses wrote all the words of the -Lord. “And he took the book of the covenant and read in the audience of -the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and -be obedient.” Then Moses “sprinkled both the book and all the people, -saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto -you.”[95] - -The way was thus prepared for God to bestow a second signal honor upon -his law:— - - “And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, - and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, - and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach - them.... And Moses went up into the mount, and a cloud covered - the mount. And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, - and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he - called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.[96] And the - sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the - top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel. And - Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into - the mount; and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty - nights.”[97] - -During this forty days God gave to Moses a pattern of the ark in which to -place the law that he had written upon stone, and of the mercy-seat to -place over that law, and of the sanctuary in which to deposit the ark. -He also ordained the priesthood, which was to minister in the sanctuary -before the ark.[98] These things being ordained, and the Law-giver about -to commit his law as written by himself into the hands of Moses, he again -enjoins the Sabbath:— - - “And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Speak thou also unto - the children of Israel, saying, Verily my Sabbaths ye shall - keep; for it is a sign between me and you throughout your - generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth - sanctify you. Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is - holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put - to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall - be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; - but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: - whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be - put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the - Sabbath to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, - for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the - children of Israel forever: for in six days the Lord made - heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was - refreshed. And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of - communing with him upon Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables - of stone, written with the finger of God.”[99] - -This should be compared with the testimony of Ezekiel, speaking in the -name of God:— - - “I gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments, which - if a man do, he shall even live in them. Moreover also I gave - them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they - might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.... I am the - Lord your God: walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments, - and do them; and hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign - between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your - God.”[100] - -It will be observed that neither of these scriptures teach that the -Sabbath was made _for_ Israel, nor yet do they teach that it was made -_after_ the Hebrews came out of Egypt. In neither of these particulars -do they even _seem_ to contradict those texts that place the institution -of the Sabbath at creation. But we do learn, 1. That it was God’s act -of giving to the Hebrews his Sabbath that made it a sign between _them_ -and himself. “I gave them my Sabbaths TO BE a sign between me and them.” -This act of committing to them the Sabbath has been noticed already.[101] -2. That it was to be a sign between God and the Hebrews, “that they -might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.” Wherever the word -LORD in the Old Testament is in small capitals, as in the texts under -consideration, it is in the Hebrew, Jehovah. The Sabbath then as a sign -signified that it was Jehovah, _i. e._, the infinite, self-existent -God, who had sanctified them. To sanctify is to separate, set apart, or -appoint, to a holy, sacred or religious use.[102] That the Hebrew nation -had thus been set apart in the most remarkable manner from all mankind, -was sufficiently evident. But who was it that had thus separated them -from all other people? As a gracious answer to this important question, -God gave to the Hebrews his own hallowed rest-day. But how could the -great memorial of the Creator determine such a question? Listen to the -words of the Most High: “Verily my Sabbaths,” _i. e._, my rest-days, “ye -shall keep; for it is a sign between me and you.... It is a sign between -me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made -heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.” -The Sabbath as a sign between God and Israel, was a perpetual testimony -that he who had separated them from all mankind as his peculiar treasure -in the earth, was that Being who had created the heavens and the earth -in six days and rested on the seventh. It was therefore the strongest -possible assurance that he who sanctified them was indeed Jehovah. - -From the days of Abraham God had set apart the Hebrews. He who had -previously borne no local, national or family name, did from that time -until the end of his covenant relation with the Hebrew race, take to -himself such titles as seemed to show him to be their God alone. From -his choice of Abraham and his family forward he designates himself as -the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; the God of the Hebrews, -and the God of Israel.[103] He brought Israel out of Egypt to be _their -God_,[104] and at Sinai did join himself to them in solemn espousal. He -did thus set apart or sanctify unto himself the Hebrews, because that -all other nations had given themselves to idolatry. Thus the God of -Heaven and earth condescended to give himself to a single race, and to -set them apart from all mankind. It should be observed that it was not -the Sabbath which had set Israel apart from all other nations, but it -was the idolatry of all other nations that caused God to set the Hebrews -apart for himself; and that God gave to Israel the Sabbath which he had -hallowed for mankind at creation as the most expressive sign that he who -thus sanctified them was indeed the living God. - -It was the act of God in giving his Sabbath to the Israelites that -rendered it a sign _between them and himself_. But the Sabbath did not -derive its existence from being thus given to the Hebrews; for it was the -ancient Sabbath of the Lord when given to them, and we have seen[105] -that it was not given by a new commandment. On the contrary, it rested at -that time upon existing obligation. But it was the providence of God in -behalf of the Hebrews, first in rescuing them from abject servitude, and -second, in sending them bread from heaven for six days, and preserving -food for the Sabbath, that constituted the Sabbath a gift to that -people. And mark the significancy of the _manner_ in which this gift was -bestowed, as showing who it was that sanctified them. It became a gift -to the Hebrews by the wonderful providence of the manna: a miracle that -ceased not openly to declare the Sabbath every week for the space of -forty years; thus showing incontrovertibly that He who led them was the -author of the Sabbath, and therefore the Creator of heaven and earth. -That the Sabbath which was made for man should thus be given to the -Hebrews is certainly not more remarkable than that the God of the whole -earth should give his oracles and himself to that people. The Most High -and his law and Sabbath did not become Jewish; but the Hebrews were made -the honored depositaries of divine truth; and the knowledge of God and of -his commandments was preserved in the earth. - -The reason on which this sign is based, points unmistakably to the true -origin of the Sabbath. It did not originate from the fall of the manna -for six days and its cessation on the seventh—for the manna was given -thus because the Sabbath was in existence—but because that “in six days -the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was -refreshed.” Thus the Sabbath is shown to have originated with the rest -and refreshment of the Creator, and not at the fall of the manna. As an -INSTITUTION, the Sabbath declared its Author to be the Creator of heaven -and earth; as a _sign[106] between God and Israel_, it declared that he -who had set them apart was indeed Jehovah. - -The last act of the Law-giver in this memorable interview was to place in -the hands of Moses the “two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written -with the finger of God.” Then he revealed to Moses the sad apostasy of -the people of Israel, and hastened him down to them. - - “And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two - tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were - written on both their sides: on the one side and on the other - were they written. And the tables were the work of God, and the - writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.... And - it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he - saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and - he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the - mount.” - -Then Moses inflicted retribution upon the idolaters, “and there fell of -the people that day about three thousand men.” And Moses returned unto -God and interceded in behalf of the people. Then God promised that his -angel should go with them, but that he himself would not go up in their -midst lest he should consume them.[107] Then Moses presented an earnest -supplication to the Most High that he might see his glory. This petition -was granted, saving that the face of God should not be seen.[108] - -But before Moses ascended that he might behold the majesty of the -infinite Law-giver, the Lord said unto him:— - - “Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will - write upon these tables the words that were in the first - tables, which thou brakest.... And he hewed two tables of stone - like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, - and went up unto Mount Sinai, as the Lord had commanded - him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone. And the - Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and - proclaimed the name of the Lord. And the Lord passed by before - him.” - -Then Moses beheld the glory of the Lord, and he “made haste and bowed his -head toward the earth and worshiped.” This interview lasted forty days -and forty nights, as did the first, and seems to have been spent by Moses -in intercession that God would not destroy the people for their sin.[109] -The record of this period is very brief, but in this record the Sabbath -is mentioned. “Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou -shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.”[110] Thus -admonishing them not to forget in their busiest season the Sabbath of -the Lord. - -This second period of forty days ends like the first with the act of -God in placing the tables of stone in the hands of Moses. “And he was -there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat -bread, nor drink water. And he[111] wrote upon the tables the words of -the covenant, the ten commandments.” Thus it appears that the tables of -testimony were two tables of stone with the ten commandments written upon -them by the finger of God. Thus the testimony of God is shown to be the -ten commandments. The writing on the second tables was an exact copy of -that on the first. “Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first; and -I will write,” said God, “upon these tables the words that were in the -first tables, which thou brakest.” And of the first tables Moses says: -“He declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, -even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.”[112] - -Thus did God commit to his people the ten commandments. Without human -or angelic agency he proclaimed them himself; and not trusting his most -honored servant Moses, or even an angel of his presence, himself wrote -them with his own finger. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” -is one of the ten words thus honored by the Most High. Nor are these two -high honors the only ones conferred upon this precept. While it shares -them in common with the other nine commandments, it stands in advance of -them in that it is established by the EXAMPLE of the Law-giver himself. -These precepts were given upon two tables with evident reference to the -two-fold division of the law of God; supreme love to God, and the love -of our neighbor as ourselves. The Sabbath commandment, placed at the -close of the first table, forms the golden clasp that binds together both -divisions of the moral law. It guards and enforces that day which God -claims as his; it follows man through the six days which God has given -him to be properly spent in the various relations of life, thus extending -over the whole of human life, and embracing in its loan of six days to -man all the duties of the second table, while itself belonging to the -first. - -That these ten commandments form a complete code of moral law is proved -by the language of the Law-giver when he called Moses up to himself -to receive them. “Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I -will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I -have written.”[113] This law and commandments was the testimony of God -engraven upon stone. The same great fact is presented by Moses in his -blessing pronounced upon Israel: “And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, -and rose up from Seir unto them: he shined forth from Mount Paran, and -he came with ten thousands of saints: _from his right hand_ went a fiery -law for them.”[114] There can be no dispute that in this language the -Most High is represented as personally present with ten thousands of his -holy ones, or angels. And that which he wrote with his own right hand is -called by Moses “a fiery law,” or as the margin has it, “a fire of law.” -And now the man of God completes his sacred trust. And thus he rehearses -what God did in committing his law to him, and what he himself did in its -final disposition: “And he wrote on the tables, according to the first -writing, the ten commandments, which the Lord spake unto you in the mount -out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the Lord -gave them unto me. And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and -put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the -Lord commanded me.” Thus was the law of God deposited in the ark beneath -the mercy-seat.[115] Nor should this chapter close without pointing out -the important relation of the fourth commandment to the atonement. - -The top of the ark was called the mercy-seat, because all those who had -broken the law contained in the ark beneath the mercy-seat, could find -pardon by the sprinkling of the blood of atonement upon it. - -The law within the ark was that which demanded an atonement; the -ceremonial law which ordained the Levitical priesthood and the sacrifices -for sin, was that which taught men how the atonement could be made. The -broken law was beneath the mercy-seat; the blood of sin-offering was -sprinkled upon its top, and pardon was extended to the penitent sinner. -There was actual sin, and hence a real law which man had broken; but -there was not a real atonement, and hence the need of the great antitype -to the Levitical sacrifices. The real atonement when it is made must -relate to that law respecting which an atonement had been shadowed forth. -In other words, the shadowy atonement related to that law which was shut -up in the ark, indicating that a real atonement was demanded by that -law. It is necessary that the law which demands atonement, in order that -its transgressor may be spared, should itself be perfect, else the fault -would in part at least rest with the Law-giver, and not wholly with the -sinner. Hence, the atonement when made does not take away the broken -law, for that is perfect, but is expressly designed to take away the -guilt of the transgressor.[116] Let it be remembered then that the fourth -commandment is one of the ten precepts of God’s broken law; one of the -immutable holy principles that made the death of God’s only Son necessary -before pardon could be extended to guilty man. These facts being borne -in mind, it will not be thought strange that the Law-giver should reserve -the proclamation of such a law to himself; and that he should intrust -to no created being the writing of that law which should demand as its -atonement the death of the Son of God. - - - - -CHAPTER VI. - -THE SABBATH DURING THE DAY OF TEMPTATION. - - General history of the Sabbath in the wilderness—Its violation - one cause of excluding that generation from the promised - land—Its violation by their children in the wilderness one of - the causes of their final dispersion from their own land—The - statute respecting fires upon the Sabbath—Various precepts - relative to the Sabbath—The Sabbath not a Jewish feast—The man - who gathered sticks upon the Sabbath—Appeal of Moses in behalf - of the decalogue—The Sabbath not derived from the covenant - at Horeb—Final appeal of Moses in behalf of the Sabbath—The - original fourth commandment—The Sabbath not a memorial of the - flight from Egypt—What words were engraven upon stone—General - summary from the books of Moses. - - -The history of the Sabbath during the provocation in the day of -temptation in the wilderness when God was grieved for forty years with -his people may be stated in few words. Even under the eye of Moses, -and with the most stupendous miracles in their memory and before their -eyes, they were idolaters,[117] neglecters of sacrifices, neglecters of -circumcision,[118] murmurers against God, despisers of his law[119] and -violators of his Sabbath. Of their treatment of the Sabbath while in the -wilderness, Ezekiel gives us the following graphic description:— - - “But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: - they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, - which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my Sabbaths - they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury - upon them in the wilderness, to consume them. But I wrought - for my name’s sake, that it should not be polluted before the - heathen, in whose sight I brought them out.”[120] - -This language shows a general violation of the Sabbath, and evidently -refers to the apostasy of Israel during the first forty days that Moses -was absent from them. God did then purpose their destruction; but at the -intercession of Moses, spared them for the very reason assigned by the -prophet.[121] A further probation being granted them they signally failed -a second time, so that God lifted up his hand to them that they should -not enter the promised land. Thus the prophet continues:— - - “Yet also I lifted up my hand unto them in the wilderness, - that I would not bring them into the land which I had given - them, flowing with milk and honey, which is the glory of all - lands; BECAUSE they despised my judgments, and walked not in my - statutes, but polluted my Sabbaths: for their heart went after - their idols. Nevertheless mine eye spared them from destroying - them, neither did I make an end of them in the wilderness.” - -This language has undoubted reference to the act of God in excluding all -that were over twenty years of age from entering the promised land.[122] -It is to be noticed that the violation of the Sabbath is distinctly -stated as one of the reasons for which that generation were excluded from -the land of promise. God spared the people so that the nation was not -utterly cut off; for he extended to the younger part a further probation. -Thus the prophet continues:— - - “But I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye - not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their - judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols: I am the - Lord your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments, - and do them; and hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a - sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord - your God. Notwithstanding the children rebelled against me: - they walked not in my statutes, neither kept my judgments - to do them, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; - they polluted my Sabbaths: then I said, I would pour out my - fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the - wilderness. Nevertheless I withdrew mine hand, and wrought for - my name’s sake, that it should not be polluted in the sight - of the heathen, in whose sight I brought them forth. I lifted - up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would - scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the - countries; because they had not executed my judgments, but had - despised my statutes, and had polluted my Sabbaths, and their - eyes were after their father’s idols.” - -Thus it appears that the younger generation, which God spared when he -excluded their fathers from the land of promise, did, like their fathers, -transgress God’s law, pollute his Sabbath, and cleave to idolatry. God -did not see fit to exclude them from the land of Canaan, but he did -lift up his hand to them in the wilderness, that he would give them up -to dispersion among their enemies after they had entered the land of -promise. Thus it is seen that the Hebrews while in the wilderness laid -the foundation for their subsequent dispersion from their own land; and -that one of the acts which led to their final ruin as a nation was the -violation of the Sabbath before they had entered the promised land. Well -might Moses say to them in the last month of his life: “Ye have been -rebellious against the Lord from the day that I knew you.”[123] In Caleb -and Joshua was another spirit, for they followed the Lord fully.[124] - -Such is the general history of Sabbatic observance in the wilderness. -Even the miracle of the manna, which every week for forty years bore -public testimony to the Sabbath,[125] became to the body of the Hebrews -a mere ordinary event, so that they dared to murmur against the bread -thus sent from heaven;[126] and we may well believe that those who were -thus hardened through the deceitfulness of sin, had little regard for -the testimony of the manna in behalf of the Sabbath.[127] In the Mosaic -record we next read of the Sabbath as follows:— - - “And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of - Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which - the Lord hath commanded, that ye should do them. Six days shall - work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an - holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work - therein shall be put to death.[128] Ye shall kindle no fire - throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day.”[129] - -The chief feature of interest in this text relates to the prohibition -of fires on the Sabbath. As this is the only prohibition of the kind in -the Bible, and as it is often urged as a reason why the Sabbath should -not be kept, a brief examination of the difficulty will not be out of -place. It should be observed, 1. That this language does not form part -of the fourth commandment, the grand law of the Sabbath. 2. That as there -were laws pertaining to the Sabbath, that were no part of the Sabbatic -institution, but that grew out of its being intrusted to the Hebrews, -such as the law respecting the presentation of the shew-bread on the -Sabbath; and that respecting the burnt-offering for the Sabbath:[130] so -it is at least possible that this is a precept pertaining only to that -nation, and not a part of the original institution. 3. That as there were -laws peculiar only to the Hebrews, so there were many that pertained to -them only while they were in the wilderness. Such were all those precepts -that related to the manna, the building of the tabernacle and the setting -of it up, the manner of encamping about it, &c. 4. That of this class -were all the statutes given from the time that Moses brought down the -second tables of stone until the close of the book of Exodus, unless the -words under consideration form an exception. 5. That the prohibition -of fires was a law of this class, _i. e._, a law designed only for the -wilderness, is evident from several decisive facts. - -1. That the land of Palestine during a part of the year is so cold that -fires are necessary to prevent suffering.[131] - -2. That the Sabbath was not designed to be a cause of distress and -suffering, but of refreshment, of delight, and of blessing.[132] - -3. That in the wilderness of Sinai, where this precept respecting fires -on the Sabbath was given, it was not a cause of suffering, as they were -two hundred miles south of Jerusalem, in the warm climate of Arabia. - -4. That this precept was of a temporary character, is further implied -in that while other laws are said to be perpetual statutes and precepts -to be kept after they should enter the land,[133] no hint of this kind -here appears. On the contrary, this seems to be similar in character to -the precept respecting the manna,[134] and to be co-existent with, and -adapted to, it. - -5. If the prohibition respecting fires did indeed pertain to the promised -land, and not merely to the wilderness, it would every few years conflict -directly with the law of the passover. For the passover was to be roasted -by each family of the children of Israel on the evening following the -fourteenth day of the first month,[135] which would fall occasionally -upon the Sabbath. The prohibition of fires upon the Sabbath would not -conflict with the passover while the Hebrews were in the wilderness; for -the passover was not to be observed until they reached that land.[136] -But if that prohibition did extend forward to the promised land, where -the passover was to be regularly observed, these two statutes would often -come in direct conflict. This is certainly a strong confirmation of the -view that the prohibition of fires upon the Sabbath was a temporary -statute, relating only to the wilderness.[137] - -From these facts it follows that the favorite argument drawn from the -prohibition of fires, that the Sabbath was a local institution, adapted -only to the land of Canaan, must be abandoned; for it is evident that -that prohibition was a temporary statute not even adapted to the land of -promise, and not designed for that land. We next read of the Sabbath as -follows:— - - “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto all the - congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye - shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy. Ye shall fear - every man his mother, and his father, and keep my Sabbaths: - I am the Lord your God.... Ye shall keep my Sabbaths, and - reverence my sanctuary: I am the Lord.”[138] - -These constant references to the Sabbath contrast strikingly with the -general disobedience of the people. And thus God speaks again:— - - “Six days shall work be done; but the seventh day is the - Sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no - work therein: it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your - dwellings.”[139] - -Thus does God solemnly designate his rest-day as a season of holy -worship, and as the day of weekly religious assemblies. Again the great -Law-giver sets forth his Sabbath:— - - “Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you - up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone - in your land, to bow down unto it; for I am the Lord your God. - Ye shall keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the - Lord.”[140] - -Happy would it have been for the people of God had they thus refrained -from idolatry and sacredly regarded the rest-day of the Creator. Yet -idolatry and Sabbath-breaking were so general in the wilderness that the -generation which came forth from Egypt were excluded from the promised -land.[141] After God had thus cut off from the inheritance of the land -the men who had rebelled against him,[142] we next read of the Sabbath as -follows:— - - “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they - found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day. And they - that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and - Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, - because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the - Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death; - all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the - camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, - and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded - Moses.”[143] - -The following facts should be considered in explaining this text: 1. That -this was a case of peculiar guilt; for the whole congregation before -whom this man stood in judgment, and by whom he was put to death, were -themselves guilty of violating the Sabbath, and had just been excluded -from the promised land for this and other sins.[144] 2. That this was -not a case which came under the existing penalty of death for work upon -the Sabbath; for the man was put in confinement that the mind of the -Lord respecting his guilt might be obtained. The peculiarity of his -transgression may be learned from the context. The verses which next -precede the case in question read thus:— - - “But the soul that doeth aught presumptuously, whether he be - born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord; - and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because - he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his - commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity - shall be upon him.”[145] - -These words being followed by this remarkable case were evidently -designed to be illustrated by it. It is manifest, therefore, that this -was an instance of presumptuous sin, in which the transgressor intended -despite to the Spirit of grace and to the statutes of the Most High. This -case cannot therefore be quoted as evidence of extraordinary strictness -on the part of the Hebrews in observing the Sabbath; for we have direct -evidence that they did greatly pollute it during the whole forty -years of their sojourn in the wilderness.[146] It stands therefore as -an instance of transgression in which the sinner intended to show his -contempt for the Law-giver, and in this consisted his peculiar guilt.[147] - -In the last month of his long and eventful life Moses rehearsed all the -great acts of God in behalf of his people, with the statutes and precepts -that he had given them. This rehearsal is contained in the book of -Deuteronomy, a name which signifies second law, and which is applied to -that book, because it is a second writing of the law. It is the farewell -of Moses to a disobedient and rebellious people; and he endeavors to -fasten upon them the strongest possible sense of personal obligation to -obey. Thus, when he is about to rehearse the ten commandments, he uses -language evidently designed to impress upon the minds of the Hebrews a -sense of their individual obligation to do what God had commanded. Thus -he says:— - - “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in - your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do - them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The - Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even - us, who are all of us here alive this day.”[148] - -It was not the act of your fathers that placed this responsibility upon -you, but your own individual acts that brought you into the bond of this -covenant. You have personally pledged yourselves to the Most High to -keep these precepts.[149] Such is the obvious import of this language; -yet it has been gravely adduced as proof that the Sabbath of the Lord -was made for the Hebrews, and was not obligatory upon the patriarchs. -The singularity of this deduction appears in that it is brought to bear -against the fourth commandment alone; whereas, if it is a just and -logical argument, it would show that the ancient patriarchs were under no -obligation in respect to any precept of the moral law. But it is certain -that the covenant at Horeb was simply an embodiment of the precepts of -the moral law, with mutual pledges respecting them between God and the -people, and that that covenant did not give existence to either of the -ten commandments. At all events, we find the Sabbath ordained of God -at the close of creation[150] and obligatory upon the Hebrews in the -wilderness before God had given them a new precept on the subject.[151] -As this was before the covenant at Horeb it is conclusive proof that the -Sabbath did no more originate from that covenant than did the prohibition -of idolatry, theft or murder. - -The man of God then repeats the ten commandments. And thus he gives the -fourth:— - - “Keep the Sabbath day, to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God - hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labor and do all thy - work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: - in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy - daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine - ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that - is within thy gates; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant - may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant - in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee - out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm: - therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath - day.”[152] - -It is a singular fact that this scripture is uniformly quoted by those -who write against the Sabbath, as the original fourth commandment; -while the original precept itself is carefully left out. Yet there is -the strongest evidence that this is not the original precept; for Moses -rehearses these words at the end of the forty years’ sojourn, whereas the -original commandment was given in the third month after the departure -from Egypt.[153] The commandment itself, as here given, contains direct -proof on the point. Thus it reads: “Keep the Sabbath day, to sanctify -it, As the Lord thy God HATH COMMANDED thee;” thus citing elsewhere for -the original statute. Moreover the precept as here given is evidently -incomplete. It contains no clue to the origin of the Sabbath of the Lord, -nor does it show the acts by which the Sabbath came into existence. -This is why those who represent the Sabbath as made in the wilderness -and not at creation quote this as the fourth commandment, and omit the -original precept, which God himself proclaimed, where all these facts are -distinctly stated.[154] - -But while Moses in this rehearsal omits a large part of the fourth -commandment, he refers to the original precept for the whole matter, and -then appends to this rehearsal a powerful plea of obligation on the part -of the Hebrews to keep the Sabbath. It should be remembered that many of -the people had steadily persisted in the violation of the Sabbath, and -that this is the last time that Moses speaks in its behalf. Thus he says:— - - “And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, - and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a - mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm: therefore the Lord thy - God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.” - -These words are often cited as proof that the Sabbath originated at the -departure of Israel from Egypt, and that it was ordained at that time as -a memorial of their deliverance from thence. But it will be observed, 1. -That this text says not one word respecting the origin of the Sabbath -or rest-day of the Lord. 2. That the facts on this point are all given -in the original fourth commandment, and are there referred to creation. -3. That there is no reason to believe that God rested upon the seventh -day at the time of this flight from Egypt; nor did he then bless and -hallow the day. 4. That the Sabbath has nothing in it of a kind to -commemorate the deliverance from Egypt, as that was a flight and this -is a rest; and that flight was upon the fifteenth of the first month, -and this rest, upon the seventh day of each week. Thus one would occur -annually; the other, weekly. 5. But God did ordain a fitting memorial -of that deliverance to be observed by the Hebrews: the passover, on the -fourteenth day of the first month, in memory of God’s passing over them -when he smote the Egyptians; and the feast of unleavened bread, in memory -of their eating this bread when they fled out of Egypt.[155] - -But what then do these words imply? Perhaps their meaning may be more -readily perceived by comparing them with an exact parallel found in the -same book and from the pen of the same writer:— - - “Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of - the fatherless; nor take a widow’s raiment to pledge; but thou - shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the Lord - thy God redeemed thee thence; therefore I command thee to do - this thing.”[156] - -It will be seen at a glance that this precept was not given to -commemorate the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage; nor could -that deliverance give existence to the moral obligation expressed in -it. If the language in the one case proves that men were not under -obligation to keep the Sabbath before the deliverance of Israel from -Egypt, it proves with equal conclusiveness in the other that before that -deliverance they were not under obligation to treat with justice and -mercy the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. And if the Sabbath -is shown in the one case to be Jewish, in the other, the statute of the -great Law-giver in behalf of the needy and the helpless must share the -same fate. It is manifest that this language is in each case an appeal -to their sense of gratitude. You were slaves in Egypt, and God rescued -you; therefore remember others who are in distress, and oppress them not. -You were bondmen in Egypt, and God redeemed you; therefore sanctify unto -the Lord the day which he has reserved unto himself; a most powerful -appeal to those who had hitherto persisted in polluting it. Deliverance -from abject servitude was necessary, indeed, in each case, in order that -the things enjoined might be fully observed; but that deliverance did not -give existence to either of these duties. It was indeed one of the acts -by which the Sabbath of the Lord was given to that nation, but it was -not one of the acts by which God made the Sabbath, nor did it render the -rest-day of the Lord a Jewish institution. - -That the words engraven upon stone were simply the ten commandments is -evident. - -1. It is said of the first tables:— - - “And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye - heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye - heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant, which he - commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote - them upon two tables of stone.”[157] - -2. Thus the first tables of stone contained the ten commandments alone. -That the second tables were an exact copy of what was written upon the -first, is plainly stated:— - - “And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone - like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the - words that were in the first tables, which thou breakest.” “And - I will write on the tables the words that were in the first - tables which thou breakest, and thou shalt put them in the - ark.”[158] - -3. This is confirmed by the following decisive testimony:— - - “And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the - ten commandments,” margin, Heb., “words.” “And he wrote on the - tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments - [margin, words], which the Lord spake unto you in the mount, - out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and - the Lord gave them unto me.”[159] - -These texts will explain the following language: “And the Lord delivered -unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them -was written according to all the words which the Lord spake with you in -the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.”[160] -Thus God is said to have written upon the tables according to all the -words which he spoke in the day of the assembly; and these words which -he thus wrote, are said to have been TEN WORDS. But the preface to the -decalogue was not one of these ten words, and hence was not written by -the finger of God upon stone. That this distinction must be attended to, -will be seen by examining the following text and its connection:— - - “THESE WORDS the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the - mount, out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the - thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And - he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto - me.”[161] - -THESE WORDS here brought to view as written by the finger of God after -having been uttered by him in the hearing of all the people, must be -understood as one of two things. 1. They are simply the ten words of -the law of God; or, 2. They are all the words used by Moses in this -rehearsal of the decalogue. But they cannot refer to the words used in -this rehearsal; for, 1. Moses omits an important part of the fourth -precept as given by God in its proclamation from the mount. 2. In this -rehearsal of that precept he cites back to the original for that which -is omitted.[162] 3. He appends to this precept an appeal in its behalf -to their gratitude which was not made by God in giving it. 4. This -language only purports to be a rehearsal and not the original itself; -and this is further evinced by many verbal deviations from the original -decalogue.[163] These facts are decisive as to what was placed upon the -tables of stone. It was not an incomplete copy, citing elsewhere for the -original, but the original code itself. And hence when Moses speaks of -THESE WORDS as engraven upon the tables, he refers not to the words used -by himself in this rehearsal, but to the TEN WORDS of the law of God, and -excludes all else. - -Thus have we traced the Sabbath through the books of Moses. We have found -its origin in paradise when man was in his uprightness; we have seen the -Hebrews set apart from all mankind as the depositaries of divine truth; -we have seen the Sabbath and the whole moral law committed as a sacred -trust to them; we have seen the Sabbath proclaimed by God as one of the -ten commandments; we have seen it written by the finger of God upon -stone in the bosom of the moral law; we have seen that law possessing -no Jewish, but simply moral and divine, features, placed beneath the -mercy-seat in the ark of God’s testament; we have seen that various -precepts pertaining to the Sabbath were given to the Hebrews and designed -only for them; we have seen that the Hebrews did greatly pollute the -Sabbath during their sojourn in the wilderness; and we have heard the -final appeal made in its behalf by Moses to that rebellious people. - -We rest the foundation of the Sabbatic institution upon its -sanctification before the fall of man; the fourth commandment is its -great citadel of defense; its place in the midst of the moral law beneath -the mercy-seat shows its relation to the atonement and its immutable -obligation. - - - - -CHAPTER VII. - -THE FEASTS, NEW MOONS AND SABBATHS OF THE HEBREWS. - - Enumeration of the Hebrew festivals—The passover—The - pentecost—The feast of tabernacles—The new moons—The first and - second annual sabbaths—The third—The fourth—The fifth—The sixth - and seventh—The sabbath of the land—The jubilee—None of these - festivals in force until the Hebrews entered their own land—The - contrast between the Sabbath of the Lord and the sabbaths of - the Hebrews—Testimony of Isaiah—Of Hosea—Of Jeremiah—Final - cessation of these festivals. - - -We have followed the Sabbath of the Lord through the books of Moses. A -brief survey of the Jewish festivals is necessary to the complete view of -the subject before us. Of these there were three feasts: the passover, -the Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles; each new moon, that is, -the first day of each month throughout the year; then there were seven -annual sabbaths, namely, 1. The first day of unleavened bread. 2. The -seventh day of that feast. 3. The day of Pentecost. 4. The first day of -the seventh month. 5. The tenth day of that month. 6. The fifteenth day -of that month. 7. The twenty-second day of the same. In addition to all -these, every seventh year was to be the sabbath of the land, and every -fiftieth year the year of jubilee. - -The passover takes its name from the fact that the angel of the Lord -passed over the houses of the Hebrews on that eventful night when the -firstborn in every Egyptian family was slain. This feast was ordained in -commemoration of the deliverance of that people from Egyptian bondage. -It began with the slaying of the paschal lamb on the fourteenth day of -the first month, and extended through a period of seven days, in which -nothing but unleavened bread was to be eaten. Its great antitype was -reached when Christ our passover was sacrificed for us.[164] - -The Pentecost was the second of the Jewish feasts, and occupied but a -single day. It was celebrated on the fiftieth day after the first-fruits -of barley harvest had been waved before the Lord. At the time of this -feast the first-fruits of wheat harvest were offered unto God. The -antitype of this festival was reached on the fiftieth day after the -resurrection of Christ, when the great outpouring of the Holy Ghost took -place.[165] - -The feast of tabernacles was the last of the Jewish feasts. It was -celebrated in the seventh month when they had gathered in the fruit -of the land, and extended from the fifteenth to the twenty-first day -of that month. It was ordained as a festival of rejoicing before the -Lord; and during this period the children of Israel dwelt in booths -in commemoration of their dwelling thus during their sojourn in the -wilderness. It probably typifies the great rejoicing after the final -gathering of all the people of God into his kingdom.[166] - -In connection with these feasts it was ordained that each new moon, -that is, the first day of every month, should be observed with certain -specified offerings, and with tokens of rejoicing.[167] The annual -sabbaths of the Hebrews have been already enumerated. The first two of -these sabbaths were the first and seventh days of the feast of unleavened -bread, that is, the fifteenth and twenty-first days of the first month. -They were thus ordained by God:— - - “Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first - day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses.... And in - the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the - seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no - manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man - must eat, that only may be done of you.”[168] - -The third in order of the annual sabbaths was the day of Pentecost. This -festival was ordained as a rest-day in the following language:— - - “And ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may be an - holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein; - it shall be a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout - your generations.”[169] - -The first day of the seventh month was the fourth annual sabbath of the -Hebrews. It was thus ordained:— - - “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh - month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, - a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation. Ye - shall do no servile work therein; but ye shall offer an - offering made by fire unto the Lord.”[170] - -The great day of atonement was the fifth of these sabbaths. Thus spake -the Lord unto Moses:— - - “Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a - day of atonement; it shall be an holy convocation unto you.... - Ye shall do no manner of work; it shall be a statute forever - throughout your generations in all your dwellings. It shall be - unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in - the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall - ye celebrate your sabbath.”[171] - -The sixth and seventh of these annual sabbaths were the fifteenth and -twenty-second days of the seventh month, that is, the first day of the -feast of tabernacles, and the day after its conclusion. Thus were they -enjoined by God:— - - “Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have - gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto - the Lord seven days; on the first day shall be a sabbath, and - on the eighth day shall be a sabbath.”[172] - -Besides all these, every seventh year was a sabbath of rest unto the -land. The people might labor as usual in other business, but they were -forbidden to till the land, that the land itself might rest.[173] -After seven of these sabbaths, the following or fiftieth year was to -be the year of jubilee, in which every man was to be restored unto -his inheritance.[174] There is no evidence that the jubilee was ever -observed, and it is certain that the sabbatical year was almost entirely -disregarded.[175] - -Such were the feasts, new moons, and sabbaths, of the Hebrews. A few -words will suffice to point out the broad distinction between them and -the Sabbath of the Lord. The first of the three feasts was ordained in -memory of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage, and was to be observed -when they should enter their own land.[176] The second feast, as we have -seen, could not be observed until after the settlement of the Hebrews -in Canaan; for it was to be celebrated when the first fruits of wheat -harvest should be offered before the Lord. The third feast was ordained -in memory of their sojourn in the wilderness, and was to be celebrated -by them each year after the ingathering of the entire harvest. Of course -this feast, like the others, could not be observed until the settlement -of the people in their own land. The new moons, as has been already -seen, were not ordained until after these feasts had been instituted. -The annual sabbaths were part and parcel of these feasts, and could -have no existence until after the feasts to which they belonged had -been instituted. Thus the first and second of these sabbaths were the -first and seventh days of the paschal feast. The third annual sabbath -was identical with the feast of Pentecost. The fourth of these sabbaths -was the same as the new moon in the seventh month. The fifth one was -the great day of atonement. The sixth and the seventh of these annual -sabbaths were the fifteenth and twenty-second days of the seventh month, -that is, the first day of the feast of tabernacles, and the next day -after the close of that feast. As these feasts were not to be observed -until the Hebrews should possess their own land, the annual sabbaths -could have no existence until that time. And so of the sabbaths of the -land. These could have no existence until after the Hebrews should -possess and cultivate their own land; after six years of cultivation, the -land should rest the seventh year, and remain untilled. After seven of -these sabbaths of the land came the year of jubilee. - -The contrast between the Sabbath of the Lord and these sabbaths of -the Hebrews[177] is strongly marked. 1. The Sabbath of the Lord was -instituted at the close of the first week of time; while these were -ordained in connection with the Jewish feasts. 2. The one was blessed -and hallowed by God, because that he had rested upon it from the work -of creation; the others have no such claim to our regard. 3. When the -children of Israel came into the wilderness, the Sabbath of the Lord -was an existing institution, obligatory upon them; but the annual -sabbaths then came into existence. It is easy to point to the very -act of God, while leading that people, that gave existence to these -sabbaths; while every reference to the Sabbath of the Lord shows that -it had been ordained before God chose that people. 4. The children of -Israel were excluded from the promised land for violating the Sabbath -of the Lord in the wilderness; but the annual sabbaths were not to -be observed until they should enter that land. This contrast would -be strange indeed were it true that the Sabbath of the Lord was not -instituted until the children of Israel came into the wilderness of -Sin; for it is certain that two of the annual sabbaths were instituted -before they left the land of Egypt.[178] 5. The Sabbath of the Lord was -made for man; but the annual sabbaths were designed only for residents -in the land of Palestine. 6. The one was weekly, a memorial of the -Creator’s rest; the others were annual, connected with the memorials -of the deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt. 7. The one is termed -“the Sabbath of the Lord,” “my Sabbaths,” “my holy day,” and the like; -while the others are designated as “your sabbaths,” “her sabbaths,” and -similar expressions.[179] 8. The one was proclaimed by God as one of -the ten commandments, and was written with his finger in the midst of -the moral law upon the tables of stone, and was deposited in the ark -beneath the mercy-seat; the others did not pertain to the moral law, but -were embodied in that handwriting of ordinances that was a shadow of -good things to come. 9. The distinction between these festivals and the -Sabbaths of the Lord was carefully marked by God when he ordained the -festivals and their associated sabbaths. Thus he said: “These are the -feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, ... -BESIDE the Sabbaths of the Lord.”[180] - -The annual sabbaths are presented by Isaiah in a very different light -from that in which he presents the Sabbath of the Lord. Of the one he -says:— - - “Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto - me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I - cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your - new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a - trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.”[181] - -In striking contrast with this, the same prophet speaks of the Lord’s -Sabbath:— - - “Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my - salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. - Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that - layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, - and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. Neither let the son - of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, - saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people; - neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus - saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and - choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; - even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a - place and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I will - give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Also - the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, - to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his - servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting - it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to - my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; - their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted - upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called a house of - prayer for all people.”[182] - -Hosea carefully designates the annual sabbaths in the following -prediction:— - - “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast-days, her - new moons, and HER sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.”[183] - -This prediction was uttered about B. C. 785. It was fulfilled in part -about two hundred years after this, when Jerusalem was destroyed by -Nebuchadnezzar. Of this event, Jeremiah, about B. C. 588, speaks as -follows:— - - “Her people fell into the hand of the enemy, and none did help - her: the adversaries saw her, and did mock at HER sabbaths.... - The Lord was as an enemy; he hath swallowed up Israel, he - hath swallowed up all her palaces; he hath destroyed his - strongholds, and hath increased in the daughter of Judah - mourning and lamentation. And he hath violently taken away his - tabernacle, as if it were of a garden; he hath destroyed his - places of the assembly; the Lord hath caused the solemn feasts - and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the - indignation of his anger the king and the priest. The Lord hath - cast off his altar, he hath abhorred his sanctuary, he hath - given up into the hand of the enemy the walls of her palaces; - they have made a noise in the house of the Lord, as in the day - of a solemn feast.”[184] - -The feasts of the Lord were to be holden in the place which the Lord -should choose, namely, Jerusalem;[185] and when that city, the place -of their solemn assemblies, was destroyed and the people themselves -carried into captivity, the complete cessation of their feasts, and, as a -consequence, of the annual sabbaths, which were specified days in those -feasts, must occur. The adversaries mocked at her sabbaths, by making a -“noise in the house of the Lord as in the day of a solemn feast.” But -the observance of the Lord’s Sabbath did not cease with the dispersion of -the Hebrews from their own land; for it was not a local institution, like -the annual sabbaths. Its violation was one chief cause of the Babylonish -captivity;[186] and their final restoration to their own land was made -conditional upon their observing it in their dispersion.[187] The feasts, -new moons, and annual sabbaths, were restored when the Hebrews returned -from captivity, and with some interruptions, were kept up until the -final destruction of their city and nation by the Romans. But ere the -providence of God thus struck out of existence these Jewish festivals, -the whole typical system was abolished, having reached the commencement -of its antitype, when our Lord Jesus Christ expired upon the cross. The -handwriting of ordinances being thus abolished, no one is to be judged -respecting its meats, or drinks, or holy days, or new moons, or sabbaths, -“which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” But -the Sabbath of the Lord did not form a part of this handwriting of -ordinances; for it was instituted before sin had entered the world, and -consequently before there was any shadow of redemption; it was written -by the finger of God, not in the midst of types and shadows, but in the -bosom of the moral law; and the day following that on which the typical -sabbaths were nailed to the cross, the Sabbath commandment of the moral -law is expressly recognized. Moreover, when the Jewish festivals were -utterly extinguished with the final destruction of Jerusalem, even then -was the Sabbath of the Lord brought to the minds of his people.[188] -Thus have we traced the annual sabbaths until their final cessation, as -predicted by Hosea. It remains that we trace the Sabbath of the Lord -until we reach the endless ages of the new earth, when we shall find the -whole multitude of the redeemed assembling before God for worship on each -successive Sabbath. - - - - -CHAPTER VIII. - -THE SABBATH FROM DAVID TO NEHEMIAH. - - Silence of six successive books of the Bible relative to - the Sabbath—This silence compared to that of the book of - Genesis—The siege of Jericho—The standing still of the - sun—David’s act of eating the shew-bread—The Sabbath of the - Lord, how connected with and how distinguished from the annual - sabbaths—Earliest reference to the Sabbath after the days of - Moses—Incidental allusions to the Sabbath—Testimony of Amos—Of - Isaiah—The Sabbath a blessing to MANKIND—The condition of being - gathered to the holy land—Not a local institution—Commentary - on the fourth commandment—Testimony of Jeremiah—Jerusalem to - be saved if she would keep the Sabbath—This gracious offer - despised—The Sabbath distinguished from the other days of the - week—The Sabbath after the Babylonish captivity—Time for the - commencing of the Sabbath—The violation of the Sabbath caused - the destruction of Jerusalem. - - -When we leave the books of Moses there is a long-continued break in the -history of the Sabbath. No mention of it is found in the book of Joshua, -nor in that of Judges, nor in the book of Ruth, nor in that of first -Samuel, nor in the book of second Samuel, nor in that of first Kings. -It is not until we reach the book of second Kings[189] that the Sabbath -is even mentioned. In the book of first Chronicles, however, which as -a narrative is parallel to the two books of Samuel, the Sabbath is -mentioned[190] with reference to the events of David’s life. Yet this -leaves a period of five hundred years, which the Bible passes in silence -respecting the Sabbath. - -During this period we have a circumstantial history of the Hebrew people -from their entrance into the promised land forward to the establishment -of David as their king, embracing many particulars in the life of Joshua, -of the elders and judges of Israel, of Gideon, of Barak, of Jephthah, -of Samson, of Eli, of Naomi and Ruth, of Hannah and Samuel, of Saul, of -Jonathan and of David. Yet in all this minute record we have no direct -mention of the Sabbath. - -It is a favorite argument with anti-Sabbatarians in proof of the total -neglect of the Sabbath in the patriarchal age, that the book of Genesis, -which does give a distinct view of the origin of the Sabbath in Paradise, -at the close of the first week of time, does not in recording the lives -of the patriarchs, say anything relative to its observance. Yet in that -one book are crowded the events of two thousand three hundred and seventy -years. What then should they say of the fact that six successive books -of the Bible, relating with comparative minuteness the events of five -hundred years, and involving many circumstances that would call out a -mention of the Sabbath, do not mention it at all? Does the silence of -one book, which nevertheless does give the institution of the Sabbath -at its very commencement, and which brings into its record almost -twenty-four hundred years, prove that there were no Sabbath-keepers prior -to Moses? What then is proved by the fact that six successive books of -the Bible, confining themselves to the events of five hundred years, an -average of less than one hundred years apiece, the whole period covered -by them being about one-fifth that embraced in the book of Genesis, do -nevertheless preserve total silence respecting the Sabbath? - -No one will adduce this silence as evidence of total neglect of the -Sabbath during this period; yet why should they not? Is it because that -when the narrative after this long silence brings in the Sabbath again, -it does this incidentally and not as a new institution? Precisely such -is the case with the second mention of the Sabbath in the Mosaic record, -that is, with its mention after the silence in Genesis.[191] Is it -because the fourth commandment had been given to the Hebrews whereas no -such precept had previously been given to mankind? This answer cannot be -admitted, for we have seen that the substance of the fourth commandment -was given to the head of the human family; and it is certain that when -the Hebrews came out of Egypt they were under obligation to keep the -Sabbath in consequence of existing law.[192] The argument therefore is -certainly more conclusive that there were no Sabbath-keepers from Moses -to David, than that there were none from Adam to Moses; yet no one will -attempt to maintain the first position, however many there will be to -affirm the latter. - -Several facts are narrated in the history of this period of five -centuries that have a claim to our notice. The first of these is found -in the record of the siege of Jericho.[193] By the command of God the -city was encompassed by the Hebrews each day for seven days; on the -last day of the seven they encompassed it seven times, when by divine -interposition the walls were thrown down before them and the city taken -by assault. One day of this seven must have been the Sabbath of the -Lord. Did not the people of God therefore violate the Sabbath in their -acting thus? Let the following facts answer: 1. That which they did in -this case was by direct command of God. 2. That which is forbidden in -the fourth commandment is OUR OWN work: “Six days shalt thou labor, and -do ALL THY WORK; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy -God.” He who reserved the seventh day unto himself, had the right to -require its appropriation to his service as he saw fit. 3. The act of -encompassing the city was strictly as a _religious_ procession. The ark -of the covenant of the Lord was borne before the people; and before the -ark went seven priests blowing with trumpets of rams’ horns. 4. Nor could -the city have been very extensive, else the going round it seven times on -the last day, and their having time left for its complete destruction, -would have been impossible. 5. Nor can it be believed that the Hebrews, -by God’s command carrying the ark before them, which contained simply the -ten words of the Most High, were violating the fourth of those words, -“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” It is certain that one of -those seven days on which they encompassed Jericho was the Sabbath; but -there is no necessity for supposing this to have been the day in which -the city was taken. Nor is this a reasonable conjecture when all the -facts in the case are considered. On this incident Dr. Clarke remarks as -follows:— - - “It does not appear that there could be any breach in the - Sabbath by the people simply going round the city, the ark in - company, and the priests sounding the sacred trumpets. This was - a mere religious procession, performed at the command of God, - in which no servile work was done.”[194] - -At the word of Joshua it pleased God to arrest the earth in its -revolution, and thus to cause the sun to remain stationary for a season, -that the Canaanites might be overthrown before Israel.[195] Did not this -great miracle derange the Sabbath? Not at all; for the lengthening of -one of the six days by God’s intervention could not prevent the actual -arrival of the seventh day, though it would delay it; nor could it -destroy its identity. The case involves a difficulty for those who hold -the theory that God sanctified the seventh part of time, and not the -seventh day; for in this case the seventh part of time was not allotted -to the Sabbath; but there is no difficulty involved for those who believe -that God set apart the seventh day to be kept as it arrives, in memory -of his own rest. One of the six days was allotted a greater length than -ever before or since; yet this did not in the slightest degree conflict -with the seventh day, which nevertheless did come. Moreover all this -was while inspired men were upon the stage of action; and it was by the -direct providence of God; and what is also to be particularly remembered, -it was at a time when no one will deny that the fourth commandment was in -full force. - -The case of David’s eating the shew-bread is worthy of notice, as it -probably took place upon the Sabbath, and because it is cited by our -Lord in a memorable conversation with the Pharisees.[196] The law of the -shew-bread enjoined the setting forth of twelve loaves in the sanctuary -upon the pure table before the Lord EVERY Sabbath.[197] When new bread -was thus placed before the Lord each Sabbath, the old was taken away to -be eaten by the priests.[198] It appears that the shew-bread which was -given to David had that day been taken from before the Lord to put hot -bread in its place, and consequently that day was the Sabbath. Thus, -when David asked bread, the priest said, “There is no common bread under -mine hand, but there is hallowed bread.” And David said, “The bread is -in a manner common, especially [as the margin has it] when THIS DAY -there is other sanctified in the vessel.” And so the sacred writer adds: -“The priest gave him hallowed bread; for there was no bread there but -the shew-bread, that was taken from before the Lord, to put hot bread -in the day when it was taken away.” The circumstances of this case all -favor the view that this was upon the Sabbath. 1. There was NO COMMON -bread with the priest. This is not strange when it is remembered that -the shew-bread was to be taken from before the Lord each Sabbath and -eaten by the priests. 2. That the priest did not offer to _prepare_ other -bread is not singular if it be understood that this was the Sabbath. 3. -The surprise of the priest in meeting David may have been in part owing -to the fact that it was the Sabbath. 4. This also may account for the -detention of Doeg that day before the Lord. 5. When our Lord was called -upon to pronounce upon the conduct of his disciples who had plucked and -eaten the ears of corn upon the Sabbath to satisfy their hunger, he cited -this case of David, and that of the priests offering sacrifices in the -temple upon the Sabbath as justifying the disciples. There is a wonderful -propriety and fitness in this citation, if it be understood that this act -of David’s took place upon the Sabbath. It will be found to present the -matter in a very different light from that in which anti-Sabbatarians -present it.[199] - -A distinction may be here pointed out, which should never be lost -sight of. The presentation of the shew-bread and the offering of burnt -sacrifices upon the Sabbath as ordained in the ceremonial law, formed -no part of the original Sabbatic institution. For the Sabbath was made -before the fall of man; while burnt-offerings and ceremonial rites in the -sanctuary were introduced in consequence of the fall. While these rites -were in force they necessarily, to some extent, connected the Sabbath -with the festivals of the Jews in which the like offerings were made. -This is seen only in those scriptures which record the provision made for -these offerings.[200] When the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross, -all the Jewish festivals ceased to exist; for they were ordained by -it;[201] but the abrogation of that law could only take away those rites -which it had appended to the Sabbath, leaving the original institution -precisely as it came at first from its author. - -The earliest reference to the Sabbath after the days of Moses is found in -what David and Samuel ordained respecting the offices of the priests and -Levites at the house of God. It is as follows:— - - “And other of their brethren, of the sons of the Kohathites, - were over the shew-bread, to prepare it every Sabbath.”[202] - -It will be observed that this is only an incidental mention of the -Sabbath. Such an allusion, occurring after so long a silence, is decisive -proof that the Sabbath had not been forgotten or lost during the five -centuries in which it had not been mentioned by the sacred historians. -After this no direct mention of the Sabbath is found from the days of -David to those of Elisha the prophet, a period of about one hundred and -fifty years. Perhaps the ninety-second psalm is an exception to this -statement, as its title, both in Hebrew and English, declares that it was -written for the Sabbath day;[203] and it is not improbable that it was -composed by David, the sweet singer of Israel. - -The son of the Shunammite woman being dead, she sought the prophet -Elisha. Her husband not knowing that the child was dead said to her:— - - “Wherefore wilt thou go to him to-day? It is neither new moon, - nor Sabbath. And she said, It shall be well.”[204] - -It is probable that the Sabbath of the Lord is here intended, as it is -thrice used in a like connection.[205] If this be correct, it shows -that the Hebrews were accustomed to visit the prophets of God upon that -day for divine instruction; a very good commentary upon the words used -relative to gathering the manna: “Let no man go out of his place on the -seventh day.”[206] Incidental allusion is made to the Sabbath at the -accession of Jehoash to the throne of Judah,[207] about B. C. 778. In the -reign of Uzziah, the grandson of Jehoash, the prophet Amos, B. C. 787, -uses the following language:— - - “Hear this, O ye that swallow up the needy, even to make the - poor of the land to fail, saying, When will the new moon be - gone, that we may sell corn? and the Sabbath, that we may set - forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and - falsifying the balances by deceit? that we may buy the poor for - silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes; yea, and sell the - refuse of the wheat?”[208] - -These words were spoken more directly concerning the ten tribes, and -indicate the sad state of apostasy which soon after resulted in their -overthrow as a people. About fifty years after this, at the close of the -reign of Ahaz, another allusion to the Sabbath is found.[209] In the -days of Hezekiah, about B. C. 712, the prophet Isaiah uses the following -language in enforcing the Sabbath:— - - “Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment and do justice; for my - salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. - Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that - layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, - and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. Neither let the son - of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, - saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people; - neither let the eunuch say, Behold I am a dry tree. For thus - saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and - choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant, - even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls, - a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I - will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut - off. Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to - the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, - to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from - polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will - I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house - of prayer; their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall - be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called a - house of prayer for all people. The Lord God which gathereth - the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, - beside those that are gathered unto him.”[210] - -This prophecy presents several features of peculiar interest. 1. It -pertains to a time when the salvation of God is near at hand.[211] 2. It -most distinctly shows that the Sabbath is not a Jewish institution; for -it pronounces a blessing upon that man without respect of nationality -who shall keep the Sabbath; and it then particularizes the son of the -stranger, that is, the Gentile,[212] and makes a peculiar promise to him -if he will keep the Sabbath. 3. And this prophecy relates to Israel when -they are outcasts, that is, when they are in their dispersion, promising -to gather them, and _others_, that is, the Gentiles, with them. Of course -the condition of being gathered to God’s holy mountain must be complied -with, namely, to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, and to -keep the Sabbath from polluting it. 4. And hence it follows that the -Sabbath is not a local institution, susceptible of being observed in the -promised land alone, like the annual sabbaths,[213] but one made for -mankind and capable of being observed by the outcasts of Israel when -scattered in every land under heaven.[214] - -Isaiah again presents the Sabbath; and this he does in language most -emphatically distinguishing it from all ceremonial institutions. Thus he -says:— - - “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy - pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the - holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing - thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking - thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; - and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the - earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; - for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”[215] - -This language is an evangelical commentary upon the fourth commandment. -It appends to it an exceeding great and precious promise that takes hold -upon the land promised to Jacob, even the new earth.[216] - -In the year B. C. 601, thirteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem -by Nebuchadnezzar, God made to the Jewish people through Jeremiah the -gracious offer, that if they would keep his Sabbath, their city should -stand forever. At the same time he testified unto them that if they -would not do this, their city should be utterly destroyed. Thus said the -prophet:— - - “Hear ye the word of the Lord, ye kings of Judah, and all - Judah, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that enter in by - these gates: Thus saith the Lord: Take heed to yourselves, - and bear no burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the - gates of Jerusalem;[217] neither carry forth a burden[218] - out of your houses on the Sabbath day, neither do ye any - work, but hallow ye the Sabbath day, as I commanded your - fathers. But they obeyed not, neither inclined their ears, - but made their necks stiff, that they might not hear, nor - receive instruction.[219] And it shall come to pass, if ye - diligently hearken unto me, saith the Lord, to bring in no - burden through the gates of this city on the Sabbath day, but - hallow the Sabbath day, to do no work therein; then shall - there enter into the gates of this city kings and princes - sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots and on - horses, they, and their princes, the men of Judah, and the - inhabitants of Jerusalem; and this city shall REMAIN FOREVER. - And they shall come from the cities of Judah, and from the - places about Jerusalem, and from the land of Benjamin, and - from the plain, and from the mountains, and from the south, - bringing burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and meat-offerings, - and incense, and bringing sacrifices of praise, unto the house - of the Lord. But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the - Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the - gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; then will I kindle a - fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of - Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.”[220] - -This gracious offer of the Most High to his rebellious people was not -regarded by them; for eight years after this Ezekiel testifies thus:— - - “In thee have they set light by father and mother: in the midst - of thee have they dealt by oppression with the stranger: in - thee have they vexed the fatherless and the widow. Thou hast - despised mine holy things, and hast profaned my Sabbaths.... - Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine - holy things: they have put no difference between the holy - and profane, neither have they showed difference between - the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my - Sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.... Moreover this they - have done unto me: they have defiled my sanctuary in the same - day, and have profaned my Sabbaths. For when they had slain - their children to their idols, then they came the same day into - my sanctuary to profane it; and, lo, thus have they done in the - midst of mine house.”[221] - -Idolatry and Sabbath-breaking, which were besetting sins with the -Hebrews in the wilderness, and which there laid the foundation for their -dispersion from their own land,[222] had ever cleaved unto them. And now -when their destruction was impending from the overwhelming power of the -king of Babylon, they were so deeply attached to these and kindred sins, -that they would not regard the voice of warning. Before entering the -sanctuary of God upon his Sabbath, they first slew their own children in -sacrifice to their idols![223] Thus iniquity came to its hight, and wrath -came upon them to the uttermost. - - “They mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and - misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against - his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought - upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men - with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no - compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that - stooped for age: he gave them all into his hand. And all the - vessels of the house of God, great and small, and the treasures - of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king, and of - his princes; all these he brought to Babylon, and they burnt - the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and - burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the - goodly vessels thereof. And them that had escaped from the - sword carried he away to Babylon; where they were servants to - him and his sons until the reign of the king of Persia.”[224] - -While the Hebrews were in captivity at Babylon, God made to them an offer -of restoring them to their own land and giving them again a city and a -temple under circumstances of wonderful glory.[225] The condition of that -offer being disregarded,[226] the offered glory was never inherited by -them. In this offer were several allusions to the Sabbath of the Lord, -and also to the festivals of the Hebrews.[227] One of these allusions -is worthy of particular notice for the distinctness with which it -discriminates between the Sabbath and the other days of the week:— - - “Thus saith the Lord God: The gate of the inner court that - looketh toward the east, shall be shut THE SIX WORKING DAYS; - but on the Sabbath it shall be opened, and in the day of the - new moon it shall be opened.”[228] - -Six days of the week are by divine inspiration called “the six working -days;” the seventh is called the Sabbath of the Lord. Who shall dare -confound this marked distinction? - -After the Jews had returned from their captivity in Babylon, and had -restored their temple and city, in a solemn assembly of the whole people -they recount in an address to the Most High all the great events of -God’s providence in their past history. Thus they testify respecting the -Sabbath:— - - “Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them - from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, - good statutes and commandments: and madest known unto them thy - holy Sabbath, and commandest them precepts, statutes, and laws, - by the hand of Moses thy servant.”[229] - -Thus were all the people reminded of the great events of Mount Sinai—the -giving of the ten words of the law of God, and the making known of his -holy Sabbath. So deeply impressed was the whole congregation with the -effect of their former disobedience, that they entered into a solemn -covenant to obey God.[230] They pledged themselves to each other thus:— - - “And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on - the Sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on - the Sabbath, or on the holy day; and that we would leave the - seventh year, and the exaction of every debt.”[231] - -In the absence of Nehemiah at the Persian court, this covenant was in -part, at least, forgotten. Eleven years having elapsed, Nehemiah thus -testifies concerning things at his return about B. C. 434:— - - “In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine-presses on the - Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also - wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they - brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; and I testified - against them in the day wherein they sold victuals. There dwelt - men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all manner - of ware, and sold on the Sabbath unto the children of Judah, - and in Jerusalem. Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, - and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and - profane the Sabbath day? Did not your fathers thus, and did - not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city? - yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the Sabbath. - And it came to pass, that, when the gates of Jerusalem began - to be dark before the Sabbath,[232] I commanded that the gates - should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened - till after the Sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the - gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the Sabbath - day. So the merchants and sellers of all kind of ware lodged - without Jerusalem once or twice. Then I testified against them, - and said unto them, Why lodge ye about the wall? if ye do so - again, I will lay hands on you. From that time forth came they - no more on the Sabbath. And I commanded the Levites that they - should cleanse themselves, and that they should come and keep - the gates, to sanctify the Sabbath day. Remember me, O my God, - concerning this also, and spare me according to the greatness - of thy mercy.”[233] - -This scripture is an explicit testimony that the destruction of Jerusalem -and the captivity of the Jews at Babylon were in consequence of their -profanation of the Sabbath. It is a striking confirmation of the language -of Jeremiah, already noticed, in which he testified to the Jews that if -they would hallow the Sabbath their city should stand forever; but that -it should be utterly destroyed if they persisted in its profanation. -Nehemiah bears testimony to the accomplishment of Jeremiah’s prediction -concerning the violation of the Sabbath; and with his solemn appeal in -its behalf ends the history of the Sabbath in the Old Testament. - - - - -CHAPTER IX. - -THE SABBATH FROM NEHEMIAH TO CHRIST. - - Great change in the Jewish people respecting idolatry and - Sabbath-breaking after their return from Babylon—Decree - of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Sabbath—Massacre of a - thousand Sabbath-keepers in the wilderness—Similar massacre at - Jerusalem—Decree of the Jewish elders relative to resisting - attacks upon the Sabbath—Other martyrdoms—Victories of Judas - Maccabeus—How Pompey captured Jerusalem—Teaching of the - Jewish doctors respecting the Sabbath—State of the Sabbatic - institution at the first advent of the Saviour. - - -The period of almost five centuries intervenes between the time -of Nehemiah and the commencement of the ministry of the Redeemer. -During this time an extraordinary change came over the Jewish people. -Previously, they had been to an alarming extent idolaters, and -outbreaking violators of the Sabbath. But after their return from Babylon -they were never guilty of idolatry to any extent, the chastisement of -that captivity effecting a cure of this evil.[234] In like manner did -they change their conduct relative to the Sabbath; and during this -period they loaded the Sabbatic institution with the most burdensome and -rigorous ordinances. A brief survey of this period must suffice. Under -the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, the king of Syria, B. C. 170, the Jews -were greatly oppressed. - - “King Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom, that all should be - one people, and every one should leave his laws: so all the - heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king. Yea, - many also of the Israelites consented to his religion, and - sacrificed unto idols, and profaned the Sabbath.”[235] - -The greater part of the Hebrews remained faithful to God, and, as a -consequence, were obliged to flee for their lives. Thus the historian -continues:— - - “Then many that sought after justice and judgment went - down into the wilderness, to dwell there: both they, and - their children, and their wives, and their cattle; because - afflictions increased sore upon them. Now when it was told - the king’s servants, and the host that was at Jerusalem, - in the city of David, that certain men, who had broken the - king’s commandment, were gone down into the secret places in - the wilderness, they pursued after them a great number, and - having overtaken them, they camped against them, and made war - against them on the Sabbath day. And they said unto them, Let - that which ye have done hitherto suffice; come forth, and do - according to the commandment of the king, and ye shall live. - But they said, We will not come forth, neither will we do the - king’s commandment, to profane the Sabbath day. So then they - gave them the battle with all speed. Howbeit they answered them - not, neither cast they a stone at them, nor stopped the places - where they lay hid. But said, Let us die all in our innocency: - heaven and earth shall testify for us, that ye put us to death - wrongfully. So they rose up against them in battle on the - Sabbath, and they slew them, with their wives and children, and - their cattle, to the number of a thousand people.”[236] - -In Jerusalem itself a like massacre took place. King Antiochus sent -Appollonius with an army of twenty-two thousand, - - “Who, coming to Jerusalem, and pretending peace, did forbear - till the holy day of the Sabbath, when taking the Jews keeping - holy day, he commanded his men to arm themselves. And so - he slew all them that were gone to the celebrating of the - Sabbath, and running through the city with weapons, slew great - multitudes.”[237] - -In view of these dreadful acts of slaughter, Mattathias, “an honorable -and great man,” the father of Judas Maccabeus, with his friends decreed -thus:— - - “Whosoever shall come to make battle with us on the Sabbath - day we will fight against him; neither will we die all, as our - brethren that were murdered in the secret places.”[238] - -Yet were some martyred after this for observing the Sabbath. Thus we -read:— - - “And others, that had run together into caves near by, to keep - the Sabbath day secretly, being discovered to Philip, were - all burnt together, because they made a conscience to help - themselves for the honor of the most sacred day.”[239] - -After this, Judas Maccabeus did great exploits in defense of the Hebrews, -and in resisting the dreadful oppression of the Syrian government. Of one -of these battles we read:— - - “When he had given them this watchword, _The help of God_, - himself leading the first band, he joined battle with Nicanor. - And by the help of the Almighty they slew above nine thousand - of their enemies, and wounded and maimed the most part of - Nicanor’s host, and so put all to flight; and took their money - that came to buy them, and pursued them far; but lacking - time, they returned: for it was the day before the Sabbath, - and therefore they would no longer pursue them. So when they - had gathered their armor together, and spoiled their enemies, - they occupied themselves about the Sabbath, yielding exceeding - praise and thanks to the Lord, who had preserved them unto that - day, which was the beginning of mercy distilling upon them. - And after the Sabbath, when they had given part of the spoils - to the maimed, and the widows, and orphans, the residue they - divided among themselves and their servants.”[240] - -After this the Hebrews being attacked upon the Sabbath by their enemies, -defeated them with much slaughter.[241] - -About B. C. 63, Jerusalem was besieged and taken by Pompey, the general -of the Romans. To do this, it was necessary to fill an immense ditch, -and to raise against the city a bank on which to place the engines of -assault. Thus Josephus relates the event:— - - “And had it not been our practice, from the days of our - forefathers, to rest on the seventh day, this bank could - never have been perfected, by reason of the opposition the - Jews would have made; for though our law gives us leave then - to defend ourselves against those that begin to fight with - us, and assault us, yet does it not permit us to meddle with - our enemies while they do anything else. Which thing when the - Romans understood, on those days which we call Sabbaths, they - threw nothing at the Jews, nor came to any pitched battle with - them, but raised up their earthen banks, and brought their - engines into such forwardness, that they might do execution the - next days.”[242] - -From this it is seen that Pompey carefully refrained from any attack upon -the Jews on each Sabbath during the siege, but spent that day in filling -the ditch and raising the bank, that he might attack them on the day -following each Sabbath, that is, upon Sunday. Josephus further relates -that the priests were not at all hindered from their sacred ministrations -by the stones thrown among them from the engines of Pompey, even “if -any melancholy accident happened;” and that when the city was taken and -the enemy fell upon them, and cut the throats of those that were in the -temples, yet did not the priests run away or desist from the offering of -the accustomed sacrifices. - -These quotations from Jewish history are sufficient to indicate the -extraordinary change that came over that people concerning the Sabbath, -after the Babylonish captivity. A brief view of the teaching of the -Jewish doctors respecting the Sabbath at the time when our Lord began his -ministry will conclude this chapter:— - - “They enumerated about forty primary works, which they said - were forbidden to be done on the Sabbath. Under each of these - were numerous secondary works, which they said were also - forbidden.... Among the primary works which were forbidden, - were ploughing, sowing, reaping, winnowing, cleaning, grinding, - etc. Under the head of grinding, was included the breaking - or dividing of things which were before united.... Another - of their traditions was, that, as threshing on the Sabbath - was forbidden, the bruising of things, which was a species of - threshing, was also forbidden. Of course, it was violation of - the Sabbath to walk on green grass, for that would bruise or - thresh it. So, as a man might not hunt on the Sabbath, he - might not catch a flea; for that was a species of hunting. As a - man might not carry a burden on the Sabbath, he might not carry - water to a thirsty animal, for that was a species of burden; - but he might pour water into a trough, and lead the animal to - it.... Yet should a sheep fall into a pit, they would readily - lift him out, and bear him to a place of safety.... They said - a man might minister to the sick for the purpose of relieving - their distress, but not for the purpose of healing their - diseases. He might put a covering on a diseased eye, or anoint - it with eye-salve for the purpose of easing the pain, but not - to cure the eye.”[243] - -Such was the remarkable change in the conduct of the Jewish people toward -the Sabbath; and such was the teaching of their doctors respecting it. -The most merciful institution of God for mankind had become a source -of distress; that which God ordained as a delight and a source of -refreshment had become a yoke of bondage; the Sabbath, made for man in -paradise, was now a most oppressive and burdensome institution. It was -time that God should interfere. Next upon the scene of action appears the -Lord of the Sabbath. - - - - -CHAPTER X. - -THE SABBATH DURING THE LAST OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. - - Mission of the Saviour—His qualifications as a judge of - Sabbatic observance—State of the institution at his advent—The - Saviour at Nazareth—At Capernaum—His discourse in the - corn-field—Case of the man with a withered arm—The Saviour - among his relatives—Case of the impotent man—Of the man born - blind—Of the woman bound by Satan—Of the man who had the - dropsy—Object of our Lord’s teaching and miracles relative to - the Sabbath—Unfairness of many anti-Sabbatarians—Examination of - Matt. 24:20—The Sabbath not abrogated at the crucifixion—Fourth - commandment after that event—Sabbath not changed at the - resurrection of Christ—Examination of John 20:26—Of Acts - 2:1, 2—Redemption furnishes no argument for the change of - the Sabbath—Examination of Ps. 118:22-24—The Sabbath neither - abolished nor changed as late as the close of the seventy weeks. - - -In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son to be the Saviour of the -world. He who fulfilled this mission of infinite benevolence was both the -Son of God and the Son of man. He was with the Father before the world -was, and by him God created all things.[244] The Sabbath being ordained -at the close of that great work as a memorial to keep it in lasting -remembrance, the Son of God, by whom all things were created, could not -be otherwise than a perfect judge of its true design, and of its proper -observance. The sixty-nine weeks of Daniel’s prophecy being accomplished, -the Redeemer began to preach, saying, “The time is fulfilled.”[245] The -ministry of the Saviour was at a time when the Sabbath of the Lord had -become utterly perverted from its gracious design, by the teaching of -the Jewish doctors. As we have seen in the previous chapter, it was to -the people no longer a source of refreshment and delight, but a cause of -suffering and distress. It had been loaded down with traditions by the -doctors of the law until its merciful and beneficent design was utterly -hidden beneath the rubbish of men’s inventions. It being impracticable -for Satan, after the Babylonish captivity, to cause the Jewish people, -even by bloody edicts, to relinquish the Sabbath and openly to profane -it as before that time, he turned their doctors so to pervert it, that -its real character should be utterly changed and its observance entirely -unlike that which would please God. We shall find that the Saviour never -missed an opportunity to correct their false notions respecting the -Sabbath; and that he selected, with evident design, the Sabbath as the -day on which to perform many of his merciful works. It will be found that -no small share of his teaching through his whole ministry was devoted -to a determination of what was lawful on the Sabbath, a singular fact -for those to explain who think that he designed its abrogation. At the -opening of our Lord’s ministry, we read thus:— - - “And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee; - and there went out a fame of him through all the region round - about. And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of - all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; - and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the - Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.”[246] - -Such was the manner of the Saviour relative to the Sabbath. It is evident -that in this he designed to show his regard for that day; for it was not -necessary thus to do in order to gain a congregation, as vast multitudes -were ever ready to throng his steps. His testimony being rejected, our -Lord left Nazareth for Capernaum. Thus the sacred historian says:— - - “But he, passing through the midst of them, went his way, and - came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on - the Sabbath days. And they were astonished at his doctrine; for - his word was with power. And in the synagogue there was a man - which had a spirit of an unclean devil; and he cried out with - a loud voice, saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with - thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth; art thou come to destroy us? I - know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God. And Jesus rebuked - him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the - devil had thrown him in the midst, he came out of him, and hurt - him not. And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves, - saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power he - commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out. And the fame - of him went out into every place of the country round about. - And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon’s - house. And Simon’s wife’s mother was taken with a great fever; - and they besought him for her. And he stood over her, and - rebuked the fever; and it left her; and immediately she arose - and ministered unto them.”[247] - -These miracles are the first which stand upon record as performed by the -Saviour upon the Sabbath. But the strictness of Jewish views relative to -the Sabbath is seen in that they waited till sunset, that is, till the -Sabbath was passed,[248] before they brought the sick to be healed. Thus -it is added:— - - “And at even when the sun did set, they brought unto him all - that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils. - And all the city was gathered together at the door. And he - healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out - many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they - knew him.”[249] - -The next mention of the Sabbath is of peculiar interest:— - - “At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn; - and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears - of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said - unto him, Behold thy disciples do that which is not lawful - to do upon the Sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye - not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they - that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and - did eat the shew-bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, - neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? - Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath day the - priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? - But I say unto you that in this place is one greater than - the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will - have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the - guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath - day.”[250] - -The parallel text in Mark has an important addition to the conclusion as -stated by Matthew:— - - “And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not - man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is Lord also of - the Sabbath.”[251] - -The following points should be noted in examining this text:— - -1. That the question at issue did not relate to the act of passing -through the corn on the Sabbath; for the Pharisees themselves were in the -company; and hence it may be concluded that the Saviour and those with -him were either going to, or returning from, the synagogue. - -2. That the question raised by the Pharisees was this: Whether the -disciples, in satisfying their hunger from the corn through which they -were passing, were not violating the law of the Sabbath. - -3. That he to whom this question was proposed was in the highest degree -competent to answer it; for he was with the Father when the Sabbath was -made.[252] - -4. That the Saviour was pleased to appeal to scriptural precedents for -the decision of this question, rather than to assert his own independent -judgment. - -5. That the first case cited by the Saviour was peculiarly appropriate. -David, fleeing for his life, entered the house of God upon the -Sabbath,[253] and ate the shew-bread to satisfy his hunger. The -disciples, to relieve their hunger, simply ate of the corn through which -they were passing upon the Sabbath. If David did right, though eating -in his necessity of that which belonged only to the priests, how little -of blame could be attached to the disciples who had not even violated a -precept of the ceremonial law? Thus much for the disciples’ satisfying -their hunger as they did upon the Sabbath. Our Lord’s next example is -designed to show what labor upon the Sabbath is not a violation of its -sacredness. - -6. And hence the case of the priests is cited. The same God who had said -in the fourth commandment, “Six days shalt thou labor and do all THY -work,” had commanded that the priests upon the Sabbath should offer -certain sacrifices in his temple.[254] - -Herein was no contradiction; for the labor performed by the priests upon -the Sabbath was simply the maintenance of the appointed worship of God -in his temple, and was not doing what the commandment calls “THY WORK.” -Labor of this kind, therefore, the Saviour being judge, was not, and -never had been, a violation of the Sabbath. - -7. But it is highly probable that the Saviour, in this reference to the -priests, had his mind not merely upon the sacrifices which they offered -upon the Sabbath, but upon the fact that they were required to prepare -new shew-bread every Sabbath; when the old was to be removed from the -table before the Lord and eaten by them.[255] This view of the matter -would connect the case of the priests with that of David, and both would -bear with wonderful distinctness upon the act of the disciples. Then -our Lord’s argument could be appreciated when he adds: “But I say unto -you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.” So that if the -shew-bread was to be prepared each Sabbath for the use of those who -ministered in the temple, and those who did this were guiltless, how free -from guilt also must be the disciples who, in following HIM that was -greater than the temple, but who had not where to lay his head, had eaten -of the standing corn upon the Sabbath to relieve their hunger? - -8. But our Lord next lays down a principle worthy of the most serious -attention. Thus he adds: “But if ye had known what this meaneth, I -will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the -guiltless.” The Most High had ordained certain labor to be performed upon -the Sabbath, in order that sacrifices might be offered to himself. But -Christ affirms upon the authority of the Scriptures,[256] that there is -something far more acceptable to God than sacrifices, and that this is -acts of mercy. If God held those guiltless who offered sacrifices upon -the Sabbath, how much less would he condemn those who extend mercy and -relief to the distressed and suffering, upon that day. - -9. Nor does the Saviour even leave the subject here; for he adds: “The -Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son -of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” If the Sabbath was _made_, certain -acts were necessary in order to give existence to it. What were those -acts? (1) God rested upon the seventh day. This made the seventh day the -rest-day or Sabbath of the Lord. (2) He blessed the day; thus it became -his holy day. (3) He sanctified it, or set it apart to a holy use; thus -its observance became a part of man’s duty toward God. There must be a -time when these acts were performed. And on this point there is really -no room for controversy. They were not performed at Sinai, nor in the -wilderness of Sin, but in paradise. And this is strikingly confirmed by -the language here used by the Saviour: “The Sabbath was made for THE man, -not THE man for the Sabbath;”[257] thus citing our minds to the man Adam -that was made of the dust of the ground, and affirming that the Sabbath -was made for him; a conclusive testimony that the Sabbath originated in -paradise. This fact is happily illustrated by a statement of the apostle -Paul: “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the -man.”[258] It will not be denied that this language has direct reference -to the creation of Adam and Eve. If then we turn back to the beginning, -we shall find Adam made of the dust of the ground, Eve taken from his -side, and the Sabbath made of the seventh day.[259] Thus the Saviour, -to complete the solution of the question raised by the Pharisees, -traces the Sabbath back to the beginning, as he does the institution of -marriage when the same class proposed for his decision the lawfulness of -divorce.[260] His careful statement of the design of the Sabbath and of -marriage, tracing each to the beginning, in the one case striking down -their perversion of the Sabbath, in the other, that of marriage, is the -most powerful testimony in behalf of the sacredness of each institution. -The argument in the one case stands thus: In the beginning God created -_one_ man and _one_ woman, designing that they two should be one flesh. -The marriage relation therefore was designed to unite simply two persons, -and this union _should_ be sacred and indissoluble. Such was the bearing -of his argument upon the question of divorce. In relation to the Sabbath, -his argument is this: God made the Sabbath for the man that he made of -the dust of the ground; and being thus made for an unfallen race, it can -only be a merciful and beneficent institution. He who made the Sabbath -for man before the fall saw what man needed, and knew how to supply that -want. It was given to him for rest, refreshment, and delight; a character -that it sustained after the fall,[261] but which the Jews had wholly lost -sight of.[262] And thus our Lord lays open his whole heart concerning -the Sabbath. He carefully determines what works are not a violation of -the Sabbath; and this he does by Old-Testament examples, that it may be -evident that he is introducing no change in the institution; he sets -aside their rigorous and burdensome traditions concerning the Sabbath, -by tracing it back to its merciful origin in paradise; and having thus -disencumbered the Sabbath of Pharisaic rigor, he leaves it upon its -paradisiacal foundation, enforced by all the authority and sacredness -of that law which he came not to destroy, but to magnify and make -honorable.[263] - -10. Having thus divested the Sabbath of all Pharisaic additions, our Lord -concludes with this remarkable declaration: “Therefore the Son of man is -Lord also of the Sabbath.” (1) It was not a disparagement to the Sabbath, -but an honor, that God’s only Son should claim to be its Lord. (2) Nor -was it derogatory to the character of the Redeemer to be the Lord of the -Sabbath; with all the high honors pertaining to his messiahship he is -ALSO Lord of the Sabbath. Or, if we take the expression in Matthew, he is -“Lord EVEN of the Sabbath day,” it implies that it is not a small honor -to possess such a title. (3) This title implies that the Messiah should -be the _protector_, and not the _destroyer_, of the Sabbath. And hence -that he was the rightful being to decide the proper nature of Sabbatic -observance. With these memorable words ends our Lord’s first discourse -concerning the Sabbath. - -From this time the Pharisees watched the Saviour to find an accusation -against him of violating the Sabbath. The next example will show the -malignity of their hearts, their utter perversion of the Sabbath, the -urgent need of an authoritative correction of their false teachings -respecting it, and the Saviour’s unanswerable defense:— - - “And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: - and behold there was a man which had his hand withered. And - they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath - days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What - man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and - if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold - on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than - a sheep? Wherefore, it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath - days. Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And - he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the - other. Then the Pharisees went out and held a council against - him, how they might destroy him.”[264] - -What was the act that caused this madness of the Pharisees? On the part -of the Saviour, it was a word; on the part of the man, it was the act of -stretching out his arm. Did the law of the Sabbath forbid either of these -things? No one can affirm such a thing. But the Saviour had publicly -transgressed that tradition of the Pharisees that forbade the doing -of anything whatever toward the healing of the sick upon the Sabbath. -And how necessary that such a wicked tradition should be swept away, -if the Sabbath itself was to be preserved for man. But the Pharisees -were filled with such madness that they went out of the synagogue and -consulted how they might destroy the Saviour. Yet Jesus only acted in -behalf of the Sabbath in setting aside those traditions by which they had -perverted it. - -After this, our Lord returned into his own country, and thus we read of -him:— - - “And when the Sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the - synagogue; and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From - whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this - which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are - wrought by his hands?”[265] - -Not far from this time we find the Saviour at Jerusalem, and the -following miracle was performed upon the Sabbath:— - - “And a certain man was there which had an infirmity thirty - and eight years. When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had - been there now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, - Wilt thou be made whole? The impotent man answered him, Sir, - I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the - pool; but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me. - Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. And - immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed and - walked; and on the same day was the Sabbath. The Jews therefore - said unto him that was cured, It is the Sabbath day: It is - not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. He answered them, He - that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, - and walk. Then asked they him, What man is that which said - unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?... The man departed and - told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. And - therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay - him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath day. But - Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. - Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not - only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his - Father, making himself equal with God.”[266] - -Our Lord here stands charged with two crimes: 1. He had broken the -Sabbath. 2. He had made himself equal with God. The first accusation is -based on these particulars: (1) By his word he had healed the impotent -man. But this violated no law of God; it only set at naught that -tradition which forbade anything to be done for curing diseases upon the -Sabbath. (2) He had directed the man to carry his bed. But this as a -burden was a mere trifle,[267] like a cloak or mat, and was designed to -show the reality of his cure, and thus to honor the Lord of the Sabbath -who had healed him. Moreover, it was not such a burden as the Scriptures -forbid upon the Sabbath.[268] (3) Jesus justified what he had done by -comparing his present act of healing to that work which his Father had -done HITHERTO, _i. e._, from the beginning of the creation. Ever since -the Sabbath was sanctified in paradise, the Father, by his providence, -had continued to mankind, even upon the Sabbath, all the merciful acts -by which the human race has been preserved. This work of the Father was -of precisely the same nature as that which Jesus had now done. These -acts did not argue that the Father had _hitherto_ lightly esteemed the -Sabbath, for he had most solemnly enjoined its observance in the law -and in the prophets;[269] and as our Lord had most expressly recognized -their authority,[270] there was no ground to accuse him of disregarding -the Sabbath, when he had only followed the example of the Father from -the beginning. The Saviour’s answer to these two charges will remove all -difficulty:— - - “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say - unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth - the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also - doeth the Son likewise.”[271] - -This answer involves two points: 1. That he was following his Father’s -perfect example, who had ever laid open to him all his works; and hence -as he was doing that only which had ever been the pleasure of the Father -to do, he was not engaged in the overthrow of the Sabbath. 2. And by the -meek humility of this answer—“The Son can do nothing of himself, but what -he seeth the Father do”—he showed the groundlessness of their charge of -self-exaltation. Thus, in nothing was there left a chance to answer him -again. - -Several months after this, the same case of healing was under discussion: - - “Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and - ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision - (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and ye on - the Sabbath-day circumcise a man. If a man on the Sabbath day - receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be - broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every - whit whole on the Sabbath day?”[272] - -This Scripture contains our Lord’s second answer relative to healing the -impotent man upon the Sabbath. In his first answer he rested his defense -upon the fact that what he had done was precisely the same as that which -his Father had done _hitherto_, that is, from the beginning of the -world; which implies that the Sabbath had existed from the same point, -else the example of the Father during this time would not be relevant. -In this, his second answer, a similar point is involved relative to the -origin of the Sabbath. His defense this time rests upon the fact that -his act of healing no more violated the Sabbath than did the act of -circumcising upon the Sabbath. But if circumcision, which was ordained -in the time of Abraham, was older than the Sabbath—as it certainly was -if the Sabbath originated in the wilderness of Sin—there would be an -impropriety in the allusion; for circumcision would be entitled to the -priority as the more ancient institution. It would be strictly proper -to speak of the more recent institution as involving no violation of an -older one; but it would be otherwise to speak of an ancient institution -as involving no violation of one more recent. The language therefore -implies that the Sabbath was older than circumcision; in other words, -more ancient than the days of Abraham. These two answers of the Saviour -are certainly in harmony with the unanimous testimony of the sacred -writers, that the Sabbath originated with the sanctification of the -rest-day of the Lord in Eden. - -What had the Saviour done to justify the hatred of the Jewish people -toward him? He had healed upon the Sabbath, with one word, a man who had -been helpless thirty-eight years. Was not this act in strict accordance -with the Sabbatic institution? Our Lord has settled this point in the -affirmative by weighty and unanswerable arguments,[273] not in this case -alone, but in others already noticed, and also in those which remain to -be noticed. Had he left the man in his wretchedness because it was the -Sabbath, when a word would have healed him, he would have dishonored the -Sabbath, and thrown reproach upon its Author. We shall find the Lord of -the Sabbath still further at work in its behalf in rescuing it from the -hands of those who had so utterly perverted its design; a work quite -unnecessary, had he designed to nail the institution to his cross. - -The next incident to be noticed is the case of the man that was born -blind. Jesus seeing him said:— - - “I must work the works of him that sent me whilst it is day; - the night cometh when no man can work. As long as I am in the - world, I am the light of the world. When he had thus spoken - he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he - anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, and said unto - him, Go wash in the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation, - Sent). He went his way therefore, and washed, and came - seeing.... And it was the Sabbath day when Jesus made the clay - and opened his eyes.”[274] - -Here is the record of another of our Lord’s merciful acts upon the -Sabbath day. He saw a man blind from his birth; moved with compassion -toward him, he moistened clay and anointed his eyes, and sent him to -the pool to wash; and when he had washed he received sight. The act was -alike worthy of the Sabbath and of its Lord: and it pertains only to -the opponents of the Sabbath _now_, as it pertained only to the enemies -of its Lord _then_, to see in this even the slightest violation of the -Sabbath. - -After this we read as follows:— - - “And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. - And behold there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity - eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise - lift up herself. And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, - and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. - And he laid his hands on her; and immediately she was made - straight, and glorified God. And the ruler of the synagogue - answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on - the Sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days - in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be - healed, and not on the Sabbath day. The Lord then answered - him and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the - Sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him - away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of - Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be - loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day? And when he had said - these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the - people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by - him.”[275] - -This time a daughter of Abraham, that is, a pious woman,[276] who had -been bound by Satan eighteen years, was loosed from that bond upon the -Sabbath day. Jesus silenced the clamor of his enemies by an appeal -to their own course of action in loosing the ox and leading him to -water upon the Sabbath. With this answer our Lord made ashamed all his -adversaries, and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things -that were done by him. The last of these glorious acts with which Jesus -honored the Sabbath is thus narrated:— - - “And it came to pass as he went into the house of one of - the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath day, that - they watched him. And, behold, there was a certain man before - him which had the dropsy. And Jesus answering spake unto the - lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the - Sabbath day? And they held their peace. And he took him, and - healed him, and let him go; and answered them, saying, Which of - you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not - straightway pull him out on the Sabbath day? And they could not - answer him again to these things.”[277] - -It is evident that the Pharisees and lawyers durst not answer the -question, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day? If they said, “Yes,” -they condemned their own tradition. If they said, “No,” they were unable -to sustain their answer by fair argument. Hence they remained silent. -And when Jesus had healed the man, he asked a second question equally -embarrassing: Which of you shall have an ox fall into a pit and will -not straightway pull him out on the Sabbath? They could not answer him -again to these things. It is apparent that our Lord’s argument with the -Pharisees from time to time relative to the Sabbath had satisfied them -at last that silence relative to their traditions was wiser than speech. -In his public teaching the Saviour declared that the weightier matters -of the law were judgment, MERCY, and faith;[278] and his long-continued -and powerful effort in behalf of the Sabbath, was to vindicate it as a -MERCIFUL institution, and to rid it of Pharisaic traditions, by which it -was perverted from its original purpose. Those who oppose the Sabbath are -here guilty of unfairness in two particulars: 1. They represent these -Pharisaic rigors as actually belonging to the Sabbatic institution. By -this means they turn the minds of men against the Sabbath. 2. And having -done this they represent the effort of the Saviour to set aside those -traditions as directed to the overthrow of the Sabbath itself. - -And now we come to the Saviour’s memorable discourse upon the mount of -Olives, on the very eve of his crucifixion, in which for the last time he -mentions the Sabbath:— - - “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, - spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso - readeth, let him understand), then let them which be in Judea - flee into the mountains: let him which is on the house-top - not come down to take anything out of his house; neither let - him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. - And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give - suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the - winter, neither on the Sabbath day; for then shall be great - tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world - to this time, no, nor ever shall be.”[279] - -In this language our Lord brings to view the dreadful calamities of the -Jewish people, and the destruction of their city and temple as predicted -by Daniel the prophet;[280] and his watchful care over his people as -their Lord leads him to point out their means of escape. - -1. He gives them a token by which they should know when this terrible -overthrow was immediately impending. It was “the abomination of -desolation” standing “in the holy place;” or, as expressed by Luke, the -token was “Jerusalem compassed with armies.”[281] The fulfillment of this -sign is recorded by the historian Josephus. After stating that Cestius, -the Roman commander, at the commencement of the contest between the Jews -and the Romans, encompassed the city of Jerusalem with an army, he adds:— - - “Who, had he but continued the siege a little longer, had - certainly taken the city; but it was, I suppose, owing to the - aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that - he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day. - It then happened that Cestius was not conscious either how the - besieged despaired of success, nor how courageous the people - were for him; and so he recalled his soldiers from the place, - and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without - having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, without - any reason in the world.”[282] - -2. This sign being seen, the disciples were to know that the desolation -of Jerusalem was nigh. “Then,” says Christ, “let them which be in Judea -flee into the mountains.” Josephus records the fulfillment of this -injunction:— - - “After this calamity had befallen Cestius, many of the most - eminent of the Jews swam away from the city, as from a ship - when it was going to sink.”[283] - -Eusebius also relates its fulfillment:— - - “The whole body, however, of the church at Jerusalem, having - been commanded by a divine revelation, given to men of approved - piety there before the war, removed from the city, and dwelt - at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella. Here, those - that believed in Christ, having removed from Jerusalem, as if - holy men had entirely abandoned the royal city itself, and - the whole land of Judea; the divine justice for their crimes - against Christ and his apostles, finally overtook them, totally - destroying the whole generation of these evil-doers from the - earth.”[284] - -3. So imminent was the danger when this sign should be seen that not a -moment was to be lost. He that was upon the house-top could not even -come down to take a single article from his house. The man that was in -the field was forbidden to return to the house for his clothes. Not a -moment was to be lost; they must flee as they were, and flee for life. -And pitiable indeed was the case of those who could not flee. - -4. In view of the fact that the disciples must flee the moment that the -promised token should appear, our Lord directed them to pray for two -things: 1. That their flight should not be in the winter. 2. That it -should not be upon the Sabbath day. Their pitiable situation should they -be compelled to flee to the mountains in the depth of winter, without -time to even take their clothes, sufficiently attests the importance -of the first of these petitions, and the tender care of Jesus as the -Lord of his people. The second of these petitions will be found equally -expressive of his care as Lord of the Sabbath. - -5. But it is replied that this last petition has reference only to the -fact that the Jews would then be keeping the Sabbath strictly, and as -a consequence the city gates would be closed that day, and those be -punished with death who should attempt to flee; and hence this petition -indicates nothing in proof of Christ’s regard for the Sabbath. An -assertion so often and so confidently uttered should be well founded in -truth; yet a brief examination will show that such is not the case. 1. -The Saviour’s language has reference to the whole land of Judea, and not -to Jerusalem only: “Let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains.” -The closing of the city gates could not therefore affect the flight of -but a part of the disciples. 2. Josephus states the remarkable fact that -when Cestius was marching upon Jerusalem in fulfillment of the Saviour’s -token, and had reached Lydda, not many miles from Jerusalem, “he found -the city empty of its men; for the whole multitude were gone up to -Jerusalem to the feast of tabernacles.”[285] The law of Moses required -the presence of every male in Israel at this feast in Jerusalem;[286] -and thus, in the providence of God, the disciples had no Jewish enemies -left in the country to hinder their flight. 3. The Jewish nation being -thus assembled at Jerusalem did most openly violate the Sabbath a few -days prior to the flight of the disciples; a singular commentary on their -supposed strictness in keeping it at that time.[287] Thus Josephus says -of the march of Cestius upon Jerusalem that, - - “He pitched his camp at a certain place called Gabao, fifty - furlongs distant from Jerusalem. But as for the Jews, when they - saw the war approaching to their metropolis, they left the - feast, and betook themselves to their arms; and taking courage - greatly from their multitude, went in a sudden and disorderly - manner to the fight, with a great noise, and without any - consideration had of the rest of the seventh day, although the - Sabbath was the day to which they had the greatest regard; but - that rage which made them forget the religious observation [of - the Sabbath] made them too hard for their enemies in the fight; - with such violence therefore did they fall upon the Romans, as - to break into their ranks, and to march through the midst of - them, making a great slaughter as they went,”[288] etc. - -Thus it is seen that on the eve of the disciples’ flight the rage of the -Jews toward their enemies made them utterly disregard the Sabbath! 4. -But after Cestius encompassed the city with his army, thus giving the -Saviour’s signal, he suddenly withdrew it, as Josephus says, “without any -reason in the world.” This was the moment of flight for the disciples, -and mark how the providence of God opened the way for those in Jerusalem:— - - “But when the robbers perceived this unexpected retreat of his, - they resumed their courage, and ran after the hinder parts of - his army, and destroyed a considerable number of both their - horsemen and footmen: and now Cestius lay all night at the camp - which was at Scopus, and as he went off farther next day, he - thereby invited the enemy to follow him, who still fell upon - the hindmost and destroyed them.”[289] - -This sally of the excited multitude in pursuit of the Romans was at the -very moment when the disciples were commanded to flee, and could not but -afford them the needed facility of escape. Had the flight of Cestius -happened upon the Sabbath, undoubtedly the Jews would have pursued him -upon that day, as under less exciting circumstances they had a few days -before gone out several miles to attack him upon the Sabbath. It is seen, -therefore, that whether in city or country, the disciples were not in -danger of being attacked by their enemies, even had their flight been -upon the Sabbath day. - -6. There is therefore but one view that can be taken relative to the -meaning of these words of our Lord, and that is that he thus spake, -out of sacred regard for the Sabbath. For in his tender care for his -people he had given them a precept that would require them to violate -the Sabbath, should the moment for flight happen upon that day. For the -command to flee was imperative the instant the promised signal should -be seen, and the distance to Pella, where they found a place of refuge, -was at least sixty miles. This prayer which the Saviour left with the -disciples would cause them to remember the Sabbath whenever they should -come before God. It was therefore impossible that the apostolic church -should forget the day of sacred rest. Such a prayer, that they might not -at a future time be compelled to violate the Sabbath, was a sure and -certain means of perpetuating its sacred observance for the coming forty -years, until the final destruction of Jerusalem, and was never forgotten -by that early church, as we shall hereafter see.[290] The Saviour, who -had taken unwearied pains during his whole ministry to show that the -Sabbath was a merciful institution and to set aside those traditions by -which it had been perverted from its true design, did, in this his last -discourse, most tenderly commend the Sabbath to his people, uniting in -the same petition their own safety and the sacredness of the rest-day of -the Lord.[291] - -A few days after this discourse, the Lord of the Sabbath was nailed to -the cross as the great sacrifice for the sins of men.[292] The Messiah -was thus cut off in the midst of the seventieth week; and by his death he -caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease.[293] - -Paul thus describes the abrogation of the typical system at the -crucifixion of the Lord Jesus:— - - “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against - us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, - nailing it to his cross.... Let no man therefore judge you in - meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new - moon, or of the sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to - come; but the body is of Christ.”[294] - -The object of this action is declared to be the handwriting of -ordinances. The manner of its abrogation is thus stated: 1. Blotted out; -2. Nailed to the cross; 3. Taken out of the way. Its nature is shown in -these words: “Against us” and “contrary to us.” The things contained in -it were meats, drinks, holy days [Gr. ἑορτης a feast day], new moons and -sabbaths.[295] The whole is declared a shadow of good things to come; -and the body which casts this shadow is of Christ. That law which was -proclaimed by the voice of God and written by his own finger upon the -tables of stone, and deposited beneath the mercy-seat, was altogether -unlike that system of carnal ordinances that was written by Moses in a -book, and placed in the side of the ark.[296] It would be absurd to speak -of the tables of STONE as NAILED to the cross; or to speak of BLOTTING -out what was ENGRAVED in STONE. It would be blasphemous to represent -the Son of God as pouring out his blood to blot out what the finger -of his Father had written. It would be to confound all the immutable -principles of morality, to represent the ten commandments as “contrary” -to man’s moral nature. It would be to make Christ the minister of sin, to -represent him as dying to utterly destroy the moral law. Nor does that -man keep truth on his side who represents the ten commandments as among -the things contained in Paul’s enumeration of what was abolished. Nor is -there any excuse for those who would destroy the ten commandments with -this statement of Paul; for he shows, last of all, that what was thus -abrogated was a shadow of good things to come—an absurdity if applied to -the moral law. The feasts, new moons, and sabbaths, of the ceremonial -law, which Paul declared to be abolished in consequence of the abrogation -of that code, have been particularly noticed already.[297] That the -Sabbath of the Lord is not included in their number, the following facts -evince:— - -1. The Sabbath of the Lord was made before sin entered our world. It is -not therefore one of those things that shadow redemption from sin.[298] - -2. Being made FOR man before the fall it is not one of those things that -are AGAINST him and CONTRARY to him.[299] - -3. When the ceremonial sabbaths were ordained they were carefully -distinguished from the Sabbath of the Lord.[300] - -4. The Sabbath of the Lord does not owe its existence to the handwriting -of ordinances, but is found in the very bosom of that law which Jesus -came not to destroy. The abrogation of the ceremonial law could not -therefore abolish the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.[301] - -5. The effort of our Lord through his whole ministry to redeem the -Sabbath from the thralldom of the Jewish doctors, and to vindicate it as -a merciful institution, is utterly inconsistent with the idea that he -nailed it to his cross, as one of those things against man and contrary -to him. - -6. Our Lord’s petition respecting the flight of the disciples from Judea, -recognizes the sacredness of the Sabbath many years after the crucifixion -of the Saviour. - -7. The perpetuity of the Sabbath in the new earth is not easily -reconciled with the idea that it was blotted out and nailed to our -Lord’s cross as one of those things that were contrary to man.[302] - -8. Because the authority of the fourth commandment is expressly -recognized after the Saviour’s crucifixion.[303] - -9. And finally, because the royal law which is unabolished embodies the -ten commandments, and consequently embraces and enforces the Sabbath of -the Lord.[304] - -When the Saviour died upon the cross the whole typical system which -had pointed forward to that event as the commencement of its antitype, -expired with him. The Saviour being dead, Joseph of Arimathea went in -unto Pilate and begged the body of Jesus, and with the assistance of -Nicodemus, buried it in his own new tomb.[305] - - “And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on. - And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed - after, and beheld the sepulcher, and how his body was laid. - And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and - rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon - the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they - came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had - prepared, and certain others with them.”[306] - -This text is worthy of special attention. 1. Because it is an express -recognition of the fourth commandment after the crucifixion of the Lord -Jesus. 2. Because it is the most remarkable case of Sabbatic observance -in the whole Bible. The Lord of the Sabbath was dead; preparation being -made for his embalming, when the Sabbath drew on it was suspended, and -they rested, says the sacred historian, according to the commandment. 3. -Because it shows that the Sabbath day according to the commandment is the -day before the first day of the week; thus identifying the seventh day -in the commandment with the seventh day of the New-Testament week. 4. -Because it is a direct testimony that the knowledge of the true seventh -day was preserved as late as the crucifixion; for they observed the day -enjoined in the commandment; and that was the day on which the Most High -had rested from the work of creation. - -In the course of the day following this Sabbath, that is, upon the first -day of the week, it was ascertained that Jesus was risen from the dead. -It appears that this event must have taken place upon that day, though it -is not thus stated in express terms. At this point of time it is supposed -by many that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day of -the week; and that the sacredness of the seventh day was then transferred -to the first day of the week, which thenceforth was the Christian -Sabbath, enforced by all the authority of the fourth commandment. To -judge of the truthfulness of these positions, let us read with care each -mention of the first day found in the four evangelists. Thus writes -Matthew:— - - “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the - first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary - to see the sepulcher.” - -Thus also Mark writes:— - - “And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the - mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that - they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning, - the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the - rising of the sun.... Now when Jesus was risen early the first - day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene.” - -Luke uses the following language:— - - “And they returned and prepared spices and ointments, and - rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon - the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they - came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had - prepared, and certain others with them.” - -John bears the following testimony:— - - “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when - it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken - away from the sepulcher.... Then the same day at evening, being - the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the - disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus - and stood in their midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto - you.”[307] - -In these texts the foundation of the “Christian Sabbath” must be -sought—if indeed such an institution actually exists—for there are no -other records of the first day which relate to the time when it is -supposed to have become sacred. These texts are supposed to prove that at -the resurrection of the Saviour, the first day absorbed the sacredness -of the seventh, elevating itself from the rank of a secular to that of -a sacred day, and abasing the Sabbath of the Lord to the rank of “the -six working days.”[308] Yet the following facts must be regarded as very -extraordinary indeed if this supposed change of the Sabbath here took -place:— - -1. That these texts should contain no mention of this change of the -Sabbath. 2. That they should carefully discriminate between the Sabbath -of the fourth commandment and the first day of the week. 3. That they -should apply no sacred title to that day; particularly that they should -omit the title of Christian Sabbath. 4. That they should not mention the -fact that Christ rested upon that day; an act essential to its becoming -his Sabbath.[309] 5. That they do not relate the act of taking the -blessing of God from the seventh day, and placing it upon the first; -and indeed that they do not mention any act whatever of blessing and -hallowing the day. 6. That they omit to mention anything that Christ did -to the first day; and that they even neglect to inform us that Christ so -much as took up the first day of the week into his lips! 7. That they -give no precept in support of first-day observance, nor do they contain a -hint of the manner in which the first day of the week can be enforced by -the authority of the fourth commandment. - -Should it be asserted, however, from the words of John, that the -disciples were on this occasion convened for the purpose of honoring the -day of the resurrection, and that Jesus sanctioned this act by meeting -with them, thus accomplishing the change of the Sabbath, it is sufficient -to cite in reply the words of Mark in which the same interview is -narrated:— - - “Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, - and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, - because they believed not them which had seen him after he was - risen.”[310] - -This testimony of Mark shows that the inference so often drawn from the -words of John is utterly unfounded. 1. The disciples were assembled -for the purpose of eating supper. 2. Jesus came into their midst and -upbraided them for their unbelief respecting his resurrection. - -The Scriptures declare that “with God all things are possible;” yet this -statement is limited by the declaration that God cannot lie.[311] Does -the change of the Sabbath pertain to those things that are possible with -God, or is it excluded by that important limitation, _God cannot lie_? -The Law-giver is the God of truth, and his law is the truth.[312] Whether -it would still remain the truth if changed to something else, and whether -the Law-giver would still continue to be the God of truth after he had -thus changed it, remains to be seen. The fourth commandment, which is -affirmed to have been changed, is thus expressed:— - - “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.... The seventh day - is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.... For in six days the Lord - made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and - rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath - day, and hallowed it.” - -If now we insert “first day” in place of the seventh, we shall bring the -matter to a test:— - - “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.... The first day is - the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.... For in six days the Lord - made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and - rested the first day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath - day, and hallowed it.” - -This changes the truth of God into a lie;[313] for it is false that God -rested upon the first day of the week and blessed and hallowed it. Nor -is it possible to change the rest-day of the Creator from that day on -which he rested to one of the six days on which he did not rest.[314] To -change a part of the commandment, and to leave the rest unchanged, will -not therefore answer, as the truth which is left is still sufficient to -expose the falsehood which is inserted. A more radical change is needed, -like the following:— - - “Remember the Christian Sabbath, to keep it holy. The first day - is the Sabbath of the Lord Jesus Christ. For on that day he - arose from the dead; wherefore he blessed the first day of the - week, and hallowed it.” - -After such a change, no part of the original Sabbatic institution -remains. Not only is the rest-day of the Lord left out, but even the -reasons on which the fourth commandment is based are of necessity -omitted also. But does such an edition of the fourth commandment as -this exist? Not in the Bible, certainly. Is it true that such titles -as these are applied to the first day? Never, in the Holy Scriptures. -Did the Law-giver bless and hallow that day? Most assuredly not. He did -not even take the name of it into his lips. Such a change of the fourth -commandment on the part of the God of truth is impossible; for it not -merely affirms that which is false and denies that which is true, but it -turns the truth of God itself into a lie. It is simply the act of setting -up a rival to the Sabbath of the Lord, which, having neither sacredness -nor authority of its own, has contrived to absorb that of the Bible -Sabbath itself. Such is the FOUNDATION of the first-day Sabbath. The -texts which are employed in rearing the institution upon this foundation -will be noticed in their proper order and place. Several of these texts -properly pertain to this chapter:— - - “And after eight days again his disciples were within, and - Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and - stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.”[315] - -It is not asserted that on this occasion our Lord hallowed the first -day of the week; for that act is affirmed to date from the resurrection -itself on the authority of the texts already quoted. But the sacredness -of the first day being assumed as the foundation, this text furnishes the -first stone for the superstructure; the first pillar in the first-day -temple. The argument drawn from it may be thus stated: Jesus selected -this day as the one in which to manifest himself to his disciples; and -by this act strongly attested his regard for the day. But it is no small -defect in this argument that his next meeting with them was on a fishing -occasion,[316] and his last and most important manifestation, when he -ascended into Heaven, was upon Thursday.[317] The act of the Saviour in -meeting with his disciples must therefore be yielded as insufficient -of itself to show that any day is sacred; for it would otherwise prove -the sacredness of several of the working days. But a still more serious -defect in this argument is found in the fact that this meeting of Jesus -with his disciples does not appear to have been upon the first day of -the week. It was “after eight days” from the previous meeting of Jesus -and the disciples, which, coming at the very close of the resurrection -day, could not but have extended into the second day of the week.[318] -“After eight days” from this meeting, if made to signify only one week, -necessarily carries us to the second day of the week. But a different -expression is used by the Spirit of inspiration when simply one week is -intended. “After seven days” is the chosen term of the Holy Spirit when -designating just one week.[319] “After eight days” most naturally implies -the ninth or tenth day;[320] but allowing it to mean the eighth day, it -fails to prove that this appearance of the Saviour was upon the first -day of the week. To sum up the argument: The first meeting of Jesus -with his disciples in the evening at the close of the first day of the -week was mainly if not wholly upon the second day of the week;[321] the -second meeting could not have been earlier in the week than the second or -third day, and the day seems to have been selected simply because that -Thomas was present; the third meeting was upon a fishing occasion; and -the fourth, was upon Thursday, when he ascended into Heaven. The argument -for first-day sacredness drawn from this text is eminently fitted to -the foundation of that sacredness already examined; and the institution -of the first-day Sabbath itself, unless formed of more substantial -frame-work than enters into its foundation, is at best only a castle in -the air. - -The text which next enters into the fabric of first-day sacredness is the -following:— - - “And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all - with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound - from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the - house where they were sitting.”[322] - -This text is supposed to contribute an important pillar for the first-day -temple. On this wise it is furnished: The disciples were convened on this -occasion to celebrate the first-day Sabbath, and the Holy Spirit was -poured out at that time in honor of that day. To this deduction there -are, however, the most serious objections. 1. That there is no evidence -that a first-day Sabbath was then in existence. 2. That there is no -intimation that the disciples came together on this occasion for its -celebration. 3. Nor that the Holy Spirit was then poured out in honor of -the first day of the week. 4. That from the ascension of Jesus until the -day of the Spirit’s outpouring, the disciples had continued in prayer -and supplication, so that their being convened on this day was nothing -materially different from what had been the case for the past ten or more -days.[323] 5. That had the sacred writer designed to show that a certain -day of the week was honored by the events narrated, he would doubtless -have stated that fact, and named that day. 6. That Luke was so far from -naming the day of the week that it is even now a disputed point; eminent -first-day authors[324] even asserting that the day of Pentecost that year -came upon the _seventh_ day. 7. That the one great event which the Holy -Spirit designed to mark was the antitype of the feast of Pentecost; the -day of the week on which that should occur being wholly immaterial. How -widely, therefore, do those err who reverse this order, making the day -of the week, which the Holy Spirit has not even named, but which they -assume to be the first day, the thing of chief importance, and passing in -silence over that fact which the Holy Spirit has so carefully noted, that -this event took place upon the day of Pentecost. The conclusion to which -these facts lead is inevitable; viz., that the pillar furnished from this -text for the first-day temple is like the foundation of that edifice, -simply a thing of the imagination, and quite worthy of a place beside -the pillar furnished from the record of our Lord’s second appearance to -his disciples. - -A third pillar for the first-day edifice is the following: Redemption -is greater than creation; therefore the day of Christ’s resurrection -should be observed instead of the day of the Creator’s rest. But this -proposition is open to the fatal objection that the Bible says nothing -of the kind.[325] Who then knows that it is true? When the Creator -gave existence to our world, did he not foresee the fall of man? And, -foreseeing that fall, did he not entertain the purpose of redeeming man? -And does it not follow that the purpose of redemption was entertained in -that of creation? Who then can affirm that redemption is greater than -creation? - -But as the Scriptures do not decide this point, let it be assumed that -redemption is the greater. Who knows that a day should be set apart for -its commemoration? The Bible says nothing on the point. But granting -that a day should be set apart for this purpose, what day should have -the preference? Is it said, That day on which redemption was finished? -It is not true that redemption is finished; the resurrection of the -saints and the redemption of our earth from the curse are included in -that work.[326] But granting that redemption should be commemorated -before it is finished, by setting apart a day in its honor, the question -again arises, What day shall it be? The Bible is silent in reply. If -the most memorable day in the history of redemption should be selected, -undoubtedly the day of the crucifixion, on which the price of human -redemption was paid, must have the preference. Which is the more -memorable day, that on which the infinite Law-giver gave up his only and -well-beloved Son to die an ignominious death for a race of rebels who -had broken his law, or that day on which he restored that beloved Son to -life? The latter event, though of thrilling interest, is the most natural -thing in the world; the crucifixion of the Son of God for sinful men may -be safely pronounced the most wonderful event in the annals of eternity. -The crucifixion day is therefore beyond all comparison the more memorable -day. And that redemption itself is asserted of the crucifixion rather -than of the resurrection is an undoubted fact. Thus it is written:— - - “In whom we have redemption through his blood;” “Christ hath - redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for - us, for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a - tree;” “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy - blood.”[327] - -If, therefore, any day should be observed in memory of redemption, -unquestionably the day of the crucifixion should have the preference. -But it is needless to pursue this point further. Whether the day of the -crucifixion or the day of the resurrection should be preferred is quite -immaterial. The Holy Spirit has said nothing in behalf of either of these -days, but it has taken care that the _event_ in each case should have -its own appropriate memorial. Would you commemorate the crucifixion of -the Redeemer? You need not change the Sabbath to the crucifixion day. -It would be a presumptuous sin in you to do this. Here is the divinely -appointed memorial of the crucifixion:— - - “The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took - bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, - Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in - remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, - when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my - blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. - For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do - shew the Lord’s death till he come.”[328] - -It is the death of the Redeemer, therefore, and not the day of his death -that the Holy Spirit has thought worthy of commemoration. Would you also -commemorate the resurrection of the Redeemer? You need not change the -Sabbath of the Bible for that purpose. The great Law-giver has never -authorized such an act. But an appropriate memorial of that event has -been ordained:— - - “Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus - Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried - with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised - up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also - should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted - together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the - likeness of his resurrection.”[329] - -To be buried in the watery grave as our Lord was buried in the tomb, -and to be raised from the water to walk in newness of life, as our Lord -was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, is the divinely -authorized memorial of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And let it be -observed, it is not the day of the resurrection, but the resurrection -itself, that was thought worthy of commemoration. The events which lie at -the foundation of redemption are the death, burial, and resurrection, of -the Redeemer. Each of these has its appropriate memorial; while the days -on which they severally occurred have no importance attached to them. It -was the death of the Redeemer, and not the day of his death, that was -worthy of commemoration; and hence the Lord’s supper was appointed for -that purpose. It was the resurrection of the Saviour, and not the day of -the resurrection, that was worthy of commemoration; and hence burial in -baptism was ordained as its memorial. It is the change of this memorial -to sprinkling that has furnished so plausible a plea for first-day -observance in memory of the resurrection. - -To celebrate the work of redemption by resting from labor on the first -day of the week after six days of toil, it should be true that our -Lord accomplished the work of human redemption in the six days prior -to that of his resurrection, and that he rested on that day from the -work, blessing it, and setting it apart for that reason. Yet not one of -these particulars is true. Our Lord’s whole life was devoted to this -work. He rested temporarily from it indeed over the Sabbath following -his crucifixion, but resumed the work on the morning of the first day of -the week, which he has never since relinquished, and never will, until -its perfect accomplishment in the resurrection of the saints and the -redemption of the purchased possession. Redemption, therefore, furnishes -no plea for a change of the Sabbath; its own memorials being quite -sufficient, without destroying that of the great Creator. And thus the -third pillar in the temple of first-day sacredness, like the other parts -of that structure which have been already examined, is found to be a -thing of the imagination only. - -A fourth pillar in this temple is taken from an ancient prophecy in which -it is claimed that the Christian Sabbath was foretold:— - - “The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone - of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvelous in our - eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice - and be glad in it.”[330] - -This text is considered one of the strongest testimonies in support of -the Christian Sabbath. Yet it is necessary to assume the very points -that this text is supposed to prove. 1. It is assumed that the Saviour -became the head of the corner by his resurrection. 2. That the day of -his resurrection was made the Christian Sabbath in commemoration of -that event. 3. And that this day thus ordained should be celebrated by -abstinence from labor, and attendance upon divine worship. - -To these extraordinary assumptions it is proper to reply: 1. There is -no proof that Jesus became the head of the corner on the day of his -resurrection. The Scriptures do not mark the day when this event took -place. His being made head of the corner has reference to his becoming -the chief corner stone of that spiritual temple composed of his people; -in other words, it has reference to his becoming head of that living -body, the saints of the Most High. It does not appear that he assumed -this position until his ascension on high, where he became the chief -corner stone in Zion above, elect and precious.[331] And hence there -is no evidence that the first day of the week is even referred to in -this text. 2. Nor is there the slightest evidence that that day or any -other day was set apart as the Christian Sabbath in memory of Christ’s -resurrection. 3. Nor can there well be found a more extraordinary -assumption than that this text enjoins the Sabbatic observance of the -first day of the week! - -This scripture has manifest reference to the Saviour’s act of becoming -the head of the New-Testament church; and consequently it pertains to -the opening of the gospel dispensation. The day in which the people of -God rejoice, in view of this relation to the Redeemer, can therefore be -understood of no one day of the week; for they are commanded to “rejoice -EVERMORE;”[332] but of the whole period of the gospel dispensation. Our -Lord uses the word day in the same manner when he says:— - - “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and - was glad.”[333] - -To assert the existence of what is termed the Christian Sabbath on the -ground that this text is the prediction of such an institution, is to -furnish a fourth pillar for the first-day temple quite as substantial as -those already tested. - -The seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy extends three and a half years -beyond the death of the Redeemer, to the commencement of the great work -for the Gentiles. This period of seven years through which we have been -passing is the most eventful period in the history of the Sabbath. It -embraces the whole history of the Lord of the Sabbath as connected with -that institution: His miracles and teaching, by which it is affirmed -that he weakened its authority; his death, at which many affirm that -he abrogated it; and his resurrection, at which a still larger number -declare that he changed it to the first day of the week. We have had the -most ample evidence, however, that each of these positions is false; and -that the opening of the great work for the Gentiles witnessed the Sabbath -of the fourth commandment neither weakened, abrogated, nor changed. - - - - -CHAPTER XI. - -THE SABBATH DURING THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLES. - - The knowledge of God preserved in the family of Abraham—The - call of the Gentiles—The new covenant puts the law of God into - the heart of each Christian—The new covenant has a temple in - Heaven; and an ark containing the great original of that law - which was in the ark upon earth—And before that ark a priest - whose offering can take away sin—The Old and New Testaments - compared—The human family in all ages amenable to the law of - God—The good olive tree shows the intimate relation between the - church of the New Testament and the Hebrew church—The apostolic - church observed the Sabbath—Examination of Acts 13—The assembly - of the apostles at Jerusalem—Sabbatarian origin of the church - at Philippi—Of the church of the Thessalonians—Of the church - of Corinth—The churches in Judea and in many cases among the - Gentiles began with Sabbath-keepers—Examination of 1 Cor. 16:1, - 2—Self-contradiction of Dr. Edwards—Paul at Troas—Examination - of Rom. 14:1-6—Flight of the disciples from Judea—The Sabbath - of the Bible at the close of the first century. - - -We have now traced the Sabbath through the period of its especial -connection with the family of Abraham. The termination of the seventy -weeks brings us to the call of the Gentiles, and to their admission to -equal privileges with the Hebrew race. We have seen that with God there -was no injustice in conferring especial blessings upon the Hebrews, and -at the same time leaving the Gentiles to their own chosen ways.[334] -Twice had he given the human family, as a whole, the most ample means -of grace that their age of the world admitted, and each time did it -result in the almost total apostasy of mankind. Then God selected as -his heritage the family of Abraham, his friend; and by means of that -family preserved in the earth the knowledge of his law, his Sabbath, and -himself, until the coming of the great Messiah. During his ministry, the -Messiah solemnly affirmed the perpetuity of his Father’s law, enjoining -obedience, even to its least commandment;[335] at his death he broke -down that middle wall of partition[336] by which the Hebrews had so long -been preserved a separate people in the earth; and when about to ascend -into Heaven commanded his disciples to go into all the world and preach -the gospel to every creature; teaching them to observe all things which -he had commanded them.[337] With the expiration of the seventieth week, -the apostles enter upon the execution of this great commission to the -Gentiles.[338] Several facts of deep interest should here be noticed:— - -1. The new covenant or testament dates from the death of the Redeemer. -In accordance with the prediction of Jeremiah, it began with the Hebrews -alone, and was confined exclusively to them until the expiration of the -seventieth week. Then the Gentiles were admitted to a full participation -with the Hebrews in its blessings, being no longer aliens and foreigners, -but fellow-citizens with the saints.[339] God entered into covenant this -time with his people as individuals and not as a nation. The promises of -this covenant embrace two points of great interest: (1) That God will -put his law into the hearts of his people. (2) That he will forgive their -sins. These promises being made six hundred years before the birth of -Christ, there can be no question relative to what was meant by the law -of God. It was the law of God then in existence that should be put into -the heart of each new-covenant saint. The new covenant, then, is based -upon the perpetuity of the law of God; it does not abrogate that law, but -takes away sin, the transgression of the law, from the heart, and puts -the law of God in its place.[340] The perpetuity of each precept of the -moral law lies, therefore, at the very foundation of the new covenant. - -2. As the first covenant had a sanctuary, and within that sanctuary an -ark containing the law of God in ten commandments,[341] and had also -a priesthood to minister before that ark, to make atonement for the -sins of men,[342] even thus is it with the new covenant. Instead of the -tabernacle erected by Moses as the pattern of the true, the new covenant -has the greater and more perfect tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and -not man—the temple of God in Heaven.[343] As the great central point -in the earthly sanctuary was the ark containing that law which man had -broken, even thus it is with the heavenly sanctuary. “The temple of God -was opened in Heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his -testament.”[344] Our Lord Jesus Christ as a great High Priest presents -his own blood before the ark of God’s testament in the temple in Heaven. -Respecting this object before which he ministers, let the following -points be noted:— - -1. The ark in the heavenly temple is not empty; it contains the testament -of God; and hence it is the great center of the sanctuary above, as the -ark of God’s testament was the center of the sanctuary on earth.[345] - -2. The death of the Redeemer for the sins of men, and his work as High -Priest before the ark in Heaven, have direct reference to the fact that -within that ark is the law which mankind have broken. - -3. As the atonement and priesthood of Christ have reference to the law -within that ark before which he ministers, it follows that this law -existed and was transgressed before the Saviour came down to die for men. - -4. And hence, the law contained in the ark above is not a law which -originated in the New Testament; for it necessarily existed long anterior -to it. - -5. If, therefore, God has revealed this law to mankind, that revelation -must be sought in the Old Testament. For while the New Testament makes -many references to that law which caused the Saviour to lay down his life -for sinful men, and even quotes from it, it never publishes a second -edition, but cites us to the Old Testament for the original code.[346] - -6. It follows, therefore, that this law is revealed, and that this -revelation is to be found in the Old Testament. - -7. In that volume will be found, (1) The descent of the Holy One upon -Mount Sinai; (2) The proclamation of his law in ten commandments; (3) The -ten commandments written by the finger of God upon two tables of stone; -(4) These tables placed beneath the mercy-seat in the ark of the earthly -sanctuary.[347] - -8. That this remarkable Old-Testament law which was shut up in the ark -of the earthly sanctuary was identical with that in the ark in Heaven, -may be thus shown: (1) The mercy-seat which was placed over the ten -commandments was the place from which pardon was expected, the great -central point in the work of atonement;[348] (2) The law beneath the -mercy-seat was that which made the work of atonement necessary; (3) -There was no atonement that could take away sins; it was only a shadowy -or typical atonement; (4) But there was actual sin, and hence a real -law which man had broken; (5) There must therefore be an atonement that -can take away sins; and that real atonement must pertain to that law -which was broken, and respecting which an atonement had been shadowed -forth.[349] (6) The ten commandments are thus set forth in the Old -Testament as that law which demanded an atonement; while the fact is ever -kept in view that those sacrifices there provided could not avail to -take away sins.[350] (7) But the death of Jesus as the antitype of those -sacrifices, was designed to accomplish precisely what they shadowed -forth, but which they could not effect, viz., to make atonement for -the transgression of that law which was placed in the ark beneath the -mercy-seat.[351] - -We are thus brought to the conclusion that the law of God contained in -the ark in Heaven is identical with that law which was contained in the -ark upon earth; and that both are identical with that law which the new -covenant puts in the heart of each believer.[352] The Old Testament, -therefore, gives us the law of God and pronounces it perfect; it also -provides a typical atonement, but pronounces it inadequate to take away -sins.[353] Hence what was needed was not a new edition of the law of God; -for that which was given already was perfect; but a real atonement to -take away the guilt of the transgressor. So the New Testament responds -precisely to this want, providing a real atonement in the death and -intercession of the Redeemer, but giving no new edition of the law of -God,[354] though it fails not to cite us to the perfect code given long -before. But although the New Testament does not give a new edition of the -law of God, it does show that the Christian dispensation has the great -original of that law in the sanctuary in Heaven. - -9. We have seen that the new covenant places the law of God in the heart -of each believer, and that the original of that law is preserved in the -temple in Heaven. That all mankind are amenable to the law of God, and -that they ever have been, is clearly shown by Paul’s epistle to the -Romans. In the first chapter, he traces the origin of idolatry to the -willful apostasy of the Gentiles, which took place soon after the flood. -In the second chapter, he shows that although God gave them up to their -own ways, and as a consequence left them without his written law, yet -they were not left in utter darkness; for they had by nature the work -of the law written in their hearts; and dim as was this light, their -salvation would be secured by living up to it, or their ruin accomplished -by sinning against it. In the third chapter, he shows what advantage -the family of Abraham had in being taken as the heritage of God, while -all other nations were left to their own ways. It was that the oracles -of God, the written law, was given them in addition to that work of the -law written in the heart, which they had by nature in common with the -Gentiles. He then shows that they were no better than the Gentiles, -because that both classes were transgressors of the law. This he proves -by quotations from the Old Testament. Then he shows that the law of God -has jurisdiction over all mankind:— - - “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to - them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, - and all the world may become guilty before God.”[355] - -He then shows that the law cannot save the guilty, but must condemn them, -and that justly. Next, he reveals the great fact that redemption through -the death of Jesus is the only means by which God can justify those who -seek pardon, and at the same time remain just himself. And finally he -exclaims:— - - “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, - we establish the law.”[356] - -It follows, therefore, that the law of God is unabolished; that the -sentence of condemnation which it pronounces upon the guilty is as -extensive as is the offer of pardon through the gospel; that its work -exists in the hearts of men by nature; from which we may conclude -that man in his uprightness possessed it in perfection, as is further -proved by the fact that the new covenant, after delivering men from -the condemnation of the law of God, puts that law perfectly into their -hearts. From all of which it follows that the law of God is the great -standard by which sin is shown,[357] and hence the rule of life, by which -all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, should walk. - -That the church in the present dispensation is really a continuation of -the ancient Hebrew church, is shown by the illustration of the good olive -tree. That ancient church was God’s olive tree, and that olive tree has -never been destroyed.[358] Because of unbelief, _some_ of its branches -were broken off; but the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles does -not create a new olive tree; it only grafts into the good olive tree -such of the Gentiles as believe; giving them a place among the original -branches, that with them they may partake of its root and fatness. -This olive tree must date from the call of Abraham after the apostasy -of the Gentiles; its trunk representing the patriarchs, beginning with -the father of the faithful;[359] its branches, the Hebrew people. The -ingrafting of the wild olive into the place of those branches which were -broken off, represents the admission of the Gentiles to equal privileges -with the Hebrews after the expiration of the seventy weeks. The -Old-Testament church, the original olive tree, was a kingdom of priests -and an holy nation; the New-Testament church, the olive tree after the -ingrafting of the Gentiles, is described in the same terms.[360] - -When God gave up the Gentiles to apostasy before the call of Abraham, he -confounded their language, that they should not understand one another, -and thus scattered them abroad upon the face of the earth. Standing over -against this is the gift of tongues on the day of Pentecost, preparatory -to the call of the Gentiles, and their ingrafting into the good olive -tree.[361] - -We have followed the Sabbath to the call of the Gentiles, and the opening -events of the gospel dispensation. We find the law of God, of which the -Sabbath is a part, to be that which made our Lord’s death as an atoning -sacrifice necessary; and that the great original of that law is in the -ark above, before which our Lord ministers as high priest; while a copy -of that law is by the new covenant written within the heart of each -believer. It is seen, therefore, that the law of God is more intimately -connected with the people of God since the death of the Redeemer than -before that event. - -That the apostolic church did sacredly regard the Sabbath, as well as -all the other precepts of the moral law, admits of no doubt. The fact -is proved, not merely because the early Christians were not accused of -its violation by their most inveterate enemies; nor wholly by the fact -that they held sin to be the transgression of the law, and that the -law was the great standard by which sin is shown, and that by which sin -becomes exceeding sinful.[362] These points are certainly very decisive -evidence that the apostolic church did keep the fourth commandment. The -testimony of James relative to the ten commandments, that he who violates -one of them becomes guilty of all, is yet another strong evidence that -the primitive church did sacredly regard the whole law of God.[363] But -besides these facts we have a peculiar guaranty that the Sabbath of the -Lord was not forgotten by the apostolic church. The prayer which our Lord -taught his disciples, that their flight from Judea should not be upon the -Sabbath was, as we have seen, designed to impress its sacredness deeply -upon their minds, and could not but have secured that result.[364] In the -history of the primitive church we have several important references to -the Sabbath. The first of these is as follows:— - - “But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in - Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and - sat down.”[365] - -By invitation of the rulers of the synagogue, Paul delivered an extended -address, proving that Jesus was the Christ. In the course of these -remarks he used the following language:— - - “For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because - they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are - read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning - him.”[366] - -When Paul’s discourse was concluded, we read:— - - “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles - besought that these words might be preached to them the next - Sabbath.[367] Now when the congregation was broken up, many of - the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: - who speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace - of God. And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city - together to hear the word of God.”[368] - -These texts show, 1. That by the term Sabbath in the book of Acts is -meant that day on which the Jewish people assembled in the synagogue -to listen to the voices of the prophets. 2. That as this discourse was -fourteen years after the resurrection of Christ, and the record of it -by Luke was some thirty years after that event, it follows that the -alleged change of the Sabbath at the resurrection of Christ had not, -even after many years, come to the knowledge of either Luke or Paul. -3. That here was a remarkable opportunity to mention the change of the -Sabbath, had it been true that the Sabbath had been changed in honor of -Christ’s resurrection. For when Paul was asked to preach the same words -the next Sabbath, he might have answered that the following day was now -the proper day for divine worship. And Luke, in placing this incident -upon record, could not well avoid the mention of this new day, had it -been true that another day had become the Sabbath of the Lord. 4. That -as this second meeting pertained almost wholly to Gentiles, it cannot be -said in this case that Paul preached upon the Sabbath out of regard to -the Jews. On the contrary, the narrative strongly indicates Paul’s regard -for the Sabbath as the proper day for divine worship. 5. Nor can it be -denied that the Sabbath was well understood by the Gentiles in this city, -and that they had some degree of regard for it, a fact which will be -corroborated by other texts. - -Several years after these things, the apostles assembled at Jerusalem -to consider the question of circumcision.[369] “Certain men which came -down from Judea,” finding the Gentiles uncircumcised, had “taught the -brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses -ye cannot be saved.” Had they found the Gentiles neglecting the Sabbath; -unquestionably this would have first called out their rebuke. It is -indeed worthy of notice that no dispute at this time existed in the -church relative to the observance of the Sabbath; for none was brought -before this apostolic assembly. Yet had it been true that the change of -the Sabbath was then advocated, or that Paul had taught the Gentiles to -neglect the Sabbath, without doubt those who brought up the question -of circumcision would have urged that of the Sabbath with even greater -earnestness. That the law of Moses, the observance of which was under -discussion in this assembly, is not the ten commandments, is evident -from several decisive facts. 1. Because that Peter calls the code under -consideration a _yoke_ which neither their fathers nor themselves were -able to bear. But James expressly calls that royal law, which, on his -own showing, embodies the ten commandments, a law of liberty. 2. Because -that this assembly did decide against the authority of the law of Moses; -and yet James, who was a member of this body, did some years afterward -solemnly enjoin obedience to the commandments, affirming that he who -violated one was guilty of all.[370] 3. Because the chief feature in the -law of Moses as here presented was circumcision.[371] But circumcision -was not in the ten commandments; and were it true that the law of Moses -includes these commandments, circumcision would not in that case be a -chief feature of that law. 4. Finally, because that the precepts still -declared obligatory are not properly either of the ten commandments. -These were, first, the prohibition of meats offered to idols; second, -of blood; third, of things strangled; and fourth, of fornication.[372] -Each of these precepts may be often found in the books of Moses,[373] and -the first and last ones come under the second and seventh commandments -respectively; but neither of these cover but a part of that which is -forbidden in either commandment. It is evident, therefore, that the -authority of the ten commandments was not under consideration in this -assembly, and that the decision of that assembly had no relation to -those precepts. For otherwise the apostles released the Gentiles from -all obligation to eight of the ten commandments, and from the greater -prohibitions contained in the other two. - -It is evident that those greatly err who represent the Gentiles as -released from the obligation of the Sabbath by this assembly. The -question did not come before the apostles on this occasion; a strong -proof that the Gentiles had not been taught to neglect the Sabbath, -as they had to omit circumcision, which was the occasion of its being -brought before the apostles at Jerusalem. Yet the Sabbath was referred -to in this very assembly as an existing institution, and that, too, -in connection with the Gentile Christians. Thus when James pronounced -sentence upon the question, he used the following language:— - - “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which - from among the Gentiles are turned to God; but that we write - unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and - from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. - For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, - being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.”[374] - -This last fact is given by James as a reason for the course proposed -toward the brethren among the Gentiles. “For Moses of old time hath in -every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every -Sabbath day.” From this it is apparent that the ancient custom of divine -worship upon the Sabbath was not only preserved by the Jewish people and -carried with them into every city of the Gentiles, but that the Gentile -Christians did attend these meetings. Otherwise the reason assigned by -James would lose all its force, as having no application to this case. -That they did attend them strongly attests the Sabbath as the day of -divine worship with the Gentile churches. - -That the ancient Sabbath of the Lord had neither been abrogated nor -changed prior to this meeting of the apostles, is strongly attested by -the nature of the dispute here adjusted. And the close of their assembly -beheld the Bible Sabbath still sacredly enthroned within the citadel of -the fourth commandment. After this, in a vision of the night, Paul was -called to visit Macedonia. In obedience to this call he came to Philippi, -which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia. Thus Luke records the -visit:— - - “And we were in that city abiding certain days. And on the - Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer - was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women - which resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a - seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshiped God, - heard us; whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto - the things which were spoken of Paul.”[375] - -This does not appear to have been a gathering of Jews, but of Gentiles, -who, like Cornelius, were worshipers of the true God. Thus it is seen -that the church of the Philippians originated with a pious assembly of -Sabbath-keeping Gentiles. And it is likely that Lydia and those employed -by her in business, who were evidently observers of the Sabbath, were the -means of introducing the gospel into their own city of Thyatira. - - “Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, - they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews. - And Paul, as his manner was,[376] went in unto them, and three - Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.... And - some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and - of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women - not a few.”[377] - -Such was the origin of the Thessalonian church. That it was an assembly -of Sabbath-keepers at its beginning admits of no doubt. For besides the -few Jews who received the gospel through the labors of Paul, there was -a great multitude of devout Greeks; that is, of Gentiles who had united -themselves with the Jews in the worship of God upon the Sabbath. We have -a strong proof of the fact that they continued to observe the Sabbath -after their reception of the gospel in the following words of Paul -addressed to them as a church of Christ:— - - “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God - which in Judea are in Christ Jesus.”[378] - -The churches in Judea, as we have seen, were observers of the Sabbath -of the Lord. The first Thessalonian converts, before they received the -gospel, were Sabbath-keepers, and when they became a Christian church -they adopted the churches in Judea as their proper examples. And this -church was adopted as an example by the churches of Macedonia and Achaia. -In this number were included the churches of Philippi and of Corinth. -Thus writes Paul:— - - “And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having - received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy - Ghost; so that ye were ensamples to all that believe in - Macedonia and Achaia. For from you sounded out the word of the - Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every - place your faith to Godward is spread abroad.”[379] - -After these things, Paul came to Corinth. Here, he first found Aquila and -Priscilla. - - “And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them and - wrought; for by their occupation they were tent-makers. And he - reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews - and the Greeks.”[380] - -At this place also Paul found Gentiles as well as Jews in attendance -upon the worship of God on the Sabbath. The first members of the church -at Corinth were therefore observers of the Sabbath at the time when they -received the gospel; and, as we have seen, they adopted as their pattern -the Sabbath-keeping church of Thessalonica, who in turn patterned after -the churches in Judea. - -The first churches were founded in the land of Judea. All their members -had from childhood been familiar with the law of God, and well understood -the precept, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Besides this -precept, all these churches had a peculiar memento of the Sabbath. They -knew from our Lord himself that the time was coming when they must all -suddenly flee from that land. And in view of this fact, they were to pray -that the moment of their sudden flight might not be upon the Sabbath; a -prayer which was designed, as we have seen, to preserve the sacredness of -the Sabbath. That the churches in Judea were composed of Sabbath-keeping -members, admits therefore of no doubt. - -Of the churches founded outside the land of Judea, whose origin is -given in the book of Acts, nearly all began with Jewish converts. -These were Sabbath-keepers when they received the gospel. Among these, -the Gentile converts were engrafted. And it is worthy of notice that -in a large number of cases, those Gentiles are termed “devout Greeks,” -“religious proselytes,” persons that “worshiped God,” that feared God and -that “prayed to God alway.”[381] These Gentiles, at the time of their -conversion to the gospel, were, as we have seen, worshipers of God upon -the Sabbath with the Jewish people. When James had proposed the kind of -letter that should be addressed by the apostles to the Gentile converts, -he assigned a reason for its adoption, the force of which can now be -appreciated: “For Moses,” said he, “of old time hath in EVERY CITY them -that preach him, being read in the synagogue every Sabbath day.” The -Sabbatarian character of the apostolic churches is thus clearly shown. - -In a letter addressed to the Corinthians, about five years after they had -received the gospel, Paul is supposed to contribute a fifth pillar to the -first-day temple. Thus he wrote them:— - - “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given - order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first - day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as - God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I - come.”[382] - -From this text it is argued in behalf of the first-day Sabbath, 1. That -this was a public collection. 2. That hence the first day of the week -was the day of public worship in the churches of Corinth and Galatia. 3. -And therefore that the Sabbath had been changed to that day. Thus the -change of the Sabbath is inferred from the public assemblies for divine -worship on the first day at Corinth and Galatia; and the existence of -these assemblies on that day is inferred from the words of Paul, “Upon -the first day of the week, let every one of you lay _by him_ in store.” - -What, then, do these words ordain? But one answer can be returned: -They ordain precisely the _reverse_ of a public collection. Each one -should lay by himself on each first day of the week according as God had -prospered him, that when Paul should arrive, they might have their bounty -ready. Mr. J. W. Morton, late Presbyterian missionary to Hayti, bears the -following testimony:— - - “The whole question turns upon the meaning of the expression, - ‘by him;’ and I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it - means ‘in the collection box of the congregation.’ Greenfield, - in his Lexicon, translates the Greek term, ‘_With one’s self, - i. e., at home_.’ Two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that - of Castellio, render it, ‘_apud se_,’ with one’s self; at - home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, - and De Sacy, ‘_chez soi_,’ at his own house; at home. The - German of Luther, ‘_bei sich selbst_,’ by himself; at home. - The Dutch, ‘_by hemselven_,’ same as the German. The Italian - of Diodati, ‘_appresso di se_,’ in his own presence; at home. - The Spanish of Felippe Scio, ‘_en su casa_,’ in his own house. - The Portuguese of Ferreira, ‘_para isso_,’ with himself. The - Swedish, ‘_nær sig self_,’ near himself.”[383] - -Dr. Bloomfield thus comments on the original: “παρ ἑαυτῶ, ‘by him.’ -French, _chez lui_, ‘at home.’”[384] - -The Douay Bible reads: “Let every one of you put apart with himself.” -Mr. Sawyer thus translates: “Let each one of you lay aside by himself.” -Theodore Beza’s Latin version has it: “_Apud se_,” _i.e._, at home. The -Syriac reads thus: “Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at home.” - -It is true that an eminent first-day writer, Justin Edwards, D. D., in a -labored effort to prove the change of the Sabbath, brings forward this -text to show that Sunday was the day of religious worship with the early -church. Thus he says:— - - “This laying by in store was NOT laying by AT HOME; for that - would not prevent gatherings when he should come.”[385] - -Such is his language as a theologian upon whom has fallen the difficult -task of proving the change of the Sabbath by the authority of the -Scriptures. But in his Notes on the New Testament, in which he feels at -liberty to speak the truth, he thus squarely contradicts his own language -already quoted. Thus he comments on this text:— - - “Lay by him in store; AT HOME. That there be no gatherings; - that their gifts might be ready when the apostle should - come.”[386] - -Thus even Dr. Edwards confesses that the idea of a public collection -is not found in this scripture. On the contrary, it appears that each -individual, in obedience to this precept, would, at the opening of each -new week, be found AT HOME laying aside something for the cause of -God, according as his worldly affairs would warrant. The change of the -Sabbath, as proved by this text, rests wholly upon an idea which Dr. -Edwards confesses is not found in it. We have seen that the church at -Corinth was a Sabbath-keeping church. It is evident that the change of -the Sabbath could never have been suggested to them by this text. - -This is the only scripture in which Paul even mentions the first day of -the week. It was written nearly thirty years after the alleged change of -the Sabbath. Yet Paul omits all titles of sacredness, simply designating -it as first day of the week; a name to which it was entitled as one of -“the six working days.”[387] It is also worthy of notice that this is the -only precept in the Bible in which the first day is even named; and that -this precept says nothing relative to the sacredness of the day to which -it pertains; even the duty which it enjoins being more appropriate to a -secular than to a sacred day. - -Soon after writing his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul visited -Troas. In the record of this visit occurs the last instance in which the -first day of the week is mentioned in the New Testament:— - - “And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened - bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days;[388] where - we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when - the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached - unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his - speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper - chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in - a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into - a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down - with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken - up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing - him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When - he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and - eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he - departed. And they brought the young man alive, and were not - a little comforted. And we went before to ship, and sailed - unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so had he - appointed, minding himself to go afoot.”[389] - -This scripture is supposed to furnish a sixth pillar for the first-day -temple. The argument may be concisely stated thus: This testimony shows -that the first day of the week was appropriated by the apostolic church -to meetings for the breaking of bread in honor of Christ’s resurrection -upon that day; from which it is reasonable to conclude that this day had -become the Christian Sabbath. - -If this proposition could be established as an undoubted truth, the -change of the Sabbath would not follow as a necessary conclusion; it -would even then amount only to a plausible conjecture. The following -facts will aid us in judging of the truthfulness of this argument for the -change of the Sabbath. 1. That this is the only instance of a religious -meeting upon the first day of the week recorded in the New Testament. 2. -That no stress can be laid upon the expression, “_when_ the disciples -came together,” as proving that meetings for the purpose of breaking -bread were held on each first day of the week; for there is nothing in -the original answering to the word “_when_;” the whole phrase being -translated from three words, the perfect passive participle συνηγμένων, -“being assembled,” and τῶν μαθητῶν, “the disciples;” the sacred writer -simply stating the gathering of the disciples on this occasion.[390] 3. -That the ordinance of breaking bread was not appointed to commemorate -the resurrection of Christ, but to keep in memory his death upon the -cross.[391] The act of breaking bread therefore upon the first day of the -week, is not a commemoration of Christ’s resurrection. 4. That as the -breaking of bread commemorates our Lord’s crucifixion, and was instituted -on the evening with which the crucifixion day began, on which occasion -Jesus himself and all the apostles were present,[392] it is evident that -the day of the crucifixion presents greater claims to the celebration -of this ordinance than does the day of the resurrection. 5. But as our -Lord designated no day for this ordinance, and as the apostolic church -at Jerusalem are recorded to have celebrated it daily,[393] it is -evidently presumption to argue the change of the Sabbath from a single -instance of its celebration upon the first day of the week. 6. That this -instance of breaking bread upon first-day, was with evident reference -to the immediate and final departure of Paul. 7. For it is a remarkable -fact that this, the only instance of a religious meeting on the first -day recorded in the New Testament, was a night meeting. This is proved -by the fact that many lights were burning in that assembly, and that -Paul preached till midnight. 8. And from this fact follows the important -consequence that this first-day meeting was upon Saturday night.[394] -For the days of the week being reckoned from evening to evening, and -evening being at sunset,[395] it is seen that the first day of the week -begins Saturday night at sunset, and ends at sunset on Sunday. A night -meeting, therefore, upon the first day of the week could be only upon -Saturday night. 9. Paul therefore preached until midnight of Saturday -night—for the disciples held a night meeting at the close of the Sabbath, -because he was to leave in the morning—then being interrupted by the fall -of the young man, he went down and healed him, then went up and attended -to the breaking of bread; and at break of day, on Sunday morning, he -departed. 10. Thus are we furnished with conclusive evidence that Paul -and his companions resumed their journey toward Jerusalem on the morning -of the first day of the week; they taking ship to Assos, and he being -pleased to go on foot. This fact is an incidental proof of Paul’s regard -for the Sabbath, in that he waited till it was past before resuming his -journey; and it is a positive proof that he knew nothing of what in -modern times is called the Christian Sabbath. 11. This narrative was -written by Luke at least thirty years after the alleged change of the -Sabbath. It is worthy of note that Luke omits all titles of sacredness, -simply designating the day in question as the first day of the week. -This is in admirable keeping with the fact that in his gospel, when -recording the very event which is said to have changed the Sabbath, -he not only omits the slightest hint of that fact, but designates the -day itself by its secular title of first day of the week, and at the -same time designates the previous day as the Sabbath according to the -commandment.[396] - -The same year that Paul visited Troas, he wrote as follows to the church -at Rome:— - - “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful - disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: - another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth - despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not - judge him that eateth; for God hath received him. Who art - thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master - he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up, for God - is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above - another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be - fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, - regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, - to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to - the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to - the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.”[397] - -These words have often been quoted to show that the observance of the -fourth commandment is now a matter of indifference; each individual being -at liberty to act his pleasure in the matter. So extraordinary a doctrine -should be thoroughly tested before being adopted. For as it pleased God -to ordain the Sabbath before the fall of man, and to give it a place in -his code of ten commandments, thus making it a part of that law to which -the great atonement relates; and as the Lord Jesus, during his ministry, -spent much time in explaining its merciful design, and took care to -provide against its desecration at the flight of his people from the land -of Judea, which was ten years in the future when these words were written -by Paul; and as the fourth commandment itself is expressly recognized -after the crucifixion of Christ; if, under these circumstances, we could -suppose it to be consistent with truth that the Most High should abrogate -the Sabbath, we certainly should expect that abrogation to be stated in -explicit language. Yet neither the Sabbath nor the fourth commandment are -here named. That they are not referred to in this language of Paul, the -following reasons will show:— - -1. Such a view would make the observance of one of the ten commandments -a matter of indifference; whereas James shows that to violate one of -them is to transgress the whole.[398] 2. It directly contradicts what -Paul had previously written in this epistle; for in treating of the law -of ten commandments, he styles it holy, spiritual, just, and good; and -states that sin—the transgression of the law—by the commandment becomes -“EXCEEDING SINFUL.”[399] 3. Because that Paul in the same epistle affirms -the perpetuity of that law which caused our Lord to lay down his life for -sinful men;[400] which we have seen before was the ten commandments. 4. -Because that Paul in this case not only did not name the Sabbath and the -fourth commandment, but certainly was not treating of the moral law. 5. -Because that the topic under consideration which leads him to speak as he -does of the days in question was that of eating all kinds of food, or of -refraining from certain things. 6. Because that the fourth commandment -did not stand associated with precepts of such a kind, but with moral -laws exclusively.[401] 7. Because that in the ceremonial law, associated -with the precepts concerning meats, was a large number of festivals, -entirely distinct from the Sabbath of the Lord.[402] 8. Because that -the church of Rome, which began probably with those Jews that were -present from Rome on the day of Pentecost, had many Jewish members in its -communion, as may be gathered from the epistle itself;[403] and would -therefore be deeply interested in the decision of this question relative -to the ceremonial law; the Jewish members feeling conscientious in -observing its distinctions, the Gentile members feeling no such scruples: -hence the admirable counsel of Paul exactly meeting the case of both -classes. 9. Nor can the expression, “every day,” be claimed as decisive -proof that the Sabbath of the Lord is included. At the very time when -the Sabbath was formally committed to the Hebrews, just such expressions -were used, although only the six working days were intended. Thus it was -said: “The people shall go out and gather a certain rate _every_ day;” -and the narrative says, “They gathered it _every_ morning.” Yet when some -of them went out to gather on the Sabbath, God says, “How long refuse -ye to keep my commandments and my laws?”[404] The Sabbath being a great -truth, plainly stated and many times repeated, it is manifest that Paul, -in the expression, “every day,” speaks of the six working days, among -which a distinction had existed precisely coeval with that respecting -meats; and that he manifestly excepts that day which from the beginning -God had reserved unto himself. Just as when Paul quotes and applies to -Jesus the words of David, “All things are put under him,” he adds: “It -is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him.”[405] -10. And lastly, in the words of John, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s -day,”[406] written many years after this epistle of Paul, we have an -absolute proof that in the gospel dispensation one day is still claimed -by the Most High as his own.[407] - -About ten years after this epistle was written, occurred the memorable -flight of all the people of God that were in the land of Judea. It was -not in the winter; for it occurred just after the feast of tabernacles, -some time in October. And it was not upon the Sabbath; for Josephus, -who speaks of the sudden withdrawal of the Roman army after it had, -by encompassing the city, given the very signal for flight which our -Lord promised his people, tells us that the Jews rushed out of the city -in pursuit of the retreating Romans, which was at the very time when -our Lord’s injunction of instant flight became imperative upon the -disciples. The historian does not intimate that the Jews thus pursued -the Romans upon the Sabbath, although he carefully notes the fact that a -few days previous to this event they did, in their rage, utterly forget -the Sabbath and rush out to fight the Romans upon that day. These -providential circumstances in the flight of the disciples being made -dependent upon their asking such interposition at the hand of God, it is -evident that the disciples did not forget the prayer which the Saviour -taught them relative to this event; and that, as a consequence, the -Sabbath of the Lord was not forgotten by them. And thus the Lord Jesus in -his tender care for his people and in his watchful care in behalf of the -Sabbath, showed that he was alike the Lord of his people and the Lord of -the Sabbath.[408] - -Twenty-six years after the destruction of Jerusalem, the book of -Revelation was committed to the beloved disciple. It bears the following -deeply interesting date as to place and time:— - - “I John, who also am your brother, and companion in - tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, - was in THE ISLE that is called PATMOS, for the word of God, and - for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on THE - LORD’S DAY, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, - saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last; and, What - thou seest, write in a book.”[409] - -This book is dated in the isle of Patmos, and upon the Lord’s day. The -place, the day, and the individual, have each a real existence, and not -merely a symbolical or mystical one. Thus John, almost at the close of -the first century, and long after those texts were written which are -now adduced to prove that no distinction in days exists, shows that the -Lord’s day has as real an existence, as has the isle of Patmos, or as had -the beloved disciple himself. - -What day, then, is intended by this designation? Several answers have -been returned to this question. 1. It is the gospel dispensation. 2. It -is the day of Judgment. 3. It is the first day of the week. 4. It is the -Sabbath of the Lord. The first answer cannot be the true one; for it not -only renders the day a mystical term, but it involves the absurdity of -representing John as writing to Christians sixty-five years after the -death of Christ, that the vision which he had just had, was seen by him -in the gospel dispensation; as though it were possible for them to be -ignorant of the fact that if he had a vision at all he must have it in -the existing dispensation. - -Nor can the second answer be admitted as the truth. For while it is -true that John might have a vision CONCERNING the day of Judgment, it -is impossible that he should have a vision ON that day when it was yet -future. If it be no more than an absurdity to represent John as dating -his vision in the isle of Patmos, on the gospel dispensation, it becomes -a positive untruth, if he is made to say that he was in vision at Patmos -on the day of Judgment. - -The third answer, that the Lord’s day is the first day of the week, is -now almost universally received as the truth. The text under examination -is brought forward with an air of triumph as completing the temple of -first-day sacredness, and proving beyond all doubt that that day is -indeed the Christian Sabbath. Yet as we have examined this temple with -peculiar carefulness, we have discovered that the foundation on which it -rests is a thing of the imagination only; and that the pillars by which -it is supported exist only in the minds of those who worship at its -shrine. It remains to be seen whether the dome which is supposed to be -furnished by this text is more real than the pillars on which it rests. - -That the first day of the week has no claim to the title of Lord’s day, -the following facts will show: 1. That, as this text does not define the -term Lord’s day, we must look elsewhere in the Bible for the evidence -that shows the first day to be entitled to such a designation. 2. That -Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, the other sacred writers who mention the -day, use no other designation for it than first day of the week, a name -to which it was entitled as one of the six working days. Yet three of -these writers mention it at the very time when it is said to have become -the Lord’s day; and two of them mention it also some thirty years after -that event. 3. That while it is claimed that the Spirit of inspiration, -by simply leading John to use the term Lord’s day, though he did in no -wise connect the first day of the week therewith, did design to fix this -as the proper title of the first day of the week, it is a remarkable -fact that after John returned from the isle of Patmos he wrote his -gospel;[410] and in that gospel he twice mentioned the first day of the -week; yet in each of these instances where it is certain that first-day -is intended, no other designation is used than plain first day of the -week. This is a most convincing proof that John did not regard the first -day of the week as entitled to this name, or any other, expressive of -sacredness. 4. What still further decides the point against the first -day of the week is the fact that neither the Father nor the Son have -ever claimed the first day in any higher sense than they have each of -the six days given to man for labor. 5. And what completes the chain of -evidence against the claim of first day to this title is the fact that -the testimony adduced by first-day advocates to prove that it has been -adopted by the Most High in place of that day which he once claimed as -his, having been examined, is found to have no such meaning or intent. -In setting aside the third answer, also, as not being in accordance with -truth, the first day of the week may be properly dismissed with it, as -having no claim to our regard as a scriptural institution.[411] - -That the Lord’s day is the Bible Sabbath, admits of clear and certain -proof. The argument stands thus: When God gave to man six days of the -week for labor, he did expressly reserve unto himself the seventh, on -which he placed his blessing in memory of his own act of resting upon -that day, and thenceforward, through the Bible, has ever claimed it -as his holy day. As he has never put away this sacred day and chosen -another, the Sabbath of the Lord is still his holy day. These facts may -be traced in the following scriptures. At the close of the Creator’s -rest, it is said:— - - “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.”[412] - -After the children of Israel had reached the wilderness of Sin, Moses -said to them on the sixth day:— - - “To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.”[413] - -In giving the ten commandments, the Law-giver thus stated his claim to -this day:— - - “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.... For - in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all - that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord - blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”[414] - -He gives to man the six days on which himself had labored; he reserves -as his own that day upon which he had rested from all his work. About -eight hundred years after this, God spoke by Isaiah as follows:— - - “If thou turn away thy foot from THE SABBATH, from doing thy - pleasure on MY HOLY DAY, ... then shalt thou delight thyself in - the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of - the earth.”[415] - -This testimony is perfectly explicit; the Lord’s day is the ancient -Sabbath of the Bible. The Lord Jesus puts forth the following claim:— - - “The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.”[416] - -Thus, whether it be the Father or the Son whose title is involved, the -only day that can be called “the Lord’s day” is the Sabbath of the -great Creator.[417] And here, at the close of the Bible history of the -Sabbath, two facts of deep interest are presented: 1. That John expressly -recognizes the existence of the Lord’s day at the very close of the first -century. 2. That it pleased the Lord of the Sabbath to place a signal -honor upon his own day in that he selected it as the one on which to give -that revelation to John, which himself alone had been worthy to receive -from the Father. - - - - -PART II—SECULAR HISTORY. - - - - -CHAPTER XII. - -EARLY APOSTASY IN THE CHURCH. - - General purity of the apostolic churches—Early decline of their - piety—False teachers arose in the church immediately after - the apostles—The great Romish apostasy began before the death - of Paul—An evil thing not rendered good by beginning in the - apostolic age—How to decide between truth and error—Age cannot - change the fables of men into the truth of God—Historical - testimony concerning the early development of the great - apostasy—Such an age no standard by which to correct the - Bible—Testimony of Bower relative to the traditions of this - age—Testimony of Dowling—Dr. Cumming’s opinion of the authority - of the fathers—Testimony of Adam Clarke—The church of Rome - has corrupted the writings of the fathers—Nature of tradition - illustrated—The two rules of faith which divide Christendom—The - first-day Sabbath can only be sustained by adopting the rule of - the Romanists. - - -The book of Acts is an inspired history of the church. During the period -which is embraced in its record, the apostles and their fellow-laborers -were upon the stage of action, and under their watchcare the churches of -Christ preserved, to a great extent, their purity of life and doctrine. -These apostolic churches are thus set forth as the proper examples for -all coming time. This book fitly connects the narratives of the four -evangelists with the apostolic epistles, and thus joins together the -whole New Testament. But when we leave the period embraced in this -inspired history, and the churches which were founded and governed -by inspired men, we enter upon altogether different times. There is, -unfortunately, great truth in the severe language of Gibbon:— - - “The theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing - religion as she descended from Heaven, arrayed in her native - purity. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He - must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption, - which she contracted in a long residence upon earth, among a - weak and degenerate race of beings.”[418] - -What says the book of Acts respecting the time immediately following the -labors of Paul? In addressing the elders of the Ephesian church, Paul -said:— - - “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves - enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own - selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away - disciples after them.”[419] - -It follows from this testimony that we are not authorized to receive -the teaching of any man simply because he lived immediately after the -apostolic age, or even in the days of the apostles themselves. Grievous -wolves were to enter the midst of the people of God, and of their own -selves were men to arise, speaking perverse things. If it be asked how -these are to be distinguished from the true servants of God, this is the -proper answer: Those who spoke and acted in accordance with the teachings -of the apostles were men of God; those who taught otherwise were of that -class who should speak perverse things to draw away disciples after them. - -What say the apostolic epistles relative to this apostasy? To the -Thessalonians, it is written:— - - “Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall - not come, except there come a falling away first, and that - man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth - and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that - is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of - God, showing himself that he is God.... For the mystery of - iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth will let, - until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked - be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit - of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his - coming.”[420] - -To Timothy, in like manner, it is said:— - - “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, - rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine. For the - time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but - after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, - having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from - the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”[421] - -These texts are most explicit in predicting a great apostasy in the -church, and in stating the fact that that apostasy had already commenced. -The Romish church, the eldest in apostasy, prides itself upon its -apostolic character. In the language of Paul to the Thessalonians, -already quoted, that great Antichristian body may indeed find its claim -to an origin in apostolic times vindicated, but its apostolic character -most emphatically denied. And herein is found a striking illustration -of the fact that an evil thing is not rendered good by the accidental -circumstance of its originating in the days of the apostles. Every -thing, at its commencement, is either right or wrong. If right, it may be -known by its agreement with the divine standard. If wrong at its origin, -it can never cease to be such. Satan’s great falsehood which involved our -race in ruin has not yet become the truth, although six thousand years -have elapsed since it was uttered. Think of this, ye who worship at the -shrine of venerable error. When the fables of men obtained the place of -the truth of God, he was thereby dishonored. How, then, can he accept -obedience to them as any part of that pure devotion which he requires at -our hands? They that worship God must worship him in Spirit and in truth. -How many ages must pass over the fables of men before they become changed -into divine truth? That these predictions of the New Testament respecting -the great apostasy in the church were fully realized, the pages of -ecclesiastical history present ample proof. Mr. Dowling, in his History -of Romanism, bears the following testimony:— - - “There is scarcely anything which strikes the mind of the - careful student of ancient ecclesiastical history with greater - surprise than the comparatively early period at which many of - the corruptions of Christianity, which are embodied in the - Romish system, took their rise; yet it is not to be supposed - that when the first originators of many of these unscriptural - notions and practices planted those germs of corruption, they - anticipated or even imagined they would ever grow into such a - vast and hideous system of superstition and error, as is that - of popery.... Each of the great corruptions of the latter ages - took its rise in a manner which it would be harsh to say was - deserving of strong reprehension.... The worship of images, the - invocation of saints, and the superstition of relics, were but - expansions of the natural feelings of veneration and affection - cherished toward the memory of those who had suffered and died - for the truth.”[422] - -Robinson, author of the “History of Baptism,” bears the following -testimony:— - - “Toward the latter end of the second century most of the - churches assumed a new form, the first simplicity disappeared; - and insensibly, as the old disciples retired to their graves, - their children along with new converts, both Jews and Gentiles, - came forward and new modeled the cause.”[423] - -The working of the mystery of iniquity in the first centuries of the -Christian church is thus described by a recent writer:— - - “During these centuries the chief corruptions of popery were - either introduced in principle, or the seeds of them so - effectually sown as naturally to produce those baneful fruits - which appeared so plentifully at a later period. In Justin - Martyr’s time, within fifty years of the apostolic age, the - cup was mixed with water, and a portion of the elements sent - to the absent. The bread, which at first was sent only to the - sick, was, in the time of Tertullian and Cyprian, carried home - by the people and locked up as a divine treasure for their - private use. At this time, too, the ordinance of the supper - was given to infants of the tenderest age, and was styled the - sacrifice of the body of Christ. The custom of praying for the - dead, Tertullian states, was common in the second century, and - became the universal practice of the following ages; so that it - came in the fourth century to be reckoned a kind of heresy to - deny the efficacy of it. By this time the invocation of saints, - the superstitious use of images, of the sign of the cross, and - of consecrated oil, were become established practices, and - pretended miracles were confidently adduced in proof of their - supposed efficacy. Thus did that mystery of iniquity, which was - already working in the time of the apostles, speedily after - their departure, spread its corruptions among the professors of - Christianity.”[424] - -Neander speaks thus of the early introduction of image worship:— - - “And yet, perhaps, religious images made their way from - domestic life into the churches, as early as the end of the - third century; and the walls of the churches were painted in - the same way.”[425] - -The early apostasy of the professed church is a fact which rests upon -the authority of inspiration, not less than upon that of ecclesiastical -history. “The mystery of iniquity,” said Paul, “doth already work.” We -are constrained to marvel that so large a portion of the people of God -were _so soon_ removed from the grace of God unto another gospel. - -What shall be said of those who go to this period of church history, and -even to later times, to correct their Bibles? Paul said that men would -rise in the very midst of the elders of the apostolic church, who would -speak perverse things, and that men would turn away their ears from the -truth, and would be turned unto fables. Are the traditions of this period -of sufficient importance to make void God’s word? The learned historian -of the popes, Archibald Bower, uses the following emphatic language:— - - “To avoid being imposed upon, we ought to treat tradition as - we do a notorious and known liar, to whom we give no credit, - unless what he says is confirmed to us by some person of - undoubted veracity.... False and lying traditions are of - an early date, and the greatest men have, out of a pious - credulity, suffered themselves to be imposed upon by them.”[426] - -Mr. Dowling bears a similar testimony:— - - “‘The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of - Protestants!’ Nor is it of any account in the estimation of - the genuine Protestant _how early_ a doctrine originated, if - it is not found in the Bible. He learns from the New Testament - itself that there were errors in the time of the apostles, and - that their pens were frequently employed in combating those - errors. Hence, if a doctrine be propounded for his acceptance, - he asks, Is it to be found in the inspired word? Was it taught - by the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles?... More than this, - we will add, that though Cyprian, or Jerome, or Augustine, - or even the fathers of an earlier age, Tertullian, Ignatius, - or Irenæus, could be plainly shown to teach the unscriptural - doctrines and dogmas of Popery, which, however, is by no means - admitted, still the consistent Protestant would simply ask, Is - the doctrine to be found in the Bible? Was it taught by Christ - and his apostles?... He who receives a single doctrine upon the - mere authority of tradition, let him be called by what name he - will, by so doing steps down from the Protestant rock, passes - over the line which separates Protestantism from Popery, and - can give no valid reason why he should not receive all the - earlier doctrines and ceremonies of Romanism upon the same - authority.”[427] - -Dr. Cumming of London thus speaks of the authority of the fathers of the -early church:— - - “Some of these were distinguished for their genius, some for - their eloquence, a few for their piety, and too many for - their fanaticism and superstition. It is recorded by Dr. - Delahogue (who was Professor in the Roman Catholic College of - Maynooth), on the authority of Eusebius, that the fathers who - were really most fitted to be the luminaries of the age in - which they lived, were too busy in preparing their flocks for - martyrdom to commit anything to writing; and, therefore, by - the admission of this Roman Catholic divine, we have not the - full and fair exponent of the views of all the fathers of the - earlier centuries, but only of those who were most ambitious of - literary distinction, and least attentive to their charges.... - The most devoted and pious of the fathers were busy teaching - their flocks; the more vain and ambitious occupied their time - in preparing treatises. If all the fathers who signalized - the age had committed their sentiments to writing, we might - have had a fair representation of the theology of the church - of the fathers; but as only a few have done so (many even of - their writings being mutilated or lost), and these not the - most devoted and spiritually minded, I contend that it is as - unjust to judge of the theology of the early centuries by - the writings of the few fathers who are its only surviving - representatives, as it would be to judge of the theology of the - nineteenth century by the sermons of Mr. Newman, the speeches - of Dr. Candlish, or the various productions of the late Edward - Irving.”[428] - -Dr. Adam Clarke bears the following decisive testimony on the same -subject:— - - “But of these we may safely state that there is not a _truth_ - in the most orthodox creed that cannot be proved by their - authority; nor a _heresy_ that has disgraced the Romish church, - that may not challenge them as its abettors. In points of - _doctrine_, their authority is, _with me_, nothing. The WORD of - God alone contains my creed. On a number of points I can go to - the Greek and Latin fathers of the church to know what _they - believed_; and what the people of their respective communions - believed: but after all this, I must return to God’s word to - know what he would have _me_ to believe.”[429] - -In his life, he uses the following strong language:— - - “We should take heed how we quote the fathers in proof of the - doctrines of the gospel; because he who knows them best, knows - that on many of those subjects they blow hot and cold.”[430] - -The following testimonies will in part explain the unreliable nature of -the fathers. Thus Ephraim Pagitt testifies:— - - “The church of Rome having been conscious of their errors and - corruptions, both in faith and manners, have sundry times, - pretended reformations; yet their great pride and infinite - profit, arising from purgatory, pardons, and such like, hath - hindered all such reformations. Therefore, to maintain their - greatness, errors, and new articles of faith, 1. They have - corrupted many of the ancient fathers, and reprinting them, - make them speak as they would have them.... 2. They have - written many books in the names of these ancient writers, - and forged many decrees, canons, and councils, to bear false - witness to them.”[431] - -And Wm. Reeves testifies to the same fact:— - - “The church of Rome has had all the opportunities of time, - place, and power, to establish the kingdom of darkness; and - that in coining, clipping, and washing, the primitive records - to their own good liking, they have not been wanting to - themselves, is notoriously evident.”[432] - -The traditions of the early church are considered by many quite as -reliable as the language of the Holy Scriptures. A single instance taken -from the Bible will illustrate the character of tradition, and show the -amount of reliance that can be placed upon it:— - - “Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus - loved, following (which also leaned on his breast at supper, - and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?); Peter seeing - him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus - saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is - that to thee? Follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad - among the brethren, that that disciple should not die; yet - Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that - he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”[433] - -Here is the account of a tradition which actually originated in the very -bosom of the apostolic church, which nevertheless handed down to the -following generations an entire mistake. Observe how carefully the word -of God corrects this error. - -Two rules of faith really embrace the whole Christian world. One of these -is the word of God alone; the other is the word of God and the traditions -of the church. Here they are:— - - I. THE RULE OF THE MAN OF GOD, THE BIBLE ALONE. - - “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is - profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for - instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be - perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”[434] - - II. THE RULE OF THE ROMANIST, THE BIBLE AND TRADITION. - - “If we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and - practice, we must not be content with those scriptures which - Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament - alone; nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along - with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation - of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book - and the true meaning of it.”[435] - -It is certain that the first-day Sabbath cannot be sustained by the -first of these rules; for the word of God says nothing respecting such -an institution. The second of these rules is necessarily adopted by all -those who advocate the sacredness of the first day of the week. For the -writings of the fathers and the traditions of the church furnish all the -testimony which can be adduced in support of that day. To adopt the first -rule is to condemn the first-day Sabbath as a human institution. To adopt -the second is virtually to acknowledge that the Romanists are right; for -it is by this rule that they are able to sustain their unscriptural -dogmas. Mr. W. B. Taylor, an able anti-Sabbatarian writer, states this -point with great clearness:— - - “The triumph of the consistent Roman Catholic over all - observers of Sunday, calling themselves Protestants, is indeed - complete and unanswerable.... It should present a subject - of very grave reflection to Christians of the reformed and - evangelical denominations, to find that no single argument or - suggestion can be offered in favor of Sunday observance, that - will not apply with equal force and to its fullest extent in - sustaining the various other ‘holy days’ appointed by ‘the - church.’”[436] - -Listen to the argument of a Roman Catholic:— - - “The word of God commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath - of our Lord, and to be kept holy: you [Protestants] without any - precept of Scripture, change it to the first day of the week, - only authorized by our traditions. Divers English Puritans - oppose against this point, that the observation of the first - day is proved out of Scripture, where it is said ‘the first day - of the week.’[437] Have they not spun a fair thread in quoting - these places? If we should produce no better for purgatory - and prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints, and the - like, they might have good cause indeed to laugh us to scorn; - for where is it written that these were Sabbath days in which - those meetings were kept? Or where is it ordained they should - be always observed? Or, which is the sum of all, where is it - decreed that the observation of the first day should abrogate - or abolish the sanctifying of the seventh day, which God - commanded everlastingly to be kept holy? Not one of those is - expressed in the written word of God.”[438] - -Whoever therefore enters the lists in behalf of the first-day Sabbath, -must of necessity do this—though perhaps not aware of the fact—under the -banner of the church of Rome. - - - - -CHAPTER XIII. - -THE SUNDAY-LORD’S DAY NOT TRACEABLE TO THE APOSTLES. - - General statement respecting the Ante-Nicene fathers—The - change of the Sabbath never mentioned by one of these - fathers—Examination of the historical argument for Sunday as - the Lord’s day—This argument compared with the like argument - for the Catholic festival of the Passover. - - -The Ante-Nicene fathers[439] are those Christian writers who flourished -after the time of the apostles, and before the Council of Nice, A. D. -325. Those who govern their lives by the volume of Inspiration do not -recognize any authority in these fathers to change any precept of that -book, nor any authority in them to add any new precepts to it. But -those whose rule of life is the Bible as modified by tradition, regard -the early fathers of the church as nearly or quite equal in authority -with the inspired writers. They declare that the fathers conversed with -the apostles; or if they did not do this, they conversed with some who -had seen some of the apostles; or at least they lived within a few -generations of the apostles, and so learned by tradition, which involved -only a few transitions from father to son, what was the true doctrine of -the apostles. - -Thus with perfect assurance they supply the lack of inspired testimony -in behalf of the so-called Christian Sabbath by plentiful quotations -from the early fathers. What if there be no mention of the change of the -Sabbath in the New Testament? And what if there be no commandment for -resting from labor on the first day of the week? Or, what if there be no -method revealed in the Bible by which the first day of the week can be -enforced by the fourth commandment? They supply these serious omissions -in the Scriptures by testimonies which they say were written by men who -lived during the first three hundred years after the apostles. - -On such authority as this the multitude dare to change the Sabbath of the -fourth commandment. But next to the deception under which men fall when -they are made to believe that the Bible may be corrected by the fathers, -is the deception practiced upon them as to what the fathers actually -teach. It is asserted that the fathers bear explicit testimony to the -change of the Sabbath by Christ as a historical fact, and that they knew -that this was so because they had conversed with the apostles, or with -some who had conversed with them. It is also asserted that the fathers -called the first day of the week the Christian Sabbath, and that they -refrained from labor on that day as an act of obedience to the fourth -commandment. - -Now it is a most remarkable fact that every one of these assertions -is false. The people who trust in the fathers as their authority for -departing from God’s commandment are miserably deceived as to what the -fathers teach. - -1. The fathers are so far from testifying that the apostles told them -Christ changed the Sabbath, that not even one of them ever alludes to the -idea of such a change. - -2. No one of them ever calls the first day the Christian Sabbath, nor -indeed ever calls it a Sabbath of any kind. - -3. They never represent it as a day on which ordinary labor was sinful; -nor do they represent the observance of Sunday as an act of obedience to -the fourth commandment. - -4. The modern doctrine of the change of the Sabbath was therefore -absolutely unknown in the first centuries of the Christian church.[440] - -But though no statement asserting the change of the Sabbath can be -produced from the writings of the fathers of the first three hundred -years, it is claimed that their testimony furnishes decisive proof that -the first day of the week is the Lord’s day of Rev. 1:10. The biblical -argument that the Lord’s day is the seventh day and no other, because -that day alone is in the Holy Scriptures claimed by the Father and the -Son as belonging in a peculiar sense to each, is given in chapter eleven, -and is absolutely decisive. But this is set aside without answer, and the -claim of the first day to this honorable distinction is substantiated out -of the fathers as follows:— - -The term Lord’s day as a name for the first day of the week can be traced -back through the first three centuries, from the fathers who lived -toward their close, to the ones next preceding who mention the first day, -and so backward by successive steps till we come to one who lived in -John’s time, and was his disciple; and this disciple of John calls the -first day of the week the Lord’s day. It follows therefore that John must -have intended the first day of the week by the term Lord’s day, but did -not define his meaning because it was familiarly known by that name in -his time. Thus by history we prove the first day of the week to be the -Lord’s day of Rev. 1:10; and then by Rev. 1:10, we prove the first day -of the week to be the sacred day of this dispensation; for the spirit of -inspiration by which John wrote would not have called the first day by -this name if it were only a human institution, and if the seventh day was -still by divine appointment the Lord’s holy day. - -This is a concise statement of the strongest argument for first-day -sacredness which can be drawn from ecclesiastical history. It is the -argument by which first-day writers prove Sunday to be the day called by -John the Lord’s day. This argument rests upon the statement that Lord’s -day as a name for Sunday can be traced back to the disciples of John, and -that it is the name by which that day was familiarly known in John’s time. - -But this entire statement is false. The truth is, no writer of the first -century, and no one of the second, prior to A. D. 194, who is known to -speak of the first day of the week, ever calls it the Lord’s day! Yet the -first day is seven times mentioned by the sacred writers _before_ John’s -vision upon Patmos on the Lord’s day, and is twice mentioned by John -in his gospel which he wrote _after_ his return from that island, and -is mentioned some sixteen times by ecclesiastical writers of the second -century prior to A. D. 194, and never in a single instance is it called -the Lord’s day! We give all the instances of its mention in the Bible. -Moses, in the beginning, by divine inspiration, gave to the day its name, -and though the resurrection of Christ is said to have made it the Lord’s -day, yet every sacred writer who mentions the day after that event still -adheres to the plain name of first day of the week. Here are all the -instances in which the inspired writers mention the day:— - -Moses, B. C. 1490. “The evening and the morning were the first day.” Gen. -1:5. - -Matthew, A. D. 41. “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward -the first day of the week.” Matt. 28:1. - -Paul, A. D. 57. “Upon the first day of the week.” 1 Cor. 16:2. - -Luke, A. D. 60. “Now upon the first day of the week.” Luke 24:1. - -Luke, A. D. 63. “And upon the first day of the week.” Acts 20:7. - -Mark, A. D. 64. “And very early in the morning, the first day of the -week.” Mark 16:2. “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the -week.” Verse 9. - -After the resurrection of Christ, and before John’s vision, A. D. 96, the -day is six times mentioned by inspired men, and every time as plain first -day of the week. It certainly was not familiarly known as Lord’s day -before the time of John’s vision. To speak the exact truth, it was not -called by that name at all, nor by any other name equivalent to that, -nor is there any record of its being set apart by divine authority as -such. - -But in the year 96, John says, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” -Rev. 1:10. Now it is evident that this must be a day which the Lord had -set apart for himself, and which he claimed as his. This was all true in -the case of the seventh day, but was not in any respect true in that of -the first day. He could not therefore call the first day by this name, -for it was not such. But if the Spirit of God designed at this point to -create a new institution and to call a certain day the Lord’s day which -before had never been claimed by him as such, it was necessary that he -should specify that new day. He did not define the term, which proves -that he was not giving a sacred name to some new institution, but was -speaking of a well-known, divinely appointed day. But _after_ John’s -return from Patmos, he wrote his gospel,[441] and in that gospel he twice -had occasion to mention the first day of the week. Let us see whether he -adheres to the manner of the other sacred writers, or whether, when we -know he means the first day, he gives to it a sacred name. - -John, A. D. 97. “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early.” -John 20:1. “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the -week.” Verse 19. - -These texts complete the Bible record of the first day of the week. They -furnish conclusive evidence that John did not receive new light in vision -at Patmos, bidding him call the first day of the week the Lord’s day, and -when taken with all the instances preceding, they constitute a complete -demonstration that the first day was not familiarly known as the Lord’s -day in John’s time, nor indeed known at all by that name then. Let us now -see whether Lord’s day as a title for the first day can be traced back to -John by means of the writings of the fathers. - -The following is a concise statement of the testimony by which the -fathers are made to prove that John used the term Lord’s day as a name -for the first day of the week. A chain of seven successive witnesses, -commencing with one who was the disciple of John, and extending forward -through several generations, is made to connect and identify the Lord’s -day of John with the Sunday-Lord’s day of a later age. Thus, Ignatius, -the disciple of John, is made to speak familiarly of the first day -as the Lord’s day. This is directly connecting the fathers and the -apostles. Then the epistle of Pliny, A. D. 104, in connection with the -Acts of the Martyrs, is adduced to prove that the martyrs in his time -and forward were tested as to their observance of Sunday, the question -being, “Have you kept the Lord’s day?” Next, Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, -is made to speak of Sunday as the Lord’s day. After this, Theophilus of -Antioch, A. D. 168, is brought forward to bear a powerful testimony to -the Sunday-Lord’s day. Then Dionysius of Corinth, A. D. 170, is made to -speak to the same effect. Next Melito of Sardis, A. D. 177, is produced -to confirm what the others have said. And finally, Irenæus, A. D. 178, -who had been the disciple of Polycarp, who had been the disciple of John -the apostle, is brought forward to bear a decisive testimony in behalf of -Sunday as the Lord’s day and the Christian Sabbath. - -These are the first seven witnesses who are cited to prove Sunday the -Lord’s day. They bring us nearly to the close of the second century. They -constitute the chain of testimony by which the Lord’s day of the apostle -John is identified with the Sunday-Lord’s day of later times. First-day -writers present these witnesses as proving positively that Sunday is -the Lord’s day of the Scriptures, and the Christian church accepts this -testimony in the absence of that of the inspired writers. But the folly -of the people, and the wickedness of those who lead them, may be set -forth in one sentence:— - -The first, second, third, fourth, and seventh, of these testimonies are -inexcusable frauds, while the fifth and sixth have no decisive bearing -upon the case. - -1. Ignatius, the first of these witnesses, it is said, must have known -Sunday to be the Lord’s day, for he calls it such, and he had conversed -with the apostle John. But in the entire writings of this father the term -Lord’s day does not once occur, nor is there in them all a single mention -of the first day of the week! The reader will find a critical examination -of the epistles of Ignatius in chapter fourteen of this history. - -2. It is a pure fabrication that the martyrs in Pliny’s time, about A. D. -104, and thence onward, were tested by the question whether they had kept -the Sunday-Lord’s day. No question at all resembling this is to be found -in the words of the martyrs till we come to the fourth century, and then -the reference is not at all to the first day of the week. This is fully -shown in chapter fifteen. - -3. The Bible Dictionary of the American Tract Society, page 379, brings -forward the third of these Sunday-Lord’s day witnesses in the person of -Justin Martyr, A. D. 140. It makes him call Sunday the Lord’s day by -quoting him as follows:— - - “Justin Martyr observes that ‘on the Lord’s day all Christians - in the city or country meet together, because that is the day - of our Lord’s resurrection.’” - -But Justin never gave to Sunday the title of Lord’s day, nor indeed any -other sacred title. Here are his words correctly quoted:— - - “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the - country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the - apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read, as long as - time permits,” etc.[442] - -Justin speaks of the day called Sunday. But that he may be made to help -establish its title to the name of Lord’s day, his words are deliberately -changed. Thus the third witness to Sunday as the Lord’s day, like the -first and the second, is made such by fraud. But the fourth fraud is even -worse than the three which precede. - -4. The fourth testimony to the Sunday-Lord’s day is furnished in Dr. -Justin Edwards’ Sabbath Manual, p. 114:— - - “Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, about A. D. 162, says: ‘Both - custom and reason challenge from us that we should honor _the - Lord’s day_, seeing on that day it was that our Lord Jesus - completed his resurrection from the dead.’” - -Dr. Edwards does not pretend to give the place in Theophilus where these -words are to be found. Having carefully and minutely examined every -paragraph of the writings of Theophilus several times over, I state -emphatically that nothing of the kind is to be found in that writer. He -never uses the term Lord’s day, and he does not even speak of the first -day of the week. These words which are so well adapted to create the -impression that the Sunday-Lord’s day is of apostolic institution, are -put into his mouth by the falsehood of some one. - -Here are four frauds, constituting the first four instances of the -alleged use of Lord’s day as a name for Sunday. Yet it is by means of -these very frauds that the Sunday-Lord’s day of later ages is identified -with the Lord’s day of the Bible. Somebody invented these frauds. The use -to which they are put plainly indicates the purpose for which they were -framed. The title of Lord’s day must be proved to pertain to Sunday by -apostolic authority. For this purpose these frauds were a necessity. The -case of the Sunday-Lord’s day may be fitly illustrated by that of the -long line of popes. Their apostolic authority as head of the Catholic -church depends on their being able to identify the apostle Peter as the -first of their line, and to prove that his authority was transmitted to -them. There is no difficulty in tracing back their line to the early -ages, though the earliest Roman bishops were modest, unassuming men, -wholly unlike the popes of after times. But when they come to make Peter -the head of their line, and to identify his authority and theirs, they -can do it only by fraudulent testimonials. And such is the case with -first-day observance. It may be traced back as a festival to the time of -Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, but the day had then no sacred name, and at -that time claimed no apostolic authority. But these must be secured at -any cost, and so its title of Lord’s day is by a series of fraudulent -testimonials traced to the apostle John, as in like manner the authority -of the popes is traced to the apostle Peter. - -5. The fifth witness of this series is Dionysius of Corinth, A. D. 170. -Unlike the four which have been already examined, Dionysius actually uses -the term Lord’s day, though he says nothing identifying it with the first -day of the week. His words are these:— - - “To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have - read your epistle; in reading which we shall always have our - minds stored with admonition, as we shall, also, from that - written to us before by Clement.”[443] - -The epistle of Dionysius to Soter, bishop of Rome, from which this -sentence is taken, has perished. Eusebius, who wrote in the fourth -century, has preserved to us this sentence, but we have no knowledge of -its connection. First-day writers quote Dionysius as the fifth of their -witnesses that Sunday is the Lord’s day. They say that Sunday was so -familiarly known as Lord’s day in the time of Dionysius, that he calls it -by that name without even stopping to tell what day he meant. - -But it is not honest to present Dionysius as a witness to the -Sunday-Lord’s day, for he makes no application of the term. But it is -said he certainly meant Sunday because that was the familiar name of the -day in his time, even as is indicated by the fact that he did not define -the term. And how is it known that Lord’s day was the familiar name of -Sunday in the time of Dionysius? The four witnesses already examined -furnish all the evidence in proof of this, for there is no writer this -side of Dionysius who calls Sunday the Lord’s day until almost the entire -period of a generation has elapsed. So Dionysius constitutes the fifth -witness of the series by virtue of the fact that the first four witnesses -prove that in his time, Lord’s day was the common name for first day of -the week. But the first four testify to nothing of the kind until the -words are by fraud put into their mouths! Dionysius is a witness for the -Sunday-Lord’s day because that four fraudulent testimonials from the -generations preceding him fix this as the meaning of his words! And the -name Lord’s day must have been a very common one for first day of the -week because Dionysius does not define the term! And yet those who say -this know that this _one_ sentence of his epistle remains, while the -connection, which doubtless fixed his meaning, has perished. - -But Dionysius does not merely use the term Lord’s day. He uses a stronger -term than this—“the Lord’s _holy_ day.” Even for a long period after -Dionysius, no writer gives to Sunday so sacred a title as “the Lord’s -holy day.” Yet this is the very title given to the Sabbath in the Holy -Scriptures, and it is a well-ascertained fact that at this very time it -was extensively observed, especially in Greece, the country of Dionysius, -and that, too, as an act of obedience to the fourth commandment.[444] - -6. The sixth witness in this remarkable series is Melito of Sardis, A. -D. 177. The first four, who never use the term Lord’s day, are by direct -fraud made to call Sunday by that name; the fifth, who speaks of the -Lord’s holy day, is claimed on the strength of these frauds to have meant -by it Sunday; while the sixth is not certainly proved to have spoken of -any day! Melito wrote several books now lost, the titles of which have -been preserved to us by Eusebius.[445] One of these, as given in the -English version of Eusebius, is “On the Lord’s Day.” Of course, first-day -writers claim that this was a treatise concerning Sunday, though down to -this point no writer calls Sunday by this name. But it is an important -fact that the word _day_ formed no part of the title of Melito’s book. It -was a discourse on something pertaining to the Lord—ὁ περι τῆς κυριακῆς -λόγος—but the essential word ἡμερας, _day_, is wanting. It may have been -a treatise on the life of Christ, for Ignatius thus uses these words -in connection: κυριακὴν ζωὴν, _Lord’s life_. Like the sentence from -Dionysius, it would not even seem to help the claim of Sunday to the -title of Lord’s day were it not for the series of frauds in which it -stands. - -7. The seventh witness summoned to prove that Lord’s day was the -apostolic title of Sunday, is Irenæus. Dr. Justin Edwards professes to -quote him as follows:—[446] - - “Hence Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, who - had been the companion of the apostles, A. D. 167 [it should be - A. D. 178], says that the Lord’s day was the Christian Sabbath. - His words are, ‘On the Lord’s day every one of us Christians - keeps the Sabbath, meditating on the law, and rejoicing in the - works of God.’” - -This witness is brought forward in a manner to give the utmost weight and -authority to his words. He was the disciple of that eminent Christian -martyr, Polycarp, and Polycarp was the companion of the apostles. What -Irenæus says is therefore in the estimation of many as worthy of our -confidence as though we could read it in the writings of the apostles. -Does not Irenæus call Sunday the Christian Sabbath and the Lord’s day? -Did he not learn these things from Polycarp? And did not Polycarp get -them from the fountain head? What need have we of further witness that -Lord’s day is the apostolic name for Sunday? What if the six earlier -witnesses have failed us? Here is one that says all that can be asked, -and he had his doctrine from a man who had his from the apostles! - -Why then does not this establish the authority of Sunday as the Lord’s -day? The first reason is that neither Irenæus nor any other man can add -to or change one precept of the word of God, on any pretense whatever. -We are never authorized to depart from the words of the inspired writers -on the testimony of men who conversed with the apostles, or rather who -conversed with some who had conversed with them. But the second reason is -that every word of this pretended testimony of Irenæus is a fraud! Nor -is there a single instance in which the term Lord’s day is to be found -in any of his works, nor in any fragment of his works preserved in other -authors![447] And this completes the seven witnesses by whom the Lord’s -day of the Catholic church is traced back to and identified with the -Lord’s day of the Bible! It is not till A. D. 194, sixteen years after -the latest of these witnesses, that we meet the first instance in which -Sunday is called the Lord’s day. In other words, Sunday is not called the -Lord’s day till ninety-eight years after John was upon Patmos, and one -hundred and sixty-three years after the resurrection of Christ! - -But is not this owing to the fact that the records of that period have -perished? By no means; for the day is six times mentioned by the inspired -writers between the resurrection of Christ, A. D. 31, and John’s vision -upon Patmos, A. D. 96; namely, by Matthew, A. D. 41; by Paul, A. D. 57; -by Luke, A. D. 60, and A. D. 63; and by Mark, A. D. 64; and always as -first day of the week. John, after his return from Patmos, A. D. 97, -twice mentions the day, still calling it first day of the week. - -After John’s time, the day is next mentioned in the so-called epistle of -Barnabas, written probably as early as A. D. 140, and is there called -“the eighth day.” Next it is mentioned by Justin Martyr in his Apology, -A. D. 140, once as “the day on which we all hold our common assembly;” -once as “the first day on which God ... made the world;” once as “the -same day [on which Christ] rose from the dead;” once as “the day after -that of Saturn;” and three times as “Sunday,” or “the day of the sun.” -Next the day is mentioned by Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, -A. D. 155, in which he twice calls it the “eighth day;” once “the first -of all the days;” once as “the first” “of all the days of the [weekly] -cycle;” and twice as “the first day after the Sabbath.” Next it is once -mentioned by Irenæus, A. D. 178, who calls it simply “the first day of -the week.” And next it is mentioned once by Bardesanes, who calls it -simply “the first of the week.” The variety of names by which the day is -mentioned during this time is remarkable; but it is _never_ called Lord’s -day, nor ever called by _any sacred_ name. - -Though Sunday is mentioned in so many different ways during the second -century, it is not till we come almost to the close of that century that -we find the first instance in which it is called Lord’s day. Clement, -of Alexandria, A. D. 194, uses this title with reference to “the eighth -day.” If he speaks of a natural day, he no doubt means Sunday. It is not -certain, however, that he speaks of a natural day, for his explanation -gives to the term an entirely different sense. Here are his words:— - - “And the Lord’s day Plato prophetically speaks of in the tenth - book of the _Republic_, in these words: ‘And when seven days - have passed to each of them in the meadow, on the eighth they - are to set out and arrive in four days.’ By the meadow is to be - understood the fixed sphere, as being a mild and genial spot, - and the locality of the pious; and by the seven days, each - motion of the seven planets, and the whole practical art which - speeds to the end of rest. But after the wandering orbs, the - journey leads to Heaven, that is, to the eighth motion and day. - And he says that souls are gone on the fourth day, pointing out - the passage through the four elements. But the seventh day is - recognized as sacred, not by the Hebrews only, but also by the - Greeks; according to which the whole world of all animals and - plants revolve.”[448] - -Clement was originally a heathen philosopher, and these strange -mysticisms which he here puts forth upon the words of Plato are only -modifications of his former heathen notions. Though Clement says -that Plato speaks of the Lord’s day, it is certain that he does not -understand him to speak of literal days nor of a literal meadow. On the -contrary, he interprets the meadow to represent “the fixed sphere, as -being a mild and genial spot, and the locality of the pious;” which must -refer to their future inheritance. The seven days are not so many literal -days, but they represent “each motion of the seven planets, and the whole -practical art which speeds to the end of rest.” This seems to represent -the present period of labor which is to end in the rest of the saints. -For he adds: “But after the wandering orbs [represented by Plato’s seven -days] the journey leads to _Heaven_, that is, to _the eighth_ motion and -_day_.” The seven days, therefore, do here represent the period of the -Christian’s pilgrimage, and the eighth day of which Clement here speaks -is not Sunday, but Heaven itself! Here is the first instance of Lord’s -day as a name for the eighth day, but this eighth day is a mystical one, -and means Heaven! - -But Clement uses the term Lord’s day once more, and this time clearly, as -representing, not a literal day, but the whole period of our regenerate -life. For he speaks of it in treating of fasting, and he sets forth -fasting as consisting in abstinence from sinful pleasures, not only in -deeds, to use his distinction, as forbidden by the law, but in thoughts, -as forbidden by the gospel. Such fasting pertains to the entire life of -the Christian. And thus Clement sets forth what is involved in observing -this duty in the gospel sense:— - - “He, in fulfillment of the precept, according to the gospel, - keeps the Lord’s day, when he abandons an evil disposition, - and assumes that of the Gnostic, glorifying the Lord’s - resurrection in himself.”[449] - -From this statement we learn, not merely his idea of fasting, but also -that of celebrating the Lord’s day, and glorifying the resurrection of -Christ. This, according to Clement, does not consist in paying special -honors to Sunday, but in abandoning an evil disposition, and in assuming -that of the Gnostic, a Christian sect to which he belonged. Now it is -plain that this kind of Lord’s-day observance pertains to no one day -of the week, but embraces the entire life of the Christian. Clement’s -Lord’s day was not a literal, but a mystical, day, embracing, according -to this, his second use of the term, the entire regenerate life of the -Christian; and according to his first use of the term, embracing also the -future life in Heaven. And this view is confirmed by Clement’s statement -of the contrast between the Gnostic sect to which he belonged and other -Christians. He says of their worship that it was “NOT ON SPECIAL DAYS, -as some others, but _doing this continually_ in our whole life.” And -he speaks further of the worship of the Gnostic that it was “_not_ in -a specified place, or selected temple, or at certain festivals, and on -appointed days, _but during his whole life_.”[450] - -It is certainly a very remarkable fact that the first writer who speaks -of the Lord’s day as the eighth day uses the term, not with reference to -a literal, but a mystical, day. It is not Sunday, but the Christian’s -life, or Heaven itself! This doctrine of a perpetual Lord’s day, we -shall find alluded to in Tertullian, and expressly stated in Origen, who -are the next two writers that use the term Lord’s day. But Clement’s -mystical or perpetual Lord’s day shows that he had no idea that John, by -Lord’s day, meant Sunday; for in that case, he must have recognized that -as the true Lord’s day, and the Gnostics’ special day of worship. - -Tertullian, A. D. 200, is the next writer who uses the term Lord’s day. -He defines his meaning, and fixes the name upon the day of Christ’s -resurrection. Kitto[451] says this is “the earliest authentic instance” -in which the name is thus applied, and we have proved this true by -actual examination of every writer, unless the reader can discover some -reference to Sunday in Clement’s mystical eighth day. Tertullian’s words -are these:— - - “We, however (just as we have received), only on the Lord’s - day of the resurrection [_solo die dominico resurrexionis_] - ought to guard, not only against kneeling, but every posture - and office of solicitude; deferring even our business, lest we - give any place to the devil. Similarly, too, in the period of - Pentecost; which period we distinguish by the same solemnity of - exultation.”[452] - -Twice more does Tertullian use the term Lord’s day, and once more does he -define it, this time calling it the “eighth day.” And in each of these -two cases does he place the day which he calls Lord’s day in the same -rank with the Catholic festival of Pentecost, even as he does in the -instance already quoted. As the second instance of Tertullian’s use of -Lord’s day, we quote a portion of the rebuke which he addressed to his -brethren for mingling with the heathen in their festivals. He says:— - - “Oh! better fidelity of the nations to their own sects, which - claims no solemnity of the Christians for itself! Not the - Lord’s day, not Pentecost, _even if they had known them_, would - they have shared with us; for they would fear lest they should - seem to be Christians. _We_ are not apprehensive lest we seem - to be _heathens_! If any indulgence is to be granted to the - flesh, you have it. I will not say your own days, but more - too; for to the _heathens_ each festive day occurs but once - annually; _you_ have a festive day every eighth day.”[453] - -The festival which Tertullian here represents as coming every eighth day -was no doubt the one which he has just called the Lord’s day. Though he -elsewhere[454] speaks of the Sunday festival as observed at least by some -portion of the heathen, he here speaks of the Lord’s day as unknown to -those heathen of whom he now writes. This strongly indicates that the -Sunday festival had but recently begun to be called by the name of Lord’s -day. But he once more speaks of the Lord’s day:— - - “As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings - for the dead as birth-day honors. We count fasting or kneeling - in worship on the Lord’s day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the - same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday [the Pentecost]. - We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, - be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at - every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, - when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, - on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, - we trace upon the forehead the sign [of the cross]. - - “If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having - positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition - will be held forth to you as the _originator_ of them, custom - as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason - will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either - yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has.”[455] - -This completes the instances in which Tertullian uses the term Lord’s -day, except a mere allusion to it in his discourse on Fasting. It is very -remarkable that in each of the three cases, he puts it on a level with -the festival of Whitsunday, or Pentecost. He also associates it directly -with “offerings for the dead” and with the use of “the sign of the -cross.” When asked for authority from the Bible for these things, he does -not answer, “We have the authority of John for the Lord’s day, though we -have nothing but tradition for the sign of the cross and offerings for -the dead.” On the contrary, he said there was no Scripture injunction for -any of them. If it be asked, How could the title of Lord’s day be given -to Sunday except by tradition derived from the apostles? the answer will -be properly returned, What was the origin of offerings for the dead? -And how did the sign of the cross come into use among Christians? The -title of Lord’s day as a name for Sunday is no nearer apostolic than is -the sign of the cross, and offerings for the dead; for it can be traced -no nearer to apostolic times than can these most palpable errors of the -great apostasy. - -Clement taught a perpetual Lord’s day; Tertullian held a similar view, -asserting that Christians should celebrate a perpetual Sabbath, not by -abstinence from labor, but from sin.[456] Tertullian’s method of Sunday -observance will be noticed hereafter. - -Origen, A. D. 231, is the third of the ancient writers who call “the -eighth day” the Lord’s day. He was the disciple of Clement, the first -writer who makes this application. It is not strange, therefore, that he -should teach Clement’s doctrine of a perpetual Lord’s day, nor that he -should state it even more distinctly than did Clement himself. Origen, -having represented Paul as teaching that all days are alike, continues -thus:— - - “If it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are - accustomed to observe certain days, as for example the Lord’s - day, the Preparation, the Passover, or Pentecost, I have to - answer, that to the perfect Christian, who is ever in his - thoughts, words, and deeds, serving his natural Lord, God the - Word, all his days are the Lord’s, and he is always keeping the - Lord’s day.”[457] - -This was written some forty years after Clement had propounded his -doctrine of the Lord’s day. The imperfect Christian might honor a Lord’s -day which stood in the same rank with the Preparation, the Passover, -and the Pentecost. But the perfect Christian observed the true Lord’s -day, which embraced all the days of his regenerate life. Origen uses -the term Lord’s day for two different days. 1. For a natural day, which -in his judgment stood in the same rank with the Preparation day, the -Passover, and the Pentecost. 2. For a mystical day, as did Clement, which -is the entire period of the Christian’s life. The mystical day, in his -estimation, was the true Lord’s day. It therefore follows that he did not -believe Sunday to be the Lord’s day by apostolic appointment. But, after -Origen’s time, Lord’s day becomes a common name for the so-called eighth -day. Yet these three men, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen, who first -make this application, not only do not claim that this name was given to -the day by the apostles, but do plainly indicate that they had no such -idea. Offerings for the dead and the use of the sign of the cross are -found as near to apostolic times as is the use of Lord’s day as a name -for Sunday. The three have a common origin, as shown by Tertullian’s own -words. Origen’s views of the Sabbath, and of the Sunday festival, will be -noticed hereafter. - -Such is the case with the claim of Sunday to the title of Lord’s day. The -first instance of its use, if Clement be supposed to refer to Sunday, is -not till almost one century after John was in vision upon Patmos. Those -who first call it by that name had no idea that it was such by divine or -apostolic appointment, as they plainly show. In marked contrast with this -is the Catholic festival of the Passover. Though never commanded in the -New Testament, it can be traced back to men who say that they had it from -the apostles! - -Thus the churches of Asia Minor had the festival from Polycarp who, -as Eusebius states the claim of Polycarp, had “observed it with John -the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles with whom he -associated.”[458] Socrates says of them that they maintain that this -observance “was delivered to them by the apostle John.”[459] Anatolius -says of these Asiatic Christians that they received “the rule from an -unimpeachable authority, to wit, the evangelist John.”[460] - -Nor was this all. The western churches also, with the church of Rome -at their head, were strenuous observers of the Passover festival. They -also traced the festival to the apostles. Thus Socrates says of them: -“The Romans and those in the western parts assure us that their usage -originated with the apostles Peter and Paul.”[461] But he says these -parties cannot prove this by written testimony. Sozomen says of the -Romans, with respect to the Passover festival, that they “have never -deviated from their original usage in this particular; the custom having -been handed down to them by the holy apostles Peter and Paul.”[462] - -If the Sunday-Lord’s day could be traced to a man who claimed to have -celebrated it with John and other of the apostles, how confidently -would this be cited as proving positively that it is an apostolic -institution! And yet this can be done in the case of the Passover -festival! Nevertheless, a single fact in the case of this very festival -is sufficient to teach us the folly of trusting in tradition. Polycarp -claimed that John and other of the apostles taught him to observe the -festival on the fourteenth day of the first month, whatever day of -the week it might be; while the elders of the Roman church asserted -that Peter and Paul taught them that it must be observed on the Sunday -following Good Friday![463] - -The Lord’s day of the Catholic church can be traced no nearer to John -than A. D. 194, or perhaps in strict truth to A. D. 200, and those -who then use the name show plainly that they did not believe it to be -the Lord’s day by apostolic appointment. To hide these fatal facts by -seeming to trace the title back to Ignatius the disciple of John, and -thus to identify Sunday with the Lord’s day of that apostle, a series -of remarkable frauds has been committed which we have had occasion to -examine. But even could the Sunday-Lord’s day be traced to Ignatius, -the disciple of John, it would then come no nearer being an apostolic -institution than does the Catholic festival of the Passover, which can -be traced to Polycarp, another of John’s disciples, who claimed to have -received it from John himself! - - - - -CHAPTER XIV. - -THE FIRST WITNESSES FOR SUNDAY. - - Origin of Sunday observance the subject of present - inquiry—Contradictory statements of Mosheim and Neander—The - question between them stated, and the true data for deciding - that question—The New Testament furnishes no support for - Mosheim’s statement—Epistle of Barnabas a forgery—The testimony - of Pliny determines nothing in the case—The epistle of Ignatius - probably spurious, and certainly interpolated so far as it is - made to sustain Sunday—Decision of the question. - - -The first day of the week is now almost universally observed as the -Christian Sabbath. The origin of this institution is still before us -as the subject of inquiry. This is presented by two eminent church -historians; but so directly do they contradict each other, that it is a -question of curious interest to determine which of them states the truth. -Thus Mosheim writes respecting the first century:— - - “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 of - Jerusalem, was founded upon the express appointment of the - apostles, who consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose, - and was observed universally throughout the Christian churches, - as appears from the united testimonies of the most credible - writers.”[464] - -Now let us read what Neander, the most distinguished of church -historians, says of this apostolic authority for Sunday observance:— - - “The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always - only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions 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.”[465] - -How shall we determine which of these historians is in the right? Neither -of them lived in the apostolic age of the church. Mosheim was a writer -of the eighteenth century, and Neander, of the nineteenth. Of necessity -therefore they must learn the facts in the case from the writings of -that period which have come down to us. These contain all the testimony -which can have any claim to be admitted in deciding this case. These are, -first, the inspired writings of the New Testament; second, the reputed -productions of such writers of that age as are supposed to mention the -first day, viz., the epistle of Barnabas; the letter of Pliny, governor -of Bythinia, to the emperor Trajan; and the epistle of Ignatius. These -are all the writings prior to the middle of the second century—and this -is late enough to amply cover the ground of Mosheim’s statement—which can -be introduced as even referring to the first day of the week. - -The questions to be decided by this testimony are these: Did the apostles -set apart Sunday for divine worship (as Mosheim affirms)? or does the -evidence in the case show that the festival of Sunday, like all other -festivals, was always only a human ordinance (as is affirmed by Neander)? - -It is certain that the New Testament contains no appointment of Sunday -for the solemn celebration of public worship. And it is equally true that -there is no example of the church of Jerusalem on which to found such -observance. The New Testament therefore furnishes no support[466] for the -statement of Mosheim. - -The three epistles which have come down to us purporting to have been -written in the apostolic age, or immediately subsequent to that age, next -come under examination. These are all that remain to us of a period more -extended than that embraced in the statement of Mosheim. He speaks of the -first century only; but we summon all the writers of that century, and -of the following one prior to the time of Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, who -are even supposed to mention the first day of the week. Thus the reader -is furnished with all the data in the case. The epistle of Barnabas -speaks as follows in behalf of first-day observance:— - - “Lastly he saith unto them, Your new-moons and your sabbaths I - cannot bear them. Consider what he means by it; the sabbaths, - says he, which ye now keep, are not acceptable unto me, but - those which I have made; when resting from all things, I shall - begin the eighth day, that is, the beginning of the other - world; for which cause we observe the eighth day with gladness, - in which Jesus arose from the dead, and having manifested - himself to his disciples, ascended into Heaven.”[467] - -It might be reasonably concluded that Mosheim would place great reliance -upon this testimony as coming from an apostle, and as being somewhat -better suited to sustain the sacredness of Sunday than anything -previously examined by us. Yet he frankly acknowledges that this epistle -is spurious. Thus he says:— - - “The epistle of Barnabas was the production of some Jew, - who, most probably, lived in this century, and whose mean - abilities and superstitious attachment to Jewish fables, show, - notwithstanding the uprightness of his intentions, that he must - have been a very different person from the true Barnabas, who - was St. Paul’s companion.”[468] - -In another work, Mosheim says of this epistle:— - - “As to what is suggested by some, of its having been written by - that Barnabas who was the friend and companion of St. Paul, the - futility of such a notion is easily to be made apparent from - the letter itself; several of the opinions and interpretations - of Scripture which it contains, having in them so little of - either truth, dignity or force, as to render it impossible that - they could ever have proceeded from the pen of a man divinely - instructed.”[469] - -Neander speaks thus of this epistle:— - - “It is impossible that we should acknowledge this epistle to - belong to that Barnabas who was worthy to be the companion of - the apostolic labors of St. Paul.”[470] - -Prof. Stuart bears a similar testimony:— - - “That a man by the name of Barnabas wrote this epistle I doubt - not; that the chosen associate of Paul wrote it, I with many - others must doubt.”[471] - -Dr. Killen, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, to the General Assembly -of the Presbyterian church of Ireland, uses the following language:— - - “The tract known as the Epistle of Barnabas was probably - composed in A. D. 135. It is the production apparently of a - convert from Judaism who took special pleasure in allegorical - interpretation of Scripture.”[472] - -Prof. Hackett bears the following testimony:— - - “The letter still extant, which was known as that of Barnabas - even in the second century, cannot be defended as genuine.”[473] - -Mr. Milner speaks of the reputed epistle of Barnabas as follows:— - - “It is a great injury to him to apprehend the epistle, which - goes by his name, to be his.”[474] - -Kitto speaks of this production as, - - “The so-called epistle of Barnabas, probably a forgery of the - second century.”[475] - -Says the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, speaking of the Barnabas of -the New Testament:— - - “He could not be the author of a work so full of forced - allegories, extravagant and unwarrantable explications of - Scripture, together with stories concerning beasts, and such - like conceits, as make up the first part of this epistle.”[476] - -Eusebius, the earliest of church historians, places this epistle in the -catalogue of spurious books. Thus he says:— - - “Among the spurious must be numbered both the books called, - ‘The Acts of Paul,’ and that called, ‘Pastor,’ and ‘The - Revelation of Peter.’ Besides these the books called ‘The - Epistle of Barnabas,’ and what are called, ‘The Institutions of - the Apostles.’”[477] - -Sir Wm. Domville speaks as follows:— - - “But the epistle was not written by Barnabas; it was not merely - unworthy of him,—it would be a disgrace to him, and what is of - much more consequence, it would be a disgrace to the Christian - religion, as being the production of one of the authorized - teachers of that religion in the times of the apostles, which - circumstance would seriously damage the evidence of its divine - origin. Not being the epistle of Barnabas, the document is, as - regards the Sabbath question, nothing more than the testimony - of some unknown writer to the practice of Sunday observance by - some Christians of some unknown community, at some uncertain - period of the Christian era, with no sufficient ground for - believing that period to have been the first century.”[478] - -Coleman bears the following testimony:— - - “The epistle of Barnabas, bearing the honored name of the - companion of Paul in his missionary labors, is evidently - spurious. It abounds in fabulous narratives, mystic, - allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament, and fanciful - conceits, and is generally agreed by the learned to be of no - authority.”[479] - -As a specimen of the unreasonable and absurd things contained in this -epistle, the following passage is quoted:— - - “Neither shalt thou eat of the hyena: that is, again, be not an - adulterer; nor a corrupter of others; neither be like to such. - And wherefore so? Because that creature every year changes its - kind, and is sometimes male, and sometimes female.”[480] - -Thus first-day historians being allowed to decide the case, we are -authorized to treat this epistle as a forgery. And whoever will read -its ninth chapter—for it will not bear quoting—will acknowledge the -justice of this conclusion. This epistle is the only writing purporting -to come from the first century except the New Testament, in which the -first day is even referred to. That this furnishes no support for Sunday -observance, even Mosheim acknowledges. - -The next document that claims our attention is the letter of Pliny, the -Roman governor of Bythinia, to the emperor Trajan. It was written about -A. D. 104. He says of the Christians of his province:— - - “They affirmed that the whole of their guilt or error was, that - they met on a certain stated day, before it was light, and - addressed themselves in a form of prayer to Christ, as to some - god, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes - of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or - adultery; never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when - they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was - their custom to separate, and then re-assemble to eat in common - a harmless meal.”[481] - -This epistle of Pliny certainly furnishes no support for Sunday -observance. The case is presented in a candid manner by Coleman. He says -of this extract:— - - “This statement is evidence that these Christians kept a day as - holy time, but whether it was the last or the first day of the - week, does not appear.”[482] - -Charles Buck, an eminent first-day writer, saw no evidence in this -epistle of first-day observance, as is manifest from the indefinite -translation which he gives it. Thus he cites the epistle:— - - “These persons declare that their whole crime, if they are - guilty, consists in this: that on certain days they assemble - before sunrise to sing alternately the praises of Christ as of - God.”[483] - -Tertullian, who wrote A. D. 200, speaks of this very statement of Pliny -thus:— - - “He found in their religious services nothing but meetings _at - early morning_ for singing hymns to Christ and God, and sealing - home their way of life by a united pledge to be faithful to - their religion, forbidding murder, adultery, dishonesty, and - other crimes.”[484] - -Tertullian certainly found in this no reference to the festival of Sunday. - -Mr. W. B. Taylor speaks of this stated day as follows:— - - “As the Sabbath day appears to have been quite as commonly - observed at this date as the sun’s day (if not even more so), - it is just as probable that this ‘stated day’ referred to by - Pliny was the seventh day, as that it was the first day; though - the latter is generally _taken for granted_.”[485] - -Taking for granted the very point that should be proved, is no new -feature in the evidence thus far examined in support of first-day -observance. Although Mosheim relies on this expression of Pliny as a -chief support of Sunday, yet he speaks thus of the opinion of another -learned man:— - - “B. Just. Hen. Boehmer, would indeed have us to understand this - day to have been the same with the Jewish Sabbath.”[486] - -This testimony of Pliny was written a few years subsequent to the time -of the apostles. It relates to a church which probably had been founded -by the apostle Peter.[487] It is certainly far more probable that this -church, only forty years after the death of Peter, was keeping the fourth -commandment, than that it was observing a day never enjoined by divine -authority. It must be conceded that this testimony from Pliny proves -nothing in support of Sunday observance; for it does not designate what -day of the week was thus observed. - -The epistles of Ignatius of Antioch so often quoted in behalf of -first-day observance, next claim our attention. He is represented as -saying:— - - “Wherefore if they who are brought up in these ancient laws - came nevertheless to the newness of hope; no longer observing - sabbaths, but keeping the Lord’s day, in which also our life - is sprung up by him, and through his death, whom yet some - deny (by which mystery we have been brought to believe, - and therefore wait that we may be found the disciples of - Jesus Christ, our only master): how shall we be able to - live different from him; whose disciples the very prophets - themselves being, did by the Spirit expect him as their - master.”[488] - -Two important facts relative to this quotation are worthy of particular -notice: 1. That the epistles of Ignatius are acknowledged to be spurious -by first-day writers of high authority; and those epistles which some -of them except as possibly genuine, do not include in their number the -epistle to the Magnesians from which the above quotation is made, nor do -they say anything relative to first-day observance. 2. That the epistle -to the Magnesians would say nothing of any day, were it not that the -word day had been fraudulently inserted by the translator! In support of -the first of these propositions the following testimony is adduced. Dr. -Killen speaks as follows:— - - “In the sixteenth century, fifteen letters were brought out - from beneath the mantle of a hoary antiquity, and offered - to the world as the productions of the pastor of Antioch. - Scholars refused to receive them on the terms required, and - forthwith eight of them were admitted to be forgeries. In - the seventeenth century, the seven remaining letters, in a - somewhat altered form, again came forth from obscurity, and - claimed to be the works of Ignatius. Again discerning critics - refused to acknowledge their pretensions; but curiosity was - roused by this second apparition, and many expressed an earnest - desire to obtain a sight of the real epistles. Greece, Syria, - Palestine, and Egypt, were ransacked in search of them, and - at length three letters are found. The discovery creates - general gratulation; it is confessed that four of the epistles - so lately asserted to be genuine, are apocryphal; and it is - boldly said that the three now forthcoming are above challenge. - But truth still refuses to be compromised, and sternly disowns - these claimants for her approbation. The internal evidence of - these three epistles abundantly attests that, like the last - three books of the Sibyl, they are only the last shifts of a - grave imposture.”[489] - -The same writer thus states the opinion of Calvin:— - - “It is no mean proof of the sagacity of the great Calvin, - that, upwards of three hundred years ago, he passed a sweeping - sentence of condemnation on these Ignatian epistles.”[490] - -Of the three epistles of Ignatius still claimed as genuine, Prof. C. F. -Hudson speaks as follows:— - - “Ignatius of Antioch was martyred probably A. D. 115. Of the - eight epistles ascribed to him, three are genuine; viz., those - addressed to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans.”[491] - -It will be observed that the three epistles which are here mentioned as -genuine do not include that epistle from which the quotation in behalf of -Sunday is taken, and it is a fact also that they contain no allusion to -Sunday. Sir Wm. Domville, an anti-Sabbatarian writer, uses the following -language:— - - “Every one at all conversant with such matters is aware that - the works of Ignatius have been more interpolated and corrupted - than those of any other of the ancient fathers; and also that - some writings have been attributed to him which are wholly - spurious.”[492] - -Robinson, an eminent English Baptist writer of the last century, -expresses the following opinion of the epistles ascribed to Ignatius, -Barnabas, and others:— - - “If any of the writings attributed to those who are called - apostolical fathers, as Ignatius, teacher at Antioch, Polycarp, - at Smyrna, Barnabas, who was half a Jew, and Hermas, who was - brother to Pius, teacher at Rome, if any of these be genuine, - of which there is great reason to doubt, they only prove the - piety and illiteracy of the good men. Some are worse, and - the best not better, than the godly epistles of the lower - sort of Baptists and Quakers in the time of the civil war in - England. Barnabas and Hermas both mention baptism; but both of - these books are contemptible reveries of wild and irregular - geniuses.”[493] - -The doubtful character of these Ignatian epistles is thus sufficiently -attested. The quotation in behalf of Sunday is not taken from one of -the three epistles that are still claimed as genuine; and what is still -further to be observed, it would say nothing in behalf of any day were it -not for an extraordinary license, not to say fraud, which the translator -has used in inserting the word _day_. This fact is shown with critical -accuracy by Kitto, whose Cyclopedia is in high repute among first-day -scholars. Thus he presents the original of Ignatius with comments and a -translation as follows:— - - “We must here notice one other passage ... as bearing on the - subject of the Lord’s day, though it certainly contains no - mention of it. It occurs in the epistle of Ignatius to the - Magnesians (about A. D. 100.) The whole passage is confessedly - obscure, and the text may be corrupt.... The passage is as - follows:— - - Εἰ οὖν ὁι ἐν πἀλαιοῖς πράγμασιν ἀναστραφέντες, εἰς καινότητα - ἐλπίδος ἤλθον—μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες, ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν ζωὴν - ζῶντες—(ἐν ἡ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν δὶ’ ἀυτοῦ, etc.)[494] - - “Now many commentators assume (on what ground does not appear), - that after κυριακὴν [Lord’s] the word ἡμέραν [day] is to be - understood.... Let us now look at the passage simply as it - stands. The defect of the sentence is the want of a substantive - to which ἀυτοῦ can refer. This defect, so far from being - remedied, is rendered still more glaring by the introduction of - ἡμέρα. Now if we take κυριακὴ ζωὴ as simply ‘the life of the - Lord,’ having a more personal meaning, it certainly goes nearer - to supplying the substantive to ἀυτοῦ.... Thus upon the whole - the meaning might be given thus:— - - “If those who lived under the old dispensation have come to - the newness of hope, no longer keeping sabbaths, but living - according to our Lord’s life (in which, as it were, our life - has risen again through him, &c.).... - - “On this view the passage does not refer at all to the Lord’s - day; but even on the opposite supposition it cannot be regarded - as affording any positive evidence to the early use of the term - ‘Lord’s day’ (for which it is often cited), since the material - word ἡμέρα [day] is purely conjectural.”[495] - -The learned Morer, a clergyman of the church of England, confirms this -statement of Kitto. He renders Ignatius thus:— - - “If therefore they who were well versed in the works of ancient - days came to newness of hope, not sabbatizing, but living - according to the dominical life, &c.... The Medicean copy, the - best and most like that of Eusebius, leaves no scruple, because - ζωὴν is expressed and determines the word dominical to the - person of Christ, and not to the day of his resurrection.”[496] - -Sir Wm. Domville speaks on this point as follows:— - - “Judging therefore by the tenor of the epistle itself, the - literal translation of the passage in discussion, ‘no longer - observing sabbaths, but living according to the Lord’s life,’ - appears to give its true and proper meaning; and if this be - so, Ignatius, whom Mr. Gurney[497] puts forward as a material - witness to prove the observance of the Lord’s day in the - beginning of the second century, fails to prove any such fact, - it appearing on a thorough examination of his testimony that he - does not even mention the Lord’s day, nor in any way allude to - the religious observance of it, whether by that name or by any - other.”[498] - -It is manifest, therefore, that this famous quotation has no reference -whatever to the first day of the week, and that it furnishes no evidence -that that day was known in the time of Ignatius by the title of Lord’s -day.[499] The evidence is now before the reader which must determine -whether Mosheim or Neander spoke in accordance with the facts in -the case. And thus it appears that in the New Testament, and in the -uninspired writers of the period referred to, there is absolutely nothing -to sustain the strong Sunday statement of Mosheim. When we come to the -fourth century, we shall find a statement by him which essentially -modifies what he has here said. Of the epistles ascribed to Barnabas, -Pliny, and Ignatius, we have found that the first is a forgery; that the -second speaks of a stated day without defining what one; and that the -third, which is probably a spurious document, would say nothing relative -to Sunday, if the advocates of first-day sacredness had not interpolated -the word _day_ into the document! We can hardly avoid the conclusion -that Mosheim spoke on this subject as a doctor of divinity, and not as -a historian; and with the firmest conviction that we speak the truth, -we say with Neander, “The festival of Sunday was always only a human -ordinance.” - - - - -CHAPTER XV. - -EXAMINATION OF A FAMOUS FALSEHOOD. - - Were the martyrs in Pliny’s time and afterward tested by the - question whether they had kept Sunday or not?—Argument in the - affirmative quoted from Edwards—Its origin—No facts to sustain - such an argument prior to the fourth century—A single instance - at the opening of that century all that can be claimed in - support of the assertion—Sunday not even alluded to in that - instance—Testimony of Mosheim relative to the work in which - this is found. - - -Certain doctors of divinity have made a special effort to show that -the “stated day” of Pliny’s epistle is the first day of the week. For -this purpose they adduce a fabulous narrative which the more reliable -historians of the church have not deemed worthy of record. The argument -is this: That in Pliny’s time and afterward, that is, from the close of -the first century and onward, whenever the Christians were brought before -their persecutors for examination, they were asked whether they had kept -the Lord’s day, this term being used to designate the first day of the -week. And hence two facts are asserted to be established: 1. That when -Pliny says that the Christians who were examined by him were accustomed -to meet on a stated day, that day was undoubtedly the first day of the -week. 2. That the observance of the first day of the week was the grand -test by which Christians were known to their heathen persecutors. 3. That -Lord’s day was the name by which the first day of the week was known in -the time of Pliny, a few years after the death of John. To prove these -points, Dr. Edwards makes the following statement:— - - “Hence the fact that their persecutors, when they wished to - know whether men were Christians, were accustomed to put to - them this question, viz., ‘_Dominicum servasti?_’—‘Hast thou - kept the Lord’s day?’ If they had they were Christians. This - was the badge of their Christianity, in distinction from Jews - and pagans. And if they said they had, and would not recant, - they must be put to death. And what, when they continued - steadfast, was their answer? ‘_Christianus sum; intermittere - non possum_;’—‘I am a Christian; I cannot omit it.’ It is - a badge of my religion, and the man who assumes it must of - course keep the Lord’s day, because it is the will of his Lord; - and should he abandon it, he would be an apostate from his - religion.”[500] - -Mr. Gurney, an English first-day writer of some note, uses the same -argument and for the same purpose.[501] The importance attached to this -statement, and the prominence given to it by the advocates of first-day -sacredness, render it proper that its merits should be examined. Dr. -Edwards gives no authority for his statement; but Mr. Gurney traces the -story to Dr. Andrews, bishop of Winchester, who claimed to have taken -it from the _Acta Martyrum_, an ancient collection of the acts of the -martyrs. It was in the early part of the seventeenth century that Bishop -Andrews first brought this forward in his speech in the court of Star -Chamber, against Thraske, who was accused before that arbitrary tribunal -of maintaining the heretical opinion that Christians are bound to keep -the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. The story was first produced, -therefore, for the purpose of confounding an observer of the Sabbath when -on trial by his enemies for keeping that day. Sir Wm. Domville, an able -anti-Sabbatarian writer, thus traces out the matter:— - - “The bishop, as we have seen, refers to the _Acta_ of the - martyrs as justifying his assertion respecting the question, - _Dominicum servasti?_ but he does not cite a single instance - from them in which that question was put. We are left therefore - to hunt out the instances for ourselves, wherever, if anywhere, - they are to be found. The most complete collection of the - memoirs and legends still extant, relative to the lives and - sufferings of the Christian martyrs, is that by Ruinart, - entitled, ‘_Acta primorum Martyrum sincera et selecta_.’ I have - carefully consulted that work, and I take upon myself to affirm - that among the questions there stated to have been put to the - martyrs in and before the time of Pliny, and for nearly two - hundred years afterwards, the question, _Dominicum servasti?_ - does not once occur; nor any equivalent question.”[502] - -This shows at once that no proof can be obtained from this quarter, -either that the “stated day” of Pliny was the first day of the week, or -that the martyrs of the early church were tested by the question whether -they had observed it or not. It also shows the statement to be false -that the martyrs of Pliny’s time called Sunday the Lord’s day and kept -it as such. After quoting all the questions put to martyrs in and before -Pliny’s time, and thus proving that no such question as is alleged, was -put to them, Domville says:— - - “This much may suffice to show that _Dominicum servasti?_ - was no question in Pliny’s time, as Mr. Gurney intends us to - believe it was. I have, however, still other proof of Mr. - Gurney’s unfair dealing with the subject, but I defer stating - it for the present, that I may proceed in the inquiry, What may - have been the authority on which Bishop Andrews relied when - stating that _Dominicum servasti?_ was ever a usual question - put by the heathen persecutors? I shall with this view pass - over the martyrdoms which intervened between Pliny’s time and - the fourth century, as they contain nothing to the purpose, - and shall come at once to that martyrdom the narrative of - which was, I have no doubt, the source from which Bishop - Andrews derived his question, _Dominicum servasti?_ ‘Hold you - the Lord’s day?’ This martyrdom happened A. D. 304.[503] The - sufferers were Saturninus and his four sons, and several other - persons. They were taken to Carthage, and brought before the - proconsul Amulinus. In the account given of their examinations - by him, the phrases, ‘CELEBRARE _Dominicum_,’ and ‘AGERE - _Dominicum_,’ frequently occur, but in no instance is the verb - ‘_servare_’ used in reference to _Dominicum_. I mention this - chiefly to show that when Bishop Andrews, alluding, as no doubt - he does, to the narrative of this martyrdom, says the question - was, _Dominicum servasti?_ it is very clear he had not his - author at hand, and that in trusting to his memory, he coined a - phrase of his own.”[504] - -Domville quotes at length the conversation between the proconsul and the -martyrs, which is quite similar in most respects to Gurney’s and Edward’s -quotation from Andrews. He then adds:— - - “The narrative of the martyrdom of Saturninus being the only - one which has the appearance of supporting the assertion of - Bishop Andrews that, ‘Hold you the Lord’s day?’ was the usual - question to the martyrs, what if I should prove that even this - narrative affords no support to that assertion? yet nothing - is more easy than this proof; for Bishop Andrews has quite - mistaken the meaning of the word _Dominicum_ in translating it - ‘the Lord’s day.’ It had no such meaning. It was a barbarous - word in use among some of the ecclesiastical writers in, and - subsequent to, the fourth century, to express sometimes a - church, and at other times the Lord’s supper, but NEVER the - Lord’s day.[505] My authorities on this point are— - - “1. Ruinart, who, upon the word _Dominicum_, in the narrative - of the martyrdom of Saturninus, has a note, in which he says it - is a word signifying the Lord’s supper[506] (‘_Dominicum vero - desinat sacra mysteria_’), and he quotes Tertullian and Cyprian - in support of this interpretation. - - “2. The editors of the Benedictine edition of St. Augustine’s - works. They state that the word _Dominicum_ has the two - meanings of a church and the Lord’s supper. For the former they - quote among other authorities, a canon of the council of Neo - Cesarea. For the latter meaning they quote Cyprian, and refer - also to St. Augustine’s account of his conference with the - Donatists, in which allusion is made to the narrative of the - martyrdom of Saturninus.[507] - - “3. Gesner, who, in his Latin Thesaurus published in 1749, - gives both meanings to the word _Dominicum_. For that of the - Lord’s supper he quotes Cyprian; for that of a church he quotes - Cyprian and also Hillary.”[508] - -Domville states other facts of interest bearing on this point, and then -pays his respects to Mr. Gurney as follows:— - - “It thus appearing that the reference made by Bishop Andrews - to the ‘Acts of Martyrs’ completely fails to establish his - dictum respecting the question alleged to have been put to the - martyrs, and it also appearing that there existed strong and - obvious reasons for not placing implicit reliance upon that - dictum, what are we to think of Mr. Gurney’s regard for truth, - when we find he does not scruple to tell his readers that the - ‘stated day’ mentioned in Pliny’s letter as that on which the - Christians held their religious assemblies, was ‘clearly the - first day of the week,’ is proved by the very question which - it was customary for the Roman persecutors to address to the - martyrs, _Dominicum servasti?_—‘Hast thou kept the Lord’s day?’ - For this unqualified assertion, prefixed as it is by the word - ‘clearly,’ in order to make it the more impressive, Mr. Gurney - is without any excuse.”[509] - -The justice of Domville’s language cannot be questioned when he -characterizes this favorite first-day argument as— - - “One of those daring misstatements of facts so frequent in - theological writings, and which, from the confident tone so - generally assumed by the writers on such occasions, are usually - received without examination, and allowed, in consequence, to - pass current for truth.”[510] - -The investigation to which this statement has been subjected, shows, -1. That no such question as, Hast thou kept the Lord’s day? is upon -record as proposed to the martyrs in the time of Pliny. 2. That no such -question was asked to any martyr prior to the commencement of the fourth -century. 3. That a single instance of martyrdom in which any question -of the kind was asked, is all that can be claimed. 4. That in this one -case, which is all that has even the slightest appearance of sustaining -the story under examination, a correct translation of the original Latin -shows that the question had no relation whatever to the observance of -Sunday! All this has been upon the assumption that the _Acta Martyrum_, -in which this story is found, is an authentic work. Let Mosheim testify -relative to the character of this work for veracity:— - - “As to those accounts which have come down to us under the - title of _Acta Martyrum_, or, the Acts of the Martyrs, their - authority is certainly for the most part of a very questionable - nature; indeed, speaking generally, it might be coming nearer - to the truth, perhaps, were we to say that they are entitled to - no sort of credit whatever.”[511] - -Such is the authority of the work from which this story is taken. It is -not strange that first-day historians should leave the repetition of it -to theologians. - -Such are the facts respecting this extraordinary falsehood. They -constitute so complete an exposure of this famous historical argument for -Sunday as to consign it to the just contempt of all honest men. But this -is too valuable an argument to be lightly surrendered, and moreover it is -as truthful as are certain other of the historical arguments for Sunday. -It will not do to give up this argument because of its dishonesty; for -others will have to go with it for possessing the same character. - -Since the publication of Domville’s elaborate work, James Gilfillan -of Scotland has written a large volume entitled, “The Sabbath,” which -has been extensively circulated both in Europe and in America, and is -esteemed a standard work by the American Tract Society and by first-day -denominations in general. Gilfillan had read Domville as appears from his -statements on pages 10, 142, 143, 616, of his volume. He was therefore -acquainted with Domville’s exposure of the fraud respecting “_Dominicum -servasti?_” But though he was acquainted with this exposure, he offers -not one word in reply. On the contrary, he repeats the story with as much -assurance as though it had not been proved a falsehood. But as Domville -had shown up the matter from the _Acta Martyrum_, it was necessary for -Gilfillan to trace it to some other authority, and so he assigns it to -Cardinal Baronius. Here are Gilfillan’s words:— - - “From the days of the apostles downwards for many years, the - followers of Christ had no enemies more fierce and unrelenting - than that people [the Jews], who cursed them in the synagogue, - sent out emissaries into all countries to calumniate their - Master and them, and were abettors wherever they could, of the - martyrdom of men, such as Polycarp, of whom the world was not - worthy. Among the reasons of this deadly enmity was the change - of the Sabbatic day. The Romans, though they had no objection - on this score, punished the Christians for the faithful - observance of their day of rest, one of the testing questions - put to the martyrs being, _Dominicum servasti?_—Have you kept - the Lord’s day?—_Baron. An. Eccles._, A. D. 303, Num. 35, - etc.”[512] - -Gilfillan having reproduced this statement and assigned as his authority -the annalist Baronius, more recent first-day writers take courage and -repeat the story after him. Now they are all right, as they think. What -if the _Acta Martyrum_ has failed them? Domville ought to have gone to -Baronius, who, in their judgment, is the true source of information in -this matter. Had he done this, they say, he would have been saved from -misleading his readers. But let us ascertain what evil Domville has done -in this case. It all consists in the assertion of two things out of the -_Acta Martyrum_.[513] - -1. That no such question as “_Dominicum servasti?_” was addressed to any -martyr till the early part of the fourth century, some two hundred years -after the time of Pliny. - -2. That the question even then did not relate to what is called the -Lord’s day, but to the Lord’s supper. - -Now it is a remarkable fact that Gilfillan has virtually admitted the -truth of the first of these statements, for the earliest instance which -he could find in Baronius is A. D. 303, as his reference plainly shows. -It differs only one year from the date assigned in Ruinart’s _Acta -Martyrum_, and relates to the very case which Domville has quoted from -that work! Domville’s first and most important statement is therefore -vindicated by Gilfillan himself, though he has not the frankness to say -this in so many words. - -Domville’s second point is that _Dominicum_, when used as a noun, as in -the present case, signifies either a church or the Lord’s supper, but -never signifies Lord’s day. He establishes the fact by incontestible -evidence. Gilfillan was acquainted with all this. He could not answer -Domville, and yet he was not willing to abandon the falsehood which -Domville had exposed. So he turns from the _Acta Martyrum_ in which the -compiler expressly defines the word to mean precisely what Domville -asserts, and brings forward the great Romish annalist, Cardinal Baronius. -Now, say our first-day friends, we are to have the truth from a high -authority. Gilfillan has found in Baronius an express statement that the -martyrs were tested by the question, “Have you kept the Lord’s day?” No -matter then as to the _Acta Martyrum_ from which Bishop Andrews first -produced this story. That, indeed, has failed us, but we have in its -stead the weighty testimony of the great Baronius. To be sure he fixes -this test no earlier than the fourth century, which renders it of no -avail as proof that Pliny’s stated day was Sunday; but it is worth much -to have Baronius bear witness that certain martyrs in the fourth century -were put to death because they observed the Sunday-Lord’s day. - -But these exultant thoughts are vain. I must state a grave fact in -plain language: Gilfillan has deliberately falsified the testimony -of Baronius! That historian records at length the martyrdom of -Saturninus and his company in northern Africa in A. D. 303. It is the -very story which Domville has cited from the _Acta Martyrum_, and -Baronius repeatedly indicates that he himself copied it from that work. -He gives the various questions propounded by the proconsul, and the -several answers which were returned by each of the martyrs. I copy from -Baronius the most important of these. They were arrested while they -were celebrating the Lord’s sacrament according to custom.[514] The -following is the charge on which they were arrested: They had celebrated -the _Collectam Dominicam_ against the command of the emperors.[515] The -proconsul asked the first whether he had celebrated the _Collectam_, -and he replied that he was a Christian, and had done this.[516] Another -says, “I have not only been in the _Collecta_, but I have celebrated the -_Dominicum_ with the brethren because I am a Christian.”[517] Another -says we have celebrated the _Dominicum_, because the _Dominicum_ cannot -be neglected.[518] Another said that the Collecta was made (or observed) -at his house.[519] The proconsul questioning again one of those already -examined, received this answer: “The _Dominicum_ cannot be disregarded, -the law so commands.”[520] When one was asked whether the _Collecta_ -was made (or observed) at his house, he answered, “In my house we have -celebrated the _Dominicum_.” He added, “Without the _Dominicum_ we cannot -be,” or live.[521] To another, the proconsul said that he did not wish -to know whether he was a Christian, but whether he participated in the -_Collecta_. His reply was: “As if one could be a Christian without the -_Dominicum_, or as if the _Dominicum_ can be celebrated without the -Christian.”[522] And he said further to the proconsul: “We have observed -the _Collecta_ most sacredly; we have always convened in the _Dominicum_ -for reading the Lord’s word.”[523] Another said: “I have been in -[literally, have made] the _Collecta_ with my brethren, I have celebrated -the _Dominicum_.”[524] After him another proclaimed the _Dominicum_ -to be the hope and safety of the Christian, and when tortured as the -others, he exclaimed, ”I have celebrated the _Dominicum_ with a devoted -heart, and with my brethren I have made the _Collecta_ because I am a -Christian.”[525] When the proconsul again asked one of these whether he -had conducted the _Dominicum_, he replied that he had because Christ was -his Saviour.[526] - -I have thus given the substance of this famous examination, and have set -before the reader the references therein made to the _Dominicum_. It is -to be observed that _Collecta_ is used as another name for _Dominicum_. -Now does Baronius use either of these words to signify Lord’s day? It -so happens that he has defined these words with direct reference to -this very case no less than seven times. Now let us read these seven -definitions:— - -When Baronius records the first question addressed to these martyrs, -he there defines these words as follows: “By the words _Collectam_, -_Collectionem_, and _Dominicum_, the author always understands the -sacrifice of the Mass.”[527] After recording the words of that martyr who -said that the law commanded the observance of the _Dominicum_, Baronius -defines his statement thus: “Evidently the Christian law concerning the -_Dominicum_, no doubt about celebrating the sacrifice.”[528] Baronius, -by the Romish words sacrifice and Mass refers to the celebration of the -Lord’s supper by these martyrs. At the conclusion of the examination, -he again defines the celebration of the _Dominicum_. He says: “It -has been shown above in relating these things that the Christians -were moved, even in the time of severe persecution, to celebrate the -_Dominicum_. Evidently, as we have declared elsewhere in many places, it -was a sacrifice without bloodshed, and of divine appointment.”[529] He -presently defines _Dominicum_ again, saying, “Though it is a fact that -the same expression was employed at times with reference to the _temple_ -of God, yet since all the churches upon the earth have united in this -matter, and from other things related above, it has been sufficiently -shown concerning the celebration of the _Dominicum_, _that only the -sacrifice of the Mass can be understood_.”[530] Observe this last -statement. He says though the word has been employed to designate the -temple of the Lord, yet in the things here related it can _only_ signify -the sacrifice of the Mass. These testimonies are exceedingly explicit. -But Baronius has not yet finished. In the index to Tome 3, he explains -these words again with direct reference to this very martyrdom. Thus -under _Collecta_ is this statement: “The _Collecta_, the _Dominicum_, the -Mass, the same [A. D.] 303, xxxix.”[531] Under _Missa_: “The Mass is the -same as the _Collecta_, or _Dominicum_ [A. D.], 303, xxxix.”[532] Under -_Dominicum_: “To celebrate the _Dominicum_ is the same as to conduct the -Mass [A. D.], 303, xxxix.; xlix.; li.”[533] - -It is not possible to mistake the meaning of Baronius. He says that -_Dominicum_ signifies the Mass! The celebration of the supper by these -martyrs was doubtless very different from the pompous ceremony which -the church of Rome now observes under the name of Mass. But it was the -sacrament of the Lord’s supper, concerning which they were tested, and -for observing which they were put to a cruel death. The word _Dominicum_ -signifies “the sacred mysteries,” as Ruinart defines it; and Baronius, in -_seven_ times affirming _this_ definition, though acknowledging that it -has sometimes been used to signify temple of God, plainly declares that -in this record, it can have _no other meaning_ than that service which -the Romanists call the sacrifice of the Mass. Gilfillan had read all -this, yet he dares to quote Baronius as saying that these martyrs were -tested by the question, “Have you kept Lord’s day?” He could not but know -that he was writing a direct falsehood; but he thought the honor of God, -and the advancement of the cause of truth, demanded this act at his hands. - -Before Gilfillan wrote his work, Domville had called attention to the -fact that the sentence, “_Dominicum servasti?_” does not occur in the -_Acta Martyrum_, a different verb being used every time. But this is the -popular form of this question, and must not be given up. So Gilfillan -declares that Baronius uses it in his record of the martyrdoms in A. -D. 303. But we have cited the different forms of question recorded by -Baronius, and find them to be precisely the same with those of the _Acta -Martyrum_. “_Dominicum servasti?_” does not occur in that historian, and -Gilfillan, in stating that it does, is guilty of untruth. This, however, -is comparatively unimportant. But for asserting that Baronius speaks of -Lord’s day under the name of _Dominicum_, Gilfillan stands convicted of -inexcusable falsehood in matters of serious importance. - - - - -CHAPTER XVI. - -ORIGIN OF FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE. - - Sunday a heathen festival from remote antiquity—Origin of the - name—Reasons which induced the leaders of the church to adopt - this festival—It was the day generally observed by the Gentiles - in the first centuries of the Christian era—To have taken a - different day would have been exceedingly inconvenient—They - hoped to facilitate the conversion of the Gentiles by keeping - the same day that they observed—Three voluntary weekly - festivals in the church in memory of the Redeemer—Sunday soon - elevated above the other two—Justin Martyr—Sunday observance - first found in the church of Rome—Irenæus—First act of papal - usurpation was in behalf of Sunday—Tertullian—Earliest trace of - abstinence from labor on Sunday—General statement of facts—The - Roman church made its first great attack upon the Sabbath by - turning it into a fast. - - -The festival of Sunday is more ancient than the Christian religion, its -origin being lost in remote antiquity. It did not originate, however, -from any divine command nor from piety toward God: on the contrary, it -was set apart as a sacred day by the heathen world in honor of their -chief god, the sun. It is from this fact that the first day of the week -has obtained the name of Sunday, a name by which it is known in many -languages. Webster thus defines the word:— - - “Sunday; so called because this day was anciently dedicated - to the sun or to its worship. The first day of the week; the - Christian Sabbath; a day consecrated to rest from secular - employments, and to religious worship; the Lord’s day.” - -And Worcester, in his large dictionary, uses similar language:— - - “Sunday; so named because anciently dedicated to the sun or to - its worship. The first day of the week; the Christian Sabbath, - consecrated to rest from labor and to religious worship; the - Lord’s day.” - -These lexicographers call Sunday the Christian Sabbath, etc., because -in the general theological literature of our language, it is thus -designated, though never thus in the Bible. Lexicographers do not -undertake to settle theological questions, but simply to define terms as -currently used in a particular language. Though all the other days of the -week have heathen names, Sunday alone was a conspicuous heathen festival -in the days of the early church. The _North British Review_, in a labored -attempt to justify the observance of Sunday by the Christian world, -styles that day, “THE WILD SOLAR HOLIDAY [_i. e._, festival in honor of -the sun] OF ALL PAGAN TIMES.”[534] - -Verstegan says:— - - “The most ancient Germans being pagans, and having appropriated - their first day of the week to the peculiar adoration of the - sun, whereof that day doth yet in our English tongue retain the - name of Sunday, and appropriated the next day unto it unto the - especial adoration of the moon, whereof it yet retaineth with - us, the name of Monday; they ordained the next day to these - most heavenly planets to the particular adoration of their - great reputed god, Tuisco, whereof we do yet retain in our - language the name of Tuesday.”[535] - -The same author thus speaks concerning the idols of our Saxon ancestors:— - - “Of these, though they had many, yet seven among the rest they - especially appropriated unto the seven days of the week.... - Unto the day dedicated unto the especial adoration of the idol - of the sun, they gave the name of Sunday, as much as to say - the sun’s day or the day of the sun. This idol was placed in - a temple, and there adored and sacrificed unto, for that they - believed that the sun in the firmament did with or in this idol - correspond and co-operate.”[536] - -Jennings makes this adoration of the sun more ancient than the -deliverance of Israel from Egypt. For, in speaking of the time of that -deliverance, he speaks of the Gentiles as, - - “The idolatrous nations who in honor to their chief god, the - sun, began their day at his rising.”[537] - -He represents them also as setting apart Sunday in honor of the same -object of adoration:— - - “The day which the heathens in general consecrated to the - worship and honor of their chief god, the sun, which, according - to our computation, was the first day of the week.”[538] - -The _North British Review_ thus defends the introduction of this ancient -heathen festival into the Christian church:— - - “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.... If the authority of the church is to be ignored - altogether by Protestants, there is no matter; because - opportunity and common expediency are surely argument enough - for so ceremonial a change as the mere day of the week for - the observance of the rest and holy convocation of the Jewish - 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.”[539] - -It would seem that something more potent than “patriotism” and -“expediency” would be requisite to transform this heathen festival into -the Christian Sabbath, or even to justify its introduction into the -Christian church. A further statement of the reasons which prompted its -introduction, and a brief notice of the earlier steps toward transforming -it into a Christian institution, will occupy the remainder of this -chapter. Chafie, a clergyman of the English Church, in 1652, published a -work in vindication of first-day observance, entitled, “The Seventh-day -Sabbath.” After showing the general observance of Sunday by the heathen -world in the early ages of the church, Chafie thus states the reasons -which forbid the Christians attempting to keep any other day:— - - “1. Because of the contempt, scorn, and derision they thereby - should be had in, among all the Gentiles with whom they - lived.... How grievous would be their taunts and reproaches - against the poor Christians living with them and under their - power for their new set sacred day, had the Christians chosen - any other than the Sunday.... 2. Most Christians then were - either servants or of the poorer sort of people; and the - Gentiles, most probably, would not give their servants liberty - to cease from working on any other set day constantly, except - on their Sunday.... 3. Because had they assayed such a change - it would have been but labor in vain; ... they could never have - brought it to pass.”[540] - -Thus it is seen that at the time when the early church began to -apostatize from God and to foster in its bosom human ordinances, the -heathen world—as they had long done—very generally observed the first day -of the week in honor of the sun. Many of the early fathers of the church -had been heathen philosophers. Unfortunately they brought with them into -the church many of their old notions and principles. Particularly did -it occur to them that by uniting with the heathen in the day of weekly -celebration they should greatly facilitate their conversion. The reasons -which induced the church to adopt the ancient festival of the heathen as -something made ready to hand, are thus stated by Morer:— - - “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. And we find by the - influence of their examples, _other_ nations, and among them - the Jews themselves, doing him homage;[541] yet these abuses - did not hinder the fathers of the Christian church simply to - repeal, or altogether lay by, the day or its name, but only to - sanctify and improve both, as they did also the pagan temples - polluted before with idolatrous services, and other instances - wherein those good men were always tender to work any other - change than what was evidently necessary, and in such things - as were plainly inconsistent with the Christian religion; so - that 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.”[542] - -In the time of Justin Martyr, Sunday was a weekly festival, widely -celebrated by the heathen in honor of their god, the sun. And so, in -presenting to the heathen emperor of Rome an “Apology” for his brethren, -Justin takes care to tell him thrice that the Christians held their -assemblies on this day of general observance.[543] Sunday therefore makes -its first appearance in the Christian church as an institution identical -in time with the weekly festival of the heathen, and Justin, who first -mentions this festival, had been a heathen philosopher. Sixty years -later, Tertullian acknowledges that it was not without an appearance of -truth that men declared the sun to be the god of the Christians. But he -answered that though they worshiped toward the east like the heathen, -and devoted Sunday to rejoicing, it was for a reason far different from -sun-worship.[544] And on another occasion, in defending his brethren -from the charge of sun-worship, he acknowledges that these acts, prayer -toward the east, and making Sunday a day of festivity, did give men a -chance to think the sun was the God of the Christians.[545] Tertullian is -therefore a witness to the fact that Sunday was a heathen festival when -it obtained a foothold in the Christian church, and that the Christians, -in consequence of observing it, were taunted with being sun-worshipers. -It is remarkable that in his replies he never claims for their observance -any divine precept or apostolic example. His principal point was that -they had as good a right to do it as the heathen had. One hundred and -twenty one years after Tertullian, Constantine, while yet a heathen, put -forth his famous edict in behalf of the heathen festival of the sun, -which day he pronounced “venerable.” And this heathen law caused the -day to be observed everywhere throughout the Roman Empire, and firmly -established it both in Church and State. It is certain, therefore, that -at the time of its entrance into the Christian church, Sunday was an -ancient weekly festival of the heathen world. - -That this heathen festival was upon the day of Christ’s resurrection -doubtless powerfully contributed to aid “patriotism” and “expediency” in -transforming it into the Lord’s day or Christian Sabbath. For, with pious -motives, as we may reasonably conclude, the professed people of God early -paid a voluntary regard to several days, memorable in the history of the -Redeemer. Mosheim, whose testimony in behalf of Sunday has been presented -already, uses the following language relative to the crucifixion day:— - - “It is also probable that Friday, the day of Christ’s - crucifixion, was early distinguished by particular honors from - the other days of the week.”[546] - -And of the second century, he says:— - - “Many also observed the fourth day of the week, on which - Christ was betrayed; and the sixth, which was the day of his - crucifixion.”[547] - -Dr. Peter Heylyn says of those who chose Sunday:— - - “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 the which he had been betrayed: the - Saturday, or ancient Sabbath, being meanwhile retained in the - eastern churches.”[548] - -Of the comparative sacredness of these three voluntary festivals, the -same writer testifies:— - - “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.”[549] - -And besides these three weekly festivals, there were also two annual -festivals of great sacredness. These were the Passover and the Pentecost. -And it is worthy of special notice that although the Sunday festival can -be traced no higher in the church than Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, the -Passover can be traced to a man who claimed to have received it from -the apostles. See chapter thirteen. Among these festivals, considered -simply as voluntary memorials of the Redeemer, Sunday had very little -pre-eminence. For it is well stated by Heylyn:— - - “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.”[550] - -Domville bears the following testimony, which is worthy of lasting -remembrance:— - - “Not any ecclesiastical writer of the first three centuries - attributed the origin of Sunday observance either to Christ or - to his apostles.”[551] - -“Patriotism” and “expediency,” however, erelong elevated immeasurably -above its fellows that one of these voluntary festivals which -corresponded to “the wild solar holiday” of the heathen world, making -that day at last “the Lord’s day” of the Christian church. The earliest -testimony in behalf of first-day observance that has _any_ claim to be -regarded as genuine is that of Justin Martyr, written about A. D. 140. -Before his conversion, he was a heathen philosopher. The time, place, and -occasion of his first Apology or Defense of the Christians, addressed to -the Roman Emperor, is thus stated by an eminent Roman Catholic historian. -He says that Justin Martyr - - “Was at Rome when the persecution that was raised under the - reign of Antoninus Pius, the successor of Adrian, began to - break forth, where he composed an excellent apology in behalf - of the Christians.”[552] - -Of the works ascribed to Justin Martyr, Milner says:— - - “Like many of the ancient fathers he appears to us under the - greatest disadvantage. Works really his have been lost; and - others have been ascribed to him, part of which are not his; - and the rest, at least, of ambiguous authority.”[553] - -If the writings ascribed to him are genuine, there is little propriety -in the use made of his name by the advocates of the first-day Sabbath. -He taught the abrogation of the Sabbatic institution; and there is no -intimation in his words that the Sunday festival which he mentions was -other than a voluntary observance. Thus he addresses the emperor of Rome:— - - “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 has done, the bishop makes a - sermon, wherein he instructs the people, and animates them - to the practice of such lovely precepts: at the conclusion - of this discourse, we all rise up together and pray; and - prayers being over, as I now said, there is bread and wine and - water offered, and the bishop, as before, sends up prayers - and thanksgivings, with all the fervency he is able, and the - people conclude all with the joyful acclamation of Amen. Then - the consecrated elements are distributed to, and partaken of, - by all that are present, and sent to the absent by the hands - of the deacons. But the wealthy and the willing, for every - one is at liberty, contribute as they think fitting; and this - collection is deposited with the bishop, and out of this he - relieves the orphan and the widow, and such as are reduced to - want by sickness or any other cause, and such as are in bonds, - and strangers that come from far; and, in a word, he is the - guardian and almoner to all the indigent. Upon Sunday we all - assemble, that being the first day in which God set himself - to work upon the dark void, in order to make the world, and - in which Jesus Christ our Saviour rose again from the dead; - for the day before Saturday he was crucified, and the day - after, which is Sunday, he appeared unto his apostles and - disciples, and taught them what I have now proposed to your - consideration.”[554] - -This passage, if genuine, furnishes the earliest reference to the -observance of Sunday as a religious festival in the Christian church. -It should be remembered that this language was written at Rome, and -addressed directly to the emperor. It shows therefore what was the -practice of the church in that city and vicinity, but does not determine -how extensive this observance was. It contains strong incidental proof -that apostasy had made progress at Rome; the institution of the Lord’s -supper being changed in part already to a human ordinance; water being -now as essential to the Lord’s supper as the wine or the bread. And -what is still more dangerous as perverting the institution of Christ, -the consecrated elements were sent to the absent, a step which speedily -resulted in their becoming objects of superstitious veneration, and -finally of worship. Justin tells the emperor that Christ thus ordained; -but such a statement is a grave departure from the truth of the New -Testament. - -This statement of reasons for Sunday observance is particularly worthy -of attention. He tells the emperor that they assembled upon the day -called Sunday. This was equivalent to saying to him, We observe the day -on which our fellow-citizens offer their adoration to the sun. Here -both “patriotism” and “expediency” discover themselves in the words -of Justin, which were addressed to a persecuting emperor in behalf of -the Christians. But as if conscious that the observance of a heathen -festival as the day of Christian worship was not consistent with their -profession as worshipers of the Most High, Justin bethinks himself for -reasons in defense of this observance. He assigns no divine precept nor -apostolic example for this festival. For his reference to what Christ -taught his disciples, as appears from the connection, was to the general -system of the Christian religion, and not to the observance of Sunday. -If it be said that Justin might have learned from tradition what is -not to be found in the New Testament relative to Sunday observance, -and that after all Sunday may be a divinely-appointed festival, it is -sufficient to answer, 1. That this plea would show only tradition in -favor of the Sunday festival. 2. That Justin Martyr is a very unsafe -guide; his testimony relative to the Lord’s supper differs from that of -the New Testament. 3. That the American Tract Society, in a work which it -publishes against Romanism, bears the following testimony relative to the -point before us:— - - “Justin Martyr appears indeed peculiarly unfitted to lay claim - to authority. It is notorious that he supposed a pillar erected - on the island of the Tiber to Semo Sanchus, an old Sabine - deity, to be a monument erected by the Roman people in honor of - the impostor Simon Magus. Were so gross a mistake to be made by - a modern writer in relating a historical fact, exposure would - immediately take place, and his testimony would thenceforward - be suspected. And assuredly the same measure should be meted to - Justin Martyr, who so egregiously errs in reference to a fact - alluded to by Livy the historian.”[555] - -Justin assigns the following reasons in support of Sunday observance: -“That being the first day in which God set himself to work upon the dark -void in order to make the world, and in which Jesus Christ our Saviour -rose again from the dead.” Bishop Jeremy Taylor most fittingly replies to -this:— - - “The first of these looks more like an excuse than a just - reason; for if anything of the creation were made the cause of - a Sabbath, it ought to be the end, not the beginning; it ought - to be the rest, not the first part of the work; it ought to be - that which God assigned, not [that] which man should take by - way of after justification.”[556] - -It is to be observed, therefore, that the first trace of Sunday as a -Christian festival is found in the church of Rome. Soon after this time, -and thenceforward, we shall find “the bishop” of that church making -vigorous efforts to suppress the Sabbath of the Lord, and to elevate in -its stead the festival of Sunday. - -It is proper to note the fact also that Justin was a decided opponent -of the ancient Sabbath. In his “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” he thus -addressed him:— - - “This new law teaches you to observe a perpetual Sabbath; and - you, when you have spent one day in idleness, think you have - discharged the duties of religion.... If any one is guilty - of adultery, let him repent, then he hath kept the true and - delightful Sabbath unto God.... For we really should observe - that circumcision which is in the flesh, and the Sabbath, - and all the feasts, if we had not known the reason why they - were imposed upon you, namely, upon the account of your - iniquities.... It was because of your iniquities, and the - iniquities of your fathers, that God appointed you to observe - the Sabbath.... You see that the heavens are not idle, nor do - they observe the Sabbath. Continue as ye were born. For if - before Abraham there was no need of circumcision, nor of the - sabbaths, nor of feasts, nor of offerings before Moses; so now - in like manner there is no need of them, since Jesus Christ, - the Son of God, was by the determinate counsel of God, born of - a virgin of the seed of Abraham without sin.”[557] - -This reasoning of Justin deserves no reply. It shows, however, the -unfairness of Dr. Edwards, who quotes Justin Martyr as a witness for the -change of the Sabbath;[558] whereas Justin held that God made the Sabbath -on account of the wickedness of the Jews, and that he totally abrogated -it in consequence of the first advent of Christ; the Sunday festival of -the heathen being evidently adopted by the church at Rome from motives -of “expediency” and perhaps of “patriotism.” The testimony of Justin, if -genuine, is peculiarly valuable in one respect. It shows that as late as -A. D. 140 the first day of the week had acquired no title of sacredness; -for Justin several times mentions the day: thrice as “the day called -Sunday” and twice as “the eighth day;” and by other terms also, but never -by any sacred name.[559] - -The next important witness in behalf of first-day sacredness is thus -presented by Dr. Edwards:— - - “Hence Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, who - had been the companion of the apostles, A. D. 167, says that - the Lord’s day was the Christian Sabbath. His words are, ‘On - the Lord’s day every one of us Christians keeps the Sabbath, - meditating on the law and rejoicing in the works of God.’”[560] - -This testimony is highly valued by first-day writers, and is often and -prominently set forth in their publications. Sir Wm. Domville, whose -elaborate treatise on the Sabbath has been several times quoted, states -the following important fact relative to this quotation:— - - “I have carefully searched through all the extant works of - Irenæus and can with certainty state that no such passage, or - any one at all resembling it, is there to be found. The edition - I consulted was that by Massuet (Paris, 1710); but to assure - myself still further, I have since looked to the editions by - Erasmus (Paris, 1563), and Grabe (Oxford, 1702), and in neither - do I find the passage in question.”[561] - -It is a remarkable fact that those who quote this as the language of -Irenæus, if they give any reference, cite their readers to Dwight’s -Theology instead of referring them to the place in the works of Irenæus -where it is to be found. It was Dr. Dwight who first enriched the -theological world with this invaluable quotation. Where, then, did Dwight -obtain this testimony which has so many times been given as that of -Irenæus? On this point Domville remarks:— - - “He had the misfortune to be afflicted with a disease in his - eyes from the early age of twenty-three, a calamity (says - his biographer) by which he was deprived of the capacity for - reading and study.... The knowledge which he gained from books - after the period above mentioned [by which the editor must mean - his age of twenty-three] was almost exclusively at second hand, - by the aid of others.”[562] - -Domville states another fact which gives us unquestionably the origin of -this quotation:— - - “But although not to be found in Irenæus, there are in - the writings ascribed to another father, namely, in the - interpolated epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, and in one - of its interpolated passages, expressions so clearly resembling - those of Dr. Dwight’s quotation as to leave no doubt of the - source from which he quoted.”[563] - -Such, then, is the end of this famous testimony of Irenæus, who had -it from Polycarp, who had it from the apostles! It was furnished the -world by a man whose eyesight was impaired; who in consequence of this -infirmity took at second hand an interpolated passage from an epistle -falsely ascribed to Ignatius, and published it to the world as the -genuine testimony of Irenæus. Loss of eyesight, as we may charitably -believe, led Dr. Dwight into the serious error which he has committed; -but by the publication of this spurious testimony, which seemed to -come in a direct line from the apostles, he has rendered multitudes as -incapable of reading aright the fourth commandment, as he, by loss of -natural eyesight, was of reading Irenæus for himself. This case admirably -illustrates tradition as a religious guide; it is the blind leading the -blind until both fall into the ditch. - -Nor is this all that should be said in the case of Irenæus. In all his -writings there is _no instance_ in which he calls Sunday the Lord’s day! -And what is also very remarkable, there is no sentence extant written -by him in which he even mentions the first day of the week![564] It -appears, however, from several statements in ancient writers, that he did -mention the day, though no sentence of _his_ in which it is mentioned -is in existence. He held that the Sabbath was a typical institution, -which pointed to the seventh thousand years as the great day of rest -to the church;[565] he said that Abraham was “without observance of -Sabbaths;”[566] and yet he makes the origin of the Sabbath to be the -sanctification of the seventh day.[567] But he expressly asserts the -perpetuity and authority of the ten commandments, declaring that they -are identical with the law of nature implanted from the beginning in -mankind, that they remain permanently with us, and that if any one does -not observe them he has no salvation.[568] - -It is a remarkable fact that the first instance upon record in which the -bishop of Rome attempted to rule the Christian church was by AN EDICT IN -BEHALF OF SUNDAY. It had been the custom of all the churches to celebrate -the passover, but with this difference: that while the eastern churches -observed it upon the fourteenth day of the first month, no matter what -day of the week this might be, the western churches kept it upon the -Sunday following that day; or rather, upon the Sunday following Good -Friday. Victor, bishop of Rome, in the year 196,[569] took upon him to -impose the Roman custom upon all the churches; that is, to compel them to -observe the passover upon Sunday. “This bold attempt,” says Bower, “we -may call the first essay of papal usurpation.”[570] And Dowling terms it -the “earliest instance of Romish assumption.”[571] The churches of Asia -Minor informed Victor that they could not comply with his lordly mandate. -Then, says Bower:— - - “Upon the receipt of this letter, Victor, giving the reins - to an impotent and ungovernable passion, published bitter - invectives against all the churches of Asia, declared them cut - off from his communion, sent letters of excommunication to - their respective bishops; and, at the same time, in order to - have them cut off from the communion of the whole church, wrote - to the other bishops, exhorting them to follow his example, - and forbear communicating with their refractory brethren of - Asia.”[572] - -The historian informs us that “not one followed his example or advice; -not one paid any sort of regard to his letters, or showed the least -inclination to second him in such a rash and uncharitable attempt.” He -further says:— - - “Victor being thus baffled in his attempt, his successors - took care not to revive the controversy; so that the Asiatics - peaceably followed their ancient practice till the Council - of Nice, which out of complaisance to Constantine the Great, - ordered the solemnity of Easter to be kept everywhere on the - same day, after the custom of Rome.”[573] - -The victory was not obtained for Sunday in this struggle, as Heylyn -testifies, - - “Till the great Council of Nice [A. D. 325] backed by the - authority of as great an emperor [Constantine] settled it - better than before; none but some scattered schismatics, now - and then appearing, that durst oppose the resolution of that - famous synod.”[574] - -Constantine, by whose powerful influence the Council of Nice was induced -to decide this question in favor of the Roman bishop, that is, to fix the -passover upon Sunday, urged the following strong reason for the measure:— - - “Let us then have nothing in common with the most hostile - rabble of the Jews.”[575] - -This sentence is worthy of notice. A determination to have nothing in -common with the Jews had very much to do with the suppression of the -Sabbath in the Christian church. Those who rejected the Sabbath of the -Lord and chose in its stead the more popular and more convenient Sunday -festival of the heathen, were so infatuated with the idea of having -nothing in common with the Jews, that they never even questioned the -propriety of a festival in common with the heathen. - -This festival was not weekly, but annual; but the removal of it from the -fourteenth of the first month to the Sunday following Good Friday was the -first legislation attempted in honor of Sunday as a Christian festival; -and as Heylyn quaintly expresses it, “The Lord’s day found it no small -matter to obtain the victory.”[576] In a brief period after the Council -of Nice, by the laws of Theodosius, capital punishment was inflicted upon -those who should celebrate the feast of the passover upon any other day -than Sunday.[577] The Britons of Wales were long able to maintain their -ground against this favorite project of the Roman church, and as late as -the sixth century “obstinately resisted the imperious mandates of the -Roman pontiffs.”[578] - -Four years after the commencement of the struggle just narrated, bring -us to the testimony of Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, who -wrote about A. D. 200. Dr. Clarke tells us that the fathers “blow hot -and cold.” Tertullian is a fair example of this. He places the origin -of the Sabbath at the creation, but elsewhere says that the patriarchs -did not keep it. He says that Joshua broke the Sabbath at Jericho, and -afterward shows that he did not break it. He says that Christ broke the -Sabbath, and in another place proves that he did not. He represents the -eighth day as more honorable than the seventh, and elsewhere states the -reverse. He states that the law is abolished, and in other places teaches -its perpetuity and authority. He declares that the Sabbath was abrogated -by Christ, and afterward asserts that “Christ did not at all rescind -the Sabbath,” but imparted “an additional sanctity” to “the Sabbath day -itself, which from the beginning had been consecrated by the benediction -of the Father.” And he goes on to say that Christ “furnished to this day -divine safeguards—a course which his adversary would have pursued for -some other days, to avoid honoring the Creator’s Sabbath.” - -This last statement is very remarkable. The Saviour furnished additional -safeguards to the Creator’s Sabbath. But “his adversary” would have done -this to some other days. Now it is plain, first, that Tertullian did -not believe that Christ sanctified some other day to take the place of -the Sabbath; and second, that he believed the consecration of another -day to be the work of the adversary of God! When he wrote these words -he certainly did not believe in the sanctification of Sunday by Christ. -But Tertullian and his brethren found themselves observing as a festival -that day on which the sun was worshiped, and they were, in consequence, -taunted with being worshipers of the sun. Tertullian denies the charge, -though he acknowledges that there was some appearance of truth to it. He -says:— - - “Others, again, certainly with more information and greater - verisimilitude, believe that the sun is our God. We shall be - counted Persians, perhaps, though we do not worship the orb - of day painted on a piece of linen cloth, having himself - everywhere in his own disk. The idea, no doubt, has originated - from our being known to turn to the east in prayer. But you, - many of you, also, under pretense sometimes of worshiping - the heavenly bodies, move your lips in the direction of the - sunrise. In the same way, if we devote Sunday to rejoicing, - from a far different reason than sun-worship, we have some - resemblance to those of you who devote the day of Saturn to - ease and luxury, though they, too, go far away from Jewish - ways, of which they are ignorant.”[579] - -Tertullian pleads no divine command nor apostolic example for this -practice. In fact, he offers no reason for the practice, though he -intimates that he had one to offer. But he finds it necessary in another -work to repel this same charge of sun-worship, because of Sunday -observance. In this second answer to this charge he states the ground of -defense more distinctly, and here we shall find his best reason. These -are his words:— - - “Others, with greater regard to good manners, it must be - confessed, suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, - because it is a well-known fact that we pray toward the east, - or because we make Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you - do less than this? Do not many among you, with an affectation - of sometimes worshiping the heavenly bodies likewise, move - your lips in the direction of the sunrise? It is you, at all - events, who have even admitted the sun into the calendar of the - week; and you have selected its day [Sunday], in preference to - the preceding day, as the most suitable in the week for either - an entire abstinence from the bath, or for its postponement - until the evening, or for taking rest, and for banqueting. By - resorting to these customs, you deliberately deviate from your - own religious rites to those of strangers.”[580] - -Tertullian, in this discourse, addresses himself to the nations still -in idolatry. With some of these, Sunday was an ancient festival; with -others, it was of comparatively recent date. But some of these heathen -reproached the Sunday Christians with being sun-worshipers. And now -observe the answer. He does not say, “We Christians are commanded to -celebrate the first day of the week in honor of Christ’s resurrection.” -His answer is doubtless the best that he knew how to frame. It is a mere -retort, and consists in asserting, first, that the Christians had done no -more than their accusers, the heathen; and second, that they had as good -a right to make Sunday a day of festivity as had the heathen! - -The origin of first-day observance has been the subject of inquiry in -this chapter. We have found that Sunday from remote antiquity was a -heathen festival in honor of the sun, and that in the first centuries -of the Christian era this ancient festival was in general veneration in -the heathen world. We have learned that patriotism and expediency, and a -tender regard for the conversion of the Gentile world, caused the leaders -of the church to adopt as their religious festival the day observed by -the heathen, and to retain the same name which the heathen had given -it. We have seen that the earliest instance upon record of the actual -observance of Sunday in the Christian church, is found in the church of -Rome about A. D. 140. The first great effort in its behalf, A. D. 196, -is by a singular coincidence the first act of papal usurpation. The -first instance of a sacred title being applied to this festival, and the -earliest trace of abstinence from labor on that day, are found in the -writings of Tertullian at the close of the second century. The origin of -the festival of Sunday is now before the reader; the steps by which it -has ascended to supreme power will be pointed out in their proper order -and place. - -One fact of deep interest will conclude this chapter. The first great -effort made to put down the Sabbath was the act of the church of Rome in -turning it into a fast while Sunday was made a joyful festival. While the -eastern churches retained the Sabbath, a portion of the western churches, -with the church of Rome at their head, turned it into a fast. As a part -of the western churches refused to comply with this ordinance, a long -struggle ensued, the result of which is thus stated by Heylyn:— - - “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 the 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.”[581] - -Wm. James, in a sermon before the University of Oxford, thus states the -time when this fast originated:— - - “The western church began to fast on Saturday at the beginning - of the third century.”[582] - -Thus it is seen that this struggle began with the third century, that is, -immediately after the year 200. Neander thus states the motive of the -Roman church:— - - “In the western churches, particularly the Roman, where - opposition to Judaism was the prevailing tendency, this very - opposition produced the custom of celebrating the Saturday in - particular as a fast day.”[583] - -By Judaism, Neander meant the observance of the seventh day as the -Sabbath. Dr. Charles Hase, of Germany, states the object of the Roman -church in very explicit language:— - - “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 was avoided as much as possible, but the original - commandment of the decalogue respecting the Sabbath was not - then applied to that day.”[584] - -Lord King attests this fact in the following words:— - - “Some of the western churches, that they might not seem to - Judaize, fasted on Saturday, as Victorinus Petavionensis - writes: We use to fast on the seventh day. And it is our custom - then to fast, that we may not seem, with the Jews, to observe - the Sabbath.”[585] - -Thus the Sabbath of the Lord was turned into a fast in order to render -it despicable before men. Such was the first great effort of the Roman -church toward the suppression of the ancient Sabbath of the Bible. - - - - -CHAPTER XVII. - -THE NATURE OF EARLY FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE. - - The history of first-day observance compared with that of the - popes—First-day observance defined in the very words of each of - the early fathers who mention it—The reasons which each had for - its observance stated in his own words—Sunday in their judgment - of no higher sacredness than Easter or Whitsunday, or even than - the fifty days between those festivals—Sunday not a day of - abstinence from labor—The reasons which are offered by those of - them who rejected the Sabbath stated in their own words. - - -The history of first-day observance in the Christian church may be fitly -illustrated by that of the bishops of Rome. The Roman bishop now claims -supreme power over all the churches of Christ. He asserts that this power -was given to Peter, and by him was transmitted to the bishops of Rome; or -rather that Peter was the first Roman bishop, and that a succession of -such bishops from his time to the present have exercised this absolute -power in the church. They are able to trace back their line to apostolic -times, and they assert that the power now claimed by the pope was claimed -and exercised by the first pastors of the church of the Romans. Those who -now acknowledge the supremacy of the pope believe this assertion, and -with them it is a conclusive evidence that the pope is by divine right -possessed of supreme power. But the assertion is absolutely false. The -early pastors, or bishops, or elders, of the church of the Romans were -modest, unassuming ministers of Christ, wholly unlike the arrogant bishop -of Rome, who now usurps the place of Christ as the head of the Christian -church. - -The first day of the week now claims to be the Christian Sabbath, and -enforces its authority by means of the fourth commandment, having set -aside the seventh day, which that commandment enjoins, and usurped -its place. Its advocates assert that this position and this authority -were given to it by Christ. As no record of such gift is found in the -Scriptures, the principal argument in its support is furnished by tracing -first-day observance back to the early Christians, who, it is said, would -not have hallowed the day if they had not been instructed to do it by the -apostles; and the apostles would not have taught them to do it if Christ -had not, in their presence, changed the Sabbath. - -But first-day observance can be traced no nearer to apostolic times than -A. D. 140, while the bishops of Rome can trace their line to the very -times of the apostles. Herein is the papal claim to apostolic authority -better than is that of the first-day Sabbath. But with this exception, -the historical argument in behalf of each is the same. Both began with -very moderate pretensions, and gradually gaining in power and sacredness, -grew up in strength together. - -Let us now go to those who were the earliest observers of Sunday and -learn from them the nature of that observance at its commencement. -We shall find, first, that no one claimed for first-day observance -any divine authority; second, that none of them had ever heard of the -change of the Sabbath, and none believed the first-day festival to be a -continuation of the Sabbatic institution; third, that labor on that day -is never set forth as sinful, and that abstinence from labor is never -mentioned as a feature of its observance, nor even implied, only so far -as necessary in order to spend a portion of the day in worship; fourth, -that if we put together all the hints respecting Sunday observance, which -are scattered through the fathers of the first three centuries, for no -one of them gives more than two of these, and generally a single hint is -all that is found in one writer, we shall find just four items: (1) an -assembly on that day in which the Bible was read and expounded, and the -supper celebrated, and money collected; (2) that the day must be one of -rejoicing; (3) that it must not be a day of fasting; (4) that the knee -must not be bent in prayer on that day. - -The following are all the hints respecting the nature of first-day -observance during the first three centuries. The epistle falsely ascribed -to Barnabas simply says: “We keep the eighth day with joyfulness.”[586] -Justin Martyr, in words already quoted at full length, describes the -kind of meeting which they held at Rome and in that vicinity on that -day, and this is all that he connects with its observance.[587] Irenæus -taught that to commemorate the resurrection, the knee must not be bent -on that day, and mentions nothing else as essential to its honor. This -act of standing in prayer was a symbol of the resurrection, which was to -be celebrated only on that day, as he held.[588] Bardesanes the Gnostic -represents the Christians as everywhere meeting for worship on that day, -but he does not describe that worship, and he gives no other honor to -the day.[589] Tertullian describes Sunday observance as follows: “We -devote Sunday to rejoicing,” and he adds, “We have some resemblance to -those of you who devote the day of Saturn to _ease_ and _luxury_.”[590] -In another work he gives us a further idea of the festive character -of Sunday. Thus he says to his brethren: “If any _indulgence is to be -granted to the flesh_, you have it. I will not say your own days, but -more too; for to the heathens each festive day occurs but once annually; -you have _a festive_ day _every eighth day_.”[591] Dr. Heylyn spoke the -truth when he said:— - - “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.”[592] - -The Sunday festival in Tertullian’s time was not like the modern -first-day Sabbath, but was essentially the German festival of Sunday, -a day for worship and for recreation, and one on which labor was not -sinful. But Tertullian speaks further respecting Sunday observance, and -the words now to be quoted have been used as proof that labor on that day -was counted sinful. This is the only statement that can be found prior to -Constantine’s Sunday law that has such an appearance, and the proof is -decisive that such was not its meaning. Here are his words:— - - “We, however (just as we have received), only on the day of the - Lord’s resurrection, ought to guard, not only against kneeling, - but every posture and office of solicitude, deferring even our - businesses, lest we give any place to the devil. Similarly, - too, in the period of Pentecost; which period we distinguish by - the same solemnity of exultation.”[593] - -He speaks of “deferring even our businesses;” but this does not -necessarily imply anything more than its postponement during the hours -devoted to religious services. It falls very far short of saying that -labor on Sunday is a sin. But we will quote Tertullian’s next mention of -Sunday observance before noticing further the words last quoted. Thus he -says:— - - “We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day to - be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter - to Whitsunday.”[594] - -These two things, fasting and kneeling, are the only acts which the -fathers set down as unlawful on Sunday, unless, indeed, mourning may be -included by some in the list. It is certain that labor is never thus -mentioned. And observe that Tertullian repeats the important statement -of the previous quotation that the honor due to Sunday pertains also to -the “period of Pentecost,” that is, to the fifty days between Easter or -Passover and Whitsunday or Pentecost. If, therefore, labor on Sunday -was in Tertullian’s estimation sinful, the same was true for the period -of Pentecost, a space of fifty days! But this is not possible. We can -conceive of the deferral of business for one religious assembly each -day for fifty days, and also that men should neither fast nor kneel -during that time, which was precisely what the religious celebration of -Sunday actually was. But to make Tertullian assert that labor on Sunday -was a sin is to make him declare that such was the case for fifty days -together, which no one will venture to say was the doctrine of Tertullian. - -In another work Tertullian gives us one more statement respecting the -nature of Sunday observance: “We make Sunday a day of festivity. What -then? Do you do less than this?”[595] His language is very extraordinary -when it is considered that he was addressing heathen. It seems that -Sunday as a Christian festival was so similar to the festival which -these heathen observed that he could challenge them to show wherein the -Christians went further than did these heathen whom he here addressed. - -The next father who gives us the nature of early Sunday observance is -Peter of Alexandria. He says: “But the Lord’s day we celebrate as a day -of joy, because on it he rose again, on which day we have received it for -a custom not even to bow the knee.”[596] He marks two things essential. -It must be a day of joy, and Christians must not kneel on that day. -Zonaras, an ancient commentator on these words of Peter, explains the day -of joy by saying, “We ought not to fast; for it is a day of joy for the -resurrection of the Lord.”[597] Next in order, we quote the so-called -Apostolical Constitutions. These command Christians to assemble for -worship every day, “but principally on the Sabbath day. And on the day of -our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently, -sending praise to God,” etc. The object of assembling was “to hear the -saving word concerning the resurrection,” to “pray thrice standing,” to -have the prophets read, to have preaching and also the supper.[598] -These “Constitutions” not only give the nature of the worship on Sunday -as just set forth, but they also give us an idea of Sunday as a day of -festivity:— - - “Now we exhort you, brethren and fellow-servants, to avoid - vain talk and obscene discourses, and jestings, drunkenness, - lasciviousness, luxury, unbounded passions, with foolish - discourses, _since we do not permit you so much as on the - Lord’s days_, which are days of joy, to speak or act anything - unseemly.”[599] - -This language plainly implies that the so-called Lord’s day was a day of -greater mirth than the other days of the week. Even on the Lord’s day -they must not speak or act anything unseemly, though it is evident that -their license on that day was greater than on other days. Once more these -“Constitutions” give us the nature of Sunday observance: “Every Sabbath -day excepting one, and every Lord’s day hold your solemn assemblies, and -rejoice; for he will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord’s day.”[600] -But no one can read so much as once that “he is guilty of sin who -performs work on this day.” - -Next, we quote the epistle to the Magnesians in its longer form, which -though not written by Ignatius was actually written about the time that -the Apostolical Constitutions were committed to writing. Here are the -words of this epistle:— - - “And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of - Christ keep the Lord’s day as a festival, the resurrection day, - the queen and chief of all the days.”[601] - -The writer of the Syriac Documents concerning Edessa comes last, and he -defines the services of Sunday as follows: “On the first [day] of the -week, let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and -the oblation.”[602] These are all the passages in the writings of the -first three centuries which describe early first-day observance. Let -the reader judge whether we have correctly stated the nature of that -observance. Next we invite attention to the several reasons offered by -these fathers for celebrating the festival of Sunday. - -The reputed epistle of Barnabas supports the Sunday festival by saying -that it was the day “on which Jesus rose again from the dead,” and it -intimates that it prefigures the eighth thousand years, when God shall -create the world anew.[603] - -Justin Martyr has four reasons:— - -1. “It is the first day on which God having wrought a change in the -darkness and matter, made the world.”[604] - -2. “Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead.”[605] - -3. “It is possible for us to show how the eighth day possessed a certain -mysterious import, which the seventh day did not possess, and which -was promulgated by God through these rites,”[606] _i. e._, through -circumcision. - -4. “The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise -the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by -which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose -from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath.”[607] - -Clement, of Alexandria, appears to treat solely of a mystical eighth -day or Lord’s day. It is perhaps possible that he has some reference to -Sunday. We therefore quote what he says in behalf of this day, calling -attention to the fact that he produces his testimony, not from the Bible, -but from a heathen philosopher. Thus he says:— - - “And the Lord’s day Plato prophetically speaks of in the tenth - book of the _Republic_, in these words: ‘And when seven days - have passed to each of them in the meadow on the eighth day - they are to set out and arrive in four days.’”[608] - -Clement’s reasons for Sunday are found outside the Scriptures. The next -father will give us a good reason for Clement’s action in this case. - -Tertullian is the next writer who gives reasons for the Sunday festival. -He is speaking of “offerings for the dead,” the manner of Sunday -observance, and the use of the sign of the cross upon the forehead. Here -is the ground on which these observances rest:— - - “If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having - positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition - will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom, as - their strengthener, and faith, as their observer. That reason - will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either - yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has.”[609] - -Tertullian’s frankness is to be commended. He had no Scripture to offer, -and he acknowledges the fact. He depended on tradition, and he was not -ashamed to confess it. The next of the fathers who gives Scripture -evidence in support of the Sunday festival, is Origen. Here are his -words:— - - “The manna fell on the Lord’s day, and not on the Sabbath to - show the Jews that even then the Lord’s day was preferred - before it.”[610] - -Origen seems to have been of Tertullian’s judgment as to the -inconclusiveness of the arguments adduced by his predecessors. He -therefore coined an original argument which seems to have been very -conclusive in his estimation as he offers this alone. But he must have -forgotten that the manna fell on all the six working days, or he would -have seen that while his argument does not elevate Sunday above the other -five working days, it does make the Sabbath the least reputable day of -the seven! And yet the miracle of the manna was expressly designed to set -forth the sacredness of the Sabbath and to establish its authority before -the people. Cyprian is the next father who gives an argument for the -Sunday festival. He contents himself with one of Justin’s old arguments, -viz., that one drawn from circumcision. Thus he says:— - - “For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the - Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given - beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when Christ came, it - was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is, - the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the - Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us - circumcision of the Spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first - day after the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day, went before in the - figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and - spiritual circumcision was given to us.”[611] - -Such is the only argument adduced by Cyprian in behalf of the first-day -festival. The circumcision of infants when eight days old was, in his -judgment, a type of infant baptism. But circumcision on the eighth day of -the child’s life, in his estimation, did not signify that baptism need to -be deferred till the infant is eight days old, but, as here stated, did -signify that the eighth day was to be the Lord’s day! But the eighth day, -on which circumcision took place, was not the first day of the week, but -the eighth day of each child’s life, whatever day of the week that might -be. - -The next father who gives a reason for celebrating Sunday as a day of -joy, and refraining from kneeling on it, is Peter of Alexandria, who -simply says, “Because on it he rose again.”[612] - -Next in order come the Apostolical Constitutions, which assert that the -Sunday festival is a memorial of the resurrection:— - - “But keep the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day festival; because the - former is a memorial of the creation, and the latter of the - resurrection.”[613] - -The writer, however, offers no proof that Sunday was set apart by divine -authority in memory of the resurrection. But the next person who gives -his reasons for keeping Sunday “as a festival” is the writer of the -longer form of the reputed epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians. He -finds the eighth day prophetically set forth in the title to the sixth -and twelfth psalms! In the margin, the word Sheminith is translated “the -eighth.” Here is this writer’s argument for Sunday:— - - “Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, ‘To the end for - the eighth day,’ on which our life both sprang up again, and - the victory over death was obtained in Christ.”[614] - -There is yet another of the fathers of the first three centuries who -gives the reasons then used in support of the Sunday festival. This is -the writer of the Syriac Documents concerning Edessa. He comes next in -order and closes the list. Here are four reasons:— - - 1. “Because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the - place of the dead.”[615] - - 2. “On the first day of the week he arose upon the world,”[616] - _i. e._, he was born upon Sunday. - - 3. “On the first day of the week he ascended up to Heaven.”[617] - - 4. “On the first day of the week he will appear at last with - the angels of Heaven.”[618] - -The first of these reasons is as good a one as man can devise out of -his own heart for doing what God never commanded; the second and fourth -are mere assertions of which mankind know nothing; while the third is a -positive untruth, for the ascension was upon Thursday. - -We have now presented every reason for the Sunday festival which can be -found in all the writings of the first three centuries. Though generally -very trivial, and sometimes worse than trivial, they are nevertheless -worthy of careful study. They constitute a decisive testimony that the -change of the Sabbath by Christ or by his apostles from the seventh to -the first day of the week was absolutely unknown during that entire -period. But were it true that such change had been made they must -have known it. Had they believed that Christ changed the Sabbath to -commemorate his resurrection, how emphatically would they have stated -that fact instead of offering reasons for the festival of Sunday which -are so worthless as to be, with one or two exceptions, entirely discarded -by modern first-day writers. Or had they believed that the apostles -honored Sunday as the Sabbath or Lord’s day, how would they have produced -these facts in triumph! But Tertullian said that they had no positive -Scripture injunction for the Sunday festival, and the others, by offering -reasons that were only devised in their own hearts, corroborated his -testimony, and all of them together establish the fact that even in their -own estimation the day was only sustained by the authority of the church. -They were totally unacquainted with the modern doctrine that the seventh -day in the commandment means simply one day in seven, and that the -Saviour, to commemorate his resurrection, appointed that the first day of -the week should be that one of the seven to which the commandment should -apply! - -We have given every statement in the fathers of the first three centuries -in which the manner of celebrating the Sunday festival is set forth. We -have also given every reason for that observance which is to be found in -any of them. These two classes of testimonies show clearly that ordinary -labor was not one of the things which were forbidden on that day. We -now offer direct proof that other days which on all hands are accounted -nothing but church festivals were expressly declared by the fathers to be -equal if not superior in sacredness to the Sunday festival. - -The “Lost Writings of Irenæus” gives us his mind concerning the relative -sacredness of the festival of Sunday and that of either Easter or -Pentecost. This is the statement:— - - “Upon which [feast] we do not bend the knee, because it is - of _equal significance_ with the Lord’s day, for the reason - already alleged concerning it.”[619] - -Tertullian in a passage already quoted, which by omitting the sentence -we are about to quote, has been used as the strongest testimony to the -first-day Sabbath in the fathers, expressly equals in sacredness the -period of Pentecost—a space of fifty days—with the festival which he -calls Lord’s day. Thus he says:— - - “Similarly, too, in the period of Pentecost; which period we - distinguish by _the same solemnity of exultation_.”[620] - -He states the same fact in another work:— - - “We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day - to be unlawful. We rejoice _in the same privilege_ also from - Easter to Whitsunday.”[621] - -Origen classes the so-called Lord’s day with three other church -festivals:— - - “If it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are - accustomed to observe certain days, as for example the Lord’s - day, the Preparation, the Passover, or Pentecost, I have to - answer, that to the perfect Christian, who is ever in his - thoughts, words, and deeds, serving his natural Lord, God the - Word, all his days are the Lord’s, and he is always keeping the - Lord’s day.”[622] - -Irenæus and Tertullian make the Sunday Lord’s day equal in sacredness -with the period from the Passover to the Pentecost; but Origen, after -classing the day with several church festivals, virtually confesses that -it has no pre-eminence above other days. - -Commodianus, who once uses the term Lord’s day, speaks of the -Catholic festival of the Passover as “Easter, that day of ours _most -blessed_.”[623] This certainly indicates that in his estimation no other -sacred day was superior in sanctity to Easter. - -The “Apostolical Constitutions” treat the Sunday festival in the same -manner that it is treated by Irenæus and Tertullian. They make it equal -to the sacredness of the period from Easter to the Pentecost. Thus they -say:— - - “He will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord’s day, being - the day of the resurrection, or during the time of Pentecost, - or in general, who is sad on a festival day to the Lord.”[624] - -These testimonies prove conclusively that the festival of Sunday, in the -judgment of such men as Irenæus, Tertullian, and others, stood in the -same rank with that of Easter, or Whitsunday. They had no idea that one -was commanded by God, while the others were only ordained by the church. -Indeed, Tertullian, as we have seen, expressly declares that there is no -precept for Sunday observance.[625] - -Besides these important facts, we have decisive evidence that Sunday was -not a day of abstinence from labor, and our first witness is Justin, the -earliest witness to the Sunday festival in the Christian church. Trypho -the Jew said to Justin, by way of reproof, “You observe no festivals or -Sabbaths.”[626] This was exactly adapted to bring out from Justin the -statement that, though he did not observe the seventh day as the Sabbath, -he did thus rest on the first day of the week, if it were true that that -day was with him a day of abstinence from labor. But he gives no such -answer. He sneers at the very idea of abstinence from labor, declaring -that “God does not take pleasure in such observances.” Nor does he -intimate that this is because the Jews did not rest upon the right day, -but he condemns the very idea of refraining from labor for a day, stating -that “the new law,” which has taken the place of the commandments given -on Sinai[627] requires a perpetual Sabbath, and this is kept by repenting -of sin and refraining from its commission. Here are his words:— - - “The new law requires you to keep a perpetual Sabbath, and you, - _because you are idle for one day_, suppose you are pious, not - discerning why this has been commanded you; and if you eat - unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled. - The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: - if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him - cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has - kept the sweet and true Sabbaths of God.”[628] - -This language plainly implies that Justin did not believe that any day -should be kept as a Sabbath by abstinence from labor, but that all days -should be kept as sabbaths by abstinence from sin. This testimony is -decisive, and it is in exact harmony with the facts already adduced -from the fathers, and with others yet to be presented. Moreover, it is -confirmed by the express testimony of Tertullian. He says:— - - “By us (to whom _Sabbaths are strange_, and the new moons, - and festivals formerly beloved by God) the Saturnalia and - new year’s and mid-winter’s festivals and Matronalia are - frequented.”[629] - -And he adds in the same paragraph, in words already quoted:— - - “If _any indulgence is to be granted to the flesh_, you have - it. I will not say _your own days_, but _more too_; for to the - _heathens_ each festive day occurs but once annually; you have - a _festive day every eighth day_.”[630] - -Tertullian tells his brethren in plain language that they kept no -sabbaths, but did keep many heathen festivals. If the Sunday festival, -which was a day of “indulgence” to the flesh, and which he here mentions -as the “eighth day,” was kept by them as the Christian Sabbath in place -of the ancient seventh day, then he would not have asserted that to us -“sabbaths are strange.” But Tertullian has precisely the same Sabbath as -Justin Martyr. He does not keep the first day in place of the seventh, -but he keeps a “perpetual sabbath,” in which he professes to refrain from -sin every day, and actually abstains from labor on none. Thus, after -saying that the Jews teach that “from the beginning God sanctified the -seventh day” and therefore observe that day, he says:— - - “Whence we [Christians] understand that we still more ought to - observe a Sabbath from all ‘servile work’ always, and not only - every seventh day, but through all time.”[631] - -Tertullian certainly had no idea that Sunday was the Sabbath in any other -sense than were all the seven days of the week. We shall find a decisive -confirmation of this when we come to quote Tertullian respecting the -origin of the Sabbath. We shall also find that Clement expressly makes -Sunday a day of labor. - -Several of the early fathers wrote in opposition to the observance of -the seventh day. We now give the reasons assigned by each for that -opposition. The writer called Barnabas did not keep the seventh day, not -because it was a ceremonial ordinance unworthy of being observed by a -Christian, but because it was so pure an institution that even Christians -cannot truly sanctify it till they are made immortal. Here are his words:— - - “Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, ‘He - finished in six days.’ This implieth that the Lord will finish - all things in six thousand years, for a day is with him a - thousand years. And he himself testifieth, saying, ‘Behold, - to-day will be as a thousand years.’ Therefore, my children, - in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will - be finished. And he rested on the seventh day.’ This meaneth: - When his Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the - wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the - moon, and the stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh - day. Moreover, he says, ‘Thou shalt sanctify it with pure hands - and a pure heart.’ If, therefore, any one can now sanctify the - day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in heart in - all things, we are deceived. Behold, therefore: certainly then - one properly resting sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having - received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all - things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work - righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having - been first sanctified ourselves. Further he says to them, ‘Your - new moons and your sabbaths I cannot endure.’ Ye perceive how - he speaks: Your present sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but - that is which I have made [namely this], when, giving rest to - all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that - is, a beginning of another world, wherefore, also, we keep the - eighth day with joyfulness, the day, also, on which Jesus rose - again from the dead.”[632] - -Observe the points embodied in this statement of doctrine: 1. He asserts -that the six days of creation prefigure the six thousand years which our -world shall endure in its present state of wickedness. 2. He teaches that -at the end of that period Christ shall come again and make an end of -wickedness, and “then shall he truly rest on the seventh day.” 3. That -no “one can now sanctify the day which God hath sanctified, except he is -pure in heart in all things.” 4. But that cannot be the case until the -present world shall pass away, “when we ourselves, having received the -promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made -new by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be -able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves.” Men cannot, -therefore, keep the Sabbath while this wicked world lasts. 5. Therefore, -he says, “Your present sabbaths are not acceptable,” not because they -are not pure, but because you are not now able to keep them as purely as -their nature demands. 6. That is to say, the keeping of the day which -God has sanctified is not possible in such a wicked world as this. 7. -But though the seventh day cannot now be kept, the eighth day can be, -and ought to be, because when the seven thousand years are past, there -will be at the beginning of the eighth thousand, the new creation. 8. -Therefore, he did not attempt to keep the seventh day, which God had -sanctified; for that is too pure to be kept in the present wicked world, -and can only be kept after the Saviour comes at the commencement of the -seventh thousand years; but he kept the eighth day with joyfulness on -which Jesus arose from the dead. 9. So it appears that the eighth day, -which God never sanctified, is exactly suitable for observance in our -world during its present state of wickedness. 10. But when all things -have been made new, and we are able to work righteousness, and wickedness -no longer exists, then we shall be able to sanctify the seventh day, -having first been sanctified ourselves. - -The reason of Barnabas for not observing the Sabbath of the Lord is not -that the commandment enjoining it is abolished, but that the institution -is so pure that men in their present imperfect state cannot acceptably -sanctify it. They will keep it, however, in the new creation, but in the -meantime they keep with joyfulness the eighth day, which having never -been sanctified by God is not difficult to keep in the present state of -wickedness. - -Justin Martyr’s reasons for not observing the Sabbath are not at all -like those of the so-called Barnabas, for Justin seems to have heartily -despised the Sabbatic institution. He denies that it was obligatory -before the time of Moses, and affirms that it was abolished by the advent -of Christ. He teaches that it was given to the Jews because of their -wickedness, and he expressly affirms the abolition of both the Sabbath -and the law. So far is he from teaching the change of the Sabbath from -the seventh to the first day of the week, or from making the Sunday -festival a continuation of the ancient Sabbatic institution, that he -sneers at the very idea of days of abstinence from labor, or days of -idleness, and though God gives as his reason for the observance of the -Sabbath, that that was the day on which he rested from all his work, -Justin gives as his first reason for the Sunday festival that that was -the day on which God began his work! Of abstinence from labor as an act -of obedience to the Sabbath, Justin says:— - - “The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such - observances.”[633] - -A second reason for not observing the Sabbath is thus stated by him:— - - “For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the - Sabbaths, and in short, all the feasts, if we did not know for - what reason they were enjoined you—namely, on account of your - transgressions and the hardness of your hearts.”[634] - -As Justin never discriminates between the Sabbath of the Lord and the -annual sabbaths he doubtless here means to include it as well as them. -But what a falsehood is it to assert that the Sabbath was given to the -Jews because of their wickedness! The truth is, it was given to the -Jews because of the universal apostasy of the Gentiles.[635] But in the -following paragraph Justin gives three more reasons for not keeping the -Sabbath:— - - “Do you see that the elements are not idle, and keep no - Sabbaths? Remain as you were born. For if there was no need of - circumcision before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, - of feasts and sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there - of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus - Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin - sprung from the stock of Abraham.”[636] - -Here are three reasons: 1. “That the elements are not idle, and keep no -Sabbaths.” Though this reason is simply worthless as an argument against -the seventh day, it is a decisive confirmation of the fact already -proven, that Justin did not make Sunday a day of abstinence from labor. -2. His second reason here given is that there was no observance of -Sabbaths before Moses, and yet we do know that God at the beginning did -appoint the Sabbath to a holy use, a fact to which as we shall see quite -a number of the fathers testify, and we also know that in that age were -men who kept all the precepts of God. 3. There is no need of Sabbatic -observance since Christ. Though this is mere assertion, it is by no means -easy for those to meet it fairly who represent Justin as maintaining the -Christian Sabbath. - -Another argument by Justin against the obligation of the Sabbath is -that God “directs the government of the universe on this day equally as -on all others!”[637] as though this were inconsistent with the present -sacredness of the Sabbath, when it is also true that God thus governed -the world in the period when Justin acknowledges the Sabbath to have -been obligatory. Though this reason is trivial as an argument against -the Sabbath, it does show that Justin could have attached no Sabbatic -character to Sunday. But he has yet one more argument against the -Sabbath. The ancient law has been done away by the new and final law, and -the old covenant has been superseded by the new.[638] But he forgets -that the design of the new covenant was not to do away with the law of -God, but to put that law into the heart of every Christian. And many of -the fathers, as we shall see, expressly repudiate this doctrine of the -abrogation of the Decalogue. - -Such were Justin’s reasons for rejecting the ancient Sabbath. But though -he was a decided asserter of the abrogation of the law, and of the -Sabbatic institution itself, and kept Sunday only as a festival, modern -first-day writers cite him as a witness in support of the doctrine that -the first day of the week should be observed as the Christian Sabbath on -the authority of the fourth commandment. - -Now let us learn what stood in the way of Irenæus’ observance of the -Sabbath. It was not that the commandments were abolished, for we shall -presently learn that he taught their perpetuity. Nor was it that he -believed in the change of the Sabbath, for he gives no hint of such an -idea. The Sunday festival in his estimation appears to have been simply -of “equal significance” with the Pentecost.[639] Nor was it that Christ -broke the Sabbath, for Irenæus says that he did not.[640] But because -the Sabbath is called a sign he regarded it as significant of the future -kingdom, and appears to have considered it no longer obligatory, though -he does not expressly say this. Thus he sets forth the meaning of the -Sabbath as held by him:— - - “Moreover the Sabbaths of God, _that is, the kingdom_, was, as - it were, indicated by created things,” etc.[641] - - “These [promises to the righteous] are [to take place] in _the - times of the kingdom_, that is, upon the seventh day which has - been sanctified, in which God rested from all the works which - he created, which is the true Sabbath of the righteous,”[642] - etc. - - “For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years: and in six - days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, - that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.”[643] - -But Irenæus did not notice that the Sabbath as a sign does not point -forward to the restitution, but backward to the creation, that it may -signify that the true God is the Creator.[644] Nor did he observe the -fact that when the kingdom of God shall be established under the whole -heaven all flesh shall hallow the Sabbath.[645] - -But he says that those who lived before Moses were justified “without -observance of Sabbaths,” and offers as proof that the covenant at -Horeb was not made with the fathers. Of course if this proves that the -patriarchs were free from obligation toward the fourth commandment, it -is equally good as proof that they might violate any other. These things -indicate that Irenæus was opposed to Sabbatic observance, though he did -not in express language assert its abrogation, and did in most decisive -terms assert the continued obligation of the ten commandments. - -Tertullian offers numerous reasons for not observing the Sabbath, but -there is scarcely one of these that he does not in some other place -expressly contradict. Thus he asserts that the patriarchs before Moses -did not observe the Sabbath.[646] But he offers no proof, and he -elsewhere dates the origin of the Sabbath at the creation,[647] as we -shall show hereafter. In several places he teaches the abrogation of -the law, and seems to set aside moral law as well as ceremonial. But -elsewhere, as we shall show, he bears express testimony that the ten -commandments are still binding as the rule of the Christian’s life.[648] -He quotes the words of Isaiah in which God is represented as hating the -feasts, new-moons, and sabbaths observed by the Jews,[649] as proof -that the seventh-day Sabbath was a temporary institution which Christ -abrogated. But in another place he says: “_Christ did not at all rescind -the Sabbath_: he kept the law thereof.”[650] And he also explains this -very text by stating that God’s aversion toward the Sabbaths observed by -the Jews was “because they were celebrated without the fear of God by a -people full of iniquities,” and adds that the prophet, in a later passage -speaking of Sabbaths celebrated according to God’s commandment, “declares -them to be true, delightful, and inviolable.”[651] Another statement is -that Joshua violated the Sabbath in the siege of Jericho.[652] Yet he -elsewhere explains this very case, showing that the commandment forbids -our own work, not God’s. Those who acted at Jericho did “not do their own -work, but God’s, which they executed, and that, too, from his express -commandment.”[653] He also both asserts and denies that Christ violated -the Sabbath.[654] Tertullian was a double-minded man. He wrote much -against the law and the Sabbath, but he also contradicted and exposed his -own errors. - -Origen attempts to prove that the ancient Sabbath is to be understood -mystically or spiritually, and not literally. Here is his argument:— - - “‘Ye shall sit, every one in your dwellings: no one shall - move from his place on the Sabbath day.’ Which precept it is - impossible to observe literally; for no man can sit a whole day - so as not to move from the place where he sat down.”[655] - -Great men are not always wise. There is no such precept in the Bible. -Origen referred to that which forbade the people to go out for manna on -the Sabbath, but which did not conflict with another that commanded holy -convocations or assemblies for worship on the Sabbath.[656] - -Victorinus is the latest of the fathers before Constantine who offers -reasons against the observance of the Sabbath. His first reason is that -Christ said by Isaiah that his soul hated the Sabbath; which Sabbath he -in his body abolished; and these assertions we have seen answered by -Tertullian.[657] His second reason is that “Jesus [Joshua] the son of -Nave [Nun], the successor of Moses, himself broke the Sabbath day,”[658] -which is false. His third reason is that “Matthias [a Maccabean] also, -prince of Judah, broke the Sabbath,”[659] which is doubtless false, but -is of no consequence as authority. His fourth argument is original, and -may fitly close the list of reasons assigned in the early fathers for not -observing the Sabbath. It is given in full without an answer:— - - “And in Matthew we read, that it is written Isaiah also and the - rest of his colleagues broke the Sabbath.”[660] - - - - -CHAPTER XVIII. - -THE SABBATH IN THE RECORD OF THE EARLY FATHERS. - - The first reasons for neglecting the Sabbath are now - mostly obsolete—A portion of the early fathers taught the - perpetuity of the decalogue, and made it the standard of moral - character—What they say concerning the origin of the Sabbath - at Creation—Their testimony concerning the perpetuity of the - ancient Sabbath, and concerning its observance—Enumeration of - the things which caused the suppression of the Sabbath and the - elevation of Sunday. - - -The reasons offered by the early fathers for neglecting the observance -of the Sabbath show conclusively that they had no special light on the -subject by reason of living in the first centuries, which we in this -later age do not possess. The fact is, so many of the reasons offered by -them are manifestly false and absurd that those who in these days discard -the Sabbath, do also discard the most of the reasons offered by these -fathers for this same course. We have also learned from such of the early -fathers as mention first-day observance, the exact nature of the Sunday -festival, and all the reasons which in the first centuries were offered -in its support. Very few indeed of these reasons are now offered by -modern first-day writers. - -But some of the fathers bear emphatic testimony to the perpetuity of the -ten commandments, and make their observance the condition of eternal -life. Some of them also distinctly assert the origin of the Sabbath at -creation. Several of them moreover either bear witness to the existence -of Sabbath-keepers, or bear decisive testimony to the perpetuity and -obligation of the Sabbath, or define the nature of proper Sabbatic -observance, or connect the observance of the Sabbath and first day -together. Let us now hear the testimony of those who assert the authority -of the ten commandments. Irenæus asserts their perpetuity, and makes them -a test of Christian character. Thus he says:— - - “For God at the first, indeed, warning them [the Jews] by - means of _natural precepts_, which _from the beginning he had - implanted in mankind_, that is, by means of _the_ DECALOGUE - (_which, if any one does not observe, he has no salvation_), - did then demand nothing more of them.”[661] - -This is a very strong statement. He makes the ten commandments the law -of nature implanted in man’s being at the beginning; and so inherited -by all mankind. This is no doubt true. It is the presence of the carnal -mind or law of sin and death, implanted in man by the fall, that has -partially obliterated this law, and made the work of the new covenant a -necessity.[662] He again asserts the perpetuity and authority of the ten -commandments:— - - “Preparing man for this life, the Lord himself did speak in - his own person to all alike the words of the Decalogue: and - therefore, in like manner, do they remain permanently with us, - receiving, by means of his advent in the flesh, extension and - increase, but not abrogation.”[663] - -By the “extension” of the decalogue, Irenæus doubtless means the -exposition which the Saviour gave of the meaning of the commandments in -his sermon on the mount.[664] Theophilus speaks in like manner concerning -the decalogue:— - - “For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and _every - one_ who _keeps_ these _can be saved_, and, obtaining the - resurrection, can inherit incorruption.”[665] - - “We have learned a holy law; but we have as Law-giver him who - is really God, who teaches us to act righteously, and to be - pious, and to do good.”[666] - - “Of this great and wonderful law which tends to all - righteousness, the TEN HEADS are such as we have already - rehearsed.”[667] - -Tertullian calls the ten commandments “the rules of our regenerate life,” -that is to say, the rules which govern the life of a converted man:— - - “They who theorize respecting numbers, honor the number ten - as the parent of all the others, and as imparting perfection - to the human nativity. For my own part, I prefer viewing this - measure of time in reference to God, as if implying that the - ten months rather initiated man into _the ten commandments_; so - that the numerical estimate of the time needed to consummate - our natural birth should correspond to the numerical - classification of _the rules of our regenerate life_.”[668] - -In showing the deep guilt involved in the violation of the seventh -commandment, Tertullian speaks of the sacredness of the commandments -which precede it, naming several of them in particular, and among them -the fourth, and then says of the precept against adultery that - - It stands “in the very forefront of _the most holy law_, among - the _primary counts_ of the _celestial edict_.”[669] - -Clement of Rome, or rather the author whose works have been ascribed to -this father, speaks thus of the decalogue as a test:— - - “On account of those, therefore, who, by neglect of their own - salvation, please the evil one, and those who, by study of - their own profit, seek to please the good One, ten things have - been prescribed as a test to this present age, according to the - number of the ten plagues which were brought upon Egypt.”[670] - -Novatian, who wrote about A. D. 250, is accounted the founder of the sect -called _Cathari_ or Puritans. He wrote a treatise on the Sabbath, which -is not extant. There is no reference to Sunday in any of his writings. He -makes the following striking remarks concerning the moral law:— - - “The law was given to the children of Israel for this purpose, - that they might profit by it, and RETURN _to those virtuous - manners_ which, although _they had received them from their - fathers_, they had corrupted in Egypt by reason of their - intercourse with a barbarous people. Finally, also, those _ten - commandments_ on the tables teach nothing _new_, but _remind - them of what had been obliterated_—that righteousness in them, - which had been put to sleep, might revive again as it were by - the afflatus of the law, after the manner of a fire [nearly - extinguished].”[671] - -It is evident that in the judgment of Novatian, the ten commandments -enjoined nothing that was not sacredly regarded by the patriarchs -before Jacob went down into Egypt. It follows, therefore, that, in his -opinion, the Sabbath was made, not at the fall of the manna, but when -God sanctified the seventh day, and that holy men from the earliest ages -observed it. - -The Apostolical Constitutions, written about the third century, give us -an understanding of what was widely regarded in the third century as -apostolic doctrine. They speak thus of the ten commandments:— - - “Have before thine eyes the fear of God, and always remember - the ten commandments of God,—to love the one and only Lord - God with all thy strength; to give no heed to idols, or any - other beings, as being lifeless gods, or irrational beings or - dæmons.”[672] - - “He gave a plain law to assist the law of nature, such a - one as is pure, saving, and holy, in which his own name was - inscribed, perfect, which is never to fail, being complete in - ten commands, unspotted, converting souls.”[673] - -This writer, like Irenæus, believed in the identity of the decalogue -with the law of nature. These testimonies show that in the writings of -the early fathers are some of the strongest utterances in behalf of the -perpetuity and authority of the ten commandments. Now let us hear what -they say concerning the origin of the Sabbath at creation. The epistle -ascribed to Barnabas, says:— - - “And he says in another place, ‘If my sons keep the Sabbath, - then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them.’ The Sabbath is - mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: ‘And God - made in six days the works of his hands, and made an end on - the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it.’”[674] - -Irenæus seems plainly to connect the origin of the Sabbath with the -sanctification of the seventh day:— - - “These [things promised] are [to take place] in the times of - the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, which has been - sanctified, in which God rested from all his works which he - created, which is the true Sabbath, in which they shall not be - engaged in any earthly occupation.”[675] - -Tertullian, likewise, refers the origin of the Sabbath to “the -benediction of the Father”:— - - “But inasmuch as birth is also completed with the seventh - month, I more readily recognize in this number than in the - eighth the honor of a numerical agreement with the Sabbatical - period; so that the month in which God’s image is sometimes - produced in a human birth, shall in its number tally with the - day on which God’s creation was completed and _hallowed_.”[676] - - “For even in the case before us he [Christ] fulfilled the law, - while interpreting its condition; [moreover] he exhibits in a - clear light the different kinds of work, while doing what the - law excepts from the sacredness of the Sabbath, [and] while - imparting to the Sabbath day itself which _from the beginning - had been consecrated by the benediction of the Father_, an - additional sanctity by his own beneficent action.”[677] - -Origen, who, as we have seen, believed in a mystical Sabbath, did -nevertheless fix its origin at the sanctification of the seventh day:— - - “For he [Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and - rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s - creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and - in which all those will keep festival with God who have done - all their works in their six days.”[678] - -The testimony of Novatian which has been given relative to the sacredness -and authority of the decalogue plainly implies the existence of the -Sabbath in the patriarchal ages, and its observance by those holy men of -old. It was given to Israel that they might “RETURN to those _virtuous -manners_ which, although _they had received them from their fathers_, -they had corrupted in Egypt.” And he adds, “Those ten commandments on -the tables teach _nothing new_, but _remind_ them of what had been -obliterated.”[679] He did not, therefore, believe the Sabbath to have -originated at the fall of the manna, but counted it one of those things -which were practiced by their fathers before Jacob went down to Egypt. - -Lactantius places the origin of the Sabbath at creation:— - - “God completed the world and this admirable work of nature in - the space of six days (as is contained in the secrets of holy - Scripture) and CONSECRATED the seventh day on which he had - rested from his works. But this is the Sabbath day, which, in - the language of the Hebrews, received its name from the number, - whence the seventh is the legitimate and complete number.”[680] - -In a poem on Genesis written about the time of Lactantius, but by an -unknown author, we have an explicit testimony to the divine appointment -of the seventh day to a holy use while man was yet in Eden, the garden of -God:— - - “The seventh came, when God - At his work’s end did rest, DECREEING IT - SACRED UNTO THE COMING AGE’S JOYS.”[681] - -The Apostolical Constitutions, while teaching the present obligation of -the Sabbath, plainly indicate its origin to have been at creation:— - - “O Lord Almighty, thou hast created the world by Christ, and - _hast appointed the Sabbath in memory thereof_, because that - on that day thou hast made us rest from our works, for the - meditation upon thy laws.”[682] - -Such are the testimonies of the early fathers to the primeval origin of -the Sabbath, and to the sacredness and perpetual obligation of the ten -commandments. We now call attention to what they say relative to the -perpetuity of the Sabbath, and to its observance in the centuries during -which they lived. Tertullian defines Christ’s relation to the Sabbath:— - - “He was called ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ because he maintained the - Sabbath as his own institution.”[683] - -He affirms that Christ did not abolish the Sabbath:— - - “Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath: he kept the law - thereof, and both in the former case did a work which was - beneficial to the life of his disciples (for he indulged - them with the relief of food when they were hungry), and in - the present instance cured the withered hand; in each case - intimating by facts, ‘I came not to destroy the law, but to - fulfill it.’”[684] - -Nor can it be said that while Tertullian denied that Christ abolished -the Sabbath he did believe that he transferred its sacredness from the -seventh day of the week to the first, for he continues thus:— - - “He [Christ] exhibits in a clear light the different kinds of - work, while doing what the law excepts from the sacredness - of the Sabbath, [and] while imparting to the Sabbath day - itself, which from the beginning had been consecrated by the - benediction of the Father, an additional sanctity by his own - beneficent action. For he furnished _to this day_ DIVINE - SAFEGUARDS—_a course which his adversary would have pursued - for some other days_, to avoid honoring the Creator’s Sabbath, - and restoring to the Sabbath the works which were proper for - it.”[685] - -This is a very remarkable statement. The modern doctrine of the change -of the Sabbath was unknown in Tertullian’s time. Had it then been in -existence, there could be no doubt that in the words last quoted he was -aiming at it a heavy blow; for the very thing which he asserts Christ’s -adversary, Satan, would have had him do, that modern first-day writers -assert he did do in consecrating another day instead of adding to the -sanctity of his Father’s Sabbath. - -Archelaus of Cascar in Mesopotamia emphatically denies the abolition of -the Sabbath:— - - “Again, as to the assertion that the Sabbath has been - abolished, we deny that he has abolished it plainly; for he was - himself also Lord of the Sabbath.”[686] - -Justin Martyr, as we have seen, was an out-spoken opponent of Sabbatic -observance, and of the authority of the law of God. He was by no means -always candid in what he said. He has occasion to refer to those who -observed the seventh day, and he does it with contempt. Thus he says:— - - “But if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such - institutions as were given by Moses (from which they expect - some virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reason of - the hardness of the people’s hearts), along with their hope - in this Christ, and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural - acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live with the - Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing - them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the - Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold - that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with - them in all things as kinsmen and brethren.”[687] - -These words are spoken of Sabbath-keeping Christians. Such of them as -were of Jewish descent no doubt generally retained circumcision. But -there were many Gentile Christians who observed the Sabbath, as we shall -see, and it is not true that they observed circumcision. Justin speaks -of this class as acting from “weak-mindedness,” yet he inadvertently -alludes to the keeping of the commandments as the performance of -“the ETERNAL and NATURAL ACTS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS,” a most appropriate -designation indeed. Justin would fellowship those who act thus, provided -they would fellowship him in the contrary course. But though Justin, on -this condition, could fellowship these “weak-minded” brethren, he says -that there are those who “_do not venture to have any intercourse with, -or to extend hospitality to, such persons_; but I do not agree with -them.”[688] This shows the bitter spirit which prevailed in some quarters -toward the Sabbath, even as early as Justin’s time. Justin has no word of -condemnation for these intolerant professors; he is only solicitous lest -those persons who perform “the eternal and natural acts of righteousness -and piety” should condemn those who do not perform them. - -Clement of Alexandria, though a mystical writer, bears an important -testimony to the perpetuity of the ancient Sabbath, and to man’s present -need thereof. He comments thus on the fourth commandment:— - - “And the fourth word is that which intimates that the world - was created by God, and that _he gave us the seventh day as a - rest_, on account of the trouble that there is in life. For - God is incapable of weariness, and suffering, and want. _But - we who bear flesh need rest._ The seventh day, therefore, is - proclaimed a rest—abstraction from ills—preparing for the - primal day, our true rest.”[689] - -Clement recognized the authority of the moral law; for he treats of the -ten commandments, one by one, and shows what each enjoins. He plainly -teaches that the Sabbath was made for man, and that he now needs it as a -day of rest, and his language implies that it was made at the creation. -But in the next paragraph, he makes some curious suggestions, which -deserve notice:— - - “Having reached this point, we must mention these things by - the way; since the discourse has turned on the seventh and the - eighth. For the eighth may possibly turn out to be properly the - seventh, and the seventh manifestly the sixth, and the latter - properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work. For the - creation of the world was concluded in six days.”[690] - -This language has been adduced to show that Clement called the eighth -day, or Sunday, the Sabbath. But first-day writers in general have not -dared to commit themselves to such an interpretation, and some of them -have expressly discarded it. Let us notice this statement with especial -care. He speaks of the ordinals seventh and eighth in the abstract, but -probably with reference to the days of the week. Observe then, - -1. That he does not intimate that the eighth day has _become_ the Sabbath -in place of the seventh which was _once_ such, but he says that the -eighth day may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh. - -2. That in Clement’s time, A. D. 194, there was not any confusion in the -minds of men as to which day was the ancient Sabbath, and which one was -the first day of the week, or eighth day, as it was often called, nor -does he intimate that there was. - -3. But Clement, from some cause, says that possibly the eighth day -should be counted the seventh, and the seventh day the sixth. Now, if -this should be done, it would change the numbering of the days, not only -as far back as the resurrection of Christ, but all the way back to the -creation. - -4. If, therefore, Clement, in this place, designed to teach that Sunday -is the Sabbath, he must also have held that it always had been such. - -5. But observe that, while he changes the numbering of the days of the -week, he does not change the Sabbath from one day to another. He says -the eighth may possibly be the seventh, and the seventh, properly the -sixth, and the latter, or this one [Greek, ἡ μὲν κυρίως εἶυαι σάββατου,], -properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work. - -6. By the latter must be understood the day last mentioned, which he says -should be called, not the seventh, but the sixth; and by the seventh -must certainly be intended that day which he says is not the eighth, but -the seventh, that is to say, Sunday. - -There remains but one difficulty to be solved, and that is why he should -suggest the changing of the numbering of the days of the week by striking -one from the count of each day, thus making the Sabbath the sixth day -in the count instead of the seventh; and making Sunday the seventh day -in the count instead of the eighth. The answer seems to have eluded the -observation of the first-day and anti-Sabbatarian writers who have sought -to grasp it. But there is a fact which solves the difficulty. Clement’s -commentary on the fourth commandment, from which these quotations are -taken, is principally made up of curious observations on “the perfect -number six,” “the number seven motherless and childless,” and the number -eight, which is “a cube,” and the like matters, and is taken with some -change of arrangement almost word for word from Philo Judæus, a teacher -who flourished at Alexandria about one century before Clement. Whoever -will take pains to compare these two writers will find in Philo nearly -all the ideas and illustrations which Clement has used, and the very -language also in which he has expressed them.[691] Philo was a mystical -teacher to whom Clement looked up as to a master. A statement which we -find in Philo, in immediate connection with several curious ideas, which -Clement quotes from him, gives, beyond all doubt, the key to Clement’s -suggestion that possibly the eighth day should be called the seventh, and -the seventh day called the sixth. Philo said that, according to God’s -purpose, the first day of time was not to be numbered with the other days -of the creation week. Thus he says:— - - “And he allotted each of the six days to one of the portions - of the whole, TAKING OUT THE FIRST DAY, which he does not even - call the first day, _that it may not be numbered with the - others_, but entitling it ONE, he names it rightly, perceiving - in it, and ascribing to it, the nature and appellation of the - limit.”[692] - -This would simply change the numbering of the days, as counted by Philo, -and afterward partially adopted by Clement, and make the Sabbath, not -the seventh day, but the sixth, and Sunday, not the eighth day, but the -seventh; but it would still leave the Sabbath day and the Sunday the same -identical days as before. It would, however, give to the Sabbath the -name of sixth day, because the first of the six days of creation was not -counted; and it would cause the eighth day, so called in the early church -because of its coming next after the Sabbath, to be called seventh day. -Thus the Sabbath would be the sixth day, and the seventh a day of work, -and yet the Sabbath would be the identical day that it had ever been, -and the Sunday, though called seventh day, would still, as ever before, -remain a day on which ordinary labor was lawful. Of course, Philo’s -idea that the first day of time should not be counted, is wholly false; -for there is not one fact in the Bible to support it, but many which -expressly contradict it, and even Clement, with all deference to Philo, -only timidly suggests it. But when the matter is laid open, it shows that -Clement had no thought of calling Sunday the Sabbath, and that he does -expressly confirm what we have fully proved out of other of the fathers, -that Sunday was a day on which, in their judgment, labor was not sinful. - -Tertullian, at different periods of his life, held different views -respecting the Sabbath, and committed them all to writing. We last quoted -from him a decisive testimony to the perpetuity of the Sabbath, coupled -with an equally decisive testimony against the sanctification of the -first day of the week. In another work, from which we have already quoted -his statement that Christians should not kneel on Sunday, we find another -statement that “some few” abstained from kneeling on the Sabbath. This -has probable reference to Carthage, where Tertullian lived. He speaks -thus:— - - “In the matter of _kneeling_ also, prayer is subject to - diversity of observance, through the act of some few who - abstain from kneeling on the Sabbath; and since this dissension - is particularly on its trial before the churches, the Lord will - give his grace that the dissentients may either yield, or else - indulge their opinion without offense to others.”[693] - -The act of standing in prayer was one of the chief honors conferred upon -Sunday. Those who refrained from kneeling on the seventh day, without -doubt did it because they desired to honor that day. This particular -act is of no consequence; for it was adopted in imitation of those who, -from tradition and custom, thus honored Sunday; but we have in this an -undoubted reference to Sabbath-keeping Christians. Tertullian speaks of -them, however, in a manner quite unlike that of Justin in his reference -to the commandment-keepers of his time. - -Origen, like many other of the fathers, was far from being consistent -with himself. Though he has spoken against Sabbatic observance, and has -honored the so-called Lord’s day as something better than the ancient -Sabbath, he has nevertheless given a discourse expressly designed to -teach Christians the proper method of observing the Sabbath. Here is a -portion of this sermon:— - - “But what is the feast of the Sabbath except that of which - the apostle speaks, ‘There remaineth therefore a Sabbatism,’ - that is, the observance of the Sabbath by the people of - God? Leaving the Jewish observances of the Sabbath, let us - see how the Sabbath ought to be observed by a Christian. On - the Sabbath day all worldly labors ought to be abstained - from. If, therefore, you cease from all secular works, and - execute nothing worldly, but give yourselves up to spiritual - exercises, repairing to church, attending to sacred reading - and instruction, thinking of celestial things, solicitous for - the future, placing the Judgment to come before your eyes, not - looking to things present and visible, but to those which are - future and invisible, this is the observance of the Christian - Sabbath.”[694] - -This is by no means a bad representation of the proper observance of the -Sabbath. Such a discourse addressed to Christians is a strong evidence -that many did then hallow that day. Some, indeed, have claimed that these -words were spoken concerning Sunday. They would have it that he contrasts -the observance of the first day with that of the seventh. But the -contrast is not between the different methods of keeping two days, but -between two methods of observing one day. The Jews in Origen’s time spent -the day mainly in mere abstinence from labor, and often added sensuality -to idleness. But the Christians were to observe it in divine worship, as -well as sacred rest. What day he intends cannot be doubtful. It is DIES -SABBATI, a term which can signify only the seventh day. Here is the first -instance of the term Christian Sabbath, _Sabbati Christiani_, and it is -expressly applied to the seventh day observed by Christians. - -The longer form of the reputed epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians -was not written till after Origen’s time, but, though not written by -Ignatius, it is valuable for light which it sheds upon the existing -state of things at the time of its composition, and for marking the -progress which apostasy had made with respect to the Sabbath. Here is its -reference to the Sabbath and first day:— - - “Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish - manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for ‘he that does not - work, let him not eat.’ For say the [holy] oracles, ‘In the - sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.’ But let every one - of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in - meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring - the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the - day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a - prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits - which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the - Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s day as a - festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all - the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet - declared, ‘To the end, for the eighth day,’ on which our life - both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained - in Christ.”[695] - -This writer specifies the different things which made up the Jewish -observance of the Sabbath. They may be summed up under two heads. 1. -Strict abstinence from labor. 2. Dancing and carousal. Now, in the light -of what Origen has said, we can understand the contrast which this writer -draws between the Jewish and Christian observance of the Sabbath. The -error of the Jews in the first part of this was that they contented -themselves with mere bodily relaxation, without raising their thoughts to -God, the Creator, and this mere idleness soon gave place to sensual folly. - -The Christian, as Origen draws the contrast, refrains from labor on the -Sabbath that he may raise his heart in grateful worship. Or, as this -writer draws it, the Christian keeps the Sabbath in a spiritual manner, -rejoicing in meditation on the law; but to do thus, he must hallow it -in the manner which that law commands, that is, in the observance of -a sacred rest which commemorates the rest of the Creator. The writer -evidently believed in the observance of the Sabbath as an act of -obedience to that law on which they were to meditate on that day. And -the nature of the epistle indicates that it was observed, at all events, -in the country where it was written. But mark the work of apostasy. The -so-called Lord’s day for which the writer could offer nothing better than -an argument drawn from the title of the sixth psalm (see its marginal -reading) is exalted above the Lord’s holy day, and made the queen of all -days! - -The Apostolical Constitutions, though not written in apostolic times, -were in existence as early as the third century, and were then very -generally believed to express the doctrine of the apostles. They do -therefore furnish important historical testimony to the practice of the -church at that time, and also indicate the great progress which apostasy -had made. Guericke speaks thus of them:— - - “This is a collection of ecclesiastical statutes purporting - to be the work of the apostolic age, but in reality formed - gradually in the second, third, and fourth centuries, and is of - much value in reference to the history of polity, and Christian - archæology generally.”[696] - -Mosheim says of them:— - - “The matter of this work is unquestionably ancient; since the - manners and discipline of which it exhibits a view are those - which prevailed amongst the Christians of the second and third - centuries, especially those resident in Greece and the oriental - regions.”[697] - -These Constitutions indicate that the Sabbath was extensively observed in -the third century. They also show the standing of the Sunday festival in -that century. After solemnly enjoining the sacred observance of the ten -commandments, they thus enforce the Sabbath:— - - “Consider the manifold workmanship of God, which received its - beginning through Christ. Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on - account of Him who ceased from his work of creation, but ceased - not from his work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of - the law, not for idleness of the hands.”[698] - -This is sound Sabbatarian doctrine. To show how distinctly these -Constitutions recognize the decalogue as the foundation of Sabbatic -authority we quote the words next preceding the above, though we have -quoted them on another occasion:— - - “Have before thine eyes the fear of God, and always remember - the ten commandments of God,—to love the one and only Lord - God with all thy strength; to give no heed to idols, or any - other beings, as being lifeless gods, or irrational beings or - dæmons.”[699] - -But though these Constitutions thus recognize the authority of the -decalogue and the sacred obligation of the seventh day, they elevate the -Sunday festival in some respects to higher honor than the Sabbath, though -they claim for it no precept of the Scriptures. Thus they say:— - - “But keep the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day festival; because the - former is the memorial of the creation, and the latter of the - resurrection.”[700] - - “For the Sabbath is the ceasing of the creation, the completion - of the world, the inquiry after laws, and the grateful praise - to God for the blessings he has bestowed upon men. All which - the Lord’s day excels, and shows the Mediator himself, the - Provider, the Law-giver, the Cause of the resurrection, the - First-born of the whole creation.”[701] - - “So that the Lord’s day commands us to offer unto thee, O Lord, - thanksgiving for all. For this is the grace afforded by thee, - which, on account of its greatness, has obscured all other - blessings.”[702] - -Tested by his own principles, the writer of these Constitutions was far -advanced in apostasy; for he held a festival, for which he claimed no -divine authority, more honorable than one which he acknowledged to be -ordained of God. There could be but one step more in this course, and -that would be to set aside the commandment of God for the ordinance of -man, and this step was not very long afterward actually taken. One other -point should be noticed. It is said:— - - “Let the slaves work five days; but on the Sabbath day and - the Lord’s day let them have leisure to go to church for - instruction in piety.”[703] - -The question of the sinfulness of labor on either of these days is not -here taken into the account; for the reason assigned is that the slaves -may have leisure to attend public worship. But while these Constitutions -elsewhere forbid labor on the Sabbath on the authority of the decalogue, -they do not forbid it upon the first day of the week. Take the following -as an example:— - - “O Lord Almighty, thou hast created the world by Christ, and - hast appointed the Sabbath in memory thereof, because that _on - that day_ thou hast made us _rest from our works_, for the - meditation upon thy laws.”[704] - -The Apostolical Constitutions are valuable to us, not as authority -respecting the teaching of the apostles, but as giving us a knowledge of -the views and practices which prevailed in the third century. As these -Constitutions were extensively regarded as embodying the doctrine of the -apostles, they furnish conclusive evidence that, at the time when they -were put in writing, the ten commandments were very generally revered -as the immutable rule of right, and that the Sabbath of the Lord was by -many observed as an act of obedience to the fourth commandment, and as -the divine memorial of the creation. They also show that the first-day -festival had, in the third century, attained such strength and influence -as to clearly indicate that ere long it would claim the entire ground. -But observe that the Sabbath and the so-called Lord’s day were then -regarded as distinct institutions, and that no hint of the change of the -Sabbath from the seventh day to the first is even once given. - -Thus much out of the fathers concerning the authority of the decalogue, -and concerning the perpetuity and observance of the ancient Sabbath. The -suppression of the Sabbath of the Bible, and the elevation of Sunday to -its place, has been shown to be in no sense the work of the Saviour. But -so great a work required the united action of powerful causes, and these -causes we now enumerate. - -1. _Hatred toward the Jews._ This people, who retained the ancient -Sabbath, had slain Christ. It was easy for men to forget that Christ, as -Lord of the Sabbath, had claimed it as his own institution, and to call -the Sabbath a Jewish institution which Christians should not regard.[705] - -2. _The hatred of the church of Rome toward the Sabbath, and its -determination to elevate Sunday to the highest place._ This church, as -the chief in the work of apostasy, took the lead in the earliest effort -to suppress the Sabbath by turning it into a fast. And the very first act -of papal aggression was by an edict in behalf of Sunday. Thenceforward, -in every possible form, this church continued this work until the pope -announced that he had received a divine mandate for Sunday observance -[the very thing lacking] in a roll which fell from Heaven. - -3. _The voluntary observance of memorable days._ In the Christian church, -almost from the beginning, men voluntarily honored the fourth, the sixth, -and the first days of the week, and also the anniversary of the Passover -and the Pentecost, to commemorate the betrayal, the death, and the -resurrection, of Christ, and the descent of the Holy Spirit, which acts -in themselves could not be counted sinful. - -4. _The making of tradition of equal authority with the Scriptures._ This -was the great error of the early church, and the one to which that church -was specially exposed, as having in it those who had seen the apostles, -or who had seen those who had seen them. It was this which rendered the -voluntary observance of memorable days a dangerous thing. For what began -as a voluntary observance became, after the lapse of a few years, a -standing custom, established by tradition, which must be obeyed because -it came from those who had seen the apostles, or from those who had seen -others who had seen them. This is the origin of the various errors of the -great apostasy. - -5. _The entrance of the no-law heresy._ This is seen in Justin Martyr, -the earliest witness to the Sunday festival, and in the church of Rome of -which he was then a member. - -6. _The extensive observance of Sunday as a heathen festival._ The first -day of the week corresponded to the widely observed heathen festival -of the sun. It was therefore easy to unite the honor of Christ in the -observance of the day of his resurrection with the convenience and -worldly advantage of his people in having the same festival day with -their heathen neighbors, and to make it a special act of piety in that -the conversion of the heathen was thereby facilitated, while the neglect -of the ancient Sabbath was justified by stigmatizing that divine memorial -as a Jewish institution with which Christians should have no concern. - - - - -CHAPTER XIX. - -THE SABBATH AND FIRST-DAY DURING THE FIRST FIVE CENTURIES. - - Origin of the Sabbath and of the festival of the sun - contrasted—Entrance of that festival into the church—The - Moderns with the Ancients—The Sabbath observed by the early - Christians—Testimony of Morer—Of Twisse—Of Giesler—Of - Mosheim—Of Coleman—Of Bishop Taylor—The Sabbath loses - ground before the Sunday festival—Several bodies of - decided Sabbatarians—Testimony of Brerewood—Constantine’s - Sunday law—Sunday a day of labor with the primitive - church—Constantine’s edict a heathen law, and himself at that - time a heathen—The bishop of Rome authoritatively confers the - name of Lord’s day upon Sunday—Heylyn narrates the steps by - which Sunday arose to power—A marked change in the history of - that institution—Paganism brought into the church—The Sabbath - weakened by Constantine’s influence—Remarkable facts concerning - Eusebius—The Sabbath recovers strength again—The council of - Laodicea pronounces a curse upon the Sabbath-keepers—The - progress of apostasy marked—Authority of church councils - considered—Chrysostom—Jerome—Augustine—Sunday edicts—Testimony - of Socrates relative to the Sabbath about the middle of the - fifth century—Of Sozomen—Effectual suppression of the Sabbath - at the close of the fifth century. - - -The origin of the Sabbath and of the festival of Sunday is now distinctly -understood. When God made the world, he gave to man the Sabbath that he -might not forget the Creator of all things. When men apostatized from -God, Satan turned them to the worship of the sun, and, as a standing -memorial of their veneration for that luminary, caused them to dedicate -to his honor the first day of the week. When the elements of apostasy -had sufficiently matured in the Christian church, this ancient festival -stood forth as a rival to the Sabbath of the Lord. The manner in which -it obtained a foothold in the Christian church has been already shown; -and many facts which have an important bearing upon the struggle between -these rival institutions have also been given. We have, in the preceding -chapters, given the statements of the most ancient Christian writers -respecting the Sabbath and first-day in the early church. As we now trace -the history of these two days during the first five centuries of the -Christian era, we shall give the statements of modern church historians, -covering the same ground with the early fathers, and shall also quote -in continuation of the ancient writers the testimonies of the earliest -church historians. The reader can thus discover how nearly the ancients -and moderns agree. Of the observance of the Sabbath in the early church, -Morer speaks thus:— - - “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, as appears by several scriptures to that - purpose; who, keeping both that day and the first of the week, - gave occasion to the succeeding ages to join them together, and - make it one festival, though there was not the same reason for - the continuance of the custom as there was to begin it.”[706] - -A learned English first-day writer of the seventeenth century, William -Twisse, D. D., thus states the early history of these two days:— - - “Yet for some hundred years in the primitive church, not the - Lord’s day only, but the seventh day also, was religiously - observed, not by Ebion and Cerinthus only, but by pious - Christians also, as Baronius writeth, and Gomarus confesseth, - and Rivet also, that we are bound in conscience under the - gospel, to allow for God’s service a better proportion of time, - than the Jews did under the law, rather than a worse.”[707] - -That the observance of the Sabbath was not confined to Jewish converts, -the learned Giesler explicitly testifies:— - - “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,[708] - 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.”[709] - -The statement of Mosheim may be thought to contradict that of Giesler. -Thus he says:— - - “The seventh day of the week was also observed as a festival, - not by the Christians in general, but by such churches only as - were principally composed of Jewish converts, nor did the other - Christians censure this custom as criminal and unlawful.”[710] - -It will be observed that Mosheim does not deny that the Jewish converts -observed the Sabbath. He denies that this was done by the Gentile -Christians. The proof on which he rests this denial is thus stated by -him:— - - “The churches of Bithynia, of which Pliny speaks, in his letter - to Trajan, had only one stated day for the celebration of - public worship; and that was undoubtedly the first day of the - week, or what we call the Lord’s day.”[711] - -The proposition to be proved is this: The Gentile Christians did not -observe the Sabbath. The proof is found in the following fact: The -churches of Bithynia assembled on a stated day for the celebration of -divine worship. It is seen therefore that the conclusion is gratuitous, -and wholly unauthorized by the testimony.[712] But this instance shows -the dexterity of Mosheim in drawing inferences, and gives us some -insight into the kind of evidence which supports some of these sweeping -statements in behalf of Sunday. Who can say that this “stated day” was -not the very day enjoined in the fourth commandment? Of the Sabbath and -first day in the early ages of the church, Coleman speaks as follows:— - - “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.”[713] - -This is a most explicit acknowledgment that the Bible Sabbath was long -observed by the body of the Christian church. Coleman is a first-day -writer, and therefore not likely to state the case too strongly in behalf -of the seventh day. He is a modern writer, but we have already proved his -statements true out of the ancients. It is true that Coleman speaks also -of the first day of the week, yet his subsequent language shows that it -was a long while before this became a sacred day. Thus he says:— - - “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.”[714] - -This fact is made still clearer by the following language, in which this -historian admits Sunday to be nothing but a human ordinance:— - - “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.”[715] - -Coleman does not seem to realize that in making this truthful statement -he has directly acknowledged that the ancient Sabbath is still in full -force as a divine institution, and that first-day observance is only -authorized by the traditions of men. He next relates the manner in which -this Sunday festival which had been nourished in the bosom of the church -usurped the place of the Lord’s Sabbath; a warning to all Christians of -the tendency of human institutions, if cherished by the people of God, to -destroy those which are divine. Let this important language be carefully -pondered. He speaks thus:— - - “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.”[716] - -Thus is seen the result of cherishing this harmless Sunday festival in -the church. It only asked toleration at first; but gaining strength by -degrees, it gradually undermined the Sabbath of the Lord, and finally -denounced its observance as heretical. - -Jeremy Taylor, a distinguished bishop of the Church of England, and a -man of great erudition, but a decided opponent of Sabbatic obligation, -confirms the testimony of Coleman. He affirms that the Sabbath was -observed by the Christians of the first three hundred years, but denies -that they did this out of respect to the authority or the law of God. But -we have shown from the fathers that those who hallowed the Sabbath did it -as an act of obedience to the fourth commandment, and that the decalogue -was acknowledged as of perpetual obligation, and as the perfect rule of -right. As Bishop T. denies that this was their ground of observance, he -should have shown some other, which he has not done. Thus he says:— - - “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.”[717] - -That such an opinion relative to the obligation of the fourth commandment -had gained ground extensively among the leaders of the church, as -early at least as the fourth century, and probably in the third, is -sufficiently attested by the action of the council of Laodicea, A. D. -364, which anathematized those who should observe the Sabbath, as will -be noticed in its place. That this loose view of the morality of the -fourth commandment was resisted by many, is shown by the existence of -various bodies of steadfast Sabbatarians in that age, whose memory has -come down to us; and also by the fact that that council made such a -vigorous effort to put down the Sabbath. Coleman has clearly portrayed -the gradual depression of the Sabbath, as the first-day festival arose in -strength, until Sabbath-keeping became heretical, when, by ecclesiastical -authority, the Sabbath was suppressed, and the festival of Sunday became -fully established as a new and different institution. The natural -consequence of this is seen in the rise of distinct sects, or bodies, who -were distinguished for their observance of the seventh day. That they -should be denounced as heretical and falsely charged with many errors is -not surprising, when we consider that their memory has been handed down -to us by their opponents, and that Sabbath-keepers in our own time are -not unfrequently treated in this very manner. The first of these ancient -Sabbatarian bodies was the Nazarenes. Of these, Morer testifies that, - - They “retained the Sabbath; and though they pretended to - believe as Christians, yet they practiced as Jews, and so were - in reality neither one nor the other.”[718] - -And Dr. Francis White, lord bishop of Ely, mentions the Nazarenes as one -of the ancient bodies of Sabbath-keepers who were condemned by the church -leaders for that heresy; and he classes them with heretics as Morer -has done.[719] Yet the Nazarenes have a peculiar claim to our regard, -as being in reality the apostolic church of Jerusalem, and its direct -successors. Thus Gibbon testifies:— - - “The Jewish converts, or, as they were afterwards called, the - Nazarenes, who had laid the foundations of the church, soon - found themselves overwhelmed by the increasing multitudes, that - from all the various religions of polytheism enlisted under the - banner of Christ.... The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of - Jerusalem to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan, where - that ancient church languished above sixty years in solitude - and obscurity.”[720] - -It is not strange that that church which fled out of Judea at the word -of Christ[721] should long retain the Sabbath, as it appears that they -did, even as late as the fourth century. Morer mentions another class of -Sabbath-keepers in the following language:— - - “About the same time were the Hypsistarii who closed with these - as to what concerned the Sabbath, yet would by no means accept - circumcision as too plain a testimony of ancient bondage. All - these were heretics, and so adjudged to be by the Catholic - church. Yet their hypocrisy and industry were such as gained - them a considerable footing in the Christian world.”[722] - -The bishop of Ely names these also as a body of Sabbath-keepers whose -heresy was condemned by the church.[723] The learned Joseph Bingham, M. -A., gives the following account of them:— - - “There was another sect which called themselves Hypsistarians, - that is, worshipers of the most high God, whom they worshiped - as the Jews only in one person. And they observed their - Sabbaths and used distinction of meats, clean and unclean, - though they did not regard circumcision, as Gregory Nazianzen, - whose father was once one of this sect, gives the account of - them.”[724] - -It must ever be remembered that these people, whom the Catholic church -adjudged to be heretics, are not speaking for themselves: their enemies -who condemned them have transmitted to posterity all that is known -of their history. It would be well if heretics, who meet with little -mercy at the hand of ecclesiastical writers, could at least secure the -impartial justice of a truthful record. - -Another class are thus described by Cox in his elaborate work entitled -“Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties”:— - - “In this way [that is, by presenting the testimony of the Bible - on the subject] arose the ancient Sabbatarians, a body it is - well known of very considerable importance in respect both to - numbers and influence, during the greater part of the third and - the early part of the next century.”[725] - -The close of the third century witnessed the Sabbath much weakened -in its hold upon the church in general, and the festival of Sunday, -although possessed of no divine authority, steadily gaining in strength -and in sacredness. The following historical testimony from a member of -the English Church, Edward Brerewood, professor in Gresham College, -London, gives a good general view of the matter, though the author’s -anti-Sabbatarian views are mixed with it. He says:— - - “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 hundreds of years than - I spake 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 touching the - allegations of God’s solemn worship to time was ceremonial; - that Sabbath was religiously observed in the east church three - hundred years and more after our Saviour’s passion. That church - being the great part of Christendom, and having the apostles’ - doctrine and example to instruct them, would have restrained it - if it had been deadly.”[726] - -Such was the case in the eastern churches at the end of the third -century; but in such of the western churches as sympathized with the -church of Rome, the Sabbath had been treated as a fast from the beginning -of that century, to express their opposition toward those who observed it -according to the commandment. - -In the early part of the fourth century occurred an event which could not -have been foreseen, but which threw an immense weight in favor of Sunday -into the balances already trembling between the rival institutions, the -Sabbath of the Lord and the festival of the sun. This was nothing less -than an edict from the throne of the Roman Empire in behalf of “the -venerable day of the sun.” It was issued by the emperor Constantine in A. -D. 321, and is thus expressed:— - - “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. Given the seventh day of March; - Crispus and Constantine being consuls, each of them for the - second time.”[727] - -Of this law, a high authority thus speaks:— - - “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. Before him, and even in his time, they observed - the Jewish Sabbath, as well as Sunday; both to satisfy the law - of Moses, and to imitate the apostles who used to meet together - on the first day. By Constantine’s law, promulgated in 321, it - was decreed that for the future the Sunday should be kept as a - day of rest in all cities and towns; but he allowed the country - people to follow their work.”[728] - -Another eminent authority thus states the purport of this law:— - - “Constantine the Great made a law for the whole empire (A. D. - 321) that Sunday should be kept as a day of rest in all cities - and towns; but he allowed the country people to follow their - work on that day.”[729] - -Thus the fact is placed beyond all dispute that this decree gave full -permission to all kinds of agricultural labor. The following testimony of -Mosheim is therefore worthy of strict attention:— - - “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.”[730] - -What will the advocates of first-day sacredness say to this? They quote -Mosheim respecting Sunday observance in the first century—which testimony -has been carefully examined in this work[731]—and they seem to think -that his language in support of first-day sacredness is nearly equal in -authority to the language of the New Testament; in fact, they regard -it as supplying an important omission in that book. Yet Mosheim states -respecting Constantine’s Sunday law, promulgated in the fourth century, -which restrained merchants and mechanics, but allowed all kinds of -agricultural labor on that day, that it caused the day to be “observed -with greater solemnity than it had formerly been.” It follows, therefore, -on Mosheim’s own showing, that Sunday, during the first three centuries, -was not a day of abstinence from labor in the Christian church. On this -point, Bishop Taylor thus testifies:— - - “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 the 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.”[732] - -Morer tells us respecting the first three centuries, that is to say, the -period before Constantine, that - - “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.”[733] - -And Sir Wm. Domville says:— - - “Centuries of the Christian era passed away before the Sunday - was observed by the Christian church 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.”[734] - -What these able modern writers set forth as to labor on Sunday before -the edict of Constantine was promulgated, we have fully proved in the -preceding chapters out of the most ancient ecclesiastical writers. That -such an edict could not fail to strengthen the current already strongly -set in favor of Sunday, and greatly to weaken the influence of the -Sabbath, cannot be doubted. Of this fact, an able writer bears witness:— - - “Very shortly after the period when Constantine issued his - edict enjoining the general observance of Sunday throughout the - Roman Empire, the party that had contended for the observance - of the seventh day dwindled into insignificance. The observance - of Sunday as a public festival, during which all business, with - the exception of rural employments, was intermitted, came to - be more and more generally established ever after this time, - throughout both the Greek and the Latin churches. There is - no evidence however that either at this, or at a period much - later, the observance was viewed as deriving any obligation - from the fourth commandment; it seems to have been regarded as - an institution corresponding in nature with Christmas, Good - Friday, and other festivals of the church; and as resting - with them on the ground of ecclesiastical authority and - tradition.”[735] - -This extraordinary edict of Constantine caused Sunday to be observed -with greater solemnity than it had formerly been. Yet we have the most -indubitable proof that this law was a heathen enactment; that it was put -forth in favor of Sunday as a heathen institution and not as a Christian -festival; and that Constantine himself not only did not possess the -character of a Christian, but was at that time in truth a heathen. It -is to be observed that Constantine did not designate the day which he -commanded men to keep, as Lord’s day, Christian Sabbath, or the day of -Christ’s resurrection; nor does he assign any reason for its observance -which would indicate it as a Christian festival. On the contrary, he -designates the ancient heathen festival of the sun in language that -cannot be mistaken. Dr. Hessey thus sustains this statement:— - - “Others have looked at the transaction in a totally different - light, and refused to discover in the document, or to suppose - in the mind of the enactor, any recognition of the Lord’s - day as a matter of divine obligation. They remark, and _very - truly_, that Constantine designates it by its _astrological_ - or _heathen_ title, Dies Solis, and insist that the epithet - _venerabilis_ with which it is introduced has reference to the - rites performed on that day in honor of _Hercules_, _Apollo_, - and _Mithras_.”[736] - -On this important point, Milman, the learned editor of Gibbon, thus -testifies:— - - “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 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.”[737] - -And he adds in a subsequent chapter:— - - “In fact, as we have before observed, the day of the sun would - be willingly hallowed by almost all the pagan world, especially - that part which had admitted any tendency towards the Oriental - theology.”[738] - -On the seventh day of March, Constantine published his edict commanding -the observance of that ancient festival of the heathen, the venerable -day of the sun. On the following day, March eighth,[739] he issued a -second decree in every respect worthy of its heathen predecessor.[740] -The purport of it was this: That if any royal edifice should be struck -by lightning, the ancient ceremonies of propitiating the deity should -be practiced, and the _haruspices_ were to be consulted to learn the -meaning of the awful portent.[741] The _haruspices_ were soothsayers who -foretold future events by examining the entrails of beasts slaughtered in -sacrifice to the gods![742] The statute of the seventh of March enjoining -the observance of the venerable day of the sun, and that of the eighth -of the same month commanding the consultation of the _haruspices_, -constitute a noble pair of well-matched heathen edicts. That Constantine -himself was a heathen at the time these edicts were issued, is shown not -only by the nature of the edicts themselves, but by the fact that his -nominal conversion to Christianity is placed by Mosheim two years after -his Sunday law. Thus he says:— - - “After well considering the subject, I have come to the - conclusion, that _subsequently to the death of Licinius in the - year 323_ when _Constantine_ found himself sole emperor, _he - became an absolute Christian_, or one who believes no religion - but the Christian to be acceptable to God. He had previously - considered the religion of one God as more excellent than the - other religions, and believed that Christ ought especially to - be worshiped: yet he supposed there were also inferior deities, - and that to these some worship might be paid, in the manner - of the fathers, without fault or sin. And who does not know, - that in those times, many others also combined the worship of - Christ with that of the ancient gods, whom they regarded as the - ministers of the supreme God in the government of human and - earthly affairs.”[743] - -As a heathen, Constantine was the worshiper of Apollo or the sun, a -fact that sheds much light upon his edict enjoining men to observe the -venerable day of the sun. Thus Gibbon testifies:— - - “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 tutelar - deity.... The sun was universally celebrated as the invincible - guide and protector of Constantine.”[744] - -His character as a professor of Christianity is thus described:— - - “The sincerity of the man, who in a short period effected such - amazing changes in the religious world, is best known to Him - who searches the heart. Certain it is that his subsequent life - furnished no evidence of conversion to God. He waded without - remorse through seas of blood, and was a most tyrannical - prince.”[745] - -A few words relative to his character as a man will complete our view of -his fitness to legislate for the church. This man, when elevated to the -highest place of earthly power, caused his eldest son, Crispus, to be -privately murdered, lest the fame of the son should eclipse that of the -father. In the same ruin was involved his nephew Licinius, “whose rank -was his only crime,” and this was followed by the execution “perhaps of a -guilty wife.”[746] - -Such was the man who elevated Sunday to the throne of the Roman Empire; -and such the nature of the institution which he thus elevated. A recent -English writer says of Constantine’s Sunday law that it “would seem to -have been rather to promote heathen than Christian worship.” And he shows -how this heathen emperor became a Christian, and how this heathen statute -became a Christian law. Thus he says:— - - “At a LATER PERIOD, carried away by the current of opinion, he - declared himself a convert to the church. Christianity, then, - or what he was pleased to call by that name, became the law - of the land, and the edict of A. D. 321, being unrevoked, was - enforced as a Christian ordinance.”[747] - -Thus it is seen that a law, enacted in support of a heathen institution, -after a few years came to be considered a Christian ordinance; and -Constantine himself, four years after his Sunday edict, was able to -control the church, as represented in the general council of Nice, so as -to cause the members of that council to establish their annual festival -of the passover upon Sunday.[748] Paganism had prepared the institution -from ancient days, and had now elevated it to supreme power; its work was -accomplished. - -We have proved that the Sunday festival in the Christian church had no -Sabbatical character before the time of Constantine. We have also shown -that heathenism, in the person of Constantine, first gave to Sunday its -Sabbatical character, and, in the very act of doing it, designated it as -a heathen, and not as a Christian, festival, thus establishing a heathen -Sabbath. It was now the part of popery authoritatively to effect its -transformation into a Christian institution; a work which it was not -slow to perform. Sylvester was the bishop of Rome while Constantine was -emperor. How faithfully he acted his part in transforming the festival of -the sun into a Christian institution is seen in that, by his apostolic -authority, he changed the name of the day, giving it the imposing title -of LORD’S DAY.[749] To Constantine and to Sylvester, therefore, the -advocates of first-day observance are greatly indebted. The one elevated -it as a heathen festival to the throne of the empire, making it a day of -rest from most kinds of business; the other changed it into a Christian -institution, giving it the dignified appellation of Lord’s day. It is -not a sufficient reason for denying that Pope Sylvester, not far from -A. D. 325, authoritatively conferred on Sunday the name of Lord’s day, -to say that one of the fathers, as early as A. D. 200, calls the day by -that name, and that some seven different writers, between A. D. 200 and -A. D. 325, viz., Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Anatolius, Commodianus, -Victorinus, and Peter of Alexandria, can be adduced, who give this name -to Sunday. - -No one of these fathers ever claims for this title any apostolic -authority; and it has been already shown that they could not have -believed the day to be the Lord’s day by divine appointment. So far, -therefore, is the use of this term by these persons as a name for Sunday -from conflicting with the statement that Sylvester, by his apostolic -authority, established this name as the rightful title of that day, that -it shows the act of Sylvester to be exactly suited to the circumstances -of the case. Indeed, Nicephorus asserts that Constantine, who considered -himself quite as much the head of the church as was the pope, “directed -that the day which the Jews considered the first day of the week, and -which the Greeks dedicated to the sun, should be called the Lord’s -day.”[750] The circumstances of the case render the statements of Lucius -and Nicephorus in the highest degree probable. They certainly do not -indicate that the pope would deem such act on his part unnecessary. Take -a recent event in papal history as an illustration of this case. Only a -few years since, Pius IX. decreed that the virgin Mary was born without -sin. This had long been asserted by many distinguished writers in the -papal church, but it lacked authority as a dogma of that church until the -pope, A. D. 1854, gave it his official sanction.[751] It was the work of -Constantine and of Sylvester in the early part of the fourth century to -establish the festival of the sun, to be a day of rest, by the authority -of the empire, and to render it a Christian institution by the authority -of St. Peter. - -The following from Dr. Heylyn, a distinguished member of the Church of -England, is worthy of particular attention. In most forcible language, he -traces the steps by which the Sunday festival arose to power, contrasting -it in this respect with the ancient Sabbath of the Lord; and then, with -equal truth and candor, he acknowledges that, as the festival of Sunday -was set up by the emperor and the church, the same power can take it down -whenever it sees fit. Thus he says:— - - “Thus do we see upon what grounds the Lord’s day stands; ON - CUSTOM FIRST, and VOLUNTARY consecration of it to religious - meetings; that custom countenanced by the authority of the - church of God, which TACITLY approved the same; and FINALLY - CONFIRMED and RATIFIED BY CHRISTIAN PRINCES throughout their - empires. And as the day for rest from labors and restraint from - business upon that day, [it] received its greatest strength - from the supreme magistrate as long as he retained that power - which to him belongs; as after from the canons and decrees - of councils, the decretals of popes and orders of particular - prelates, when the sole managing of ecclesiastical affairs was - committed to them. - - “I hope it was not so with the former Sabbath, which neither - took original from custom, that people being not so forward - to give God a day; nor required any countenance or authority - from the kings of Israel to confirm and ratify it. The Lord had - spoke the word, that he would have one day in seven, precisely - 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 thus it was - not done in our present business. The Lord’s day had no such - command that it should be sanctified, but was left plainly to - God’s people to pitch on this, _or any other_, for the public - use. And being taken up amongst them and made a day of meeting - in the congregation for religious exercises; yet for three - hundred years there was neither law to bind them to it, nor any - rest from labor or from worldly business required upon it. - - “And when it seemed good unto Christian princes, the nursing - fathers of God’s church, to lay restraints 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.”[752] - -Constantine’s edict marks a signal change in the history of the Sunday -festival. Dr. Heylyn thus testifies:— - - “Hitherto have we spoken of the Lord’s day as taken up by the - common consent of the church; not instituted or established - by any text of Scripture, or edict of emperor, or decree - of council.... In that which followeth, we shall find both - emperors and councils very frequent in ordering things about - this day and the service of it.”[753] - -After his professed conversion to Christianity, Constantine still further -exerted his power in behalf of the venerable day of the sun, now happily -transformed into the Lord’s day, by the apostolic authority of the Roman -bishop. Heylyn thus testifies:— - - “So natural a power it is in a Christian prince to order things - about religion, that he not only took upon him to command the - day, but also to prescribe the service.”[754] - -The influence of Constantine powerfully contributed to the aid of those -church leaders who were intent upon bringing the forms of pagan worship -into the Christian church. Gibbon thus places upon record the motives of -these men, and the result of their action:— - - “The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that - the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the - superstition of paganism, if they found some resemblance, some - compensation, in the bosom of Christianity. The religion of - Constantine achieved in less than a century, the final conquest - of the Roman Empire: but the victors themselves were insensibly - subdued by the arts of their vanquished rivals.”[755] - -The body of nominal Christians, which resulted from this strange union -of pagan rites with Christian worship, arrogated to itself the title -of Catholic church, while the true people of God, who resisted these -dangerous innovations, were branded as heretics, and cast out of the -church. It is not strange that the Sabbath should lose ground in such a -body, in its struggle with its rival, the festival of the sun. Indeed, -after a brief period, the history of the Sabbath will be found only in -the almost obliterated records of those whom the Catholic church cast out -and stigmatized as heretics. Of the Sabbath in Constantine’s time, Heylyn -says:— - - “As for the Saturday, that retained its wonted credit in the - eastern churches, little inferior to the Lord’s day, if not - plainly equal; not as a Sabbath, think not so; but as a day - designed unto sacred meetings.”[756] - -There is no doubt that, after the great flood of worldliness which -entered the church at the time of Constantine’s pretended conversion, and -after all that was done by himself and by Sylvester in behalf of Sunday, -the observance of the Sabbath became, with many, only a nominal thing. -But the action of the council of Laodicea, to which we shall presently -come, proves conclusively that the Sabbath was still observed, not simply -as a festival, as Heylyn would have it, but as a day of abstinence from -labor, as enjoined in the commandment. The work of Constantine, however, -marks an epoch in the history of the Sabbath and of Sunday. Constantine -was hostile to the Sabbath, and his influence told powerfully against it -with all those who sought worldly advancement. The historian Eusebius was -the special friend and eulogist of Constantine. This fact should not be -overlooked in weighing his testimony concerning the Sabbath. He speaks of -it as follows:— - - “They [the patriarchs] did not, therefore, regard circumcision, - nor observe the Sabbath, nor do we; neither do we abstain - from certain foods, nor regard other injunctions, which Moses - subsequently delivered to be observed in types and symbols, - because such things as these do not belong to Christians.”[757] - -This testimony shows precisely the views of Constantine and the -imperial party relative to the Sabbath. But it does not give the views -of Christians as a whole; for we have seen that the Sabbath had been -extensively retained up to this point, and we shall soon have occasion -to quote other historians, the cotemporaries and successors of Eusebius, -who record its continued observance. Constantine exerted a controlling -influence in the church, and was determined to “have nothing in common -with that most hostile rabble of the Jews.” Happy would it have been had -his aversion been directed against the festivals of the heathen rather -than against the Sabbath of the Lord. - -Before Constantine’s time, there is no trace of the doctrine of the -change of the Sabbath. On the contrary, we have decisive evidence that -Sunday was a day on which ordinary labor was considered lawful and -proper. But Constantine, while yet a heathen, commanded that every kind -of business excepting agriculture should be laid aside on that day. His -law designated the day as a heathen festival, which it actually was. But -within four years after its enactment, Constantine had become, not merely -a professed convert to the Christian religion, but, in many respects, -practically the head of the church, as the course of things at the -council of Nicea plainly showed. His heathen Sunday law, being unrevoked, -was thenceforward enforced in behalf of that day as a Christian festival. -This law gave to the Sunday festival, for the first time, something of a -Sabbatic character. It was now a rest-day from most kinds of business by -the law of the Roman Empire. God’s rest-day was thenceforward more in the -way than ever before. - -But now we come to a fact of remarkable interest. The way having been -prepared, as we have just seen, for the doctrine of the change of the -Sabbath, and the circumstances of the case demanding its production, it -was at this very point brought forward for the _first time_. Eusebius, -the special friend and flatterer of Constantine, was the man who first -put forth this doctrine. In his “Commentary on the Psalms,” he makes the -following statement on Psalm xcii. respecting the change of the Sabbath:— - - “Wherefore as they [the Jews] rejected it [the Sabbath law] the - Word [Christ], by the new covenant, TRANSLATED and TRANSFERRED - the feast of the Sabbath to the morning light, and gave us the - symbol of true rest, viz., the saving Lord’s day, the first - [day] of the light, in which the Saviour of the world, after - all his labors among men, obtained the victory over death, and - passed the portals of Heaven, having achieved a work superior - to the six-days’ creation.”[758] - - “On this day, which is the first [day] of light and of the true - Sun, we assemble, after an interval of six days, and celebrate - holy and spiritual Sabbaths, even all nations redeemed by him - throughout the world, and do those things according to the - spiritual law, which were decreed for the priests to do on the - Sabbath.”[759] - - “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 a precedence - and is first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish - Sabbath.”[760] - -Eusebius was under the strongest temptation to please and even to flatter -Constantine; for he lived in the sunshine of imperial favor. On one -occasion, he went so far as to say that the city of Jerusalem, which -Constantine had rebuilt, might be the New Jerusalem predicted in the -prophecies![761] But perhaps there was no act of Eusebius that could -give Constantine greater pleasure than his publication of such doctrine -as this respecting the change of the Sabbath. The emperor had, by the -civil law, given to Sunday a Sabbatical character. Though he had done -this while yet a heathen, he found it to his interest to maintain this -law after he obtained a commanding position in the Catholic church. -When, therefore, Eusebius came out and declared that Christ transferred -the Sabbath to Sunday, a doctrine never before heard of, and in support -of which he had no Scripture to quote, Constantine could not but feel in -the highest degree flattered that his own Sabbatical edict pertained to -the very day which Christ had ordained to be the Sabbath in place of the -seventh. It was a convincing proof that Constantine was divinely called -to his high position in the Catholic church, that he should thus exactly -identify his work with that of Christ, though he had no knowledge at the -time that Christ had done any work of the kind. - -As no writer before Eusebius had ever hinted at the doctrine of the -change of the Sabbath, and as there is the most convincing proof, as we -have shown, that before his time Sunday possessed no Sabbatic character, -and as Eusebius does not claim that this doctrine is asserted in the -Scriptures, nor in any preceding ecclesiastical writer, it is certain -that he was the father of the doctrine. This new doctrine was not put -forth without some motive. That motive could not have been to bring -forward some neglected passages of the Scriptures; for he does not quote -a single text in its support. But the circumstances of the case plainly -reveal the motive. The new doctrine was exactly adapted to the new order -of things introduced by Constantine. It was, moreover, peculiarly suited -to flatter that emperor’s pride, the very thing which Eusebius was under -the strongest temptation to do. - -It is remarkable, however, that Eusebius, in the very connection in -which he announces this new doctrine, unwittingly exposes its falsity. -He first asserts that Christ changed the Sabbath, and then virtually -contradicts it by indicating the real authors of the change. Thus he -says:— - - “All things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, - these WE have transferred to the Lord’s day.”[762] - -The persons here referred to as the authors of this work are the Emperor -Constantine, and such bishops as Eusebius, who loved the favor of -princes, and Sylvester, the pretended successor of Saint Peter. Two facts -refute the assertion of Eusebius that Christ changed the Sabbath: 1. That -Eusebius, who lived three hundred years after the alleged change, is -the first man who mentions such change; 2. That Eusebius testifies that -himself and others made this change, which they could not have done had -Christ made it at the beginning. But though the doctrine of the change -of the Sabbath was thus announced by Eusebius, it was not seconded by -any writer of that age. The doctrine had never been heard of before, -and Eusebius had simply his own assertion, but no passage of the Holy -Scriptures to offer in its support. - -But after Constantine, the Sabbath began to recover strength, at least -in the eastern churches. Prof. Stuart, in speaking of the period from -Constantine to the council of Laodicea, A. D. 364, says:— - - “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 belonged to the ten commandments was immutable and - perpetual, the churches in general came gradually to regard the - seventh-day Sabbath as altogether sacred.”[763] - -Prof. Stuart, however, connects with this the statement that Sunday -was honored by all parties. But the council of Laodicea struck a heavy -blow at this Sabbath-keeping in the eastern church. Thus Mr. James, in -addressing the University of Oxford, bears witness:— - - “When the practice of keeping Saturday Sabbaths, which had - become so general at the close of this century, was evidently - gaining ground in the eastern church, a decree was passed in - the council held at Laodicea [A. D. 364] ‘that members of the - church should not rest from work on the Sabbath like Jews, but - should labor on that day, and preferring in honor the Lord’s - day, then if it be in their power should rest from work as - Christians.’”[764] - -This shows conclusively that at that period the observance of the Sabbath -according to the commandment was extensive in the eastern churches. But -the Laodicean council, not only forbade the observance of the Sabbath, -they even pronounced a curse on those who should obey the fourth -commandment! Prynne thus testifies:— - - “It is certain that Christ himself, his apostles, and the - primitive Christians for some good space of time, did - constantly observe the seventh-day Sabbath; ... the evangelists - and St. Luke in the Acts ever styling it the Sabbath day, ... - and making mention of its ... solemnization by the apostles - and other Christians, ... it being still solemnized by many - Christians after the apostles’ times, even till the council - of Laodicea [A. D. 364], as ecclesiastical writers and the - twenty-ninth canon of that council testify, which runs - thus:[765] ‘Because Christians ought not to Judaize, and to - rest in the Sabbath, but to work in that day (which many did - refuse at that time to do). But preferring in honor the Lord’s - day (there being then a great controversy among Christians - which of these two days ... should have precedency) if they - desired to rest they should do this as Christians. Wherefore - if they shall be found to Judaize, let them be accursed - from Christ.’... 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.”[766] - -The action of this council did not extirpate the Sabbath from the eastern -churches, though it did materially weaken its influence, and cause its -observance to become with many only a nominal thing, while it did most -effectually enhance the sacredness and the authority of the Sunday -festival. That it did not wholly extinguish Sabbath-keeping is thus -certified by an old English writer, John Ley:— - - “From the apostles’ time until the council of Laodicea, which - was about the year 364, the holy observation of the Jews’ - Sabbath continued, as may be proved out of many authors; yea, - notwithstanding the decree of that council against it.”[767] - -And Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, about A. D. 372, uses this expostulation:— - - “With what eyes can you behold the Lord’s day, when you despise - the Sabbath? Do you not perceive that they are sisters, and - that in slighting the one, you affront the other?”[768] - -This testimony is valuable in that it marks the progress of apostasy -concerning the Sabbath. The Sunday festival entered the church, not as -a divine institution, but as a voluntary observance. Even as late as A. -D. 200, Tertullian said that it had only tradition and custom in its -support.[769] - -But in A. D. 372, this human festival had become the sister and equal -of that day which God hallowed in the beginning and solemnly commanded -in the moral law. How worthy to be called the sister of the Sabbath the -Sunday festival actually was, may be judged from what followed. When this -self-styled sister had gained an acknowledged position in the family, she -expelled the other, and trampled her in the dust. In our days, the Sunday -festival claims to be the very day intended in the fourth commandment. - -The following testimonies exhibit the authority of church councils in its -true light. Jortin is quoted by Cox as saying:— - - “In such assemblies, the best and the most moderate men seldom - have the ascendant, and they are often led or driven by others - who are far inferior to them in good qualities.”[770] - -The same writer gives us Baxter’s opinion of the famous Westminster -Assembly. Baxter says:— - - “I have lived to see an assembly of ministers, where three or - four leading men were so prevalent as to form a confession - in the name of the whole party, which had that in it which - particular members did disown. And when about a controverted - article, one man hath charged me deeply with questioning the - words of the church, others, who were at the forming of that - article have laid it all on that same man, the rest being loth - to strive much against him; and so it was he himself was the - church whose authority he so much urged.”[771] - -Such has been the nature of councils in all ages; yet they have ever -claimed infallibility, and have largely used that infallibility in the -suppression of the Sabbath and the establishment of the festival of -Sunday. Of first-day sacredness prior to, and as late as, the time of -Chrysostom, Kitto thus testifies:— - - “Though in later times we find considerable reference to a sort - of _consecration of the day_, it does not seem at any period - of the ancient church to have assumed the form of such an - observance as some modern religious communities have contended - for. Nor do these writers in any instance pretend to allege - _any divine command, or even apostolic practice_, in support - of it.... Chrysostom (A. D. 360) concludes one of his Homilies - by dismissing his audience to their respective ordinary - occupations.”[772] - -It was reserved for modern theologians to discover the divine or -apostolic authority for Sunday observance. The ancient doctors of the -church were unaware that any such authority existed; and hence they -deemed it lawful and proper to engage in usual worldly business on that -day when their religious worship was concluded. Thus, Heylyn bears -witness concerning St. Chrysostom that he - - “Confessed it to be lawful for a man to look unto his worldly - business on the Lord’s day, after the congregation was - dismissed.”[773] - -St. Jerome, a few years after this, at the opening of the fifth century, -in his commendation of the lady Paula, shows his own opinion of Sunday -labor. Thus he says:— - - “Paula, with the women, as soon as they returned home on the - Lord’s day, they sat down severally to their work, and made - clothes for themselves and others.”[774] - -Morer justifies this Sunday labor in the following terms:— - - “If we read they did any work on the Lord’s day, it is to be - remembered that this application to their daily tasks was - not till their worship was quite over, when they might with - innocency enough resume them, because the length of time or - the number of hours assigned for piety was not then so well - explained as in after ages. The state of the church is vastly - different from what it was in those early days. Christians then - for some centuries of years were under persecution and poverty; - and besides their own wants, they had many of them severe - masters who compelled them to work, and made them bestow less - time in spiritual matters than they otherwise would. In St. - Jerome’s age their condition was better, because Christianity - had got into the throne as well as into the empire. Yet - for all this, the entire sanctification of the Lord’s day - proceeded slowly: and that it was the work of time to bring - it to perfection, appears from the several steps the church - made in her constitutions, and from the decrees of emperors - and other princes, wherein the prohibitions from servile and - civil business advanced by degrees from one species to another, - till the day had got a considerable figure in the world. Now, - therefore, the case being so much altered, the most proper use - of citing those old examples is only, in point of doctrine, to - show that ordinary work, as being a compliance with providence - for the support of natural life, is not sinful even on the - Lord’s day, when necessity is loud, and the laws of that church - and nation where we live are not against it. This is what the - first Christians had to say for themselves, in the works they - did on that day. And if those works had been then judged a - prophanation of the festival, I dare believe, they would have - suffered martyrdom rather than been guilty.”[775] - -The bishop of Ely thus testifies:— - - “In St Jerome’s days, and in the very place where he was - residing, the devoutest Christians did ordinarily work upon the - Lord’s day, when the service of the church was ended.”[776] - -St. Augustine, the cotemporary of Jerome, gives a synopsis of the -argument in that age for Sunday observance, in the following words:— - - “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.”[777] - -It is to be observed that Augustine does not assign among his reasons -for first-day observance, the change of the Sabbath by Christ or his -apostles, or that the apostles observed that day, or that John had -given it the name of Lord’s day. These modern first-day arguments were -unknown to Augustine. 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. The first day of the week was considered in -the fifth century the most proper day for giving holy orders, that is, -for ordinations, and about the middle of this century, says Heylyn, - - “A law [was] made by Leo then Pope of Rome, and generally since - taken up in the western church, that they should be conferred - upon no day else.”[778] - -According to Dr. Justin Edwards, this same pope made also this decree in -behalf of Sunday:— - - “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.”[779] - -Soon after this edict of the pope, the emperor Leo, A. D. 469, put forth -the following decree:— - - “It is our will and pleasure, that the holy days dedicated to - the most high God, should not be spent in sensual recreations, - or otherwise prophaned by suits of law, especially the Lord’s - day, which we decree to be a venerable day, and therefore - free it of all citations, executions, pleadings, and the - like avocations. Let not the circus or theater be opened, - nor combating with wild beasts be seen on it.... 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.”[780] - -And this emperor determined to mend the breach in Constantine’s law, and -thus prohibit agriculture on Sunday. So he adds:— - - “We command therefore all, as well husbandmen as others, to - forbear work on this day of our restoration.”[781] - -The holy doctors of the church had by this time very effectually -despoiled the Sabbath of its glory, transferring it to the Lord’s day of -Pope Sylvester; as Augustine testifies; yet was not Sabbatical observance -wholly extinguished even in the Catholic church. The historian Socrates, -who wrote about the middle of the fifth century, thus testifies:— - - “For although almost all churches throughout the world - celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, - yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of - some ancient tradition, refuse to do this. The Egyptians - in the neighborhood of Alexandria, and the inhabitants of - Thebais, hold their religious meetings on the Sabbath, but do - not participate of the mysteries in the manner usual among - Christians in general—for after having eaten and satisfied - themselves with food of all kinds, in the evening, making their - oblations, they partake of the mysteries.”[782] - -As the church of Rome had turned the Sabbath into a fast some two hundred -years before this, in order to oppose its observance, it is probable that -this was the ancient tradition referred to by Socrates. And Sozomen, the -cotemporary of Socrates, speaks on the same point as follows:— - - “The people of Constantinople, and of several other cities, - assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the next day; - which custom is never observed at Rome, or at Alexandria. There - are several cities and villages in Egypt where, contrary to - the usages established elsewhere, the people meet together on - Sabbath evenings; and although they have dined previously, - partake of the mysteries.”[783] - -On the statement of these historians, Cox remarks:— - - “It was their practice to Sabbatize on Saturday, and to - celebrate Sunday as a day of rejoicing and festivity. While, - however, in some places a respect was thus generally paid - to both of these days, the Judaizing practice of observing - Saturday was by the leading churches expressly condemned, - and all the doctrines connected with it steadfastly - resisted.”—_Sabbath Laws_, p. 280. - -The time had now come, when, as stated by Coleman, the observance of -the Sabbath was deemed heretical; and the close of the fifth century -witnessed its effectual suppression in the great body of the Catholic -church. - - - - -CHAPTER XX. - -SUNDAY DURING THE DARK AGES. - - The pope becomes the head of all the churches—The people of - God retire into the wilderness—Sunday to be traced through the - Dark Ages in the history of the Catholic church—State of that - festival in the sixth century—It did not acquire the title of - Sabbath for many ages—Time when it became a day of abstinence - from labor in the east—When in the west—Sunday canon of the - first council of Orleans—Of the council of Arragon—Of the - third council of Orleans—Of a council at Mascon—At Narbon—At - Auxerre—Miracles establishing the sacredness of Sunday—The - pope advises men to atone, by the pious observance of Sunday, - for the sins of the previous week—The Sabbath and Sunday both - strictly kept by a class at Rome who were put down by the - pope—According to Twisse they were two distinct classes—The - Sabbath, like its Lord, crucified between two thieves—Council - of Chalons—At Toledo, in which the Jews were forbidden to keep - the Sabbath and commanded to keep Sunday—First English law for - Sunday—Council at Constantinople—In England—In Bavaria—Canon of - the archbishop of York—Statutes of Charlemagne and canons of - councils which he called—The pope aids in the work—Council at - Paris originates a famous first-day argument—The councils fail - to establish Sunday sacredness—The emperors besought to send - out some more terrible edict in order to compel the observance - of that day—The pope takes the matter in hand in earnest and - gives Sunday an effectual establishment—Other statutes and - canons—Sunday piety of a Norwegian king—Sunday consecrated to - the mass—Curious but obsolete first-day arguments—The eating - of meat forbidden upon the Sabbath by the pope—Pope Urban - II. ordains the Sabbath of the Lord to be a festival for the - worship of the Virgin Mary—Apparition from St. Peter—The pope - sends Eustace into England with a roll that fell from Heaven - commanding Sunday observance under direful penalties—Miracles - which followed—Sunday established in Scotland—Other Sunday laws - down to the Reformation—Sunday always only a human ordinance. - - -The opening of the sixth century witnessed the development of the great -apostasy to such an extent that the man of sin might be plainly seen -sitting in the temple of God.[784] The western Roman Empire had been -broken up into ten kingdoms, and the way was now prepared for the work -of the little horn.[785] In the early part of this century, the bishop -of Rome was made head over the entire church by the emperor of the east, -Justinian.[786] The dragon gave unto the beast his power, and his seat, -and great authority. From this accession to supremacy by the Roman -pontiff, date the “time, times, and dividing of time,” or twelve hundred -and sixty years of the prophecies of Daniel and John.[787] - -The true people of God now retired for safety into places of obscurity -and seclusion, as represented by the prophecy: “The woman fled into the -wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should -feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.”[788] Leaving -their history for the present, let us follow that of the Catholic church, -and trace in its record the history of the Sunday festival through the -period of the Dark Ages. Of the fifth and sixth centuries, Heylyn bears -the following testimony:— - - “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 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 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.”[789] - -But Sunday had not yet acquired the title of Sabbath. Thus Brerewood -bears testimony:— - - “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.”[790] - -And Heylyn says of the term Sabbath in the ancient church:— - - “The Saturday is called amongst them by no other name than 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_.”[791] - -Dr. Francis White, bishop of Ely, also testifies:— - - “When the ancient fathers distinguish and give proper names - to the particular days of the week, they always style the - Saturday, _Sabbatum_, the Sabbath, and the Sunday, or first day - of the week, _Dominicum_, the Lord’s day.”[792] - -It should be observed, however, that the earliest mention of Sunday -as the Lord’s day, is in the writings of Tertullian; Justin Martyr, -some sixty years before, styling it “the day called Sunday;” while the -authoritative application of that term to Sunday was by Sylvester, bishop -of Rome, more than one hundred years after the time of Tertullian. The -earliest mention of Sunday as Christian Sabbath is thus noted by Heylyn:— - - “The first who ever used it to denote the Lord’s day (the - first that I have met with in all this search) is one Petrus - Alfonsus—he lived about the time that Rupertus did—[which was - the beginning of the twelfth century] who calls the Lord’s day - by the name of Christian Sabbath.”[793] - -Of Sunday labor in the eastern church, Heylyn says:— - - “It was near nine hundred years from our Saviour’s birth if - not quite so much, 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 there than it had done - before in the western parts.”[794] - -Of Sunday labor in the western church, Dr. Francis White thus testifies:— - - “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 service by the - precept of the church.”[795] - -But let us trace the several steps by which the festival of Sunday -increased in strength until it attained its complete development. These -will be found at present mostly in the edicts of emperors, and the -decrees of councils. Morer tells us that, - - “Under Clodoveus king of France met the bishops in the first - council of Orleans [A. D. 507], where they obliged themselves - and their successors, to be always at the church on the Lord’s - day, except in case of sickness or some great infirmity. And - because they, with some other of the clergy in those days, - took cognizance of judicial matters, therefore by a council at - Arragon, about the year 518 in the reign of Theodorick, king - of the Goths, it was decreed that ‘No bishop or other person - in holy orders should examine or pass judgment in any civil - controversy on the Lord’s day.’”[796] - -This shows that civil courts were sometimes held on Sunday by the bishops -in those days; otherwise such a prohibition would not have been put -forth. Hengstenberg, in his notice of the third council of Orleans, gives -us an insight into the then existing state of the Sunday festival:— - - “The third council of Orleans, A. D. 538, says in its - twenty-ninth canon: ‘The opinion is spreading amongst the - people, that it is wrong to ride, or drive, or cook food, or - do anything to the house, or the person on the Sunday. But - since such opinions are more Jewish than Christian, that shall - be lawful in future, which has been so to the present time. - On the other hand agricultural labor ought to be laid aside, - _in order that the people may not be prevented from attending - church_.’”[797] - -Observe the reason assigned. It is not lest they violate the law of -the Sabbath, but it is that they may not be kept from church. Another -authority states the case thus:— - - “Labor in the country [on Sunday] was not prohibited till the - council of Orleans, A. D. 538. It was thus an institution of - the church, as Dr. Paley has remarked. The earlier Christians - met in the morning of that day for prayer and singing hymns in - commemoration of Christ’s resurrection, and then went about - their usual duties.”[798] - -In A. D. 588, another council was holden, the occasion of which is thus -stated:— - - “And because, notwithstanding all this care, the day was not - duly observed, the bishops were again summoned to Mascon, a - town in Burgundy, by King Gunthrum, and there they framed - this canon: ‘Notice is taken that Christian people, very much - neglect and slight the Lord’s day, giving themselves as on - other days to common work, to redress which irreverence, for - the future, we warn every Christian who bears not that name in - vain, to give ear to our advice, knowing we have a concern on - us for your good, and a power to hinder you to do evil. Keep - then the Lord’s day, the day of our new birth.’”[799] - -Further legislation being necessary, we are told:— - - “About a year forward, there was a council at Narbon, which - forbid all persons of what country or quality soever, to do - any servile work on the Lord’s day. But if any man presumed to - disobey this canon he was to be fined if a freeman, and if a - servant, severely lashed. Or as Surius represents the penalty - in the edict of King Recaredus, which he put out, near the same - time to strengthen the decrees of the council, ‘Rich men were - to be punished with the loss of a moiety of their estates, - and the poorer sort with perpetual banishment,’ in the year - of grace 590. Another synod was held at Auxerre a city in - Champain, in the reign of Clotair king of France, where it was - decreed ... ‘that no man should be allowed to plow, nor cart, - or do any such thing on the Lord’s day.’”[800] - -Such were some of the efforts made in the sixth century to advance the -sacredness of the Sunday festival. And Morer tells us that, - - “For fear the doctrine should not take without miracles to - support it, Gregory of Tours [about A. D. 590] furnishes us - with several to that purpose.”[801] - -Mr. Francis West, an English first-day writer, gravely adduces one of -these miracles in support of first-day sacredness:— - - “Gregory of Tours reporteth, ‘that a husbandman, who upon the - Lord’s day went to plough his field, as he cleansed 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.’”[802] - -In the conclusion of the sixth century, Pope Gregory exhorted the people -of Rome to “expiate on the day of our Lord’s resurrection what was -remissly done for the six days before.”[803] In the same epistle, this -pope condemned a class of men at Rome who advocated the strict observance -of both the Sabbath and the Sunday, styling them the preachers of -Antichrist.[804] This shows the intolerant feeling of the papacy toward -the Sabbath, even when joined with the strict observance of Sunday. It -also shows that there were Sabbath-keepers even in Rome itself as late -as the seventh century; although so far bewildered by the prevailing -darkness that they joined with its observance a strict abstinence from -labor on Sunday. - -In the early part of the seventh century arose another foe to the Bible -Sabbath in the person of Mahomet. To distinguish his followers alike from -those who observed the Sabbath and those who observed the festival of -Sunday, he selected Friday, the sixth day of the week, as their religious -festival. And thus “the Mahometans and the Romanists crucified the -Sabbath, as the Jews and the Romans did the Lord of the Sabbath, between -two thieves, the sixth and first day of the week.”[805] For Mahometanism -and Romanism each suppressed the Sabbath over a wide extent of territory. -About the middle of the seventh century, we have further canons of the -church in behalf of Sunday:— - - “At Chalons, a city in Burgundy, about the year 654, there - was a provincial synod which confirmed what had been done by - the third council of Orleans, about the observation of the - Lord’s day, namely that ‘none should plow or reap, or do any - other thing belonging to husbandry, on pain of the censures - of the church; which was the more minded, because backed with - the secular power, and by an edict menacing such as offended - herein; who if bondmen, were to be soundly beaten, but if free, - had three admonitions, and then if faulty, lost the third part - of their patrimony, and if still obstinate were made slaves - for the future. And in the first year of Eringius, about the - time of Pope Agatho there sat the twelfth council of Toledo in - Spain, A. D. 681, where the Jews were forbid to keep their own - festivals, but so far at least observe the Lord’s day as to - do no manner of work on it, whereby they might express their - contempt of Christ or his worship.’”[806] - -These were weighty reasons indeed for Sunday observance. Nor can it be -thought strange that in the Dark Ages a constant succession of such -things should eventuate in the universal observance of that day. Even the -Jews were to be compelled to desist from Sabbath observance, and to honor -Sunday by resting on that day from their labor. The earliest mention of -Sunday in English statutes appears to be the following:— - - A. D. 692. “Ina, king of the west Saxons, by the advice of - Cenred his father, and Heddes and Erkenwald his bishops, with - all his aldermen and sages, in a great assembly of the servants - of God, for the health of their souls, and common preservation - of the kingdom, made several constitutions, of which this was - the third: ‘If a servant do any work on Sunday by his master’s - order, he shall be free, and the master pay thirty shillings; - but if he went to work on his own head, he shall be either - beaten with stripes, or ransom himself with a price. A freeman, - if he works on this day, shall lose his freedom or pay sixty - shillings; if he be a priest, double.’”[807] - -The same year that this law was enacted in England, the sixth general -council convened at Constantinople, which decreed that, - - “If any bishop or other clergyman, or any of the laity, - absented himself from the church three Sundays together, except - in cases of very great necessity, if a clergyman, he was to be - deposed; if a layman, debarred the holy communion.”[808] - -In the year 747, a council of the English clergy was called under -Cuthbert, archbishop of Canterbury, in the reign of Egbert, king of Kent, -and this constitution made:— - - “It is ordered that the Lord’s day be celebrated with due - veneration, and wholly devoted to the worship of God. And that - all abbots and priests, on this most holy day, remain in their - respective monasteries and churches, and there do their duty - according to their places.”[809] - -Another ecclesiastical statute of the eighth century was enacted at -Dingosolinum in Bavaria, where a synod met about 772 which decreed that, - - “If any man shall work his cart on this day, or do any such - common business, his team shall be presently forfeited to the - public use, and if the party persists in his folly, let him be - sold for a bondman.”[810] - -The English were not behind their neighbors in the good work of -establishing the sacredness of Sunday. Thus we read:— - - A. D. 784. “Egbert, archbishop of York, to show positively - what was to be done on Sundays, and what the laws designed by - prohibiting ordinary work to be done on such days, made this - canon: ‘Let nothing else, saith he, be done on the Lord’s - day, but to attend on God in hymns and psalms and spiritual - songs. Whoever marries on Sunday, let him do penance for seven - days.’”[811] - -In the conclusion of the eighth century, further efforts were made in -behalf of this favored day:— - - “Charles the Great summoned the bishops to Friuli, in Italy, - where ... they decreed [A. D. 791] that all people should, with - due reverence and devotion, honor the Lord’s day.... Under the - same prince another council was called three years later at - Frankford in Germany, and there the limits of the Lord’s day - were determined from Saturday evening to Sunday evening.”[812] - -The five councils of Mentz, Rheims, Tours, Chalons, and Arles, were -all called in the year 813 by Charlemagne. It would be too irksome to -the reader to dwell upon the several acts of these councils in behalf -of Sunday. They are of the same character as those already quoted. -The council of Chalons, however, is worthy of being noticed in that, -according to Morer, - - “They entreated the help of the secular power, and desired the - emperor [Charlemagne] to provide for the stricter observation - of it [Sunday]. Which he accordingly did, and left no stone - unturned to secure the honor of the day. His care succeeded; - and during his reign, the Lord’s day bore a considerable - figure. But after his day, it put on another face.”[813] - -The pope lent a helping hand in checking the profanation of Sunday:— - - “And thereupon Pope Eugenius, in a synod held at Rome about - 826, ... gave directions that the parish priest should admonish - such offenders and wish them to go to church and say their - prayers, lest otherwise they might bring some great calamity on - themselves and neighbors.”[814] - -All this, however, was not sufficient, and so another council was -summoned. At this council was brought forward—perhaps for the first -time—the famous first-day argument now so familiar to all, that Sunday is -proved to be the true Sabbath because that men are struck by lightning -who labor on that day. Thus we read:— - - “But these paternal admonitions turning to little account, a - provincial council was held at Paris three years after ... in - 829, wherein the prelates complain that ‘The Lord’s day was - not kept with reverence as became religion ... which was the - reason that God had sent several judgments on them, and in a - very remarkable manner punished some people for slighting and - abusing it. 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.’ And at last they - conclude that ‘in the first place the priests and ministers, - then kings and princes, and all faithful people be beseeched to - use their utmost endeavors and care that the day be restored - to its honor, and for the credit of Christianity more devoutly - observed for the time to come.’”[815] - -Further legislation being necessary, - - “It was decreed about seven years after in a council at Aken, - under Lewis the Godly, that neither pleadings nor marriages - should be allowed on the Lord’s day.”[816] - -But the law of Charlemagne, though backed with the authority of the -church, as expressed in the canons of the councils already quoted, by -the remissness of Lewis, his successor became very feeble. It is evident -that canons and decrees of councils, though fortified with the mention -of terrible judgments that had befallen transgressors, were not yet -sufficient to enforce the sacred day. Another and more terrific statute -than any yet issued was sought at the hands of the emperor. Thus we read:— - - “Thereupon an address was made to the emperors, Lewis and - Lotharius, that they would be pleased to take some care in it, - and send out some precept or injunction more severe than what - was hitherto extant, to strike terror into their subjects, - and force them to forbear their ploughing, pleading, and - marketing, then grown again into use; which was done about the - year 853; and to that end a synod was called at Rome under the - popedom of Leo IV.”[817] - -The advocates of the first-day Sabbath have in all ages sought for a -law capable of striking terror into those who do not hallow that day. -They still continue the vain endeavor. But if they would honor the day -which God set apart for the Sabbath, they would find in that law of fire -which proceeded from his right hand a statute which renders all human -legislation entirely unnecessary.[818] - -At this synod the pope took the matter in hand in good earnest. Thus -Heylyn testifies that under the emperors, Lewis and Lotharius, a synod -was held at Rome A. D. 853, under pope Leo IV., - - “Where it was ordered more precisely than in former times that - no man should from thenceforth dare to make any markets on the - Lord’s day, no, not for things that were to eat: neither to - do any kind of work that belonged to husbandry. Which canon - being made at Rome, confirmed at Compeigne, and afterwards - incorporated as it was into the body of the canon law, became - to be admitted, without further question, in most parts of - Christendom; especially when the popes had attained their - height, and brought all Christian princes to be at their - devotion. For then the people, who before had most opposed it, - might have justly said, ‘Behold two kings stood not before him, - how then shall we stand?’ Out of which consternation all men - presently obeyed, tradesmen of all sorts being brought to lay - by their labors; and amongst those, the miller, though his work - was easiest, and least of all required his presence.”[819] - -This was a most effectual establishment of first-day sacredness. Five -years after this we read as follows:— - - A. D. 858. “The Bulgarians sent some questions to Pope - Nicholas, to which they desired answers. And that [answer] - which concerned the Lord’s day was that they should desist from - all secular work, etc.”[820] - -Morer informs us respecting the civil power, that, - - “In this century the emperor [of Constantinople] Leo, surnamed - the philosopher, restrained the works of husbandry, which, - according to Constantine’s toleration, were permitted in the - east. The same care was taken in the west, by Theodorius, king - of the Bavarians, who made this order, that ‘If any person - on the Lord’s day yoked his oxen, or drove his wain, his - right-side ox should be forthwith forfeited; or if he made hay - and carried it in, he was to be twice admonished to desist, - which if he did not, he was to receive no less than fifty - stripes.’”[821] - -Of Sunday laws in England in this century, we read:— - - A. D. 876. “Alfred the Great, was the first who united the - Saxon Heptarchy, and it was not the least part of his care to - make a law that among other festivals this day more especially - might be solemnly kept, because it was the day whereon our - Saviour Christ overcame the devil; meaning Sunday, which is - the weekly memorial of our Lord’s resurrection, whereby he - overcame death, and him who had the power of death, that is the - devil. And whereas before the single punishment for sacrilege - committed on any other day, was to restore the value of the - thing stolen, and withal lose one hand, he added that if any - person was found guilty of this crime done on the Lord’s day, - he should be doubly punished.”[822] - -Nineteen years later, the pope and his council still further strengthened -the sacred day. The council of Friburgh in Germany, A. D. 895, under -Pope Formosus, decreed that the Lord’s day, men “were to spend in -prayers, and devote wholly to the service of God, who otherwise might be -provoked to anger.”[823] The work of establishing Sunday sacredness in -England was carried steadily forward:— - - “King Athelston, ... in the year 928, made a law that there - should be no marketing or civil pleadings on the Lord’s day, - under the penalty of forfeiting the commodity, besides a fine - of thirty shillings for each offense.”[824] - -In a convocation of the English clergy about this time, it was decreed -that all sorts of traffic and the holding of courts, &c., on Sunday -should cease. “And whoever transgressed in any of these instances, if a -freeman, he was to pay twelve oræ, if a servant, be severely whipt.” We -are further informed that, - - “About the year 943, Otho, archbishop of Canterbury, had it - decreed that above all things the Lord’s day should be kept - with all imaginable caution, according to the canon and ancient - practice.”[825] - - A. D. 967. King Edgar “commanded that the festival should be - kept from three of the clock in the afternoon on Saturday, till - day-break on Monday.”[826] - - “King Ethelred the younger, son of Edgar, coming to the crown - about the year 1009, called a general council of all the - English clergy, under Elfeagus, archbishop of Canterbury, and - Wolstan, archbishop of York. And there it was required that all - persons in a more zealous manner should observe the Sunday, and - what belonged to it.”[827] - -Nor did the Sunday festival fail to gain a footing in Norway. Heylyn -tells us of the piety of a Norwegian king by the name of Olaus, A. D. -1028. - - “For being taken up one Sunday in some serious thoughts, and - having in his hand a small walking stick, he took his knife and - whittled it as men do sometimes, when their minds are troubled - or intent on business. And when it had been told him as by way - of jest how he had trespassed therein against the Sabbath, he - gathered the small chips together, put them upon his hand, and - set fire unto them, that so, saith Crantzius, he might revenge - that on himself what unawares he had committed against God’s - commandment.”[828] - -In Spain also the work went forward. A council was held at Coy, in -Spain, A. D. 1050, under Ferdinand, king of Castile, in the days of Pope -Leo IX., where it was decreed that the Lord’s day “was to be entirely -consecrated to hearing of mass.”[829] - -To strengthen the sacredness of this venerable day in the minds of the -people, the doctors of the church were not wanting. Heylyn makes the -following statement:— - - “It was delivered of the souls in purgatory by Petrus Damiani, - who lived A. D. 1056, that every Lord’s day they were - manumitted from their pains and fluttered up and down the lake - Avernus, in the shape of birds.”[830] - -At the same time, another argument of a similar kind was brought forward -to render the observance still more strict. Morer informs us respecting -that class who in this age were most zealous advocates of Sunday -observance:— - - “Yet still the others went on in 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.”[831] - -If therefore they would strictly observe this sacred festival, their -friends in hell would reap the benefit, in a respite from their -torments on that day! In a council at Rome, A. D. 1078, Pope Gregory -VII. decreed that as the Sabbath had been long regarded as a fast day, -those who desired to be Christians should on that day abstain from -eating meat.[832] In the eastern division of the Catholic church, in the -eleventh century, the Sabbath was still regarded as a festival, equal -in sacredness with Sunday. Heylyn contrasts with this the action of the -western division of that church:— - - “But it was otherwise of old in the church of Rome, where they - did labor and fast.... And this, with little opposition or - interruption, save that which had been made in the city of Rome - in the beginning of the seventh century, and was soon crushed - by Gregory then bishop there, as before we noted. And howsoever - Urban of that name the second, did consecrate it to the weekly - service of the blessed virgin, and instituted in the council - held at Clermont, A. D. 1095, that our lady’s office should be - said upon it, and that upon that day all Christian folks should - worship her with their best devotion.”[833] - -It would seem that this was a crowning indignity to the Most High. The -memorial of the great Creator was set apart as a festival on which to -worship Mary, under the title of mother of God! In the middle of the -twelfth century, the king of England was admonished not to suffer men -to work upon Sunday. Henry II. entered on the government about the year -1155. - - “Of him it is reported that he had an apparition at Cardiff - (... in South Wales) which from St. Peter charged him, that - upon Sundays throughout his dominions, there should be no - buying or selling, and no servile work done.”[834] - -The sacredness of Sunday was not yet sufficiently established, because -a divine warrant for its observance was still unprovided. The manner -in which this urgent necessity was met is related by Roger Hoveden, a -historian of high repute who lived at the very time when this much-needed -precept was furnished by the pope. Hoveden informs us that Eustace the -abbot of Flaye in Normandy, came into England in the year 1200, to -preach the word of the Lord, and that his preaching was attended by many -wonderful miracles. He was very earnest in behalf of Sunday. Thus Hoveden -says:— - - “At London also, and many other places throughout England, he - effected by his preaching, that from that time forward people - did not dare to hold market of things exposed for sale on the - Lord’s Day.”[835] - -But Hoveden tells us that “the enemy of mankind raised against this -man of God the ministers of iniquity,” and it seems that having no -commandment for Sunday he was in a strait place. The historian continues:— - - “However, the said abbot, on being censured by the ministers - of Satan, was unwilling any longer to molest the prelates of - England by his preaching, but returned to Normandy, unto his - place whence he came.”[836] - -But Eustace, though repulsed, had no thought of abandoning the contest. -He had no commandment from the Lord when he came into England the first -time. But one year’s sojourn on the continent was sufficient to provide -that which he lacked. Hoveden tells us how he returned the following year -with the needed precept:— - - “In the same year [1201], Eustace, abbot of Flaye, returned to - England, and preaching therein the word of the Lord from city - to city, and from place to place, forbade any person to hold a - market of goods on sale upon the Lord’s day. For he said that - the commandment under-written, as to the observance of the - Lord’s day, had come down from Heaven:— - - “THE HOLY COMMANDMENT AS TO THE LORD’S DAY, - - “Which came from Heaven to Jerusalem, and was found upon the - altar of Saint Simeon, in Golgotha, where Christ was crucified - for the sins of the world. The Lord sent down this epistle, - which was found upon the altar of Saint Simeon, and after - looking upon which, three days and three nights, some men fell - upon the earth, imploring mercy of God. And after the third - hour, the patriarch arose, and Acharias, the archbishop, and - they opened the scroll, and received the holy epistle from - God. And when they had taken the same they found this writing - therein:— - - “‘I am the Lord, who commanded you to observe the holy day - of the Lord, and ye have not kept it, and have not repented - of your sins, as I have said in my gospel, “Heaven and earth - shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Whereas, - I caused to be preached unto you repentance and amendment of - life, you did not believe me, I have sent against you the - pagans, who have shed your blood on the earth; and yet you have - not believed; and, because you did not keep the Lord’s day - holy, for a few days you suffered hunger, but soon I gave you - fullness, and after that you did still worse again. Once more, - it is my will, that no one, from the ninth hour on Saturday - until sunrise on Monday, shall do any work except that which is - good. - - “‘And if any person shall do so, he shall with penance make - amends for the same. And if you do not pay obedience to this - command, verily, I say unto you, and I swear unto you, by my - seat and by my throne, and by the cherubim who watch my holy - seat, that I will give you my commands by no other epistle, - but I will open the heavens, and for rain I will rain upon you - stones, and wood, and hot water, in the night, that no one may - take precautions against the same, and that so I may destroy - all wicked men. - - “‘This do I say unto you; for the Lord’s holy day, you shall - die the death, and for the other festivals of my saints which - you have not kept: I will send unto you beasts that have the - heads of lions, the hair of women, the tails of camels, and - they shall be so ravenous that they shall devour your flesh, - and you shall long to flee away to the tombs of the dead, and - to hide yourselves for fear of the beasts; and I will take - away the light of the sun from before your eyes, and will send - darkness upon you, that not seeing, you may slay one another, - and that I may remove from you my face, and may not show mercy - upon you. For I will burn the bodies and the hearts of you, and - of all of those who do not keep as holy the day of the Lord. - - “‘Hear ye my voice, that so ye may not perish in the land, for - the holy day of the Lord. Depart from evil, and show repentance - for your sins. For, if you do not do so, even as Sodom and - Gomorrah shall you perish. Now, know ye, that you are saved by - the prayers of my most holy mother, Mary, and of my most holy - angels, who pray for you daily. I have given unto you wheat and - wine in abundance, and for the same ye have not obeyed me. For - the widows and orphans cry unto you daily, and unto them you - show no mercy. The pagans show mercy, but you show none at all. - The trees which bear fruit, I will cause to be dried up for - your sins; the rivers and the fountains shall not give water. - - “‘I gave unto you a law in Mount Sinai, which you have not - kept. I gave you a law with mine own hands, which you have not - observed. For you I was born into the world, and my festive day - ye knew not. Being wicked men, ye have not kept the Lord’s day - of my resurrection. By my right hand I swear unto you, that - if you do not observe the Lord’s day, and the festivals of my - saints, I will send unto you the pagan nations, that they may - slay you. And still do you attend to the business of others, - and take no consideration of this? For this will I send against - you still worse beasts, who shall devour the breasts of your - women. I will curse those who on the Lord’s day have wrought - evil. - - “‘Those who act unjustly towards their brethren, will I curse. - Those who judge unrighteously the poor and the orphans upon the - earth, will I curse. For me you forsake, and you follow the - prince of this world. Give heed to my voice, and you shall have - the blessing of mercy. But you cease not from your bad works, - nor from the works of the devil. Because you are guilty of - perjuries and adulteries, therefore the nations shall surround - you, and shall, like beasts, devour you.’”[837] - -That such a document was actually brought into England at this time, -and in the manner here described, is so amply attested as to leave no -doubt.[838] Matthew Paris, like Hoveden, was actually a cotemporary of -Eustace. Hoveden properly belongs to the twelfth century, for he died -shortly after the arrival of Eustace with his roll. But Matthew Paris -belongs to the thirteenth, as he was but young at the time this roll -(A. D. 1201) was brought into England. Both have a high reputation for -truthfulness. In speaking of the writers of that century, Mosheim bears -the following testimony to the credibility of Matthew Paris:— - - “Among the historians, the _first place_ is due to Matthew - Paris, a writer of the _highest merit_, both in point of - _knowledge_ and _prudence_.”[839] - -And Dr. Murdock says of him:— - - “He is accounted the best historian of the Middle Ages, - learned, independent, honest, and judicious.”[840] - -Matthew Paris relates the return of the abbot Eustachius (as he spells -the name) from Normandy, and gives us a copy of the roll which he -brought, and an account of its fall from Heaven as related by the abbot -himself. He also tells us how the abbot came by it, tracing the history -of the roll from the point when the patriarch gathered courage to take it -into his hands, till the time when our abbot was commissioned to bring it -into England. Thus he says:— - - “But when the patriarch and clergy of all the holy land had - diligently examined the contents of this epistle, it was - decreed in a general deliberation that the epistle should be - sent to the judgment of the Roman pontiff, seeing that whatever - he decreed to be done, would please all. And when at length the - epistle had come to the knowledge of the lord pope, immediately - he ordained heralds, who being sent through different parts of - the world, preached every where the doctrine of this epistle, - the Lord working with them and confirming their words by signs - following. Among whom the abbot of Flay, Eustachius by name, a - devout and learned man, having entered the kingdom of England - did there shine with many miracles.”[841] - -Now we know what the abbot was about during the year that he was -absent from England. He could not establish first-day sacredness by his -first mission to England, for he had no divine warrant in its behalf. -He therefore retired from the mission long enough to make known the -necessities of the case to the “lord pope.” But when he came the second -time he brought the divine mandate for Sunday, and with it the commission -of the pope, authorizing him to proclaim that mandate to the people, and -informing them that it was sent to His Holiness from Jerusalem by those -who saw it fall from Heaven. Had Eustace framed this document himself, -and then forged a commission from the pope, a few months would have -discovered the imposture. But their genuineness was never questioned as -is shown by the preservation of this roll by the best historians of that -time. We therefore trace the responsibility for this roll directly to -the pope of Rome. The statement of the pope that he received it from the -hands of those who saw it fall from Heaven is the guaranty given by His -Holiness to the people that the roll came from God. The historians then -living, who record this transaction, were able to satisfy themselves that -Eustace brought the roll from the pope; and they believed the pope’s -statement that he had received it from Heaven. It was Innocent III. who -filled the office of pope at this time, of whom Bower speaks thus:— - - “Innocent was perfectly well qualified to raise the papal - power and authority to the highest pitch, and we shall see him - improving, with great address, every opportunity that offered - to compass that end.”[842] - -Another eminent authority makes this statement:— - - “The external circumstances of his time also furthered - Innocent’s views, and enabled him to make his pontificate the - most marked in the annals of Rome; the culminating point of - the temporal as well as the spiritual supremacy of the Roman - See.”[843] - - “His pontificate may be fairly considered to have been the - period of the highest power of the Roman See.”[844] - -The dense darkness of the Dark Ages still covered the earth when that -pontiff filled the papal throne who raised the papacy to its highest -elevation. Two facts worthy of much thought should here be named in -connection:— - -1. The first act of papal usurpation was by an edict in behalf of -Sunday.[845] - -2. The utmost hight of papal usurpation was marked by the pope’s act of -furnishing a divine precept for Sunday observance. - -The mission of Eustace was attested by miracles which are worthy of -perusal by those who believe in first-day sacredness because their -fathers thus believed. Here they may learn what was done six centuries -since, to fix these ideas in the minds of their fathers. Eustace came to -York, in the north of England, and, meeting an honorable reception, - - “Preached the word of the Lord, and on the breaking of the - Lord’s day and the other festivals, and imposed upon the people - penance and gave absolution, upon condition that in future - they would pay due reverence to the Lord’s day and the other - festivals of the saints, doing therein no servile work.”[846] - - “Upon this, the people who were dutiful to God at his - preaching, vowed before God that, for the future, on the - Lord’s day, they would neither buy nor sell any thing, unless, - perchance, victuals and drink to wayfarers.”[847] - -The abbot also made provision for the collection of alms for the benefit -of the poor, and forbade the use of the churches for the sale of goods, -and for the pleading of causes. Upon this, the king interfered as -follows:— - - “Accordingly, through these and other warnings of this - holy man, the enemy of mankind being rendered envious, - he put it into the heart of the king and of the princes - of darkness to command that all who should observe the - before stated doctrines, and more especially all those who - had discountenanced the markets on the Lord’s day, should - be brought before the king’s court of justice, to make - satisfaction as to the observance of the Lord’s day.”[848] - -The markets on the Lord’s day, it seems, were held in the churches, and -Eustace was attempting to suppress these when he forbade the sale of -goods in the churches. And now to confirm the authority of the roll, -and to neutralize the opposition of the king, some very extraordinary -prodigies were reported. The roll forbade labor “from the ninth hour -(that is 3 P. M.) on Saturday until sunrise on Monday.” Now read what -happened to the disobedient:— - - “One Saturday, a certain carpenter of Beverly, who, after the - ninth hour of the day was, contrary to the wholesome advice - of his wife, making a wooden wedge, fell to the earth, being - struck with paralysis. A woman also, a weaver, who, after the - ninth hour, on Saturday, in her anxiety to finish a part of - the web, persisted in so doing, fell to the ground, struck - with paralysis, and lost her voice. At Rafferton also, a vill - belonging to Master Roger Arundel, a man made for himself a - loaf and baked it under the ashes, after the ninth hour on - Saturday, and ate thereof, and put part of it by till the - morning, but when he broke it on the Lord’s day blood started - forth therefrom; and he who saw it bore witness, and his - testimony is true. - - “At Wakefield, also, one Saturday, while a miller was, after - the ninth hour, attending to grinding his corn, there suddenly - came forth, instead of flour, such a torrent of blood, that the - vessel placed beneath was nearly filled with blood, and the - mill-wheel stood immovable, in spite of the strong rush of the - water; and those who beheld it wondered thereat, saying, ‘Spare - us, O Lord, spare thy people!’ - - “Also, in Lincolnshire a woman had prepared some dough, and - taking it to the oven after the ninth hour on Saturday, she - placed it in the oven, which was then at a very great heat; but - when she took it out, she found it raw, on which she again put - it into the oven, which was very hot; and, both on the next - day, and on Monday, when she supposed that she should find the - loaves baked, she found raw dough. - - “In the same county also, when a certain woman had prepared her - dough, intending to carry it to the oven, her husband said to - her, ‘It is Saturday, and it is now past the ninth hour, put it - one side till Monday;’ on which the woman, obeying her husband, - did as he commanded; and so, having covered over the dough with - a linen cloth, on coming the next day to look at the dough, to - see whether it had not, in rising, through the yeast that was - in it, gone over the sides of the vessel, she found there the - loaves ready made by the divine will, and well baked, without - any fire of the material of this world. This was a change - wrought by the right hand of Him on high.”[849] - -The historian laments that these miracles were lost upon the people, and -that they feared the king more than they feared God, and so “like a dog -to his vomit, returned to the holding of markets on the Lord’s day.”[850] -Such was the first attempt in England after the apparition of St. Peter, -A. D. 1155, to supply divine authority for Sunday observance. “It shows,” -as Morer quaintly observes, “how industrious men were in those times -to have this great day solemnly observed.”[851] And Gilfillan, who has -occasion to mention the story of the roll from Heaven, has not one word -of condemnation for the pious fraud in behalf of Sunday, but he simply -speaks of our abbot as “This ardent person.”[852] - -Two years after the arrival of Eustace in England with his roll, A. D. -1203, a council was held in Scotland concerning the introduction and -establishment of the Lord’s day in that kingdom.[853] The roll that had -fallen from Heaven to supply the lack of scriptural testimony in behalf -of this day, was admirably adapted to the business of this council, -though Dr. Heylyn informs us that the Scotch were so ready to comply -with the pope’s wishes that the packet from the court of Heaven and the -accompanying miracles were not needed.[854] Yet Morer asserts that the -packet was actually produced on this occasion:— - - “To that end it was again produced and read in a council of - Scotland, held under [pope] Innocent III., ... A. D. 1203, in - the reign of King William, who ... passed it into a law that - Saturday from twelve at noon ought to be accounted holy, and - that no man shall deal in such worldly business as on feast - days were forbidden. As also that at the tolling of a bell, the - people were to be employed in holy actions, going to sermons - and the like, and to continue thus until Monday morning, a - penalty being laid on those who did the contrary. About the - year 1214, which was eleven years after, it was again enacted, - in a parliament at Scone, by Alexander III., king of the Scots, - that none should fish in any waters, from Saturday after - evening prayer, till sunrising on Monday, which was afterward - confirmed by King James I.”[855] - -The sacredness of this papal Lord’s day seems to have been more easily -established by taking in with it a part of the ancient Sabbath. The work -of establishing this institution was everywhere carried steadily forward. -Of England we read:— - - “In the year 1237, Henry III. being king, and Edmund de Abendon - archbishop of Canterbury, a constitution was made, requiring - every minister to forbid his parishioners the frequenting of - markets on the Lord’s day, and leaving the church, where they - ought to meet and spend the day in prayer and hearing the word - of God. And this on pain of excommunication.”[856] - -Of France we are informed:— - - “The council of Lyons sat about the year 1244, and it - restrained the people from their ordinary work on the Lord’s - day, and other festivals on pain of ecclesiastical censures.” - - A. D. 1282. The council of Angeirs in France “forbid millers by - water or otherwise to grind their corn from Saturday evening - till Sunday evening.”[857] - -Nor were the Spaniards backward in this work:— - - A. D. 1322. This year “a synod was called at Valladolid in - Castile, and then was ratified what was formerly required, - that ‘none should follow husbandry, or exercise himself in any - mechanical employment on the Lord’s day, or other holy days, - but where it was a work of necessity or charity, of which the - minister of the parish was to be judge.’”[858] - -The rulers of the church and realm of England were diligent in -establishing the sacredness of this day. Yet the following statutes -show that they were not aware of any Bible authority for enforcing its -observance:— - - A. D. 1358. “Istippe, archbishop of Canterbury, with very great - concern and zeal, expresses himself thus: ‘We have it from - the relation of very credible persons, that in divers places - within our province, a very naughty, nay, damnable custom has - prevailed, to hold fairs and markets on the Lord’s day.... - Wherefore by virtue of canonical obedience, we strictly charge - and command your brotherhood, that if you find your people - faulty in the premises, you forthwith admonish or cause them - to be admonished to refrain going to markets or fairs on the - Lord’s day.... And as for such who are obstinate and speak - or act against you in this particular, you must endeavor to - restrain them by ecclesiastical censures and by all lawful - means put a stop to these extravagances.’ - - “Nor was the civil power silent; for much about that time King - Edward made an act that wool should not be shown at the staple - on Sundays and other solemn feasts in the year. In the reign of - King Henry VI., Dr. Stafford being archbishop of Canterbury, - A. D. 1444, it was decreed that fairs and markets should no - more be kept in churches and church-yards on the Lord’s day, or - other festivals, except in time of harvest.”[859] - -Observe that fairs and markets were held in the churches in England on -Sundays as late as 1444! And even later than this such fairs were allowed -in harvest time. On the European continent the sacredness of Sunday -was persistently urged. The council of Bourges urges its observance as -follows:— - - A. D. 1532. “The Lord’s day and other festivals were instituted - for this purpose, that faithful Christians abstaining from - external work, might more freely, and with greater piety devote - themselves to God’s worship.”[860] - -They did not seem to be aware of the fact however that when the fear of -God is taught by the precepts of men such worship is vain.[861] The -council of Rheims, which sat the next year, made this decree:— - - A. D. 1533. “Let the people assemble at their parish churches - on the Lord’s day, and other holidays, and be present at mass, - sermons and vespers. Let no man on these days give himself to - plays or dances, especially during service.” And the historian - adds: “In the same year another synod at Tours, ordered the - Lord’s day and other holidays to be reverently observed under - pain of excommunication.”[862] - -A council which assembled the following year thus frankly confessed the -divine origin of the Sabbath, and the human origin of that festival which -has supplanted it:— - - A. D. 1584. “Let all Christians remember that the seventh day - was consecrated by God, and hath been received and observed, - not only by the Jews, but by all others who pretend to worship - God; though we Christians have changed their Sabbath into the - Lord’s day. A day therefore to be kept, by forbearing all - worldly business, suits, contracts, carriages, &c., and by - sanctifying the rest of mind and body, in the contemplation - of God and things divine, we are to do nothing but works of - charity, say prayers, and sing psalms.”[863] - -We have thus traced Sunday observance in the Catholic church down to a -period subsequent to the Reformation. That it is an ordinance of man -which has usurped the place of the Bible Sabbath is most distinctly -confessed by the council last quoted. Yet they endeavor to make amends -for their violation of the Sabbath by spending Sunday in charity, -prayers, and psalms: a course too often adopted at the present time to -excuse the violation of the fourth commandment. Who can read this long -list of Sunday laws, not from the “one Law-giver who is able to save and -to destroy,” but from popes, emperors, and councils, without adopting the -sentiment of Neander: “The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, -was always only a human ordinance?” - - - - -CHAPTER XXI. - -TRACES OF THE SABBATH DURING THE DARK AGES. - - The Dark Ages defined—Difficulty of tracing the people - of God during this period—The Sabbath effectually - suppressed in the Catholic church at the close of the fifth - century—Sabbath-keepers in Rome about A. D. 600—The Culdees - of Great Britain—Columba probably a Sabbath-keeper—The - Waldenses—Their antiquity—Their wide extent—Their - peculiarities—Sabbatarian character of a part of this - people—Important facts respecting the Waldenses and the - Romanists—Other bodies of Sabbatarians—The Cathari—The - Arnoldistæ—The Passaginians—The Petrobruysians—Gregory VII. - about A. D. 1074 condemns the Sabbath-keepers—The Sabbath - in Constantinople in the eleventh century—A portion of the - Anabaptists—Sabbatarians in Abyssinia and Ethiopia—The - Armenians of the East Indies—The Sabbath retained through the - Dark Ages by those who were not in the communion of the Romish - church. - - -With the accession of the Roman bishop to supremacy began the Dark -Ages;[864] and as he increased in strength, the gloom of darkness settled -with increasing intensity upon the world. The highest elevation of the -papal power marks the latest point in the Dark Ages before the first -gray dawn of twilight.[865] That power was providentially weakened -preparatory to the reformation of the sixteenth century, when the light -of advancing day began to manifestly dissipate the gross darkness which -covered the earth. The difficulty of tracing the true people of God -through this period is well set forth in the following language of -Benedict:— - - “As scarcely any fragment of their history remains, all we - know of them is from accounts of their enemies, which were - always uttered in the style of censure and complaint; and - without which we should not have known that millions of them - ever existed. It was the settled policy of Rome to obliterate - every vestige of opposition to her doctrines and decrees; - everything heretical, whether persons or writings, by which the - faithful would be liable to be contaminated and led astray. - In conformity to this their fixed determination, all books - and records of their opposers were hunted up and committed - to the flames. Before the art of printing was discovered in - the fifteenth century, all books were made with the pen; the - copies, of course, were so few that their concealment was much - more difficult than it would be now; and if a few of them - escaped the vigilance of the inquisitors, they would soon be - worn out and gone. None of them could be admitted and preserved - in the public libraries of the Catholics, from the ravages of - time and of the hands of barbarians with which all parts of - Europe were at different periods overwhelmed.”[866] - -The first five centuries of the Christian era accomplished the -suppression of the Sabbath in those churches which were under the -special control of the Roman pontiff. Thenceforward we must look for the -observers of the Sabbath outside the communion of the church of Rome. It -was predicted that the Roman power should cast down the truth to the -ground.[867] The Scriptures set forth the law of God as his truth.[868] -The Dark Ages were the result of this work of the great apostasy. So -dense and all-pervading was the darkness, that God’s pure truth was more -or less obscured even with the true people of God in their places of -retirement. - -About the year 600, as we have seen, there was in the city of Rome -itself a class of Sabbath-keeping Christians who were very strict in -the observance of the fourth commandment. It has been said of them that -they joined with this a strict abstinence from labor on Sunday. But Dr. -Twisse, a learned first-day writer who has particularly examined the -record respecting them, asserts that this Sunday observance pertained to -“other persons, different from the former.”[869] These Sabbath-keepers -were not Romanists, and the pope denounced them in strong language. - -The Christians of Great Britain, before the mission of Augustine to that -country, A. D. 596, were not in subjection to the bishop of Rome. They -were in an eminent degree Bible Christians. They are thus described:— - - “The Scottish church, when it first meets the eye of - civilization, is not Romish, nor even prelatical. When the - monk Augustine, with his forty missionaries, in the time of - the Saxon Heptarchy, came over to Britain under the auspices - of Gregory, the bishop of Rome, to convert the barbarian - Saxons, he found the northern part of the island already - well-nigh filled with Christians and Christian institutions. - These Christians were the Culdees, whose chief seat was the - little island of Hi or Iona, on the western coast of Scotland. - An Irish presbyter, Columba, feeling himself stirred with - missionary zeal, and doubtless knowing the wretched condition - of the savage Scots and Picts, in the year 565, took with him - twelve other missionaries, and passed over to Scotland. They - fixed their settlement on the little island just named, and - from that point became the missionaries of all Scotland, and - even penetrated into England.[870] - - “The people in the south of England converted by Augustine and - his assistants, and those in the north who had been won by - Culdee labor, soon met, as Christian conquest advanced from - both sides; and when they came together, it was soon seen - that Roman and Culdee Christianity very decidedly differed in - a great many respects. The Culdees, for the most part, had a - simple and primitive form of Christianity, while Rome presented - a vast accumulation of superstitions, and was arrayed in her - well-known pomp.[871] - - “The Culdee went to Iona that in quiet, with meditation, study, - and prayer, he might fit himself for going out into the world - as a missionary. Indeed, Iona was a great mission institute, - where preachers were trained who evangelized the rude tribes of - Scotland in a very short time. To have done such a work as this - in less than half a century implies apostolic activity, purity, - and success.[872] - - “After the success of Agustine and his monks in England, the - Culdees had shut themselves up within the limits of Scotland, - and had resisted for centuries all the efforts of Rome to win - them over. At last, however, they were overthrown by their own - rulers.”[873] - -There is strong incidental evidence that Columba, the leading minister -of his time among the Culdees, was an observer of the ancient Sabbath -of the Bible. On this point I quote two standard authors of the Roman -Catholics. They certainly have no motive to put such words as I here -quote, fraudulently into the mouth of Columba, for they claim him as a -saint, and they are no friends of the Bible Sabbath. Nor can we see how -Columba could have used these words with satisfaction, as he evidently -did, when dying, had he all his life long been a violator of the ancient -rest-day of the Lord. Here are the words of Dr. Alvan Butler:— - - “Having continued his labors in Scotland thirty-four years, - he clearly and openly foretold his death, and on Saturday the - ninth of June said to his disciple Diermit: ‘This day is called - the Sabbath, that is, the day of rest, and such will it truly - be to me; for it will put an end to my labors.’”[874] - -Another distinguished Catholic author gives us his dying words thus:— - - “To-day is Saturday, the day which the Holy Scriptures call the - Sabbath, or rest. And it will be truly my day of rest, for it - shall be the last of my laborious life.”[875] - -These words show, 1. That Columba believed that Saturday was the true -Bible Sabbath. 2. That he did not believe the Sabbath had been changed to -Sunday. 3. That this confession of faith respecting the Bible Sabbath was -made with evident satisfaction, though in view of immediate death. Did -any first-day man ever recur with pleasure on his death-bed to the fact -that Saturday is the Bible Sabbath? - -But Gilfillan quotes these words of Columba as spoken in behalf of -Sunday! In giving a list of eminent men who have asserted the change of -the Sabbath, or who have called Sunday the Sabbath, and have taught that -it should be observed as a day of sacred rest, he brings in Columba -thus:— - - “The testimony of Columba is specially interesting, as it - expresses the feelings of the heart at a moment which tests - the sincerity of faith, and the value of a creed: ‘This day,’ - he said to his servant, ‘in the sacred volume is called the - Sabbath, that is, rest; and will indeed be a Sabbath to me, - for it is to me the last day of this toilsome life, the - day on which I am to rest (sabbatize), after all my labors - and troubles, for on this coming sacred night of the Lord - (_Dominica nocte_), at the midnight hour, I shall, as the - Scriptures speak, go the way of my fathers.’”[876] - -But this day which Columba said “will indeed be a Sabbath to me” was not -Sunday but Saturday. - -Among the dissenters from the Romish church in the period of the Dark -Ages, the first place perhaps is due to the Waldenses, both for their -antiquity and the wide extent of their influence and doctrine. Benedict -quotes from their enemies respecting the antiquity of their origin:— - - “We have already observed from Claudius Seyssel, the popish - archbishop, that one Leo was charged with originating the - Waldensian heresy in the valleys, in the days of Constantine - the Great. When those severe measures emanated from the Emperor - Honorious against rebaptizers, the Baptists left the seat of - opulence and power, and sought retreats in the country, and in - the valleys of Piedmont; which last place in particular became - their retreat from imperial oppression.”[877] - -Dean Waddington quotes the following from Rainer Saccho, a popish writer, -who had the best means of information respecting them:— - - “There is no sect so dangerous as the Leonists, for three - reasons: first, it is the most ancient—some say as old as - Sylvester [pope in Constantine’s time], others as the apostles - themselves. Secondly, it is very generally disseminated: there - is no country where it has not gained some footing. Thirdly, - while other sects are profane and blasphemous, this retains the - utmost show of piety; they live justly before men, and believe - nothing respecting God which is not good.”[878] - -Mr. Jones gives Saccho’s own opinion as follows:— - - “Their enemies confirm their great antiquity. Reinerius Saccho, - an inquisitor, and one of their most cruel persecutors, who - lived only eighty years after Waldo [A. D. 1160], admits - that the Waldenses flourished five hundred years before that - preacher. Gretser, the Jesuit, who also wrote against the - Waldenses, and had examined the subject fully, not only admits - their great antiquity, but declares his firm belief that the - Toulousians and Albigenses condemned in the years 1177 and - 1178, were no other than the Waldenses.”[879] - -Jortin dates their withdrawal into the wilderness of the Alps as follows:— - - “A. D. 601. In the seventh century, Christianity was propagated - in China by the Nestorians; and the Valdenses, who abhorred the - papal usurptions, are supposed to have settled themselves in - the valleys of Piedmont. Monkery flourished prodigiously, and - the monks and popes were in the firmest union.”[880] - -President Edwards says:— - - “Some of the popish writers themselves own, that this people - never submitted to the church of Rome. One of the popish - writers, speaking of the Waldenses, says, The heresy of the - Waldenses is the oldest heresy in the world. It is supposed - that they first betook themselves to this place among the - mountains, to hide themselves from the severity of the heathen - persecutions which existed before Constantine the Great. And - thus the woman fled into the wilderness from the face of the - serpent. Rev. 12:6, 14. ‘And to the woman were given two wings - of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into - her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and - half a time, from the face of the serpent.’ The people being - settled there, their posterity continued [there] from age to - age; and being, as it were, by natural walls, as well as by - God’s grace, separated from the rest of the world, they never - partook of the overflowing corruption.”[881] - -Benedict makes other quotations relative to their origin:— - - “Theodore Belvedre, a popish monk, says that the heresy had - always been in the valleys. In the preface to the French Bible - the translators say that they [the Waldenses] have always had - the full enjoyment of the heavenly truth contained in the Holy - Scriptures ever since they were enriched with the same by the - apostles; having in fair MSS. preserved the entire Bible in - their native tongue from generation to generation.”[882] - -Of the extent to which they spread in the countries of Europe, Benedict -thus speaks:— - - “In the thirteenth century, from the accounts of Catholic - historians, all of whom speak of the Waldenses in terms of - complaint and reproach, they had founded individual churches, - or were spread out in colonies in Italy, Spain, Germany, - the Netherlands, Bohemia, Poland, Lithuania, Albania, - Lombardy, Milan, Romagna, Vicenza, Florence, Veleponetine, - Constantinople, Philadelphia, Sclavonia, Bulgaria, Diognitia, - Livonia, Sarmatia, Croatia, Dalmatia, Briton and Piedmont.”[883] - -And Dr. Edgar gives the words of an old historian as follows:— - - “The Waldensians, says Popliner, spread, not only through - France, but also through nearly all the European coasts, and - appeared in Gaul, Spain, England, Scotland, Italy, Germany, - Bohemia, Saxony, Poland, and Lithuania.”[884] - -According to the testimony of their enemies, they were to some extent -divided among themselves. Dr. Allix quotes an old Romish writer who says -of that portion of them who were called Cathari:— - - “They are also divided amongst themselves; so what some of them - say is again denied by others.”[885] - -And Crosby makes a similar statement:— - - “There were several sects of Waldenses or Albigenses, like as - there are of Dissenters in England. Some of these did deny all - baptism, others only the baptism of infants. That many of them - were of this latter opinion, is affirmed in several histories - of this people, as well ancient as modern.”[886] - -Some of their enemies affirm that they reject the Old Testament; -but others, with much greater truthfulness, bear a very different -testimony.[887] Thus a Romish inquisitor, as quoted by Allix, bears -testimony concerning those in Bohemia:— - - “They can say a great part of the Old and New Testaments - by heart. They despise the decretals, and the sayings and - expositions of holy men, and only cleave to the text of - Scripture.... [They say] that the doctrine of Christ and - the apostles is sufficient to salvation, without any church - statutes and ordinances. That the traditions of the church - are no better than the traditions of the Pharisees; and that - greater stress is laid on the observation of human traditions - than on the keeping of the law of God. Why do you transgress - the law of God by your traditions?... They contemn all - approved ecclesiastical customs which they do not read of in - the gospel, as the observation of Candlemas, Palm Sunday, the - reconciliation of penitents, the adoration of the cross on - Good Friday. They despise the feast of Easter, and all other - festivals of Christ and the saints, because of their being - multiplied to that vast number, and say that one day is as - good as another, and work upon holy days, where they can do it - without being taken notice of.”[888] - -Dr. Allix quotes a Waldensian document of A. D. 1100, entitled the “Noble -Lesson,” and remarks:— - - “The author upon supposal that the world was drawing to an - end, exhorts his brethren to prayer, to watchfulness, to a - renouncing of all worldly goods.... - - “He sets down all the judgments of God in the Old Testament - as the effects of a just and good God; and in particular the - decalogue as a law given by the Lord of the whole world. He - repeats the several articles of the law, not forgetting that - which respects idols.”[889] - -Their religious views are further stated by Allix:— - - “They declare themselves to be the apostles’ successors, - to have apostolical authority, and the keys of binding and - loosing. They hold the church of Rome to be the whore of - Babylon, and that all that obey her are damned, especially - the clergy that are subject to her since the time of Pope - Sylvester.... They hold that none of the ordinances of the - church that have been introduced since Christ’s ascension - ought to be observed, as being of no worth; the feasts, fasts, - orders, blessings, offices of the church and the like, they - utterly reject.”[890] - -A considerable part of the people called Waldenses bore the significant -designation of _Sabbati_, or _Sabbatati_, or _Insabbatati_. Mr. Jones -alludes to this fact in the following words:— - - “Because they would not observe saints’ days, they were falsely - supposed to neglect the Sabbath also, and called _Insabbatati_ - or _Insabbathists_.”[891] - -Mr. Benedict makes the following statement:— - - “We find that the Waldenses were sometimes called - _Insabbathos_, that is, regardless of Sabbaths. 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.”[892] - -Mr. Robinson gives the statements of three classes of writers respecting -the meaning of these names, which were borne by the Waldenses. But -he rejects them all, alleging that these persons were led to these -conclusions by the apparent meaning of the words, and not by the facts. -Here are his words:— - - “Some of these Christians were called _Sabbati_, _Sabbatati_, - _Insabbatati_, and more frequently _Inzabbatati_. Led astray - by sound without attending to facts, one says they were so - named from the Hebrew word Sabbath, because they kept the - Saturday for the Lord’s day. Another says they were so called - because they rejected all the festivals or Sabbaths in the low - Latin sense of the word, which the Catholic church religiously - observed. A third says, and many with various alterations and - additions have said after him, they were called so from _sabot_ - or _zabot_, a shoe, because they distinguished themselves - from other people by wearing shoes marked on the upper part - with some peculiarity. Is it likely that people who could not - descend from their mountains without hazarding their lives - through the furious zeal of the inquisitors, should tempt - danger by affixing a visible mark on their shoes? Besides the - shoe of the peasants happens to be famous in this country; it - was of a different fashion, and was called abarca.”[893] - -Mr. Robinson rejects these three statements, and then gives his own -judgment that they were so called because they lived in the mountains. -These four views cover all that has been advanced relative to the meaning -of these names. But Robinson’s own explanation is purely fanciful, and -seems to have been adopted by no other writer. He offers, however, -conclusive reasons for rejecting the statement that they took their name -from their shoes. There remain, therefore, only the first and second -of these four statements, which are that they were called by these -names because they kept the Saturday for the Lord’s day, and because -they did not keep the sabbaths of the papists. These two statements -do not conflict. In fact, if one of them be true, it almost certainly -follows that the other one must be true also. There would be in such -facts something worthy to give a distinguishing name to the true -people of God, surrounded by the great apostasy; and the natural and -obvious interpretation of the names would disclose the most striking -characteristic of the people who bore them. - -Jones and Benedict agree with Robinson in rejecting the idea that the -Waldenses received these names from their shoes. Mr. Jones held, on -the contrary, that they were given them because they did not keep the -Romish festivals.[894] Mr. Benedict favors the view that it was because -they kept the seventh day.[895] But let us now see who they are that -make these statements respecting the observance of the Sabbath by the -Waldenses, that Robinson alludes to in this place. He quotes out of -Gretser the words of the historian Goldastus as follows:— - - “Insabbatati [they were called] not because they were - circumcised, but because they kept the Jewish Sabbath.”[896] - -Goldastus was “a learned historian and jurist, born near Bischofszell in -Switzerland in 1576.” He died in 1635.[897] He was a Calvinist writer of -note.[898] He certainly had no motive to favor the cause of the seventh -day. Gretser objects to his statement on the ground that the Waldenses -exterminated every festival; but this was the most natural thing in the -world for men who had God’s own rest-day in their keeping. Gretser still -further objects that the Waldenses denied the whole Old Testament; but -this charge is an utter misrepresentation, as we have already shown in -the present chapter. - -Robinson also quotes on this point the testimony of Archbishop Usher. -Though that prelate held that the Waldenses derived these names from -their shoes, he frankly acknowledges that MANY understood that they -were given to them because they worshiped on the Jewish Sabbath. This -testimony is valuable in that it shows that many early writers asserted -the observance of “the Saturday for the Lord’s day” by the people who -were called Sabbatati.[899] - -In consequence of the persecutions which they suffered, and because also -of their own missionary zeal, the people called Waldenses were widely -scattered over Europe. They bore, however, various names in different -ages and in different countries. We have decisive testimony that some -of these bodies observed the seventh day. Others observed Sunday. Eneas -Sylvius says that those in Bohemia hold “that we are to cease from -working on no day except the Lord’s day.”[900] This statement, let it -be observed, relates only to Bohemia. But it has been asserted that -the Waldenses were so distinct from the church of Rome they could not -have received the Sunday Lord’s day from thence, and must, therefore, -have received it from the apostles! But a few words from D’Aubigné will -suffice to show that this statement is founded in error. He describes an -interview between Œcolampadius and two Waldensian pastors who had been -sent by their brethren from the borders of France and Piedmont, to open -communication with the reformers. It was at Basle, in 1530. Many things -which they said pleased Œcolampadius, but some things he disapproved. -D’Aubigné makes this statement:— - - “The barbes [the Waldensian pastors] were at first a little - confused at seeing that the elders had to learn of their - juniors; however, they were humble and sincere men, and the - Basle doctor having questioned them on the sacraments, they - confessed that through weakness and fear _they had their - children baptized by Romish priests_, and that _they even - communicated with them and sometimes attended mass_. This - unexpected avowal startled the meek Œcolampadius.”[901] - -When the deputation returned word to the Waldenses that the reformers -demanded of them “a stricter reform,” D’Aubigné says that it was -“supported by some, and rejected by others.” He also informs us that the -demand that the Waldenses should “separate entirely from Rome” “caused -divisions among them.”[902] - -This is a very remarkable statement. The light of many of these ancient -witnesses was almost ready to go out in darkness when God raised up the -reformers. They had suffered that woman Jezebel to teach among them, and -to seduce the servants of God. They had even come to practice infant -baptism, and the priests of Rome administered the rite! And in addition -to all this, they sometimes joined with them in the service of the mass! -If a portion of the Waldenses in southern Europe at the time of the -Reformation had exchanged believers’ baptism for the baptism of children -by Romish priests, it is not difficult to see how they could also accept -the Sunday-Lord’s day from the same source in place of the hallowed -rest-day of the Lord. All had not done this, but some certainly had. - -D’Aubigné makes a very interesting statement respecting the French -Waldenses in the fifteenth century. His language implies that they had -a different Sabbath from the Catholics. He tells us some of the stories -which the priests circulated against the Waldenses. These are his words:— - - “Picardy in the north and Dauphiny in the south were the two - provinces of France best prepared [at the opening of the - Protestant Reformation] to receive the gospel. During the - fifteenth century many Picardins, as the story ran, went to - _Vaudery_. Seated round the fire during the long nights, - simple Catholics used to tell one another how the _Vaudois_ - (Waldenses) met in horrible assembly in solitary places, where - they found tables spread with numerous and dainty viands. These - poor Christians loved indeed to meet together from districts - often very remote. They went to the rendezvous by night and - along by-roads. The most learned of them used to recite some - passages of Scripture, after which they conversed together - and prayed. But such humble conventicles were ridiculously - travestied. ‘Do you know what they do to get there,’ said the - people, ‘so that the officers may not stop them? The devil - has given them a certain ointment, and when they want to go - to _Vaudery_, they smear a little stick with it. As soon as - they get astride it, they are carried up through the air, and - arrive at _their Sabbath_ without meeting anybody. In the midst - of them sits a goat with a monkey’s tail: this is Satan, who - receives their adoration.’... These stupid stories were not - peculiar to the people: they were circulated particularly by - the monks. It was thus that the inquisitor Jean de Broussart - spoke in 1460 from a pulpit erected in the great square at - Arras. An immense multitude surrounded him; a scaffold was - erected in front of the pulpit, and a number of men and women, - kneeling and wearing caps with the figure of the devil painted - on them, awaited their punishment. Perhaps the faith of these - poor people was mingled with error. But be that as it may, they - were all burnt alive after the sermon.”[903] - -It seems that these Waldenses had a Sabbath peculiar to themselves. And -D’Aubigné himself alludes to something peculiar in their faith which he -cannot confess as the truth, and does not choose to denounce as error. He -says, “Perhaps the faith of these poor people was mingled with error.” To -speak of the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord by -New-Testament Christians, subjects a conscientious first-day historian to -this very dilemma. We have a further account of the Waldenses in France, -just before the commencement of the Reformation of the sixteenth century:— - - “Louis XII., king of France, being informed by the enemies of - the Waldenses inhabiting a part of the province of Provence, - that several heinous crimes were laid to their account, sent - the Master of Requests, and a certain doctor of the Sorbonne, - who was confessor to His Majesty, to make inquiry into this - matter. On their return, they reported that they had visited - all the parishes where they dwelt, had inspected their places - of worship, but that they had found there no images, nor - signs of the ornaments belonging to the mass, nor any of the - ceremonies of the Romish church; much less could they discover - any traces of those crimes with which they were charged. On the - contrary, they kept the Sabbath day, observed the ordinance - of baptism according to the primitive church, instructed - their children in the articles of the Christian faith and the - commandments of God. The king having heard the report of his - commissioners, said with an oath that they were better men than - himself or his people.”[904] - -We further read concerning the Vaudois, or Waldenses, as follows:— - - “The respectable French historian, De Thou, says that the - Vaudois keep the commandments of the decalogue, and allow among - them of no wickedness, detesting perjuries, imprecations, - quarrels, seditions, &c.”[905] - -It maybe proper to add that in 1686 the Waldenses were all driven out -of the valleys of Piedmont, and that those who returned and settled in -those valleys three years afterward, and from whom the present race of -Waldenses is descended, fought their way back, sword in hand, pursuing -in all respects a course entirely different from that of the ancient -Waldenses.[906] - -Another class of witnesses to the truth during the Dark Ages, bore the -name of Cathari, that is, Puritans. Jones speaks of them as follows:— - - “They were a plain, unassuming, harmless, and industrious race - of Christians, patiently bearing the cross after Christ, and, - both in their doctrines and manners, condemning the whole - system of idolatry and superstition which reigned in the - church of Rome, placing true religion in the faith, hope and - obedience of the gospel, maintaining a supreme regard to the - authority of God in his word, and regulating their sentiments - and practices by that divine standard. Even in the twelfth - century their numbers abounded in the neighborhood of Cologne, - in Flanders, the South of France, Savoy, and Milan. ‘They were - increased,’ says Egbert, ‘to great multitudes, throughout all - countries.’”[907] - -That the Cathari did retain and observe the ancient Sabbath, is certified -by their Romish adversaries. Dr. Allix quotes a Roman Catholic author of -the twelfth century concerning three sorts of heretics, the Cathari, the -Passagii, and the Arnoldistæ. Allix says of this Romish writer that, - - “He lays it down also as one of their opinions, ‘that the - law of Moses is to be kept according to the letter, and that - the keeping of the Sabbath, circumcision, and other legal - observances, ought to take place. They hold also that Christ - the Son of God is not equal with the Father, and that the - Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, these three persons, are not one - God and one substance; and as a surplus to these their errors, - they judge and condemn all the doctors of the church, and - universally the whole Roman church. Now since they endeavor - to defend this their error by testimonies drawn from the New - Testament and prophets, I shall with [the] assistance of the - grace of Christ stop their mouths, as David did Goliah’s, with - their own sword.’”[908] - -Dr. Allix quotes another Romish author to the same effect:— - - “Alanus attributes to the Cathari almost the very same opinions - [as those just enumerated] in his first book against heretics, - which he wrote about the year 1192.”[909] - -Mr. Elliott mentions an incident concerning the Cathari, which is in -harmony with what these historians assert respecting their observance of -the seventh day. He says:— - - “In this year [A. D. 1163] certain heretics of the sect of the - Cathari, coming from the parts of Flanders to Cologne, took - up their abode secretly in a barn near the city. But, as _on - the Lord’s day_ they did not go to church, they were seized - by the neighbors, and detected. On their being brought before - the Catholic church, when, after long examination respecting - their sect, they would be convinced by no evidence however - convincing, but most pertinaciously persisted in their doctrine - and resolution, they were cast out from the church, and - delivered into the hands of laics. These, leading them without - the city committed them to the flames: being four men and one - little girl.”[910] - -These statements are made respecting three classes of Christian people -who lived during the Dark Ages: The Cathari, or Puritans, the Arnoldistæ, -and the Passaginians. Their views are presented in the uncandid language -of their enemies. But the testimony of ancient Catholic historians is -decisive that they were observers of the seventh day. The charge that -they observed circumcision also, will be noticed presently. Mr. Robinson -understands that the Passaginians were that portion of the Waldenses who -lived in the passes of the mountains. He says:— - - “It is very credible that the name Passageros or Passagini ... - was given to such of them as lived in or near the passes or - passages of the mountains, and who subsisted in part by guiding - travelers or by traveling themselves for trade.”[911] - -Mr. Elliott says of the _name_ Passagini:— - - “The explanation of the term as meaning _Pilgrims_, in both the - spiritual and missionary sense of the word, would be but the - translation of their recognized Greek appellation εκδημοι, and - a title as distinctive as beautiful.”[912] - -Mosheim gives the following account of them:— - - “In Lombardy, which was the principal residence of the Italian - heretics, there sprung up a singular sect, known, for what - reason I cannot tell, by the denomination of Passaginians, and - also by that of the circumcised. Like the other sects already - mentioned, they had the utmost aversion to the dominion and - discipline of the church of Rome; but they were at the same - time distinguished by two religious tenets which were peculiar - to themselves. The first was a notion that the observance - of the law of Moses, in everything except the offering of - sacrifices, was obligatory upon Christians; in consequence - of which they circumcised their followers, abstained from - those meats the use of which was prohibited under the Mosaic - economy, and celebrated the Jewish Sabbath. The second tenet - that distinguished this sect was advanced in opposition to the - doctrine of three persons in the divine nature.”[913] - -Mr. Benedict speaks of them as follows:— - - “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.”[914] - -An eminent church historian, Michael Geddes, thus testifies:— - - “This [act] of fixing something that is justly abominable - to all mankind upon her adversaries, has been the constant - practice of the church of Rome.”[915] - -Dr. Allix states the same fact, which needs to be kept in mind whenever -we read of the people of God in the records of the Dark Ages:— - - “I must desire the reader to consider that it is no great sin - with the church of Rome to spread lies concerning those that - are enemies of that faith.”[916] - - “There is nothing more common with the Romish party than to - make use of the most horrid calumnies to blacken and expose - those who have renounced her communion.”[917] - -Of the origin of the Petrobrusians, we have the following account by Mr. -Jones:— - - “But the Cathari or Puritans were not the only sect which, - during the twelfth century, appeared in opposition to the - superstition of the church of Rome. About the year 1110, - in the south of France, in the provinces of Languedoc and - Provence, appeared Peter de Bruys, preaching the gospel of the - kingdom of Heaven, and exerting the most laudable efforts to - reform the abuses and remove the superstition which disfigured - the beautiful simplicity of the gospel worship. His labors - were crowned with abundant success. He converted a great - number of disciples to the faith of Christ, and after a most - indefatigable ministry of twenty years’ continuance, he was - burned at St. Giles, a city of Languedoc in France, A. D. - 1130, by an enraged populace, instigated by the clergy, who - apprehended their traffic to be in danger from this new and - intrepid reformer.”[918] - -That this body of French Christians, who, in the very midnight of the -Dark Ages witnessed for the truth in opposition to the Romish church, -were observers of the ancient Sabbath is expressly certified by Dr. -Francis White, lord bishop of Ely. He was appointed by the king of -England to write against the Sabbath in opposition to Brabourne, who had -appealed to the king in its behalf. To show that Sabbatic observance is -contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic church—a weighty argument with -an Episcopalian—he enumerates various classes of heretics who had been -condemned by the Catholic church for keeping holy the seventh day. Among -these heretics he places the Petrobrusians:— - - “In St. Bernard’s days it was condemned in the - Petrobruysans.”[919] - -We have seen that, according to Catholic writers, the Cathari held to the -observance of the seventh day. Dr. Allix confirms the statement of Dr. -White that the Petrobrusians observed the ancient Sabbath, by stating -that the doctrines of these two bodies greatly resembled each other. -These are his words:— - - “Petrus Cluniacensis has handled five questions against the - Petrobrusians which bear a great resemblance with the belief of - the Cathari of Italy.”[920] - -The Sabbath-keepers in the eleventh century were of sufficient importance -to call down upon themselves the anathema of the pope. Dr. Heylyn says -that, - - “Gregory, of that name the seventh [about A. D. 1074], - condemned those who taught that it was not lawful to do work on - the day of the Sabbath.”[921] - -This act of the pope corroborates the testimonies we have adduced in -proof of the existence of Sabbath-keepers in the Dark Ages. Gregory the -Seventh was one of the greatest men that ever filled the papal chair. -Whatever class he anathematized was of some consequence. Gregory wasted -nothing on trifles.[922] - -In the eleventh century, there were Sabbath-keepers also in -Constantinople and its vicinity. The pope, in A. D. 1054, sent -three legates to the emperor of the East, and to the patriarch of -Constantinople, for the purpose of re-uniting the Greek and the Latin -churches. Cardinal Humbert was the head of this legation. The legates, -on their arrival, set themselves to the work of refuting those doctrines -which distinguish the church of Constantinople from that of Rome. After -they had attended to the questions which separated the two churches, -they found it also necessary to discuss the question of the Sabbath. For -one of the most learned men of the East had put forth a treatise, in -which he maintained that ministers should be allowed to marry; that the -Sabbath should be kept holy; and that leavened bread should be used in -the supper; all of which the church of Rome held to be deadly heresies. -We quote from Mr. Bower a concise statement of the treatment which this -Sabbatarian writer received:— - - “Humbert, likewise answered a piece that had been published - by a monk of the monastery of Studium, [near Constantinople,] - named Nicetas, who was deemed _one of the most learned men - at the time in the east_. In that piece the monk undertook - to prove, that leavened bread only should be used in the - eucharist, _that the Sabbath ought to be kept holy_, and that - priests should be allowed to marry. But the emperor, who wanted - by all means to gain the pope, for the reasons mentioned above, - was, or rather pretended to be, so fully convinced with the - arguments of the legate, confuting those alleged by Nicetas, - that he obliged the monk publickly to recant, and anathematize - _all who held the opinion_ that he had endeavored to establish, - with respect to unleavened bread, the Sabbath, and the marriage - of priests. - - “At the same time Nicetas, in compliance with the command - of the emperor, anathematized all who should question the - primacy of the Roman church with respect to all other Christian - churches, or should presume to censure her ever orthodox faith. - The monk having thus retracted all he had written against - the Holy See, his book was burnt by the emperor’s order, - and he absolved, by the legates, from the censures he had - incurred.”[923] - -This record shows that, in the dense darkness of the eleventh century, -“one of the most learned men at that time in the east” wrote a book -to prove that “the Sabbath ought to be kept holy,” and in opposition -to the papal doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy. It also shows how -the church of Rome caste down the truth of God by means of the sword of -emperors and kings. Though Nicetas retracted, under fear of the emperor -and the pope, it appears that there were others who held the same -opinions, for he was “obliged” to anathematize all such, and there is no -evidence that any of these persons turned from the truth because of the -fall of their leader. Indeed, if there had not been a considerable body -of these Sabbatarians, the papal legate would never have deemed it worthy -of his dignity to write a reply to Nicetas. - -The Anabaptists are often referred to in the records of the Dark Ages. -The term signifies rebaptizers, and was applied to them because they -denied the validity of infant baptism. The designation is not accurate, -however, because those persons whom they baptized, they considered as -never having been baptized before, although they had been sprinkled or -even immersed in infancy. This people have been overwhelmed in obloquy in -consequence of the fanatical insurrection which broke out in their name -in the time of Luther. Of those engaged in this insurrection, Buck says:— - - “The first insurgents groaned under severe oppressions, and - took up arms in defense of their civil liberties; and of - these commotions the Anabaptists seem rather to have availed - themselves, than to have been the prime movers. That a great - part were Anabaptists seems indisputable; at the same time - it appears from history that a great part also were Roman - Catholics, and a still greater part of those who had scarcely - any religious principles at all.”[924] - -This matter is placed in the true light by Stebbing:— - - “The overthrow of civil society, and fatal injuries to religion - were threatened by those who called themselves Anabaptists. But - large numbers appear to have disputed the validity of infant - baptism who had nothing else in common with them, yet who for - that one circumstance were overwhelmed with the obloquy, and - the punishment richly due to a fanaticism equally fraudulent - and licentious.”[925] - -The ancient Sabbath was retained and observed by a portion of the -Anabaptists, or, to use a more proper term, Baptists. Dr. Francis White -thus testifies:— - - “They which maintain the Saturday Sabbath to be in force, - comply with some Anabaptists.”[926] - -In harmony with this statement of Dr. White, is the testimony of a French -writer of the sixteenth century. He names all the classes of men who have -borne the name of Anabaptists. Of one of these classes he writes thus:— - - “Some have endured great torments, because they would not keep - Sundays and festival days, in despite of Antichrist: seeing - they were days appointed by Antichrist, they would not hold - forth any thing which is like unto him. Others observe these - days, but it is out of charity.”[927] - -Thus it is seen that within the limits of the old Roman Empire, and in -the midst of those countries that submitted to the rule of the pope, God -reserved unto himself a people that did not bow the knee to Baal, and -among these the Bible Sabbath was observed from age to age. We are now -to search for the Sabbath among those who were never subjected to the -Roman pontiff. In Central Africa, from the first part of the Christian -era—possibly from the time of the conversion of the Ethiopian officer of -great authority[928] but very certainly as early as A. D. 330[929]—have -existed the churches of Abyssinia and Ethiopia. About the time of the -accession of the Roman Bishop to supremacy, they were lost sight of by -the nations of Europe. “Encompassed on all sides,” says Gibbon, “by the -enemies of their religion, the Ethiopians slept near a thousand years, -forgetful of the world, by whom they were forgotten.”[930] In the latter -part of the fifteenth century, they were again brought to the knowledge -of the world by the discovery of Portuguese navigators. Undoubtedly -they have been greatly affected by the dense darkness of pagan and -Mahometan errors with which they are encompassed; and in many respects -they have lost the pure and spiritual religion of our divine Redeemer. A -modern traveler says of them: “They have divers errors and many ancient -truths.”[931] Michael Geddes says of them:— - - “The Abyssinians do hold the Scriptures to be the perfect rule - of the Christian faith; insomuch that they deny it to be in - the power of a general council to oblige people to believe - anything as an article of faith without an express warrant from - thence.”[932] - -They practice circumcision, but for other reasons than that of a -religious duty.[933] Geddes further states their views:— - - “Transubstantiation and the adoration of the consecrated bread - in the sacrament, were what the Abyssinians abhorred.... They - deny purgatory, and know nothing of confirmation and extreme - unction; they condemn graven images; they keep both Saturday - and Sunday.”[934] - -Their views of the Sabbath are stated by the ambassador of the king of -Ethiopia, at the court of Lisbon, in the following words, explaining -their abstinence from all labor on that day:— - - “Because God, after he had finished the creation of the world, - rested thereon; which day, as God would have it called the holy - of holies, so the not celebrating thereof with great honor - and devotion, seems to be plainly contrary to God’s will and - precept, who will suffer heaven and earth to pass away sooner - than his word; and that especially, since Christ came not to - destroy the law, but to fulfill it. It is not therefore in - imitation of the Jews, but in obedience to Christ and his holy - apostles, that we observe that day.”[935] - -The ambassador states their reasons for first-day observance in these -words:— - - “We do observe the Lord’s day after the manner of all other - Christians in memory of Christ’s resurrection.”[936] - -He had no scripture to offer in support of this festival, and evidently -rested its observance upon tradition. This account was given by the -ambassador in 1534. In the early part of the next century the emperor of -Abyssinia was induced to submit to the pope in these words: “I confess -that the pope is the vicar of Christ, the successor of St. Peter, and the -sovereign of the world. To him I swear true obedience, and at his feet I -offer my person and kingdom.”[937] No sooner had the Roman bishop thus -brought the emperor to submit to him than that potentate was compelled -to gratify the popish hatred of the Sabbath by an edict forbidding its -further observance. In the words of Geddes, he “set forth a proclamation -prohibiting all his subjects upon severe penalties to observe Saturday -any longer.”[938] Or as Gibbon expresses it, “The Abyssinians were -enjoined to work and to play on the Sabbath.” But the tyranny of the -Romanists, after a terrible struggle, caused their overthrow and -banishment, and the restoration of the ancient faith. The churches -resounded with a song of triumph, “‘that the sheep of Ethiopia were now -delivered from the hyænas of the West;’ and the gates of that solitary -realm were forever shut against the arts, the science, and the fanaticism -of Europe.”[939] - -We have proved in a former chapter that the Sabbath was extensively -observed as late as the middle of the fifth century in the so-called -Catholic church, especially in that portion most intimately connected -with the Abyssinians; and that from various causes, Sunday obtained -certain Sabbatic honors, in consequence of which the two days were -called sisters. We have also shown in another chapter that the effectual -suppression of the Sabbath in Europe is mainly due to papal influence. -And so for a thousand years we have been tracing its history in the -records of those men which the church of Rome has sought to kill. - -These facts are strikingly corroborated by the case of the Abyssinians. -In consequence of their location in the interior of Africa, the -Abyssinians ceased to be known to the rest of Christendom about the fifth -century. At this point, the Sabbath and the Sunday in the Catholic church -were counted sisters. One thousand years later, these African churches -are visited, and though surrounded by the thick darkness of pagan and -Mahometan superstition, and somewhat affected thereby, they are found at -the end of this period holding the Sabbath and first-day substantially -as held by the Catholic church when they were lost sight of by it. The -Catholics of Europe on the contrary had, in the meantime, trampled the -ancient Sabbath in the dust. Why was this great contrast? Simply because -the pope ruled in Europe, while central Africa, whatever else it may have -suffered, was not cursed with his presence nor with his influence. But -so soon as the pope learned of the existence of the Abyssinian churches, -he sought to gain control of them, and when he had gained it, one of -his first acts was to suppress the Sabbath! In the end, the Abyssinians -regained their independence, and thenceforward till the present time have -held fast the Sabbath of the Lord. - -The Armenians of the East Indies are peculiarly worthy of our attention. -J. W. Massie, M. R. I. A., says of the East Indian Christians:— - - “Remote from the busy haunts of commerce, or the populous - seats of manufacturing industry, they may be regarded as the - eastern Piedmontese, the Vallois of Hindoostan, the witnesses - prophesying in sackcloth through revolving centuries, though - indeed their bodies lay as dead in the streets of the city - which they had once peopled.”[940] - -Geddes says of those in Malabar:— - - “The three great doctrines of popery, the pope’s supremacy, - transubstantiation, the adoration of images, were never - believed nor practiced at any time in this ancient apostolical - church.... I think one may venture to say that before the time - of the late Reformation, there was no church that we know of, - no, not that of the Vaudois, ... that had so few errors in - doctrine as the church of Malabar.” He adds concerning those - churches that “were never within the bounds of the Roman - Empire,” “It is in those churches that we are to meet with the - least of the leaven of popery.”[941] - -Mr. Massie further describes these Christians:— - - “The creed which these representatives of an ancient line of - Christians cherished was not in conformity with papal decrees, - and has with difficulty been squared with the thirty-nine - articles of the Anglican episcopacy. Separated from the western - world for a thousand years, they were naturally ignorant of - many novelties introduced by the councils and decrees of the - Lateran; and _their conformity with the faith and practice of - the first ages_, laid them open to the unpardonable guilt of - heresy and schism, as estimated by the church of Rome. ‘We - are Christians and not idolaters,’ was their expressive reply - when required to do homage to the image of the Virgin Mary.... - La Croze states them at fifteen hundred churches, and as many - towns and villages. They refused to recognize the pope, and - declared they had never heard of him; they asserted the purity - and primitive truth of their faith since they came, and their - bishops had for thirteen hundred years been sent from the place - where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians.”[942] - -The Sabbatarian character of these Christians is hinted by Mr. Yeates. -He says that Saturday “amongst them is a festival day, _agreeable to the -ancient practice of the church_.”[943] - -“The ancient practice of the church,” as we have seen, was to hallow -the seventh day in memory of the Creator’s rest. This practice has been -suppressed wherever the great apostasy has had power to do it. But the -Christians of the East Indies, like those of Abyssinia, have lived -sufficiently remote from Rome to be preserved in some degree from its -blasting influence. The same fact is further hinted by the same writer in -the following language:— - - “The inquisition was set up at Goa in the Indies, at the - instance of Francis Xaverius [a famous Romish saint] who - signified by letters to Pope John III., Nov. 10, 1545, ‘That - the JEWISH WICKEDNESS spread every day more and more in the - parts of the East Indies subject to the kingdom of Portugal, - and therefore he earnestly besought the said king, that to cure - so great an evil he would take care to send the office of the - inquisition into those countries.’”[944] - -“The Jewish wickedness” was doubtless the observance of Saturday as “a -festival day agreeable to the ancient practice of the church” of which -this author had just spoken. The history of the past, as we have seen, -shows the hatred of the papal church toward the Sabbath. And the struggle -of that church to suppress the Sabbath in Abyssinia, and to subject that -people to the pope which at this very point of time was just commencing, -shows that the Jesuits would not willingly tolerate Sabbatic observance -in the East Indies, even though united with the observance of Sunday -also. - -It appears therefore that this Jesuit missionary desired the pope and the -king of Portugal to establish the inquisition in that part of the Indies -subject to Portugal, in order to root out the Sabbath from those ancient -churches. The inquisition was established in answer to this prayer, and -Xavier was subsequently canonized as a saint! Nothing can more clearly -show the malignity of the Roman pontiff toward the Sabbath of the Lord; -and nothing more clearly illustrates the kind of men that he canonizes as -saints. - -Since the time of Xavier, the East Indies have fallen under British rule. -A distinguished clergyman of the church of England some years since -visited the British Empire in India, for the purpose of acquainting -himself with these churches. He gave the following deeply interesting -sketch of these ancient Christians, and in it particularly marks their -Sabbatarian character:— - - “The history of the Armenian church is very interesting. - Of all the Christians in Central Asia, they have preserved - themselves most free from Mahometan and papal corruptions. The - pope assailed them for a time with great violence, but with - little effect. The churches in lesser Armenia indeed consented - to an union, which did not long continue; but those in Persian - Armenia maintained their independence; and they retain their - ancient Scriptures, doctrines, and worship, to this day. ‘It - is marvelous,’ says an intelligent traveler who was much among - them, ‘how the Armenian Christians have preserved their faith, - equally against the vexatious oppression of the Mahometans, - their sovereigns, and against the persuasions of the Romish - church, which for more than two centuries has endeavored, - by missionaries, priests and monks, to attach them to her - communion. It is impossible to describe the artifices and - expenses of the court of Rome to effect this object, but all in - vain.’ - - “The Bible was translated into the Armenian language in the - fifth century, under very auspicious circumstances, the history - of which has come down to us. It has been allowed by competent - judges of the language, to be a most faithful translation. La - Cruze calls it the ‘Queen of Versions.’ This Bible has ever - remained in the possession of the Armenian people; and many - illustrious instances of genuine and enlightened piety occur in - their history.... - - “The Armenians in Hindoostan are our own subjects. They - acknowledge our government in India, as they do that of the - Sophi in Persia; and they are entitled to our regard. They - have preserved the Bible in its purity; and their doctrines - are, as far as the author knows, the doctrines of the Bible. - Besides, they maintain the solemn observance of Christian - worship throughout our empire, ON THE SEVENTH DAY, and they - have as many spires pointing to heaven among the Hindoos as we - ourselves. Are such a people then entitled to no acknowledgment - on our part, as fellow Christians? Are they forever to be - ranked by us with Jews, Mahometans, and Hindoos?”[945] - -It has been said, however, that Buchanan might have intended Sunday by -the term “seventh day.” This is a very unreasonable interpretation of -his words. Episcopalian clergymen are not accustomed to call Sunday -the seventh day. We have, however, testimony which cannot with candor -be explained away. It is that of Purchas, written in the seventeenth -century. The author speaks of several sects of the eastern Christians -“continuing from ancient times,” as Syrians, Jacobites, Nestorians, -Maronites, and Armenians. Of the Syrians, or Surians, as he variously -spells the name, who, from his relation, appear to be identical with the -Armenians, he says:— - - “They keep Saturday holy, nor esteem Saturday fast lawful but - on Easter even. They have solemn service on Saturdays, eat - flesh, and feast it bravely like the Jews.”[946] - -This author speaks of these Christians disrespectfully, but he uses the -uncandid statements of their adversaries, which, indeed, are no worse -than those often made in these days concerning those who hallow the -Bible Sabbath. These facts clearly attest the continued observance of -the Sabbath during the whole period of the Dark Ages. The church of Rome -was indeed able to exterminate the Sabbath from its own communion, but -it was retained by the true people of God, who were measurably hidden -from the papacy in the wilds of Central Europe; while those African and -East Indian churches, that were never within the limits of the pope’s -dominion, have steadfastly retained the Sabbath to the present day. - - - - -CHAPTER XXII. - -POSITION OF THE REFORMERS CONCERNING THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY. - - The Reformation arose in the Catholic church—The Sabbath had - been crushed out of that church, and innumerable festivals - established in its stead—Sunday as observed by Luther, - Melancthon, Zwingle, Beza, Bucer, Cranmer, and Tyndale—The - position of Calvin stated at length and illustrated—Knox agreed - with Calvin—Sunday in Scotland A. D. 1601—How we should view - the Reformers. - - -The great Reformation of the sixteenth century arose from the bosom of -the Catholic church itself. From that church the Sabbath had long been -extirpated; and instead of that merciful institution ordained by the -divine Law-giver for the rest and refreshment of mankind, and that man -might acknowledge God as his Creator, the papacy had ordained innumerable -festivals, which, as a terrible burden, crushed the people to the earth. -These festivals are thus enumerated by Dr. Heylyn:— - - “These holy days as they were named particularly in Pope - Gregory’s decretal, so was a perfect list made of them in the - Synod of Lyons, A. D. 1244, which being celebrated with a - great concourse of people from all parts of Christendom, the - canons and decrees thereof began forthwith to find a general - admittance. The holy days allowed of there, were these that - follow; viz., the feast of Christ’s nativity, St. Stephen, - St. John the evangelist, the Innocents, St. Sylvester, the - circumcision of our Lord, the Epiphany, Easter, together with - the week precedent, and the week succeeding, the three days in - rogation week, the day of Christ’s ascension, Whitsunday, with - the two days after, St. John the Baptist, the feasts of all the - twelve apostles, all the festivities of our Lady, St. Lawrence, - ALL THE LORD’S DAYS IN THE YEAR, St. Michael the Archangel, All - Saints, St. Martin’s, the wakes, or dedication of particular - churches, together with the feasts of such topical or local - saints which some particular people had been pleased to honor - with a day particular amongst themselves. On these and every - one of them, the people were restrained as before was said from - many several kinds of work, on pain of ecclesiastical censures - to be laid on them which did offend, unless on some emergent - causes, either of charity or necessity they were dispensed with - for so doing.... Peter de Aliaco, Cardinal of Cambray, in a - discourse by him exhibited to the council of Constance [A. D. - 1416] made public suit unto the fathers there assembled, that - there might [be] a stop in that kind hereafter; as also that - excepting Sundays and the greater festivals it might be lawful - for the people, after the end of divine service to attend their - business; the poor especially, as having little time enough - on the working days to get their living. But these were only - the expressions of well-wishing men. The popes were otherwise - resolved, and did not only keep the holy days which they found - established, in the same state in which they found them, but - added others daily as they saw occasion.... Thus stood it as - before I said, both for the doctrine and the practice, till men - began to look into the errors and abuses in the Roman church - with a more serious eye than before they did.”[947] - -Such was the state of things when the reformers began their labors. That -they should give up these festivals and return to the observance of the -ancient Sabbath, would be expecting too much of men educated in the bosom -of the Romish church. Indeed, it ought not to surprise us that, while -they were constrained to strike down the authority of these festivals, -they should nevertheless retain the most important of them in their -observance. The reformers spoke on this matter as follows: The Confession -of the Swiss churches declares that, - - “The observance of the Lord’s day is founded not on any - commandment of God, but on the authority of the church; and, - That the church may alter the day at pleasure.”[948] - -We further learn that, - - “In the Augsburg Confession which was drawn up by Melancthon - [and approved by Luther], to the question, ‘What ought we to - think of the Lord’s day?’ it is answered that the Lord’s day, - Easter, Whitsuntide, and other such holy days, ought to be kept - because they are appointed by the church, that all things may - be done in order; but that the observance of them is not to - be thought necessary to salvation, nor the violation of them, - if it be done without offense to others, to be regarded as a - sin.”[949] - -Zwingle declared “that it was lawful on the Lord’s day, after divine -service, for any man to pursue his labors.”[950] Beza taught that “no -cessation of work on the Lord’s day is required of Christians.”[951] -Bucer goes further yet, “and doth not only call it a superstition, but an -apostasy from Christ to think that working on the Lord’s day, in itself -considered, is a sinful thing.”[952] And Cranmer, in his Catechism, -published in 1548, says:— - - “We now keep no more the Sabbath on Saturday as the Jews do; - but we observe the Sunday, and certain other days as the - magistrates do judge convenient, whom in this thing we ought to - obey.”[953] - -Tyndale said:— - - “As for the Sabbath, we be lords over the Sabbath, and may yet - change it into Monday, or into any other day as we see need, - or may make every tenth day holy day only if we see cause - why.”[954] - -It is plain that both Cranmer and Tyndale believed that the ancient -Sabbath was abolished, and that Sunday was only a human ordinance which -it was in the power of the magistrates and the church lawfully to change -whenever they saw cause for so doing. And Dr. Hessey gives the opinion -of Zwingle respecting the present power of each individual church to -transfer the so-called Lord’s day to another day, whenever necessity -urges, as, for example, in harvest time. Thus Zwingle says:— - - “If we would have the Lord’s day so bound to time that it - shall be wickedness to transfer it to another time, in which - resting from our labors equally as in that, we may hear the - word of God, if necessity haply shall so require, this day so - solicitously observed, would obtrude on us as a ceremony. For - we are no way bound to time, but time ought so to serve us, - that it is lawful, and permitted to each church, when necessity - urges (as is usual to be done in harvest time), to transfer the - solemnity and rest of the Lord’s day, or Sabbath, to some other - day.”[955] - -Zwingle could not, therefore, have considered Sunday as a divinely -appointed memorial of the resurrection, or, indeed, as anything but a -church festival. - -John Calvin said, respecting the origin of the Sunday festival:— - - “However, the ancients have not without sufficient reason - substituted what _we_ call the Lord’s day in the room of the - Sabbath. For since the resurrection of the Lord is the end and - consummation of that true rest, which was adumbrated by the - ancient Sabbath; the same day which put an end to the shadows, - admonishes Christians not to adhere to a shadowy ceremony. Yet - I do not lay so much stress on the septenary number that I - would oblige the church to an invariable adherence to it; nor - will I condemn those churches, which have other solemn days - for their assemblies, provided they keep at a distance from - superstition.”[956] - -It is worthy of notice that Calvin does not assign to Christ and his -disciples the establishment of Sunday in the place of the Sabbath. He -says this was done by the “ancients,”[957] or as another translates it, -“the old fathers.” Nor does he say “the day which _John_ called the -Lord’s day,” but “the day which _we_ call the Lord’s day.” And what is -worthy of particular notice he did not insist that the day which should -be appropriated to worship should be one day in every seven; for he -was not tied to “the septenary number.” The day might come once in six -days, or once in eight. And this proves conclusively that he did not -regard Sunday as a divine institution in the proper sense of the word; -for if he had, he would most assuredly have felt that the festival must -be septenary, that is, weekly, and that he must urge “the church to an -invariable adherence to it.” But Calvin does not leave the matter here. -He condemns as “FALSE PROPHETS” those who attempt to enforce the Sunday -festival by means of the fourth commandment; and who to do this say -that the ceremonial part, which requires the observance of the definite -seventh day, is abolished, while the moral part, which simply commands -the observance of one day in seven, still remains in force. Here are his -words:— - - “Thus vanish all the dreams of false prophets, who in past - ages have infected the people with a Jewish notion, affirming - that nothing but the ceremonial part of the commandment, which - according to them is the appointment of the seventh day, has - been abrogated, but that the moral part of it, that is the - observance of one day in seven, still remains. But this is only - changing the day in contempt of the Jews, while they retain the - same opinion of the holiness of a day.”[958] - -Yet these very “dreams of false prophets,” to use the words of Calvin, -constitute the foundation of the modern doctrine of the change of the -Sabbath. For whatever may be said of first-day sacredness in the New -Testament, the fourth commandment can only be made to recognize that -day by means of this very doctrine of one day in seven which Calvin -so sharply denounces. Now I state another important fact. Calvin’s -commentaries on the New Testament cover all the books from which -quotations are made in behalf of Sunday except the book of Revelation. -What does Calvin say concerning the change of the Sabbath in the record -of Christ’s resurrection?[959] Not one word. He does not even hint at -any sacredness in the day, nor any commemoration of the day. Does he say -that the meeting “after eight days” was upon Sunday? He does not say what -day it was.[960] What does he say of Sunday in treating of the day of -Pentecost?[961] Nothing. He does not so much as say that this festival -was on the first day of the week. What does he say of the breaking of -bread at Troas? He thinks it took place upon the ancient Sabbath! He -says:— - - “Either he doth mean the first day of the week, which was - next after the Sabbath, or else some certain Sabbath. Which - latter thing may seem to me more probable; for this cause, - because _that day was more fit for an assembly, according to - custom_.”[962] - -He says, however, that this place might “very well” be translated “the -morrow after the Sabbath.” But he adheres to his own translation, “one -day of the Sabbaths,” and not “first day of the week.” He says further:— - - “For to what end is there mentioned of the Sabbath, save only - that he may note the opportunity and choice of the time? Also, - it is a likely matter that Paul waited for the Sabbath, that - the day before his departure he might the more easily gather - all the disciples into one place.”[963] - - “Therefore, I think thus, that they had appointed a solemn - day for the celebrating of the holy supper of the Lord among - themselves, which might be commodious for them all.”[964] - -This shows conclusively that Calvin believed the Sabbath, and not the -first day of the week, to have been the day for meetings in the apostolic -church. But what does he say of the laying by in store on the first day -of the week? He says that Paul’s precept relates, not to the first day -of the week, but to the Sabbath! And he marks the Sabbath as the day on -which the sacred assemblies were held, and the communion celebrated, and -says that on account of these things this was the most convenient day for -collecting their contribution. Thus he writes:— - - “_On one of the Sabbaths._ The end is this—that they may have - their alms ready in time. He therefore exhorts them not to - wait till he came, as any thing that is done suddenly, and in - a bustle, is not done well, but to contribute on the Sabbath - what might seem good, and according as every one’s ability - might enable—that is on the day on which they held their sacred - assemblies.[965] - - “For he has an eye, first of all, to convenience, and farther, - that the sacred assembly, in which the communion of saints - is celebrated, might be an additional spur to them. Nor am I - inclined to admit the view taken by Chrysostom—that the term - _Sabbath_ is employed here to mean the _Lord’s day_ (Rev. - 1:10), for the probability is, that the apostles, at the - beginning, retained the day that was already in use, but that - afterwards, constrained by the superstition of the Jews, they - set aside that day, and substituted another. Now the _Lord’s - day_ was made choice of chiefly because our Lord’s resurrection - put an end to the shadows of the law. Hence the day itself puts - us in mind of our Christian liberty.”[966] - -These words are very remarkable. They show first, that by the Sabbath -day Calvin means, not the first day, but the seventh; second, that in his -judgment as late as the time of this epistle, and of the meeting at Troas -[A. D. 60], the Sabbath was the day for the sacred assemblies of the -Christians, and for the celebration of the communion; third, “but that -AFTERWARDS, constrained by THE SUPERSTITION OF THE JEWS, they set aside -that day, and substituted another.” - -Calvin did not therefore believe that Christ changed the Sabbath to -Sunday to commemorate his resurrection; for he says that the resurrection -abolished the Sabbath,[967] and yet he believes that the Sabbath was the -sacred day of the Christians to the entire exclusion of Sunday as late as -the year 60. Nor could he believe that the apostles set apart Sunday to -commemorate the resurrection of Christ, for he thinks that they did not -make choice of that day till after the year 60, and even then they did it -merely because constrained so to do by the superstition of the Jews! - -Dr. Hessey illustrates Calvin’s ideas of Sunday observance by the -following incident:— - - “Knox was the intimate friend of Calvin—visited Calvin, and, it - is said, on one occasion found him enjoying the recreation of - bowls on Sunday.”[968] - -Without doubt Calvin was acting in exact harmony with his ideas of the -nature of the Sunday festival. But the famous case of Michael Servetus -furnishes us a still more pointed illustration of his views of the -sacredness of that day. Servetus was arrested in Geneva on the personal -application of John Calvin to the magistrates of that city. Such is the -statement of Theodore Beza, the life-long friend of Calvin.[969] Beza’s -translator adds to this fact the following remarkable statement:— - - “Promptness induced him to have this heresiarch arrested on a - Sunday.”[970] - -The same fact is stated by Robinson:— - - “While he waited for a boat to cross the lake in his way to - Zurich, by some means Calvin got intelligence of his arrival; - and although it was on a Sunday, yet he prevailed upon the - chief syndic to arrest and imprison him. On that day by the - laws of Geneva no person could be arrested except for a capital - crime; but this difficulty was easily removed, for John Calvin - pretended that Servetus was a heretic, and that heresy was a - capital crime.”[971] - - “The doctor was arrested and imprisoned on Sunday the - thirteenth of August [A. D. 1553]. That very day he was brought - into court.”[972] - -Calvin’s own words respecting the arrest are these:— - - “I will not deny but that he was made prisoner upon my - application.”[973] - -The warmest friends of first-day sacredness will not deny that the -least sinful part of this transaction was that it occurred on Sunday. -Nevertheless the fact that Calvin caused the arrest of Servetus on that -day shows that he had no conviction that the day possessed any inherent -sacredness. - -John Barclay,[974] a learned man of Scotch descent, and a moderate Roman -Catholic, who was born soon after the death of Calvin, and whose early -life was spent in eastern France, not very remote from Geneva, published -the statement that Calvin and his friends at Geneva - - “Debated whether the reformed, for the purpose of estranging - themselves more completely from the Romish church, should not - adopt Thursday as the Christian Sabbath.” - -Another reason assigned by Calvin for this proposed change was, - - “That it would be a proper instance of Christian liberty.”[975] - -This statement has been credited by many learned Protestants,[976] some -of whom must be acknowledged as men of candor and judgment. But Dr. -Twisse[977] discredits Barclay because he did not name the individuals -with whom Calvin consulted, and produce them as witnesses; and because -that King James I. of England at one time suspected Barclay of treachery -toward him. But no such crime was ever proved, nor does it appear that -the king continued always to hold him in that light.[978] His veracity -has never been impeached. The statement of Barclay may possibly be -incorrect, but it is not inconsistent with Calvin’s doctrine that the -church is not tied to a festival that should come once in _seven_ days, -even as Tyndale said that they could change the Sabbath into Monday or -could “make every tenth day holy day, only if we see cause why,” and it -is in perfect harmony with Calvin’s idea of Sunday sacredness as shown in -his acts already noticed. Like the other reformers, Calvin is not always -consistent with himself in his statements. Nevertheless, we have his -judgment concerning the several texts which are used to prove the change -of the Sabbath, and also respecting the theory that the commandment may -be used to enforce, not the seventh day, but one day in seven, and it is -fatal to the modern first-day doctrine. - -John Knox, the great Scottish reformer, was the intimate friend of -Calvin, with whom he lived at Geneva during a portion of his exile from -Scotland. Though the foundation of the Presbyterian church of Scotland -was laid by Knox, or rather by Calvin, for Knox carried out Calvin’s -system, and though that church is now very strict in the observance of -Sunday as the Sabbath, yet Knox himself was of Calvin’s mind as to the -obligation of that day. The original Confession of Faith of that church -was drawn up by Knox in A. D. 1560.[979] In that document Knox states the -duties of the first table of the law as follows:— - - “To have one God, to worship and honor him; to call upon him in - all our troubles; to reverence his holy name; to hear his word; - to believe the same; to communicate with his holy sacraments, - are the works of the first table.”[980] - -It is plain that Knox believed the Sabbath commandment to have been -stricken out of the first table. Dr. Hessey, after speaking of certain -references to Sunday in a subsequent work of his, makes this statement -respecting the present doctrine of the Sabbath in the Presbyterian -church:— - - “On the whole, whatever the language held at present in - Scotland may be, it is certainly not owing to the great man - whom the Scotch regard as the apostle of the Reformation in - their country.”[981] - -That church now holds Sunday to be the divinely authorized memorial of -the resurrection of Christ, enforced by the authority of the fourth -commandment. But not thus was it held by Calvin and Knox. A British -writer states the condition of things with respect to Sunday in Scotland -about the year 1601:— - - “At the commencement of the seventeenth century, tailors, - shoemakers, and bakers in Aberdeen were accustomed to work - till eight or nine every Sunday morning. While violation - of the prescribed ritual observances was punished by fine, - the exclusive consecration of the Sunday which subsequently - prevailed was then unknown. Indeed, there were regular - ‘play Sundays’ in Scotland till the end of the sixteenth - century.”[982] - -But the Presbyterian church, after Knox’s time, effected an entire change -with respect to Sunday observance. The same writer says:— - - “The Presbyterian Kirk introduced into Scotland the Judaical - observance of the Sabbath [Sunday], retaining with some - inconsistency the Sunday festival of the Catholic church, - while rejecting all the other feasts which its authority had - consecrated.”[983] - -Dr. Hessey shows the method of doing this. He says:— - - “Of course some difficulties had to be got over. The Sabbath - was the seventh day, Sunday was the first day of the week. But - an ingenious theory that one day in seven was the essence of - the fourth commandment speedily reconciled them to this.”[984] - -The circumstances under which this new doctrine was framed, the name -of its author, and the date of its publication, will be given in their -place. That the body of the reformers should have failed to recognize the -authority of the fourth commandment, and that they did not turn men from -the Romish festivals to the Sabbath of the Lord, is a matter of regret -rather than of surprise. The impropriety of making them the standard of -divine truth is forcibly set forth in the following language:— - - “Luther and Calvin reformed many abuses, especially in the - discipline of the church, and also some gross corruptions in - doctrine; but they left other things of far greater moment just - as they found them.... It was great merit in them to go as far - as they did, and it is not they but we who are to blame if - their authority induce us to go no further. We should rather - imitate them in the boldness and spirit with which they called - in question and rectified so many long-established errors; and - availing ourselves of their labors, make further progress than - they were able to do. Little reason have we to allege their - name, authority, and example, when they did a great deal and we - do nothing at all. In this we are not imitating them, but those - who opposed and counteracted them, willing to keep things as - they were.”[985] - - - - -CHAPTER XXIII. - -LUTHER AND CARLSTADT. - - The case of Carlstadt worthy of notice—His difficulty with - Luther respecting the Epistle of James—His boldness in - standing with Luther against the pope—What Carlstadt did - during Luther’s captivity—How far he came under fanaticism—Who - acted with Carlstadt in the removal of images from the - churches, the suppression of masses, and the abolition of - the law of celibacy—Luther on returning restored the mass - and suppressed the simple ordinance of the supper—Carlstadt - submitted to Luther’s correction—After two years, Carlstadt - felt constrained to oppose Luther respecting the supper—The - grounds of their difference respecting the Reformation—Luther - said Christ’s flesh and blood were literally present IN the - bread and wine—Carlstadt said they were simply represented - by them—The controversy which followed—Carlstadt refuted by - banishment—His cruel treatment in exile—He was not connected - with the disorderly conduct of the Anabaptists—Why Carlstadt - has been so harshly judged—D’Aubigné’s estimate of this - controversy—Carlstadt’s labors in Switzerland—Luther writes - against him—Luther and Carlstadt reconciled—D’Aubigné’s - estimate of Carlstadt as a scholar and a Christian—Carlstadt a - Sabbatarian—Wherein Luther benefited Carlstadt—Wherein Luther - might have been benefited by Carlstadt. - - -It is worthy of notice that at least one of the reformers of considerable -prominence—Carlstadt—was a Sabbatarian. It is impossible to read the -records of the Reformation without the conviction that Carlstadt was -desirous of a more thorough work of reformation than was Luther. And that -while Luther was disposed to tolerate certain abuses lest the Reformation -should be endangered, Carlstadt was at all hazards for a complete return -to the Holy Scriptures. - -The Sabbatarian principles of Carlstadt, his intimate connection with -Luther, his prominence in the early history of the Reformation, and the -important bearing of Luther’s decision concerning the Sabbath upon the -entire history of the Protestant church, render the former worthy of -notice in the history of the Sabbath. We shall give his record in the -exact words of the best historians, none of whom were in sympathy with -his observance of the seventh day. The manner in which they state his -faults shows that they were not partial toward him. Shortly after Luther -began to preach against the merit of good works, his deep interest in -the work of delivering men from popish thralldom led him to deny the -inspiration of some portion of those scriptures which were quoted against -him. Dr. Sears thus states the case:— - - “Luther was so zealous to maintain the doctrine of - justification by faith, that he was prepared even to call in - question the authority of some portions of Scripture, which - seemed to him not to be reconcilable with it. To the Epistle - of James, especially, his expressions indicate the strongest - repugnance.”[986] - -Before Luther’s captivity in the castle of Wartburg, a dispute had arisen -between himself and Carlstadt on this very subject. It is recorded of -Carlstadt that in the year 1520, - - “He published a treatise ‘Concerning the Canon of Scripture,’ - which, although defaced by bitter attacks on Luther, was - nevertheless an able work, setting forth the great principle of - Protestantism, viz., the paramount authority of Scripture. He - also at this time contended for the authority of the Epistle - of St. James, against Luther. On the publication of the bull - of Leo X. against the reformers, Carlstadt showed a real and - honest courage in standing firm with Luther. His work on ‘Papal - Sanctity’ (1520) attacks the infallibility of the pope on the - basis of the Bible.”[987] - -Luther, as is well known, while returning from the Diet of Worms, was -seized by the agents of the Elector of Saxony, and hidden from his -enemies in Wartburg Castle. We read of Carlstadt at this time as follows:— - - “In 1521, during Luther’s confinement in the Wartburg, - Carlstadt had almost sole control of the reform movement at - Wittemberg, and was supreme in the university. He attacked - monachism and celibacy in a treatise ‘Concerning Celibacy, - Monachism, and Widowhood.’ His next point of assault was the - Mass, and a riot of students and young citizens against the - Mass soon followed. On Christmas, 1521, he gave the sacrament - in both kinds to the laity, and in German; and in January, - 1522, he married. His headlong zeal led him to do whatever he - came to believe right, at once and arbitrarily. But he soon - outran Luther, and one of his great mistakes was in putting the - Old Testament on the same footing as the New. On Jan. 24, 1522, - Carlstadt obtained the adoption of a new church constitution at - Wittemberg, which is of interest only as the first Protestant - organization of the Reformation.”[988] - -There were present at this time in Wittemberg certain fanatical teachers, -who, from the town whence they came, were called “the prophets of -Zwickau.” They brought Carlstadt for a time so far under their influence, -that he concluded academical degrees to be sinful, and that, as the -inspiration of the Spirit was sufficient, there was no need of human -learning. He therefore advised the students of the university to return -to their homes.[989] That institution was in danger of dissolution. Such -was Carlstadt’s course in Luther’s absence. With the exception of this -last movement, his acts were in themselves right. - -The changes made at Wittemberg during Luther’s absence, whether timely or -not, are generally set down to Carlstadt’s account, and said to have been -made by him on his individual responsibility, and in a fanatical manner. -But this was quite otherwise. Dr. Maclaine thus states the case:— - - “The reader may perhaps imagine, from Dr. Mosheim’s account of - this matter, that Carlstadt introduced these changes merely by - his own authority; but this was far from being the case; the - suppression of private masses, the removal of images out of the - churches, the abolition of the law which imposed celibacy upon - the clergy; which are the changes hinted at by our historian as - rash and perilous, were effected by Carlstadt, in conjunction - with Bugenhagius, Melancthon, Jonas Amsdorf, and others, and - were confirmed by the authority of the Elector of Saxony; - so that there is some reason to apprehend that one of the - principal causes of Luther’s displeasure at these changes, was - their being introduced in his absence; unless we suppose that - he had not so far shaken off the fetters of superstition, as to - be sensible of the absurdity and the pernicious consequences of - the use of images.”[990] - -Carlstadt had given the cup to the laity of which they had long been -deprived by Rome. He had set aside the worship of the consecrated bread. -Dr. Sears rehearses this work of Carlstadt, and then tells us what Luther -did concerning it on his return. These are his words:— - - “He [Carlstadt] had so far restored the sacrament of the Lord’s - supper as to distribute the wine as well as the bread to the - laity. Luther, ‘in order not to offend weak consciences,’ - insisted on distributing the bread only, and prevailed. He - [Carlstadt] rejected the practice of elevating and adoring the - host. Luther allowed it, and introduced it again.”[991] - -The position of Carlstadt was at this time very trying. He had not -received “many things taught by the new teachers” from Zwickau. But -he had publicly taught some of their fanatical ideas relative to the -influence of the Spirit of God superseding the necessity of study. But -in the suppression of the idolatrous services of the Romanists, he was -essentially right. He had the pain to see much of this set up again. -Moreover the elector would not allow him either to preach or write upon -the points wherein he differed from Luther. D’Aubigné states his course -thus:— - - “Nevertheless, he sacrificed his self-love for the sake of - peace, restrained his desire to vindicate his doctrine, was - reconciled, at least in appearance, to his colleague [Luther], - and soon after resumed his studies in the university.”[992] - -As Luther taught some doctrines which Carlstadt could not approve, he -felt at last that he must speak. Dr. Sears thus writes:— - - “After Carlstadt had been compelled to keep silence, from 1522 - to 1524, and to submit to the superior power and authority of - Luther, he could contain himself no longer. He, therefore, - left Wittemberg, and established a press at Jena, through - which he could, in a series of publications, give vent to his - convictions, so long pent up.”[993] - -The principles at the foundation of their ideas of the Reformation were -these: Carlstadt insisted on rejecting everything in the Catholic church -not authorized in the Bible; Luther was determined to retain everything -not expressly forbidden. Dr. Sears thus states their primary differences:— - - “Carlstadt maintained, that ‘we should not, in things - pertaining to God, regard what the multitude say or think, but - look simply to the word of God. Others,’ he adds, ‘say that, - on account of the weak, we should not _hasten_ to keep the - commands of God; but wait till they become wise and strong.’ In - regard to the ceremonies introduced into the church, he judged - as the Swiss reformers did, that all were to be rejected which - had not a warrant in the Bible. ‘It is sufficiently against the - Scriptures if you can find no ground for it in them.’ - - “Luther asserted, on the contrary, ‘Whatever is not against - the Scriptures is for the Scriptures, and the Scriptures for - it. Though Christ hath not commanded adoring of the host, - so neither hath he forbidden it.’ ‘Not so,’ said Carlstadt, - ‘we are bound to the Bible, and no one may decide after the - thoughts of his own heart.’”[994] - -It is of interest to know what was the subject which caused the -controversy between them, and what was the position of each. Dr. Maclaine -thus states the occasion of the conflict which now arose:— - - “This difference of opinion between Carlstadt and Luther - concerning the eucharist, was the true cause of the violent - rupture between those two eminent men, and it tended - very little to the honor of the latter; for, however the - explication, which the former gave of the words of the - institution of the Lord’s supper, may appear forced, yet the - sentiments he entertained of that ordinance as a commemoration - of Christ’s death, and not as a celebration of his bodily - presence, in consequence of a consubstantiation with the bread - and wine, are infinitely more rational than the doctrine - of Luther, which is loaded with some of the most palpable - absurdities of transubstantiation; and if it be supposed that - Carlstadt strained the rule of interpretation too far, when - he alleged, that Christ pronounced the pronoun _this_ (in - the words _This is my body_) pointing to his body, and not - to the bread, what shall we think of Luther’s explaining the - nonsensical doctrine of consubstantiation by the similitude of - a red-hot iron, in which two elements are united, as the body - of Christ is with the bread of the eucharist?”[995] - -Dr. Sears also states the occasion of this conflict in 1524:— - - “The most important difference between him and Luther, and - that which most embittered the latter against him, related to - the Lord’s supper. He opposed not only transubstantiation, but - consubstantiation, the real presence, and the elevation and - adoration of the host. Luther rejected the first, asserted the - second and third, and allowed the other two. In regard to the - real presence, he says: ‘In the sacrament is the real body of - Christ and the real blood of Christ, so that even the unworthy - and ungodly partake of it; and “partake of it corporally” too, - and not spiritually as Carlstadt will have it.’”[996] - -That Luther was the one chiefly in error in this controversy will be -acknowledged by nearly every one at the present day. D’Aubigné cannot -refrain from censuring him:— - - “When once the question of the supper was raised, Luther - threw away the proper element of the Reformation, and took - his stand for _himself_ and _his church_ in an _exclusive - Lutheranism_.”[997] - -The controversy is thus characterized by Dr. Sears:— - - “A furious controversy ensued. Both parties exceeded the bounds - of Christian propriety and moderation. Carlstadt was now in - the vicinity of the Anabaptist tumults, excited by Muntzer. He - sympathized with them in some things, but disapproved of their - disorders. Luther made the most of this.”[998] - -It is evident that in this contest Luther did not gain any decisive -advantage, even in the estimation of his friends. The Elector of Saxony -interfered and banished Carlstadt! D’Aubigné thus states the case:— - - “He issued orders to deprive Carlstadt of his appointments, and - banished him, not only from Orlamund, but from the States of - the electorate.”[999] - - “Luther had nothing to do with this sternness on the part of - the prince: it was foreign to his disposition,—and this he - afterward proved.”[1000] - -Carlstadt, for maintaining the doctrine now held by almost all -Protestants, concerning the supper, and for denying Luther’s doctrine -that Christ is personally present in the bread, was rendered a homeless -wanderer for years. His banishment was in 1524. What followed is thus -described:— - - “From this date until 1534 he wandered through Germany, - pursued by the persecuting opinions of both Lutherans and - Papists, and at times reduced to great straits by indigence - and unpopularity. But, although he always found sympathy and - hospitality among the Anabaptists, yet he is evidently clear - of the charge of complicity with Muntzer’s rebellion. Yet he - was forbidden to write, his life was sometimes in danger, and - he exhibits the melancholy spectacle of a man great and right - in many respects, but whose rashness, ambition, and insincere - zeal, together with many fanatical opinions, had put him under - the well-founded but immoderate censure of both friends and - foes.”[1001] - -Such language seems quite unwarranted by the facts. There was no justice -in this persecution of Carlstadt. He did for a brief time hold some -fanatical ideas, but these he did not afterward maintain. The same writer -speaks further in the same strain:— - - “It cannot be denied that in many respects he was apparently in - advance of Luther, but his error lay in his haste to subvert - and abolish the external forms and pomps before the hearts of - the people, and doubtless his own, were prepared by an internal - change. Biographies of him are numerous, and the Reformation no - doubt owes him much of good for which he has not the credit, as - it was overshadowed by the mischief he produced.”[1002] - -Important truth relative to the services of Carlstadt is here stated, -but it is connected with intimations of evil which have no sufficient -foundation in fact. Dr. Sears speaks thus of the bitter language -concerning him:— - - “For three centuries, Carlstadt’s moral character has been - treated somewhat as Luther’s would have been, if only Catholic - testimony had been heard. The party interested has been both - witness and judge. What if we were to judge of Zwingle’s - Christian character by Luther’s representations? The truth - is, Carlstadt hardly showed a worse spirit, or employed more - abusive terms toward Luther, than Luther did toward him. - Carlstadt knew that in many things the truth was on his side; - and yet, in these, no less than in others, he was crushed by - the civil power, which was on the side of Luther.”[1003] - -D’Aubigné speaks thus of the contest between these two men:— - - “Each turns against the error which, to his mind, seems most - noxious, and in assailing it, goes—it may be—beyond the truth. - But this being admitted, it is still true that both are right - in the prevailing turn of their thoughts, and though ranking in - different hosts, the two great teachers are nevertheless found - under the same standard—that of Jesus Christ, who alone is - TRUTH in the full import of that word.”[1004] - -D’Aubigné says of them after Carlstadt had been banished:— - - “It is impossible not to feel a pain at contemplating these two - men, once friends, and both worthy of our esteem, thus angrily - opposed.”[1005] - -Sometime after Carlstadt’s banishment from Saxony he visited Switzerland. -D’Aubigné speaks of the result of his labors in that country, and what -Luther did toward him:— - - “His instructions soon attracted an attention nearly equal to - that which had been excited by the earliest theses put forth by - Luther. Switzerland seemed almost gained over to his doctrine. - Bucer and Capito also appeared to adopt his views. - - “Then it was that Luther’s indignation rose to its hight; and - he put forth one of the most powerful but also most OUTRAGEOUS - of his controversial writings,—his book ‘_Against the Celestial - Prophets_.’”[1006] - -Dr. Sears also mentions the labors of Carlstadt in Switzerland, and -speaks of Luther’s uncandid book:— - - “The work which he wrote against him, he entitled ‘The book - against the Celestial Prophets.’ This was uncandid; for the - controversy related chiefly to the sacrament of the supper. - In the south of Germany and in Switzerland, Carlstadt found - more adherents than Luther. Banished as an Anabaptist, he was - received as a Zwinglian.”[1007] - -Dr. Maclaine tells something which followed, which is worthy of the -better nature of these two illustrious men:— - - “Carlstadt, after his banishment from Saxony, composed a - treatise against enthusiasm in general, and against the - extravagant tenets and the violent proceedings of the - Anabaptists in particular. This treatise was even addressed - to Luther, who was so affected by it, that, repenting of his - unworthy treatment of Carlstadt, he pleaded his cause, and - obtained from the elector a permission for him to return into - Saxony.”[1008] - - “After this reconciliation with Luther, he composed a treatise - on the eucharist, which breathes the most amiable spirit of - moderation and humility; and having perused the writings of - Zwingle, where he saw his own sentiments on that subject - maintained with the greatest perspicuity and force of evidence, - he repaired the second time to Zurich, and thence to Basil, - where he was admitted to the offices of pastor and professor of - divinity, and where, after having lived in the exemplary and - constant practice of every Christian virtue, he died, amidst - the warmest effusions of piety and resignation, on the 25th of - December, 1541.”[1009] - -Of Carlstadt’s scholarship, and of his conscientiousness, D’Aubigné -speaks thus:— - - “‘He was well acquainted,’ says Dr. Scheur, ‘with Latin, Greek, - and Hebrew;’ and Luther acknowledged him to be his superior - in learning. Endowed with great powers of mind, he sacrificed - to his convictions fame, station, country, and even his - bread.”[1010] - -His Sabbatarian character is attested by Dr. White, lord bishop of Ely:— - - “The same [the observance of the seventh day] likewise being - revived in Luther’s time by Carolastadius, Sternebergius, and - by some sectaries among the Anabaptists hath both then and - ever since been censured as Jewish and heretical.”[1011] - -Dr. Sears alludes to Carlstadt’s observance of the seventh day, but as -is quite usual with first-day historians in such cases, does it in such -a manner as to leave the fact sufficiently obscure to be passed over -without notice by the general reader. He writes thus:— - - “Carlstadt differed essentially from Luther in regard to the - use to be made of the Old Testament. With him, the law of - Moses was still binding. Luther, on the contrary, had a strong - aversion to what he calls a legal and Judaizing religion. - Carlstadt held to the divine authority of the Sabbath from the - Old Testament; Luther believed Christians were free to observe - any day as a Sabbath, provided they be uniform in observing - it.”[1012] - -We have, however, Luther’s own statement respecting Carlstadt’s views of -the Sabbath. It is from his book “Against the Celestial Prophets:”— - - “Indeed, if Carlstadt were to write further about the Sabbath, - Sunday would have to give way, and the Sabbath—that is to say, - Saturday—must be kept holy; he would truly make us Jews in all - things, and we should come to be circumcised: for that is true, - and cannot be denied, that he who deems it necessary to keep - one law of Moses, and keeps it as the law of Moses, must deem - all necessary, and keep them all.”[1013] - -The various historians who treat of the difficulty between Luther and -Carlstadt, speak freely of the motives of each. But of such matters it is -best to speak little; the day of Judgment will show the hearts of men, -and we must wait till then. We may, however, freely speak of their acts, -and may with propriety name the things wherein each would have benefited -the other. Carlstadt’s errors at Wittemberg were not because he rejected -Luther’s help, but because he was deprived of it by Luther’s captivity. -Luther’s error in those things wherein Carlstadt was right were because -he saw it best to reject Carlstadt’s doctrine. - -1. Carlstadt’s error in the removal of the images, the suppression of -masses, the abolition of monastic vows, or vows of celibacy, and in -giving the wine as well as the bread in the supper, and in performing the -service in German instead of Latin, if it was an error, was one of time -rather than of doctrine. Had Luther been with him, probably all would -have been deferred for some months or perhaps some years. - -2. Carlstadt would probably have been saved by Luther’s presence from -coming under the influence of the Zwickau prophets. As it was, he did for -a brief season accept, not their teaching in general, but their doctrine -that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in believers renders human -learning vain and worthless. But in both these things Carlstadt submitted -to Luther’s correction. Had Luther regarded Carlstadt, he would have been -benefited in the following particulars:— - -1. In his zeal for the doctrine of justification by faith, he would have -been saved from the denial of the inspiration of the epistle of James, -and would not have called it a “strawy or chaffy epistle.”[1014] - -2. Instead of exchanging transubstantiation, which is the Romish doctrine -that the bread and wine of the supper become Christ’s literal flesh and -blood, for consubstantiation, the doctrine which he fastened upon the -Lutheran church that Christ’s flesh and blood are actually present _in_ -the bread and wine, he would have given to that church the doctrine that -the bread and wine simply represent the body and blood of Christ, and are -used in commemoration of his sacrifice for our sins. - -3. Instead of holding fast every thing in the Romish church not expressly -forbidden in the Bible, he would have laid all aside which had not the -actual sanction of that holy book. - -4. Instead of the Catholic festival of Sunday, he would have observed and -transmitted to the Protestant church the ancient Sabbath of the Lord. - -Carlstadt needed Luther’s help, and he accepted it. Did not Luther -also need that of Carlstadt? Is it not time that Carlstadt should be -vindicated from the great obloquy thrown upon him by the prevailing -party? And would not this have been done long since had not Carlstadt -been a decided Sabbatarian? - - - - -CHAPTER XXIV. - -SABBATH-KEEPERS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. - - The judgment of the martyr Frith—The Reformation brings - Sabbath-keepers to light in various countries—In - Transylvania—In Bohemia—In Russia—In Germany—In Holland—In - France—In England. - - -John Frith, an English reformer of considerable note and a martyr, was -converted by the labors of Tyndale about 1525, and assisted him in the -translation of the Bible. He was burned at Smithfield, July 4, 1533. -He is spoken of in the highest terms by the historians of the English -Reformation.[1015] His views respecting the Sabbath and first-day are -thus stated by himself:— - - “The Jews have the word of God for their Saturday, sith [since] - it is the seventh day, and they were commanded to keep the - seventh day solemn. And we have not the word of God for us, but - rather against us; for we keep not the seventh day, as the Jews - do, but the first, which is not commanded by God’s law.”[1016] - -When the Reformation had lifted the vail of darkness that covered the -nations of Europe, Sabbath-keepers were found in Transylvania, Bohemia, -Russia, Germany, Holland, France, and England. It was not the Reformation -which gave existence to these Sabbatarians, for the leaders of the -Reformation, as a body, were not friendly to such views. 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. - -Transylvania, a country which now constitutes one of the eastern -divisions of the Austrian Empire, was, in the sixteenth century, an -independent principality. About the middle of that century, the country -was under the rule of Sigismund. The historian of the Baptists, Robinson, -gives the following interesting record of events in that age and country:— - - “The prince received his first religious impressions under his - chaplain, Alexius, who was a Lutheran. On his removal he chose - Francis Davidis to succeed him, and by him was further informed - of the principles of the Reformation. Davidis was a native of - that extremely populous and well-fortified town which is called - Coloswar by the natives, Clausenberg by the Germans, and by - others, Claudiopolis. He was a man of learning, address, and - piety, and reasoned in this part of his life more justly on the - principles of the Reformation than many of his cotemporaries. - In 1563 his highness invited several learned foreigners to - come into Transylvania for the purpose of helping forward the - Reformation.[1017] - - “Several other foreigners, who had been persecuted elsewhere, - sought refuge in this country, where persecution for religion - was unknown. These refugees were Unitarian Baptists, and - through their indefatigable industry and address, the prince, - the greatest part of the senate, a great number of ministers, - and a multitude of the people went heartily into their plan of - Reformation.[1018] - - “In the end the Baptists became by far the most numerous - party, and were put in possession of a printing office, and an - academy, and the cathedral was given to them for a place of - worship. They obtained these without any violence, and while - they formed their own churches according to the convictions of - their members, they persecuted nobody, but allowed the same - liberty to others, and great numbers of Catholics, Lutherans - and Calvinists resided in perfect freedom.”[1019] - -Mr. Robinson further informs us that Davidis took extreme Unitarian -ground with respect to the worship of Christ, which seems to have -been the only serious error that can be laid to his charge. Davidis -was a Unitarian Baptist minister, intrusted by his brethren with the -superintendency of the churches in Transylvania. His influence in that -country at one period was very great. His views of the Sabbath are thus -stated:— - - “He supposed the Jewish Sabbath not abrogated, and he therefore - kept holy the seventh day. He believed also the doctrine of the - millennium, and like an honest man, what he believed he taught. - He was considered by the Transylvanian churches as an apostle, - and had grown gray in their service; but the Catholics, - the Lutherans, and the Calvinists, thought him a Turk, a - blasphemer, and an atheist, and his Polish Baptist brethren - said he was half a Jew. Had he been a whole Jew he ought not to - have been imprisoned for his speculations.[1020] - - “By what means the Supreme Searcher of hearts only knows, but - by some methods till then unknown in Transylvania, the old - man was arrested, and by the senate condemned to die. He was - imprisoned in the castle, and providence by putting a period to - his life there, saved his persecutors from the disgrace of a - public execution.”[1021] - -Mr. Robinson says that “many have been blamed” for the death of Davidis, -“but perhaps the secret springs of this event may never be known till -the Judge of the world maketh inquisition for blood.” There were many -Sabbatarians in Transylvania at this time, for Mr. Robinson enumerates -many persons of distinction who were of the same views with Davidis. -The ambassador Bequessius, general of the army; the princess, sister of -prince John; the privy counselor, Chaquius, and the two Quendi; general -Andrassi, and many others of high rank; Somer, the rector of the academy -at Claudiopolis; Matthias Glirius, Adam Neusner, and Christian Francken, -a professor an the academy at Claudiopolis. - - “These,” says Robinson, “were all of the same sentiments as - Davidis, as were many more of different ranks, who after - his death in prison, defended his opinion against Socinus. - Palæologus was of the same mind; he had fled into Moravia, but - was caught by the emperor, at the request of Pope Gregory XIV., - and carried to Rome, where he was burnt for a heretick. He - was an old man, and was terrified at first into a recantation, - but he recollected himself and submitted to his fate like a - Christian.”[1022] - -These persons must have been Sabbatarians. Mosheim, after saying -that Davidis “left behind him disciples and friends, who strenuously -maintained his sentiments,” adds:— - - “The most eminent of these were Jacob Palæologus, of the isle - of Chio, who was burned at Rome in 1585; Christian Francken, - who had disputed in person with Socinus; and John Somer, who - was master of the academy of Clausenberg. This little sect - is branded by the Socinian writers, with the ignominious - appellation of SEMI-JUDAIZERS.”[1023] - -We have a further record of Sabbatarians in Transylvania to the effect -that in the time of Davidis, - - “John Gerendi [was] head of the Sabbatarians, a people who did - not keep Sunday but Saturday, and whose disciples took the name - of Genoldists.”[1024] - -Sabbath-keepers, also, were found in Bohemia, a country of Central -Europe, at the time of the Reformation. We are dependent upon those who -despised their faith and practice for a knowledge of their existence. -Erasmus speaks of them as follows:— - - “Now we hear that among the Bohemians a new kind of Jews has - arisen called Sabbatarians, who observe the Sabbath with so - much superstition, that if on that day anything falls into - their eyes they will not remove it; as if the Lord’s day would - not suffice for them instead of the Sabbath, which to the - apostles also was sacred; or as if Christ had not sufficiently - expressed how much should be allowed upon the Sabbath.”[1025] - -We need say nothing relative to the alleged superstition of these -Sabbath-keepers. The statement sufficiently refutes itself, and -indicates the bitter prejudice of those who speak of them thus. But that -Sabbath-keepers were found at this time in Bohemia admits of no doubt. -They were of some importance, and they must also have published their -views to the world; for Cox tells us that, - - “Hospinian of Zurich, in his treatise ‘Concerning the Feasts - of the Jews and of the Gentiles,’ chapter iii. (Tiguri, 1592) - replies to the arguments of these Sabbatarians.”[1026] - -The existence of this body of Sabbatarians in Bohemia at the time of the -Reformation is strong presumptive proof that the Waldenses of Bohemia, -noticed in the preceding chapter, though claimed as observers of Sunday, -were actually observers of the ancient Sabbath. - -In Russia, the observers of the seventh day are numerous at the present -time. Their existence can be traced back nearly to the year 1400. They -are, therefore, at least one hundred years older than the work of -Luther. The first writer that I quote speaks of them as “having left the -Christian faith.” But even in our time, it is very common for people to -speak of those who turn from the first day to the seventh that they have -renounced Christ for Moses.[1027] He also speaks of them as holding -to circumcision. Even Carlstadt was charged with this by Luther as a -necessary deduction from the fact that he observed the day enjoined in -the fourth commandment. Such being a common method of characterizing -Sabbath-keepers in our time, and such also having been the case in -past ages—for when men lack argument, they use opprobrious terms—the -historian, who makes up his record of these people from the statements of -the popular party, will certainly represent them as rejecting Christ and -the gospel, and accepting instead Moses and the ceremonial law. I give -the statements of the historians as they are, and the reader must judge. -Robert Pinkerton gives the following account of them:— - - “_Seleznevtschini._ This sect are, in modern time, precisely - what the Strigolniks originally were. They are Jews in - principle; maintain the divine obligation of circumcision; - observe the Jewish Sabbath, and the ceremonial law. There - are many of them about Tula, on the river Kuma, and in other - provinces, and they are very numerous in Poland and Turkey, - where, having left the Christian faith, they have joined the - seed of Abraham, according to the flesh, in rejecting the - Messiah and the gospel.”[1028] - -The ancient Russian name of this people was _Strigolniks_. Dr. Murdock -gives the following account of them:— - - “It is common to date the origin of sectarians in the Russian - church, about the middle of the seventeenth century, in the - time of the patriarch Nikon. But according to the Russian - annals, there existed schismatics in the Russian church two - hundred years before the days of Nikon; and the disturbances - which took place in his time, only proved the means of - augmenting their numbers, and of bringing them forward into - public view. The earliest of these schismatics first appeared - in Novogorod, early in the fifteenth century, under the name of - _Strigolniks_. - - “A Jew named Horie preached a mixture of Judaism and - Christianity; and proselyted two priests, Denis and Alexie, who - gained a vast number of followers. This sect was so numerous, - that a national council was called, towards the close of the - fifteenth century, to oppose it. Soon afterwards, one Karp, an - excommunicated deacon, joined the _Strigolniks_; and accused - the higher clergy of selling the office of priesthood, and - of so far corrupting the church, that the Holy Ghost was - withdrawn from it. He was a very successful propagator of this - sect.”[1029] - -It is very customary with historians to speak of Sabbath-keeping -Christians in one of the following ways: 1. To name their observance of -the seventh day distinctly, but to represent them as turning from Christ -to Moses and the ceremonial law; or, 2. To speak of their Sabbatarian -principles in so vague a manner that the reader will not be likely to -suspect them of being Sabbath-keepers. Pinkerton speaks of these Russian -Sabbath-keepers after the first of these methods; Murdock, after the -second. It is plain that Murdock did not regard these people as rejecting -Christ, and it is certain from Pinkerton that the two writers are -speaking of the same people. - -What was the origin of these Russian Sabbath-keepers? Certainly it was -not from the Reformation of the sixteenth century; for they were in -existence at least one century before that event. We have seen that -the Waldenses, during the Dark Ages, were dispersed through many of the -countries of Europe. And so also were the people called Cathari, if, -indeed, the two were not one people. In particular, we note the fact -that they were scattered through Poland, Lithuania, Sclavonia, Bulgaria, -Livonia, Albania, and Sarmatia.[1030] These countries are now parts -of the Russian Empire. Sabbath-keepers were numerous in Russia before -the time of Luther. The Sabbath of the Lord was certainly retained by -many of the ancient Waldenses and Cathari, as we have seen. In fact, -the very things said of the Russian Sabbath-keepers, that they held to -circumcision and the ceremonial law, were also said of the Cathari, and -of that branch of the Waldenses called Passaginians.[1031] Is there any -reasonable doubt that in these ancient Christians we have the ancestors -of the Russian Sabbath-keepers of the fifteenth century? - -Mr. Maxson makes the following statement:— - - “We find that Sabbath-keepers appear in Germany late in the - fifteenth or early in the sixteenth century according to - ‘Ross’s Picture of All Religions.’ By this we are to understand - that their numbers were such as to lead to organization, - and attract attention. A number of these formed a church, - and emigrated to America, in the early settlement of this - country.”[1032] - -Mr. Utter makes the following statement respecting Sabbath-keepers in -Germany and in Holland:— - - “Early in the sixteenth century there are traces of - Sabbath-keepers in Germany. The Old Dutch Martyrology gives - an account of a Baptist minister named Stephen Benedict, - somewhat famous for baptizing during a severe persecution in - Holland, who is supposed by good authorities to have kept the - seventh day as the Sabbath. One of the persons baptized by him - was Barbary von Thiers, wife of Hans Borzen, who was executed - on the 16th of September, 1529. At her trial she declared her - rejection of the idolatrous sacrament of the priest, and also - the Mass.”[1033] - -We give her declaration of faith respecting Sundays and holy days:— - - “God has commanded us to rest on the seventh day. Beyond this - she did not go: but with the help and grace of God she would - persevere therein, and in death abide thereby; for it is the - true faith, and the right way in Christ.”[1034] - -Another martyr, Christina Tolingerin, is mentioned thus:— - - “Concerning holy days and Sundays, she said: ‘In six days - the Lord made the world, on the seventh day he rested. The - other holy days have been instituted by popes, cardinals, and - archbishops.’”[1035] - -There were at this time Sabbath-keepers in France:— - - “In France also there were Christians of this class, among - whom were M. de la Roque, who wrote in defense of the Sabbath - against Bossuet, Catholic bishop of Meaux.”[1036] - -M. de la Roque is referred to by Dr. Wall in his famous history of -infant baptism “as a learned man in other points,” but in great error -for asserting that “the primitive church did not baptize infants.”[1037] -It is worthy of notice that Sabbath-keepers are always observers of -scriptural baptism—the burial of penitent believers in the watery grave. -No people retaining infant baptism, or the sprinkling of believers, have -observed the seventh day.[1038] - -The origin of the Sabbatarians of England cannot now be definitely -ascertained. Their observance of believers’ baptism and the keeping -of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord, strongly attest their -descent from the persecuted heretics of the Dark Ages, rather than from -the reformers of the sixteenth century, who retained infant baptism and -the festival of Sunday. That these heretics had long been numerous in -England, is thus certified by Crosby:— - - “For in the time of William the Conqueror [A. D. 1070] and - his son William Rufus, it appears that the Waldenses and - their disciples out of France, Germany, and Holland, had - their frequent recourse, and did abound in England.... The - Beringarian, or Waldensian heresy, as the chronologer calls it, - had, about A. D. 1080, generally corrupted all France, Italy, - and England.”[1039] - -Mr. Maxson says of the English Sabbatarians:— - - “In England we find Sabbath-keepers very early. Dr. Chambers - says: ‘They arose in England in the sixteenth century,’ - from which we understand that they then became a distinct - denomination in that kingdom.”[1040] - -Mr. Benedict speaks thus of the origin of English Sabbatarians:— - - “At what time the Seventh-day Baptists began to form churches - in this kingdom does not appear; but probably it was at an - early period; and although their churches have never been - numerous, yet there have been among them almost for two hundred - years past, some very eminent men.”[1041] - - - - -CHAPTER XXV. - -HOW AND WHEN SUNDAY APPROPRIATED THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT. - - The light of the Reformation destroyed many of the best - Sunday arguments of the preceding Dark Ages—The controversy - between the Presbyterians and Episcopalians of England - brings Sunday sacredness to the test—The former discover the - means of enforcing the observance of Sunday by the fourth - commandment—How this can be done—Effects of this extraordinary - discovery—History of the Sunday festival concluded. - - -The light of the Reformation necessarily dissipated into thin air many -of the most substantial arguments by which the Sunday festival had -been built up during the Dark Ages. The roll that fell from Heaven—the -apparition of St. Peter—the relief of souls in purgatory, and even of the -damned in hell—and many prodigies of fearful portent—none of these, nor -all of them combined, were likely longer to sustain the sacredness of the -venerable day. True it was that when these were swept away there remained -to sustain the festival of Sunday, the canons of councils, the edicts of -kings and emperors, the decrees of the holy doctors of the church, and, -greatest of all, the imperious mandates of the Roman pontiff. Yet these -could be adduced also in behalf of the innumerable festivals ordained -by the same great apostate church. Such authority would answer for the -Episcopalian, who devoutly accepts of all these festivals, because -commanded so to do by the church; but for those who acknowledge the -Bible as the only rule of faith, the case was different. In the latter -part of the sixteenth century, the Presbyterians and Episcopalians of -England were involved in such a controversy as brought this matter to an -issue. The Episcopalians required men to observe all the festivals of the -church; the Presbyterians observed Sunday, and rejected all the rest. The -Episcopalians showed the inconsistency of this discrimination, inasmuch -as the same church authority had ordained them all. As the Presbyterians -rejected the authority of the church, they would not keep Sunday upon -that ground, especially as it would involve the observance also of all -the other festivals. They had to choose therefore between the giving up -of Sunday entirely, and the defense of its observance by the Bible. There -was indeed another and a nobler choice that they might have made, viz., -to adopt the Sabbath of the Lord, but it was too humiliating for them -to unite with those who retained that ancient and sacred institution. -The issue of this struggle is thus related by a distinguished German -theologian, Hengstenberg:— - - “The opinion that the Sabbath was transferred to the Sunday - was first broached in its perfect form, and with all its - consequences, in the controversy which was carried on in - England between the Episcopalians and Presbyterians. The - Presbyterians, who carried to extremes the principle, that - every institution of the church must have its foundation in the - Scriptures, and would not allow that God had given, in this - respect, greater liberty to the church of the New Testament, - which his Spirit had brought to maturity, than to that of - the Old, charged the Episcopalians with popish leaven, and - superstition, and subjection to the ordinances of men, because - they retained the Christian feasts. The Episcopalians, on the - other hand, as a proof that greater liberty was granted to - the New-Testament church in such matters as these, appealed - to the fact that even the observance of the Sunday was only - an arrangement of the church. The Presbyterians were now in a - position which compelled them either to give up the observance - of the Sunday, or to maintain that a divine appointment from - God separated it from the other festivals. The first they could - not do, for their Christian experience was too deep for them - not to know how greatly the weakness of human nature stands in - need of regularly returning periods, devoted to the service of - God. They therefore decided upon the latter.”[1042] - -Thus much for the occasion of that wonderful discovery by which the -Scriptures are made to sustain the divine appointment of Sunday as the -Christian Sabbath. The date of the discovery, the name of the discoverer, -and the manner in which he contrived to enforce the first day of the -week by the authority of the fourth commandment, are thus set forth by a -candid first-day historian, Lyman Coleman:— - - “The true doctrine of the Christian Sabbath was first - promulgated by an English dissenter, the Rev. Nicholas Bound, - D. D., of Norton, in the county of Suffolk. About the year - 1595, he published a famous book, entitled, ‘Sabbathum Veteris - et Novi Testamenti,’ or the True Doctrine of the Sabbath. In - this book he maintained ‘that the seventh part of our time - ought to be devoted to God—that Christians are bound to rest on - the Lord’s day as much as the Jews were on the Mosaic Sabbath, - the commandment about rest being moral and perpetual; and that - it was not lawful for persons to follow their studies or - worldly business on that day, nor to use such pleasures and - recreations as are permitted on other days.’ This book spread - with wonderful rapidity. The doctrine which it propounded - called forth from many hearts a ready response, and the result - was a most pleasing reformation in many parts of the kingdom. - ‘It is almost incredible,’ says Fuller, ‘how taking this - doctrine was, partly because of its own purity, and partly for - the eminent piety of such persons as maintained it; so that the - Lord’s day, especially in corporations, began to be precisely - kept; people becoming a law unto themselves, forbearing such - sports as yet by statute permitted; yea, many rejoicing at - their own restraint herein.’ 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 of divine authority for sanctifying the - day. Their conscience had been in advance of their reason. - Practically they had kept the Sabbath better than their - principles required. - - “Public sentiment, however, was still unsettled in regard to - this new doctrine respecting the Sabbath, though a few at first - violently opposed it. ‘Learned men were much divided in their - judgments about these Sabbatarian doctrines; some embraced them - as ancient truths consonant to Scripture, long disused and - neglected, now seasonably revived for the increase of piety. - Others conceived them grounded on a wrong bottom; but because - they tended to the manifest advance of religion, it was a pity - to oppose them; seeing none have just reason to complain, being - deceived unto their own good. But a third sort flatly fell out - with these propositions, as galling men’s necks with a _Jewish - yoke_ against the liberty of Christians; that Christ, as Lord - of the Sabbath, had removed the rigor thereof, and allowed men - lawful recreations; _that this doctrine put an unequal lustre - on the Sunday_, on set purpose to eclipse all other holy days, - to the derogation of the authority of the church; that this - strict observance was set up out of faction, to be a character - of difference to brand all for libertines who did not entertain - it.’ No open opposition, however, was at first manifested - against the sentiments of Dr. Bound. No reply was attempted - for several years, and ‘not so much as a feather of a quill in - print did wag against him.’ - - “His work was soon followed by several other treatises in - defense of the same sentiments. ‘All the Puritans fell in with - this doctrine, and distinguished themselves by spending that - part of sacred time in public, family, and private devotion.’ - Even Dr. Heylyn certified the triumphant spread of those - puritanical sentiments respecting the Sabbath.... - - “‘This doctrine,’ he says, ‘carrying such a fair show of piety, - at least in the opinion of the common people, and such as did - not examine the true grounds of it, induced many to embrace - and defend it; and in a very little time it became the most - bewitching error and the most popular infatuation that ever was - embraced by the people of England.’”[1043] - -Dr. Bound was not absolutely the inventor of the seventh-part-of-time -theory; but he may be said rather to have gathered up and combined the -scattered hints of his predecessors, and to have added to these something -of his own production. His grounds for asserting Sunday to be the Sabbath -of the fourth commandment are these:— - - “That which is natural, namely, that every seventh day should - be kept holy unto the Lord, that still remaineth: that which is - positive, namely, that day which was the seventh day from the - creation, should be the Sabbath, or day of rest, that is now - changed in the church of God.”[1044] - -He says that the meaning of the declaration, “The seventh day is the -Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” is this:— - - “There must be one [day] of seven and not [one] of eight.”[1045] - -But the special key to the whole theory is in the statement that the -seventh day in the commandment was “_genus_,” that is to say, it was a -kind of seventh day which comprehended several species of seventh days, -at least two. Thus he says:— - - “So he maketh the seventh day to be _genus_ in this - commandment, and to be perpetual: and in it by virtue of - the commandment to comprehend these two species or kinds: - the Sabbath of the Jews and of the Gentiles, of the law - and of the gospel: so that both of them were comprehended - in the commandment, even as _genus_ comprehendeth both his - species.”[1046] - -He enforces the first day by the fourth commandment, as follows:— - - “So that we have not in the gospel a new commandment for the - Sabbath, diverse from that that was in the law; but there is a - diverse time appointed; namely, not the seventh day from the - creation, but the day of Christ’s resurrection, and the seventh - from that: both of them at several times being comprehended in - the fourth commandment.”[1047] - -He means to say that the fourth commandment enforces the seventh day from -the creation to the resurrection of Christ, and since that enforces a -different seventh day, namely, the seventh from Christ’s resurrection. -Such is the perverse ingenuity by which men can evade the law of God and -yet make it appear that they are faithfully observing it. - -Such was the origin of the seventh-part-of-time theory, by which the -seventh day is dropped out of the fourth commandment, and one day in -seven slipped into its place; a doctrine most opportunely framed at -the very period when nothing else could save the venerable day of the -sun. With the aid of this theory, the Sunday of “Pope and Pagan” was -able coolly to wrap itself in the fourth commandment, and then in the -character of a divine institution, to challenge obedience from all Bible -Christians. It could now cast away the other frauds on which its very -existence had depended, and support its authority by this one alone. In -the time of Constantine it ascended the throne of the Roman Empire, and -during the whole period of the Dark Ages it maintained its supremacy from -the chair of St. Peter; but now it had ascended the throne of the Most -High. And thus a day which God “commanded not nor spake it, neither came -it into” his “mind,” was enjoined upon mankind with all the authority of -his holy law. The immediate effect of Dr. Bound’s work upon the existing -controversy is thus described by an Episcopalian eye-witness, Dr. Heylyn:— - - “For by inculcating to the people these new Sabbath - speculations [concerning Sunday], teaching that that day only - ‘was of God’s appointment, and all the rest observed in the - church of England, a remnant of the will-worship in the church - of Rome;’ the other holy days in this church established, - were so shrewdly shaken that till this day they are not well - recovered of the blow then given. Nor came this on the by - or besides their purpose, but as a thing that specially was - intended from the first beginning.”[1048] - -In a former chapter, we called attention to the fact that Sunday can -be maintained as a divine institution only by adopting the rule of -faith acknowledged in the church of Rome, which is, the Bible with -the traditions of the church added thereto. We have seen that in the -sixteenth century the Presbyterians of England were brought to decide -between giving up Sunday as a church festival and maintaining it as -a divine institution by the Bible. They chose the latter course. Yet -while apparently avoiding the charge of observing a Catholic festival, -by claiming to prove the Sunday institution out of the Bible, the -utterly unsatisfactory nature of the several inferences adduced from -the Scriptures in support of that day, compelled them to resort to the -traditions of the church, and to add these to their so-called biblical -evidences in its behalf. It would be no worse to keep Sunday while -frankly acknowledging it to be a festival of the Catholic church, not -commanded in the Bible, than it is to profess that you observe it as a -biblical institution, and then prove it to be such by adopting the rule -of faith of the Romanists. Joaunes Perrone, an eminent Italian Catholic -theologian, in an important doctrinal work, entitled, “Theological -Lessons,” makes a very impressive statement respecting the acknowledgment -of tradition by Protestant Sunday-keepers. In his chapter “Concerning -the Necessity and Existence of Tradition,” he lays down the proposition -that it is necessary to admit doctrines which we can prove only from -tradition, and cannot sustain from the Holy Scriptures. Then he says:— - - “It is not possible, indeed, if traditions of such character - are rejected, that several doctrines, which the Protestants - held with us since they withdrew from the Catholic church, - could, in any possible manner, be established. The fact is - placed beyond a venture of a doubt, for they themselves hold - with us the validity of baptism administered by heretics or - infidels, the validity also of infant baptism, the true form - of baptism [sprinkling]; they held, too, that the law of - abstaining from blood and anything strangled is not in force; - also concerning the substitution of the Lord’s day for the - Sabbath; besides those things which I have mentioned before, - and not a few others.”[1049] - -Dr. Bound’s theory of the seventh part of time has found general -acceptance in all those churches which sprung from the church of Rome. -Most forcibly did old Cotton Mather observe:— - - “The reforming churches, flying from Rome, carried, some of - them more, some of them less, all of them something, of Rome - with them.”[1050] - -One sacred treasure which they all drew from the venerable mother of -harlots is the ancient festival of the sun. She had crushed out of her -communion the Sabbath of the Lord, and having adopted the venerable day -of the sun, had transformed it into the Lord’s day of the Christian -church. The reformed, flying from her communion, and carrying with -them this ancient festival, now found themselves able to justify its -observance as being indeed the veritable Sabbath of the Lord! As the -seamless coat of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, was torn from him before -he was nailed to the cross, so has the fourth commandment been torn -from the rest-day of the Lord, around which it was placed by the great -Law-giver, and given to this papal Lord’s day; and this Barabbas the -robber, thus arrayed in the stolen fourth commandment, has from that -time to the present day, and with astonishing success, challenged the -obedience of the world as the divinely appointed Sabbath of the most -high God. Here we close the history of the Sunday festival, now fully -transformed into the _Christian Sabbath_. A rapid survey of the history -of English and American Sabbath-keepers will conclude this work. - - - - -CHAPTER XXVI. - -ENGLISH SABBATH-KEEPERS. - - English Sabbatarians in the sixteenth century—Their - doctrines—John Trask for these doctrines pilloried, whipt, and - imprisoned—He recants—Character of Mrs. Trask—Her crime—Her - indomitable courage—She suffers fifteen years’ imprisonment, - and dies in the prison—Principles of the Traskites—Brabourne - writes in behalf of the seventh day—Appeals to King Charles I. - to restore the ancient Sabbath—The king employs Dr. White to - write against Brabourne, and Dr. Heylyn to write the History of - the Sabbath—The king intimidates Brabourne and he recants—He - returns again to the Sabbath—Philip Tandy—James Ockford - writes “The Doctrine of the Fourth Commandment”—His book - burned—Edward Stennett—Wm. Sellers—Cruel Treatment of Francis - Bampfield—Thomas Bampfield—Martyrdom of John James—How the - Sabbath cause was prostrated in England. - - -Chambers speaks thus of Sabbath-keepers in the sixteenth century:— - - “In the reign of Elizabeth, it occurred to many conscientious - and independent thinkers (as it had previously done to some - Protestants in Bohemia), that the fourth commandment required - of them the observance, not of the first, but of the specified - _seventh_ day of the week, and a strict bodily rest, as a - service then due to God; while others, though convinced that - the day had been altered by divine authority, took up the same - opinion as to the scriptural obligation to refrain from work. - The former class became numerous enough to make a considerable - figure for more than a century in England, under the title of - ‘Sabbatarians’—a word now exchanged for the less ambiguous - appellation of ‘Seventh-day Baptists.’”[1051] - -Gilfillan quotes an English writer of the year 1584, John Stockwood, who -says that there were then - - “A great diversity of opinion among the vulgar people and - simple sort, concerning the Sabbath day, and the right use of - the same.” - -And Gilfillan states one of the grounds of controversy thus:— - - “Some maintaining the unchanged and unchangeable obligation of - the seventh-day Sabbath.”[1052] - -In 1607, an English first-day writer, John Sprint, gave the views of the -Sabbath-keepers of that time, which in truth have been substantially the -same in all ages:— - - “They allege reasons drawn, 1. From the precedence of the - Sabbath before the law, and before the fall; the laws of which - nature are immutable. 2. From the perpetuity of the moral law. - 3. And from the large extent thereof appertaining to [the - Sabbath above] all [the other precepts.] 4. ... And of the - cause of [this precept of] the law which maketh it perpetual, - which is the memorial and meditation of the works of God; which - belong unto the Christians as well as to the Jews.”[1053] - -John Trask began to speak and write in favor of the seventh day as -the Sabbath of the Lord, about the time that King James I., and the -archbishop of Canterbury, published the famous “Book of Sports for -Sunday,” in 1618. His field of labor was London, and being a very -zealous man, he was soon called to account by the persecuting authority -of the church of England. He took high ground as to the sufficiency of -the Scriptures to direct in all religious services, and that the civil -authorities ought not to constrain men’s consciences in matters of -religion. He was brought before the infamous Star Chamber, where a long -discussion was held respecting the Sabbath. It was on this occasion that -Bishop Andrews first brought forward that now famous first-day argument, -that the early martyrs were tested by the question, “Hast thou kept the -Lord’s day?”[1054] - -Gilfillan, quoting the words of cotemporary writers, says of Trask’s -trial that, - - “For ‘making of conventicles and factions, by that means which - may tend to sedition and commotion, and for scandalizing - the king, the bishops, and the clergy,’ ‘he was censured in - the Star Chamber to be set upon the pillory at Westminster, - and from thence to be whipt to the fleet, there to remain a - prisoner.’”[1055] - -This cruel sentence was carried into execution, and finally broke his -spirit. After enduring the misery of his prison for one year, he recanted -his doctrine.[1056] The case of his wife is worthy of particular mention. -Pagitt gives her character thus: - - “She was a woman endued with many particular virtues, well - worthy the imitation of all good Christians, had not error - in other things, especially a spirit of strange unparalleled - opinionativeness and obstinacy in her private conceits, spoiled - her.”[1057] - -Pagitt says that she was a school teacher of superior excellence. She -was particularly careful in her dealings with the poor. He gives her -reasons thus:— - - “This she professed to do out of conscience, as believing she - must one day come to be judged for all things done in the - flesh. Therefore she resolved to go by _the safest rule_, - rather against than for her private interest.”[1058] - -Pagitt gives her crime in the following words:— - - “At last for teaching only five days in the week, and resting - upon Saturday, _it being known upon what account she did it_, - she was carried to the new prison in Maiden Lane, a place - then appointed for the restraint of several other persons of - different opinions from the church of England.”[1059] - -Observe the crime: it was not what she did, for a first-day person -might have done the same, but because she did it to obey the fourth -commandment. Her motive exposed her to the vengeance of the authorities. -She was a woman of indomitable courage, and would not purchase her -liberty by renouncing the Lord’s Sabbath. During her long imprisonment, -Pagitt says that some one wrote her thus:— - - “Your constant suffering would be praiseworthy, were it for - truth; but being for error, your recantation will be both more - acceptable to God, and laudable before men.”[1060] - -But her faith and patience held out till she was released by death. - - “Mrs. Trask lay fifteen or sixteen years a prisoner for her - opinion about the Saturday Sabbath; in all which time she would - receive no relief from anybody, notwithstanding she wanted - much: alleging that it was written, ‘It is more blessed ... - to give than to receive.’ Neither would she borrow, because - it was written, ‘Thou shalt lend to many nations, and shalt - not borrow.’ So she deemed it a dishonor to her head, Christ, - either to beg or borrow. Her diet for the most part during - her imprisonment, that is, till a little before her death, - was bread and water, roots and herbs; no flesh, nor wine, nor - brewed drink. All her means was an annuity of forty shillings - a year; what she lacked more to live upon she had of such - prisoners as did employ her sometimes to do business for - them.”[1061] - -Pagitt, who was the cotemporary of Trask, thus states the principles of -the Sabbatarians of that time, whom he calls Traskites:— - - “The positions concerning the Sabbath by them maintained were - these:— - - “1. That the fourth commandment of the Decalogue, ‘Remember - the Sabbath day, to keep it holy’ [Ex. 20], is a divine - precept, simply and entirely moral, containing nothing legally - ceremonial in whole or in part, and therefore the weekly - observation thereof ought to be perpetual, and to continue in - force and virtue to the world’s end. - - “2. That the Saturday, or seventh day in every week, ought to - be an everlasting holy day in the Christian church, and the - religious observation of this day obligeth Christians under the - gospel, as it did the Jews before the coming of Christ. - - “3. That the Sunday, or Lord’s day, is an ordinary working day, - and it is superstition and will-worship to make the same the - Sabbath of the fourth commandment.”[1062] - -It was for this noble confession of faith that Mrs. Trask was shut up in -prison till the day of her death. For the same, Mr. Trask was compelled -to stand in the pillory, and was whipped from thence to the fleet, and -then shut up in a wretched prison, from which he escaped by recantation -after enduring its miseries for more than a year.[1063] - -Mr. Utter mentions the next Sabbatarian minister as follows:— - - “Theophilus Brabourne, a learned minister of the gospel in the - established church, wrote a book, which was printed at London - in 1628, wherein he argued ‘that the Lord’s day is not the - Sabbath day by divine institution,’ but ‘that the seventh-day - Sabbath is now in force.’ Mr. Brabourne published another book - in 1632, entitled, ‘A Defense of that most Ancient and Sacred - Ordinance of God’s, the Sabbath Day.’”[1064] - -Brabourne dedicated his book to King Charles I., requesting him to use -his royal authority for the restoration of the ancient Sabbath. But those -who put their trust in princes are sure to be disappointed. Dr. F. White, -bishop of Ely, thus states the occasion of his own work against the -Sabbath:— - - “Now because this Brabourne’s treatise of the Sabbath was - dedicated to his Royal Majesty, and the principles upon which - he grounded all his arguments (being commonly preached, - printed, and believed throughout the kingdom), might have - poisoned and infected many people either with this Sabbatarian - error, or with some other of like quality; it was the king, - our gracious master, his will and pleasure, that a treatise - should be set forth, to prevent further mischief, and to settle - his good subjects (who have long time been distracted about - Sabbatarian questions) in the old and good way of the ancient - and orthodoxal Catholic church. Now that which his sacred - Majesty commanded, I have by your Grace’s direction [Archbishop - Laud] obediently performed.”[1065] - -The king not only wished by this appointment to overthrow those who kept -the day enjoined in the commandment, but also those who by means of Dr. -Bound’s new theory pretended that Sunday was that day. He therefore -joined Dr. Heylyn with Bishop White in this work:— - - “Which burden being held of too great weight for any one to - undergo, and the necessity of the work requiring a quick - dispatch, it was held fit to divide the employment betwixt two. - The argumentative and scholastical part was referred to the - right learned Dr. White, then bishop of Ely, who had given good - proof of his ability in polemical matters in several books and - disputations against the papists. The practical and historical - [was to be written], by Heylyn of Westminster, who had gained - some reputation for his studies in the ancient writers.”[1066] - -The works of White and Heylyn were published simultaneously in 1635. Dr. -White, in addressing himself to those who enforce Sunday observance by -the fourth commandment, speaks thus of Brabourne’s arguments, that not -Sunday, but the ancient seventh day, is there enjoined:— - - “Maintaining your own principles that the fourth commandment - is purely and simply moral and of the law of nature, it will - be impossible for you either in English or in Latin, to solve - Theophilus Brabourne’s objections.”[1067] - -But the king had something besides argument for Brabourne. He was brought -before Archbishop Laud and the court of High Commission, and, moved by -the fate of Mrs. Trask, he submitted for the time to the authority of the -church of England, but sometime afterward wrote other books in behalf -of the seventh day.[1068] Dr. White’s book has this pithy notice of the -indefinite-time theory:— - - “Because an indefinite time must either bind to all moments - of time, as a debt, when the day of payment is not expressly - dated, is liable to payment every moment; or else it binds to - no time at all.”[1069] - -Mr. Utter, after the statement of Brabourne’s case, continues thus:— - - “About this time Philip Tandy began to promulgate in the - northern part of England the same doctrine concerning the - Sabbath. He was educated in the established church, of which - he became a minister. Having changed his views respecting the - mode of baptism and the day of the Sabbath, he abandoned that - church and ‘became a mark for many shots.’ He held several - public disputes about his peculiar sentiments, and did much to - propagate them. James Ockford was another early advocate in - England of the claims of the seventh day as the Sabbath. He - appears to have been well acquainted with the discussions in - which Trask and Brabourne had been engaged. Being dissatisfied - with the pretended conviction of Brabourne, he wrote a book - in defense of Sabbatarian views, entitled, ‘The Doctrine of - the Fourth Commandment.’ This book, published about the year - 1642, was burnt by order of the authorities in the established - church.”[1070] - -The famous Stennett family furnished, for four generations, a succession -of able Sabbatarian ministers. Mr. Edward Stennett, the first of these, -was born about the beginning of the seventeenth century. His work -entitled, “The Royal Law Contended For,” was first published at London -in 1658. “He was an able and devoted minister, but dissenting from -the established church, he was deprived of the means of support.” “He -suffered much of the persecution which the Dissenters were exposed to at -that time, and more especially for his faithful adherence to the cause -of the Sabbath. For this truth he experienced tribulation, not only from -those in power, by whom he was kept a long time in prison, but also much -distress from unfriendly, dissenting brethren, who strove to destroy his -influence, and ruin his cause.” In 1664, he published a work entitled, -“The Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the Lord.”[1071] In 1671, Wm. Sellers -wrote a work in behalf of the seventh day in reply to Dr. Owen. Cox -states its object thus:— - - “In opposition to the opinion _that some one day in seven_ is - all that the fourth commandment requires to be set apart, the - writer maintains the obligation of the Saturday Sabbath on the - ground that ‘God himself directly in the letter of the text - calls the seventh day the Sabbath day, giving both the names to - one and the selfsame day, as all men know that ever read the - commandments.’”[1072] - -One of the most eminent Sabbatarian ministers of the last half of the -seventeenth century was Francis Bampfield. He was originally a clergyman -of the church of England. The Baptist historian, Crosby, speaks of him -thus:— - - “But being utterly unsatisfied in his conscience with the - conditions of conformity, he took his leave of his sorrowful - and weeping congregation in ... 1662, and was quickly after - imprisoned for worshiping God in his own family. So soon was - his unshaken loyalty to the king forgotten, ... that he was - more frequently imprisoned and exposed to greater hardships for - his nonconformity, than most other dissenters.”[1073] - -Of his imprisonment, Neale says:— - - “After the act of uniformity, he continued preaching as he had - opportunity in private, till he was imprisoned for five days - and nights, with twenty-five of his hearers in one room ... - where they spent their time in religious exercises, but after - some time he was released. Soon after, he was apprehended again - and lay nine years in Dorchester jail, though he was a person - of unshaken loyalty to the king.”[1074] - -During his imprisonment, he preached almost every day, and gathered a -church even under his confinement. And when he was at liberty, he ceased -not to preach in the name of Jesus. After his release, he went to London, -where he preached with much success.[1075] Neale says of his labors in -that city:— - - “When he resided in London he formed a church on the principles - of the Sabbatarian Baptists, at Pinner’s hall, of which - principles he was a zealous asserter. He was a celebrated - preacher, and a man of serious piety.”[1076] - -On Feb. 17, 1682, he was arrested while preaching, and on March 28, was -sentenced to forfeit all his goods and to be imprisoned in Newgate for -life. In consequence of the hardships which he suffered in that prison, -he died, Feb. 16, 1683.[1077] “Bampfield,” says Wood, “dying in the said -prison of Newgate ... aged seventy years, his body was ... followed -with a very great company of factious and schismatical people to his -grave.”[1078] Crosby says of him:— - - “All that knew him will acknowledge that he was a man of great - piety. And he would in all probability have preserved the same - character, with respect to his learning and judgment, had it - not been for his opinion in two points, viz., that infants - ought not to be baptized, and that the Jewish Sabbath ought - still to be kept.”[1079] - -Mr. Bampfield published two works in behalf of the seventh day as the -Sabbath, one in 1672, the other in 1677. In the first of these he thus -sets forth the doctrine of the Sabbath:— - - “The law of the seventh-day Sabbath was given before the law - was proclaimed at Sinai, even from the creation, given to Adam, - ... and in him to all the world.[1080]... The Lord Christ’s - obedience unto this _fourth word_ in observing in his lifetime - the seventh day as a weekly Sabbath day, ... and no other day - of the week as such, is a part of that perfect righteousness - which every sound believer doth apply to himself in order to - his being justified in the sight of God; and every such person - is to conform unto Christ in all the acts of his obedience to - the ten words.”[1081] - -His brother, Mr. Thomas Bampfield, who had been speaker in one of -Cromwell’s parliaments, wrote also in behalf of seventh-day observance, -and was imprisoned for his religious principles in Ilchester jail.[1082] -About the time of Mr. Bampfield’s first imprisonment, severe persecution -arose against the Sabbath-keepers in London. Crosby thus bears testimony:— - - “It was about this time [A. D. 1661], that a congregation of - Baptists holding the seventh day as a Sabbath, being assembled - at their meeting-house in Bull-stake alley, the doors being - open, about three o’clock P. M. [Oct. 19], whilst Mr. John - James was preaching, one Justice Chard, with Mr. Wood, an - headborough, came into the meeting-place. Wood commanded him - in the king’s name to be silent and come down, having spoken - treason against the king. But Mr. James, taking little or no - notice thereof, proceeded in his work. The headborough came - nearer to him in the middle of the meeting-place and commanded - him again in the king’s name to come down or else he would pull - him down; whereupon the disturbance grew so great that he could - not proceed.”[1083] - -The officer having pulled him down from the pulpit, led him away to -the court under a strong guard. Mr. Utter continues this narrative as -follows:— - - “Mr. James was himself examined and committed to Newgate, on - the testimony of several profligate witnesses, who accused him - of speaking treasonable words against the king. His trial took - place about a month afterward, at which he conducted himself - in such a manner as to create much sympathy. He was, however, - sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered.[1084] This awful - sentence did not dismay him in the least. He calmly said, - ‘Blessed be God; whom man condemneth, God justifieth.’ While - he lay in prison, under sentence of death, many persons of - distinction visited him, who were greatly affected by his piety - and resignation, and offered to exert themselves to secure his - pardon. But he seems to have had little hope of their success. - Mrs. James, by advice of her friends, twice presented petitions - to the king [Charles II.], setting forth the innocence of - her husband, the character of the witnesses against him, and - entreating His Majesty to grant a pardon. In both instances she - was repulsed with scoffs and ridicule. At the scaffold, on the - day of his execution, Mr. James addressed the assembly in a - very noble and affecting manner. Having finished his address, - and kneeling down, he thanked God for covenant mercies, and for - conscious innocence; he prayed for the witnesses against him, - for the executioner, for the people of God, for the removal - of divisions, for the coming of Christ, for the spectators, - and for himself, that he might enjoy a sense of God’s favor - and presence, and an entrance into glory. When he had ended, - the executioner said, ‘The Lord receive your soul;’ to which - Mr. James replied, ‘I thank thee.’ A friend observing to him, - ‘This is a happy day,’ he answered, ‘I bless God it is.’ Then - having thanked the sheriff for his courtesy, he said, ‘Father, - into thy hands I commit my spirit.’... After he was dead his - heart was taken out and burned, his quarters were affixed to - the gates of the city, and his head was set up in White chapel - on a pole opposite to the alley in which his meeting-house - stood.”[1085] - -Such was the experience of English Sabbath-keepers in the seventeenth -century. It cost something to obey the fourth commandment in such times -as those. The laws of England during that century were very oppressive -to all Dissenters, and bore exceedingly hard upon the Sabbath-keepers. -But God raised up able men, eminent for piety, to defend his truth during -those troublous times, and, if need be, to seal their testimony with -their blood. In the seventeenth century, eleven churches of Sabbatarians -flourished in England, while many scattered Sabbath-keepers were to be -found in various parts of that kingdom. Now, but three of these churches -are in existence! And only remnants, even of these, remain! - -To what cause shall we assign this painful fact? It is not because their -adversaries were able to confute their doctrine; for the controversial -works on both sides still remain, and speak for themselves. It is not -that they lacked men of piety and of learning; for God gave them these, -especially in the seventeenth century. Nor is it that fanaticism sprang -up and disgraced the cause; for there is no record of anything of this -kind. They were cruelly persecuted, but the period of their persecution -was that of their greatest prosperity. Like Moses’ bush, they stood -unconsumed in the burning fire. The prostration of the Sabbath cause in -England is due to none of these things. - -The Sabbath was wounded in the house of its own friends. They took upon -themselves the responsibility, after a time, of making the Sabbath of no -practical importance, and of treating its violation as no very serious -transgression of the law of God. Doubtless they hoped to win men to -Christ and his truth by this course; but, instead of this, they simply -lowered the standard of divine truth into the dust. The Sabbath-keeping -ministers assumed the pastoral care of first-day churches, in some cases -as their sole charge, in others, they did this in connection with the -oversight of Sabbatarian churches. The result need surprise no one; as -these Sabbath-keeping ministers and churches said to all men, in thus -acting, that the fourth commandment might be broken with impunity, the -people took them at their word. Mr. Crosby, a first-day historian, sets -this matter in a clear light:— - - “If the seventh day ought to be observed as the Christian - Sabbath, then all congregations that observe the first day - as such must be Sabbath-breakers.... I must leave those - gentlemen on the contrary side to their own sentiments; and to - vindicate the practice of becoming pastors to a people whom - in their conscience they must believe to be breakers of the - Sabbath.”[1086] - -Doubtless there have been noble exceptions to this course; but the -body of English Sabbatarians for many years have failed to faithfully -discharge the high trust committed to them. - - - - -CHAPTER XXVII. - -THE SABBATH IN AMERICA. - - The first Sabbath-keeping church in America—Names of - its members—Origin of the second—Organization of the - Seventh-day Baptist General Conference—Statistics of the - Denomination at that time—Nature of its organization—Present - Statistics—Educational facilities—Missionary work—The American - Sabbath Tract Society—Responsibility for the light of the - Sabbath—The German S. D. Baptists of Pennsylvania—Reference - to Sabbath-keepers in Hungary—In Siberia—The Seventh-day - Adventists—Their origin—Labors of Joseph Bates—Of James - White—The Publishing Association—Systematic Benevolence—The - work of the preachers mainly in new fields—Organization of the - S. D. Adventists—Statistics—Peculiarities of their faith—Their - object—The S. D. Adventists of Switzerland—Why the Sabbath is - of priceless value to mankind—The nations of the saved observe - the Sabbath in the new earth. - - -The first Sabbatarian church in America originated at Newport, R. I. The -first Sabbath-keeper in America was Stephen Mumford, who left London -three years after the martyrdom of John James, and forty-four years -after the landing of the pilgrim fathers at Plymouth. Mr. Mumford, it -appears, came as a missionary from the English Sabbath-keepers.[1087] Mr. -Isaac Backus, the historian of the early New England Baptists, makes the -following record:— - - “Stephen Mumford came over from London in 1664, and brought - the opinion with him that the whole of the ten commandments, - as they were delivered from Mount Sinai, were moral and - immutable; and that it was the Antichristian power which - thought to change times and laws, that changed the Sabbath from - the seventh to the first day of the week. Several members of - the first church in Newport embraced this sentiment, and yet - continued with the church for some years, until two men and - their wives who had so done, turned back to the keeping of the - first day again.”[1088] - -Mr. Mumford, on his arrival, went earnestly to work to convert men to -the observance of the fourth commandment, as we infer from the following -record:— - - “Stephen Mumford, the first Sabbath-keeper in America, came - from London in 1664. Tacy Hubbard commenced keeping the - Sabbath, March 11, 1665. Samuel Hubbard commenced April 1, - 1665. Rachel Langworthy, January 15, 1666. Roger Baxter, - April 15, 1666, and William Hiscox, April 28, 1666. These - were the first Sabbath-keepers in America. A controversy, - lasting several years, sprung up between them and members of - the church. They desired to retain their connection with the - church, but were, at last, compelled to withdraw, that they - might peaceably enjoy and keep God’s holy day.”[1089] [Baxter - is Baster in the _S. D. B. Memorial_.] - -Though Mr. Mumford faithfully taught the truth, he seems to have -cherished the ideas of the English Sabbatarians, that it was possible -for first-day and seventh-day observers to walk together in church -fellowship. Had the first-day people been of the same mind, the light -of the Sabbath would have been extinguished within a few years, as -the history of English Sabbath-keepers clearly proves. But, in the -providence of God, the danger was averted by the opposition which these -commandment-keepers had to encounter. - -Besides the persons above enumerated, four others embraced the Sabbath -in 1666, but in 1668 they renounced it. These four were also members of -the first-day Baptist church of Newport. Though the Sabbath-keepers who -retained their integrity thought that they might lawfully commune with -the members of the church who were fully persuaded to observe the first -day, yet they felt otherwise with respect to these who had clearly seen -the Sabbath, and had for a time observed it, and then apostatized from -it. These persons “both wrote and spoke against it, which so grieved them -that they could not sit down at the table of the Lord with them, nor with -the church because of them.” But as they were members of a first-day -church, and had “no power to deal with them as of themselves without -the help of the church,” they “found themselves barred as to proceeding -with them, as being but private brethren. So they concluded not to bring -the case to the church to judge of the fact, viz., in turning from the -observation of the seventh day, being contrary-minded as to that.” They -therefore sent to the London Sabbath-keepers for advice, and in the mean -time refrained from communing with the church. - -Dr. Edward Stennet wrote them in behalf of the London Sabbath-keepers: -“If the church will hold communion with these apostates from the truth, -you ought then to desire to be fairly dismissed from the church; which if -the church refuse, you ought to withdraw yourselves.”[1090] They decided, -however, not to leave the church. But they told “the church publicly -that they could not have comfortable communion with those four persons -that had sinned.” “And thus for several months they walked with little -or no offense from the church; after which the leading or ministering -brethren began to declare themselves concerning the ten precepts.” Mr. -Tory “declared the law to be done away.” Mr. Luker and Mr. Clarke “made -it their work to preach the non-observation of the law, day after day.” -But the Sabbath-keepers replied “that the ten precepts were still as -holy, just, good, and spiritual, as ever.” Mr. Tory “with some unpleasant -words said ‘that their tune was only the fourth precept,’ to which they -answered, ‘that the whole ten precepts were of equal force with them, and -that they did not plead for one without the other.’ And they for several -years, went on with the church in a halvish kind of fellowship.”[1091] - -Mr. Bailey thus states the result:— - - “At the time of their change of sentiment and practice, - [respecting the Bible Sabbath], they had no intention of - establishing a church with this distinctive feature. God, - evidently, had a different mission for them, and brought them - to it, through the severe trial of persecution. They were - forced to leave the fellowship of the Baptist church, or - abandon the Sabbath of the Lord their God.”[1092] - - “These left the Baptist church on December 7, 1671.”[1093] - - “On the 23d of December, just sixteen days after withdrawing - from the Baptist church, they covenanted together in a church - organization.”[1094] - -Such was the origin of the first Sabbath-keeping church in America.[1095] -The second of these churches owes its origin to this circumstance: About -the year 1700, Edmund Dunham of Piscataway, N. J., reproved a person for -labor on Sunday. He was asked for his authority from the Scriptures. On -searching for this, he became satisfied that the seventh day is the only -weekly Sabbath in the Bible, and began to observe it. - - “Soon after, others followed his example, and in 1707 a - Seventh-day Baptist church was organized, with seventeen - members. Edmund Dunham was chosen pastor and sent to Rhode - Island to receive ordination.”[1096] - -The S. D. Baptist General Conference was organized in 1802. At its first -annual session, it included in its organization eight churches, nine -ordained ministers, and 1130 members.[1097] The Conference was organized -with only advisory powers, the individual churches retaining the matters -of discipline and church government in their own hands.[1098] The -Conference now embraces some eighty churches, and about 8000 members. -These churches are found in most of the northern and western States, and -are divided into five associations, which, however, have no legislative -nor disciplinary power over the churches which compose them. There -are, belonging to the denomination, five academies, one college, “and -a university with academic, collegiate, mechanical, and theological -departments in operation.”[1099] The S. D. Baptist missionary society -sustains several home missionaries who labor principally on the western -and southern borders of the denomination. They have within a few years -past met with a good degree of success in this work. It has also a -missionary station at Shanghai, China, and a small church there of -faithful Christians. - -The American Sabbath Tract Society is the publishing agency of the -denomination. Its head-quarters are at Alfred Center, N. Y. It publishes -the _Sabbath Recorder_, the organ of the S. D. Baptists, and it also -publishes a series of valuable works relating to the Sabbath and the law -of God. - -During the two hundred years which have elapsed since the organization -of the first Sabbatarian church in America, God has raised up among this -people men of eminent talent and moral worth. He has also in providential -ways called attention to the sacred trust which he so long since confided -to the S. D. Baptists, and which they have been slow to realize in its -immense importance. - -Among those converted to the Sabbath through the agency of this people, -the name of J. W. Morton is particularly worthy of honorable mention. -He was sent in 1847 a missionary to the island of Hayti by the Reformed -Presbyterians. Here he came in contact with Sabbatarian publications, -and after a serious examination became satisfied that the seventh day -is the Sabbath of the Lord. As an honest man, what he saw to be truth -he immediately obeyed, and returning home to be tried for his heresy, -was summarily expelled from the Reformed Presbyterian church without -being suffered to state the reasons which had governed his conduct. He -has given to the world a valuable work, entitled, “Vindication of the -True Sabbath,” in which his experience is related, and his reasons for -observing the seventh day set forth with great force and clearness. - -The S. D. Baptists do not lack men of education and of talent, and they -have ample means in their possession with which to sustain the cause of -God. If in time past they have not fully realized that they were debtors -to all mankind because of the great truth which God committed to their -trust, there is reason to believe that they are now to some extent -awakening to this vast indebtedness.[1100] - -There is also in the State of Pennsylvania a small body of German S. D. -Baptists found in the counties of Lancaster, York, Franklin, and Bedford, -and in the central and western parts of the State. They originated in -1728 from the teaching of Conrad Beissel, a native of Germany. They -practice trine immersion, and the washing of feet, and observe open -communion. They encourage celibacy, but make it obligatory upon none. -Even those who have chosen this manner of life are at liberty to marry -if at any time they choose so to do. They established and successfully -maintained a Sabbath-school at Ephrata, their head-quarters, forty years -before Robert Raikes had introduced the system of Sunday-schools. This -people have suffered much persecution because of their observance of -the seventh day, the laws of Pennsylvania being particularly oppressive -toward Sabbatarians.[1101] The German S. D. Baptists do not belong to the -S. D. Baptist General Conference. - -We have already noticed the fact that Sabbath-keepers are numerous -in Russia, in Poland, and in Turkey. We find the following statement -respecting Sabbath-keepers in Hungary:— - - “A congregation of seventh-day Christians in Hungary, being - refused tolerance by the laws, has embraced Judaism, in order - to be allowed to exist in connection with one of the ‘received - religions.’”[1102] - -The probability is that as the laws of the Austrian Empire bear very -heavily upon all religious bodies not belonging to some one of the -tolerated sects or orders, these “Seventh-day Christians” on “being -refused tolerance” in their own name, secured the privilege of observing -the seventh day by allowing their doctrine to be classed by the civil -authorities under the head of Judaism, and so bringing themselves under -the tolerance accorded to the “received religions.” We do not say that -this was right, even as a technicality, but it is evidently the extent of -what they did. There is no reason to believe that they abjured Christ. We -also learn that there are Sabbath-keepers in the north of Asia:— - - “There is a sect of Greek Christians in Siberia who keep the - Jewish Sabbath (Saturday). Such sects already exist in the - United States, in Germany, and we believe in England.”[1103] - -The Sabbath was first introduced to the attention of the Advent people -at Washington, N. H. A faithful Seventh-day Baptist sister, Mrs. Rachel -D. Preston, from the State of New York, having removed to this place, -brought with her the Sabbath of the Lord. Here she became interested -in the doctrine of the glorious advent of the Saviour at hand. Being -instructed in this subject by the Advent people, she in turn instructed -them in the commandments of God, and as early as 1844, nearly the entire -church in that place, consisting of about forty persons, became observers -of the Sabbath of the Lord.[1104] The oldest body of Sabbath-keepers -among the Seventh-day Adventists is therefore at Washington, N. H. Its -present number is small, for it has been thinned by emigration and by the -ravages of death; but there still remains a small company to bear witness -to this ancient truth of the Bible. - -From this place, several Advent ministers received the Sabbath truth -during the year 1844. One of these was Eld. T. M. Preble, who has the -honor of first bringing this great truth before the Adventists through -the medium of the press. His essay was dated Feb. 13, 1845. He presented -briefly the claims of the Bible Sabbath, and showed that it was not -changed by the Saviour, but was changed by the great apostasy. He then -said:— - - “Thus we see Dan. 7:25, fulfilled, the little horn changing - ‘times and laws.’ Therefore it appears to me that all who keep - the first day for the Sabbath, are Pope’s Sunday-keepers, and - God’s Sabbath breakers.”[1105] - -Within a few months many persons began to observe the Sabbath as the -result of the light thus shed on their pathway. Eld. J. B. Cook, a man -of decided talent as a preacher and a writer, was one of these early -converts to the Sabbath. Elders Preble and Cook were at this time in -the full vigor of their mental powers, and were possessed of talent -and a reputation for piety, which gave them great influence among the -Adventists in behalf of the Sabbath. These men were called in the -providence of God to fill an important place in the work of Sabbath -reform. - -But both of them, while preaching and writing in its behalf, committed -the fatal error of making it of no practical importance. They had -apparently the same fellowship for those who rejected the Sabbath that -they had for those who observed it. Such a course of action produced -its natural result. After two or three years of this kind of Sabbath -observance, each of these men apostatized from it, and thenceforward used -what influence they possessed in warring against the fourth commandment. -The larger part of those who embraced the Sabbath from their labors were -not sufficiently impressed with its importance to become settled and -grounded in its weighty evidences, and, after a brief period, they turned -back from its observance. But enough had been done to excite bitter -opposition toward the Sabbath on the part of many Adventists, and to -bring out the ingenious and plausible arguments by which men attempt to -prove that God has abolished his own sacred law. - -Such was the fruit of their course, and such the condition of things -at the time of their defection. But the result of their plan of action -taught the Advent Sabbath-keepers a lesson of value, which they have -never forgotten. They learned that the fourth commandment must be treated -as a part of the moral law, if men are ever to be led to its sacred -observance. - -Eld. Preble’s first article in behalf of the Sabbath was the means of -calling the attention of our venerable brother, Joseph Bates, to this -divine institution. He soon became convinced of its obligation, and at -once began to observe it. He had acted quite a prominent part in the -Advent movement of 1843-4, and now, with self-sacrificing zeal, he took -hold of the despised Sabbath truth to set it before his fellow-men. He -did not do it in the half-way manner of Elders Preble and Cook, but as -a man thoroughly in earnest and fully alive to the importance of his -subject. - -The subject of the heavenly Sanctuary began about this time to interest -many Adventists, and especially Eld. Bates. He was one of the first to -see that the central object of that Sanctuary is the ark of God. He also -called attention to the proclamation of the third angel relative to God’s -commandments. He girded on the armor to lay it down only when his work -should be accomplished. He has been instrumental in leading many to the -observance of the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and few -who have received the Sabbath from his teaching have apostatized from -it.[1106] - -It was but a few months after Eld. Bates, that our esteemed and efficient -brother, Eld. James White, also embraced the Sabbath. He had labored -with much success in the great Advent movement, and he now entered -heartily into the work of Sabbath reform. Uniting with Eld. Bates in the -proclamation of the doctrine of the advent and the Sabbath as connected -together in the Sanctuary and the message of the third angel, he has, -with the blessing of God, accomplished great results in behalf of the -Sabbath. - -The publishing interests of the Seventh-day Adventists originated through -his instrumentality. He began the work of publishing in 1849, without -resources, and with very few friends, but with much toil, self-sacrifice, -and anxious care; and with the blessing of God upon his efforts, he has -been the means of establishing an efficient office of publication, and -of disseminating many important works throughout our country, and, to -some extent, to other nations also. The publication of the _Advent Review -and Herald of the Sabbath_, the organ of the Seventh-day Adventists, was -commenced by him in 1850. For most of the years of its existence, he has -served as one of its editors; and for all its earlier years, he was both -publisher and sole editor. During this time, he has also labored with -energy as a minister of the gospel of Christ. - -The wants of the cause demanding an enlargement of capital and more -extensive operations, to this end an Association was incorporated in -the city of Battle Creek, Michigan, May 3, 1861, under the name of the -Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association. This Association owns three -commodious publishing houses, with engine, power presses, and all the -fixtures necessary for doing an extensive business. There are about fifty -persons constantly employed in this work of publication. The Association -has a capital of about $82,000. Under God, it owes its prosperity to the -prudent management and untiring energy of Eld. James White. - -The _Advent Review_ has at the present time (Nov., 1873) a circulation of -about 5000 copies. The _Youth’s Instructor_, a monthly paper designed for -the children of Sabbath-keeping Adventists, began to be issued in 1852, -and has now attained a circulation of nearly 5000 copies. - -The _Advent Tidende_, a Danish monthly with a circulation of 800, is -published for the benefit of those who speak the Danish and Norwegian -tongues, of whom a considerable number have embraced the Sabbath. - -The S. D. Adventists have taken a strong interest in the subject of -hygiene and the laws of health, and have established a Health Institute -at Battle Creek, Mich., which publishes the _Health Reformer_, a monthly -journal, magazine form, having a circulation of nearly 5000 copies. - -Numerous publications on Prophecy, the Signs of the Times, the Coming -of Christ, the Sabbath, the Law of God, the Sanctuary, &c., &c., have -been issued within the past twenty years, and have had an extensive -circulation, amounting, in the aggregate, to many millions of pages. - -The ordinary financial wants of the cause are sustained by a method -of collecting means known as Systematic Benevolence. By this system, -it is designed that each friend of the cause shall pay a certain sum -weekly proportioned to the property which he possesses. But there is no -compulsion in this matter. In this manner the burden is borne by all, -so that it rests heavily upon none; and the means needed for the work -flows with a steady stream into the treasury of the several churches, and -finally into that of the State Conferences. A settlement is instituted -each year at the State Conferences, in which the labors, receipts, and -expenditures, of each minister are carefully considered. Thus none are -allowed to waste means, and none who are recognized as called of God to -the ministry are allowed to suffer. - -The churches sustain their meetings for the most part without the aid of -preaching. They raise means to sustain the servants of Christ, but bid -them mainly devote their time and strength to save those who have not the -light of these important truths shining upon their pathway. So they go -out everywhere preaching the word of God, as his providence guides their -feet. During the summer months, the work in new fields is carried forward -principally by means of large tents, which enable the preacher to provide -a suitable place of worship, wherever he may think it desirable to labor. - -The Seventh-day Adventists have thirteen State Conferences, which -assemble annually in their respective States. These bear the names of -Maine, Vermont, New England, New York and Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, -Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri and Kansas, and -California. These Conferences are designed to meet the local wants of -the cause. There is also a General Conference, which assembles yearly, -composed of delegates from the State Conferences. This Conference takes -the general oversight of the work in all the State Conferences, supplying -the more destitute with laborers as far as possible, and uniting the -whole strength of the body for the accomplishment of the work. It also -takes the charge of missionary labor in those States which have no -organized Conferences. - -There are about fifty ministers who devote their whole time to the -work of the gospel. There is also a considerable number who preach a -portion of the time and devote the remainder to secular labor. There are -about 6000 members in the several Conference organizations. But such -is the scattered condition of this people (for they are found in all -the northern States and in several of the southern), that a very large -portion have no connection with its organization. They are to be found -in single families scattered all the way from Maine to California and -Oregon. The _Review_ and _Instructor_ constitute, in a great number of -cases, the only preachers of their faith. - -Those subjects which more especially interest this people, are the -fulfillment of prophecy, the second personal advent of the Saviour as an -event now near at hand, immortality through Christ alone, a change of -heart through the operation of the Holy Spirit, the observance of the -Sabbath of the fourth commandment, the divinity and mediatorial work -of Christ, and the development of a holy character by obedience to the -perfect and holy law of God.[1107] - -They are very strict with regard to the ordinance of baptism, believing -not only that it requires men to be buried in the watery grave, but that -even such baptism is faulty if administered to those who are breaking one -of the ten commandments. They also believe that our Lord’s direction in -John 13 should be observed in connection with the supper. - -They teach that the gifts of the Spirit set forth in 1 Cor. 12 and Eph. -4, were designed to remain in the church till the end of time. They -believe that these were lost in consequence of the same apostasy that -changed the Sabbath. They also believe that in the final restoration of -the commandments by the work of the third angel, the gifts of the Spirit -of God are restored with them. So the remnant of the church, or last -generation of its members, is said to “keep the commandments of God, and -have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”[1108] And the angel of God explains -this by saying, “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”[1109] -The spirit of prophecy therefore has a distinct place assigned to it in -the final work of Sabbath reform. Such are their views of this portion of -Scripture; and their history from the beginning has been marked by the -influence of this sacred gift. - -In the face of strong opposition, the people known as Seventh-day -Adventists have arisen to bear their testimony for the Sabbath of the -Lord. They have had perils from open foes, and from false brethren; but -they have thus far overcome the difficulties of the way, and from each -have gathered strength for the conflict before them. They have a definite -work which they hope to accomplish. It is to make ready a people -prepared for the advent of the Lord. - -Honorable mention should be made of the Seventh-day Adventists of -Switzerland. They first learned these precious truths from Elder M. B. -Czechowski, who a few years since instructed them in the commandments of -God and the faith of Jesus. Since his labors with them ceased, God has -given them strength to stand with firmness for his truth, and has added -to their numbers. They have a heart to obey the truth and to sacrifice -for its advancement. They number about sixty persons. There are a few -individuals of this faith also in Italy, Germany, and Denmark. - -The observance of the Sabbath is sometimes advocated on the ground -that man needs a day of rest and will grow prematurely old if he labor -seven days in each week, which is doubtless true; and it has also been -advocated on the ground that God will bless in basket and in store those -who hallow his Sabbath, which may be true in many cases; but the Bible -does not urge motives of this kind in respect to this sacred institution. -Without doubt there are great incidental advantages in the observance of -the Sabbath. But these are not what God sets before us as the reasons -for its observance. The true reason is infinitely higher than all -considerations of this kind, and should constrain men to obey, even were -it certain that it would cost them all that is dear in the present life. - -The Sabbath has been advocated on the ground that it secures to men a day -for divine worship in which by common consent they may appear before God. -This is a very important consideration, and yet the Bible says little -concerning it. It is one of the incidental blessings of the Sabbath, -and not the chief reason for its observance. The Sabbath was ordained to -commemorate the creation of the heavens and the earth. - -The importance of the Sabbath as the memorial of creation is that it -keeps ever present the true reason why worship is due to God. For the -worship of God is based upon the fact that he is the Creator and that -all other beings were created by him. The Sabbath therefore lies at the -very foundation of divine worship, for it teaches this great truth in -the most impressive manner, and no other institution does this. The true -ground of divine worship, not of that on the seventh day merely, but of -all worship, is found in the distinction between the Creator and his -creatures. This great fact can never become obsolete, and must never be -forgotten. To keep it in man’s mind, God gave to him the Sabbath. He -received it in his innocency, and notwithstanding the perversity of his -professed people, God has preserved this sacred institution through the -entire period of man’s fallen state. - -The four and twenty elders in the very act of worshiping Him who sits -upon the throne, state the reason why worship is due to God:— - - “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; - for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are - and were created.”[1110] - -This great truth is therefore worthy to be remembered even in the -glorified state. And we shall presently learn that what God gave to man -in Paradise, to keep this great truth before his mind, shall be honored -by him in Paradise restored. - -The future is given to us in the prophetic Scriptures. From them we learn -that our earth is reserved unto fire, and that from its ashes shall -spring new heavens and earth, and ages of endless date.[1111] Over this -glorified inheritance, the second Adam, the Lord of the Sabbath, shall -bear rule, and under his gracious protection the nations of them which -are saved shall inherit the land forever.[1112] When the glory of the -Lord shall thus fill the earth as the waters cover the sea, the Sabbath -of the Most High is again and for the last time brought to view:— - - “For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make - shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and - your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new - moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all - flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.”[1113] - -Does not Paul refer to these very facts set forth by Isaiah when he says, -“There remaineth therefore a rest [Greek, _Sabbatismos_, literally “A -KEEPING OF THE SABBATH”] to the people of God”?[1114] The reason for this -monthly gathering to the New Jerusalem of all the host of the redeemed -from every part of the new earth may be found in the language of the -Apocalypse:— - - “And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as - crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. - In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the - river was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of - fruits and yielded her fruit every month; and the leaves of the - tree were for the healing [literally, the service][1115] of the - nations.”[1116] - -The gathering of the nations that are saved to the presence of the -Creator, from the whole face of the new earth on each successive Sabbath, -attests the sacredness of the Sabbath even in that holy state, and sets -the seal of the Most High to the perpetuity of this ancient institution. - - - - -FOOTNOTES - - -[1] For the scriptural and traditional evidence on this point, see -Shimeall’s Bible Chronology, part i. chap. vi; Taylor’s Voice of the -Church, pp. 25-30; and Bliss’ Sacred Chronology, pp. 199-203. - -[2] Isa. 57:15; 1 Sam. 15:29, margin; Jer. 10:10, margin; Micah 5:2, -margin; 1 Tim. 6:16; 1:17; Ps. 90:2. - -[3] Dr. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on Gen. 1:1, uses the following -language: “Created] Caused that to exist which previously to this moment, -had no being. The rabbins, who are legitimate judges in a case of verbal -criticism on their own language, are unanimous in asserting that the -word _bara_, expresses the commencement of the existence of a thing: -or its egression from nonentity to entity.... These words should be -translated: ‘God in the beginning created the _substance_ of the heavens -and the _substance_ of the earth; _i. e._, the _prima materia_, or first -elements, out of which the heavens and the earth were successively -formed.’” - -Purchase’s Pilgrimage, b. i. chap, ii., speaks thus of the creation: -“Nothing but nothing had the Lord Almighty, whereof, wherewith, whereby, -to build this city” [that is the world]. - -Dr. Gill says: “These are said to be _created_, that is, to be made out -of nothing; for what pre-existent matter to this chaos [of verse 2] could -there be out of which they could be formed?” - -“Creation must be the work of God, for none but an almighty power could -produce something out of nothing.” Commentary on Gen. 1:1. - -John Calvin, in his Commentary on this chapter, thus expounds the -creative act: “His meaning is, that the world was made out of nothing. -Hence the folly or those is refuted who imagine that unformed matter -existed from eternity.” - -The work of creation is thus defined in 2 Maccabees 7:28: “Look upon the -heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made -them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise.” - -That this creative act marked the commencement of the first day instead -of preceding it by almost infinite ages is thus stated in 2 Esdras 6:38: -“And I said, O Lord, thou spakest from the beginning of the creation, -even the first day, and saidst thus: Let heaven and earth be made; and -thy word was a perfect work.” - -Wycliffe’s translation, the earliest of the English versions, renders -Gen. 1:1, thus: “In the first, made God of naught heaven and earth.”] - -[4] Heb. 11:3; Gen. 1. - -[5] Gen. 1:1-5; Heb. 1. - -[6] Gen. 1:6-8; Job 37:18. - -[7] Gen. 1:9-13; Ps. 136:6; 2 Pet. 3:5. - -[8] Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 119:91; Jer. 33:25. - -[9] Gen 1:20-23. - -[10] Gen. 1:24-31; 2:7-9, 18-22; 3:20; Job 38:7. - -[11] “On the sixth day God ended his work which he had made; and he -rested on the seventh day,” &c., is the reading of the Septuagint, the -Syriac, and the Samaritan; “and this should be considered the genuine -reading,” says Dr. A. Clarke. See his Commentary on Gen. 2. - -[12] Gen. 2:2; Ex. 31:17. - -[13] Isa. 40:28. - -[14] Gen. 2:3; Ex. 20:11. In an anonymous work entitled “Morality of the -Fourth Commandment,” London, 1652, but not the same with that of Dr. -Twisse, of the same title, is the following striking passage: - -“The Hebrew root for seven signifies _fullness_, _perfection_, and the -Jews held many mysteries to be in the number seven: so John in his -Apocalypse useth much that number. As, seven churches, seven stars, seven -spirits, seven candlesticks, seven angels, seven seals, seven trumpets; -and we no sooner meet with a seventh day, but it is blessed; no sooner -with a seventh man [Gen. 5:24; Jude 14], but he is translated.” Page 7. - -[15] Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary on the words _sanctify_ and -_hallow_. Ed. 1859. - -The revised edition of 1864 gives this definition: “To make sacred -or holy; to set apart to a holy or religious use; _to consecrate -by appropriate rites_; to hallow. God blessed the seventh day, and -_sanctified_ it. Gen. 2:3. Moses ... sanctified Aaron and his garments. -Lev. 8:30.” - -Worcester defines it thus: “_To ordain or set apart to sacred ends_; to -consecrate; to hallow. God blessed the seventh day and _sanctified_ it. -Gen. 2:3.” - -[16] Gen. 2:15; 1:28. - -[17] Morality of the Fourth Commandment, pp. 56, 57, London, 1641. - -[18] Hebrew Lexicon, p. 914, ed. 1854. - -[19] Josh. 20:7; Joel 1:14; 2:15; 2 Kings 10:20, 21; Zeph. 1 7, margin. - -[20] Ex. 10:12, 23. - -[21] Dr. Lange’s Commentary speaks on this point thus, in vol. i, p. 197: -“If we had no other passage than this of Gen. 2:3, there would be no -difficulty in deducing from it a precept for the universal observance of -a Sabbath, or seventh day, to be devoted to God, as holy time, by all of -that race for whom the earth and its nature were specially prepared. The -first men must have known it. The words, ‘He hallowed it,’ can have no -meaning otherwise. They would be a blank unless in reference to some who -were required to keep it holy.” - -Dr. Nicholas Bound, in his “True Doctrine of the Sabbath,” London, 1606, -page 7, thus states the antiquity of the Sabbath precept: - -“This first commandment of the Sabbath was no more then first given when -it was pronounced from Heaven by the Lord, than any other one of the -moral precepts, nay, that it hath so much antiquity as the seventh day -hath being; for, so soon as the day was, so soon was it sanctified, that -we might know that, as it came in with the first man, so it must not go -out but with the last man; and as it was in the beginning of the world, -so it must continue to the end of the same; and, as the first seventh day -was sanctified, so must the last be. And this is that which one saith, -that the Sabbath was commanded by God, and the seventh day was sanctified -of him even from the beginning of the world; where (the latter words -expounding the former) he showeth that, when God did sanctify it, then -also he commanded it to be kept holy; and therefore look how ancient the -sanctification of the day is, the same antiquity also as the commandment -of keeping it holy; for they two are all one.” - -[22] Ex. 20:8-11. - -[23] Buck’s Theological Dictionary, article, Sabbath; Calmet’s -Dictionary, article, Sabbath. - -[24] Ex. 16:22, 23. - -[25] John 1: 1-3; Gen. 1:1, 26; Col. 1:13-16. - -[26] Mark 2:27. - -[27] Barrett’s Principles of English Grammar, p. 29. - -[28] Job 14:12; 1 Cor. 10:13; Heb. 9:27. - -[29] Dr. Twisse illustrates the absurdity of that view which makes the -first observance of the Sabbath in memory of creation to have begun some -2500 years after that event: “We read that when the Ilienses, inhabitants -of Ilium, called anciently by the name of Troy, sent an embassage to -Tiberius, to condole the death of his father Augustus, he, considering -the unseasonableness thereof, it being a long time after his death, -requited them accordingly, saying that he was sorry for their heaviness -also, having lost so renowned a knight as Hector was, to wit, above a -thousand years before, in the wars of Troy.”—_Morality of the Fourth -Commandment_, p. 198. - -[30] Ex. 16:23. - -[31] Ex. 16. - -[32] Ex. 20:8-11. - -[33] Compare Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11. - -[34] Heb. 3:4; Jer. 10:10-12; Rom. 1:20; Ps. 33:9; Heb. 11:3. - -[35] Antiquities of the Jews, b. i. chap. i. sect. 1. - -[36] Works, vol. i. The Creation of the World, sect. 30. - -[37] Isa. 58:13, 14; Heb. 9:10. - -[38] Gen. 3; Rom. 5:12. - -[39] Gen. 9:5, 7. - -[40] Gen. 5:24; 6:9; 26:5. - -[41] See the beginning of chap. viii. of this work. - -[42] Ezra 3:1-6; Neh. 8:2, 9-12, 14-18; 1 Kings 8:2, 65; 2 Chron. 5:3; -7:8, 9; John 7:2-14, 37. - -[43] “The week, another primeval measure, is not a natural measure of -time, as some astronomers and chronologers have supposed, indicated -by the phases or quarters of the moon. It was originated by divine -appointment at the creation—six days of labor and one of rest being -wisely appointed for man’s physical and spiritual well-being.”—_Bliss’ -Sacred Chronology_, p. 6; _Hale’s Chronology_, vol. i. p. 19. - -“Seven has been the ancient and honored number among the nations of the -earth. They have measured their time by weeks from the beginning. The -original of this was the Sabbath of God, as Moses has given the reasons -of it in his writings.”—_Brief Dissertation on the first three Chapters -of Genesis, by Dr. Coleman_, p. 26. - -[44] Gen. 29:27, 28; 8:10, 12; 7:4, 10; 50:10; Ex. 7:25; Job 2:13. - -[45] Ex. 16:22, 23. - -[46] The interest to see the first man is thus stated: “Sem and Seth were -in great honor among men, and so was Adam above every living thing in the -creation.” Ecclesiasticus 49:16. - -[47] Gen. 26:5; 18:19. - -[48] Gen. 2-6; Heb. 11:4-7; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5. - -[49] Gen. 7; Matt. 24:37-39; Luke 17:26, 27; 2 Pet. 3:5, 6. - -[50] Deut. 32:7, 8; Acts 17:26. - -[51] Gen. 11:1-9; Josephus’ Ant., b. i. chap. iv. This took place in the -days of Peleg, who was born about one hundred years after the flood. Gen. -10:25, compared with 11:10-16; Ant., b. i. chap. vi. sect. 4. - -[52] Rom. 1:18-32; Acts 14:16, 17; 17:29, 30. - -[53] Gen. 12:1-3; Josh. 24:2, 3, 14; Neh. 9:7, 8; Rom. 4:13-17; 2 Chron. -20:7; Isa. 41:8; James 2:23. - -[54] Gen. 18:19. - -[55] Gen. 17:9-14; 34:14; Acts 10:28; 11:2, 3; Eph. 2:12-19; Num. 23:9; -Deut. 33:27, 28. - -[56] Gen. 15; Ex. 1-5; Deut. 4:20. - -[57] Ex. 12:29-42; Gal. 3:17. - -[58] Ps. 105:43-45; Lev. 22:32, 33; Num. 15:41. - -[59] Gen. 2:2, 3; 26:5; Ex. 16:4, 27, 28; 18:16. - -[60] Ps. 90:2. - -[61] Ex. 19:3-8, 24:3-8; Jer. 3:14, compared with last clause of Jer. -31:32. - -[62] Ex. 20:2; 24:10. - -[63] Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14; Neh. 9:14. - -[64] On this verse Dr. A. Clarke thus comments:—“_On the sixth day they -gathered twice as much_—This they did that they might have a provision -for the Sabbath.” - -[65] The Douay Bible reads: “To-morrow is the rest of the Sabbath -sanctified unto the Lord.” Dr. Clarke comments as follows upon this text: -“_To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath._ There is nothing either -in the text or context that seems to intimate that the Sabbath was now -_first_ given to the Israelites, as some have supposed; on the contrary, -it is here spoken of as being perfectly well known, from its having been -generally observed. The commandment, it is true, may be considered as -being now _renewed_; because they might have supposed, that in their -unsettled state in the wilderness, they might have been exempted from the -observance of it. Thus we find, 1. That when God finished his creation he -instituted the Sabbath; 2. When he brought the people out of Egypt, he -insisted on the strict observance of it; 3. When he gave the LAW, he made -it a tenth part of the whole: such importance has this institution in the -eyes of the Supreme Being!” - -Richard Baxter, a famous divine of the seventeenth century, and a decided -advocate of the abrogation of the fourth commandment, in his “Divine -Appointment of the Lord’s Day,” thus clearly states the origin of the -Sabbath: “Why should God begin two thousand years after [the creation of -the world] to give men a Sabbath upon the reason of his rest from the -creation of it, if he had never called man to that commemoration before? -And it is certain that the Sabbath was observed at the falling of the -manna before the giving of the law; and let any considering Christian -judge..... 1. Whether the not falling of the manna, or the rest of God -after the creation, was like to be the original reason of the Sabbath. -2. And whether if it had been the first, it would not have been said, -Remember to keep holy the Sabbath-day; for on six days the manna fell, -and not on the seventh; rather than ‘for in six days God created heaven -and earth, &c., and rested the seventh day.’ And it is casually added, -‘Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it.’ Nay, -consider whether this annexed reason intimates not that the day on this -ground being hallowed before, therefore it was that God sent not down -the manna on that day, and that he prohibited the people from seeking -it.”—_Practical Works_, Vol. iii. p. 784. ed. 1707. - -[66] The Douay Bible reads: “Because it is the Sabbath of the Lord.” - -[67] Ex. 16. - -[68] It has indeed been asserted that God by a miracle equalized the -portion of every one on five days, and doubled the portion of each on the -sixth, so that no act of the people had any bearing on the Sabbath. But -the equal portion of each on the five days was not thus understood by -Paul. He says: “But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance -may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply -for your want; that there may be equality; as it is written, He that had -gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no -lack.” 2 Cor. 8:14, 15. And that the double portion on the sixth day was -the act of the people, is affirmed by Moses. He says that “on the sixth -day they gathered twice as much bread.” Verse 22. - -[69] Gen. 7:4, 10; 8:10, 12; 29:27, 28; 50:10; Ex. 7:25; Job 2:13. - -[70] By this three-fold miracle, occurring every week for forty years, -the great Law-giver distinguished his hallowed day. The people were -therefore admirably prepared to listen to the fourth commandment -enjoining the observance of the very day on which he had rested. Ex. -16:35; Josh. 5:12; Ex. 20:8-11. - -[71] The twelfth chapter of Exodus relates the origin of the passover. It -is in striking contrast with Ex. 16, which is supposed to give the origin -of the Sabbath. If the reader will compare the two chapters he will see -the difference between the origin of an institution as given in Ex. 12, -and a familiar reference to an existing institution as in Ex. 16. If he -will also compare Gen. 2 with Ex. 12, he will see that the one gives the -origin of the Sabbath in the same manner that the other gives the origin -of the passover. - -[72] This implies, first, the fall of a larger quantity on that day, and -second, its preservation for the wants of the Sabbath. - -[73] This must refer to going out for manna, as the connection implies; -for religious assemblies on the Sabbath were commanded and observed. Lev. -23:3; Mark 1:21; Luke 4:16; Acts 1:12; 15:21. - -[74] John 7:22. - -[75] Gen. 17:34; Ex. 4. Moses is said to have given circumcision to -the Hebrews; yet it is a singular fact that his first mention of that -ordinance is purely incidental, and plainly implies an existing knowledge -of it on their part. Thus it is written: “This is the ordinance of the -passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof; but every man’s servant -that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he -eat thereof.” Ex. 12:43, 44. And in like manner when the Sabbath was -given to Israel, that people were not ignorant of the sacred institution. - -[76] Eze. 20:12; Ex. 31:17. - -[77] Jer. 10:10-12. - -[78] That the Lord was there in person with his angels, see besides the -narrative in Ex. 19; 20; 32-34, the following testimonies: Deut. 33:2; -Judges 5:5; Nehemiah 9:6-13; Ps. 68:17. - -[79] Ex. 24:10; Lev. 22:32, 33; Num. 15:41; Isa. 41:17. - -[80] Ps. 147:19, 20; Rom. 3:1, 2; 9:4, 5. The following from the pen of -Mr. Wm. Miller presents the subject in a clear light: “I say, and believe -I am supported by the Bible, that the moral law was never given to the -Jews as a people exclusively; but they were for a season the keepers of -it in charge. And through them the law, oracles, and testimony, have been -handed down to us. See Paul’s clear reasoning in Rom. chapters 2, 3, and -4, on that point.”—_Miller’s Life and Views_, p. 161. - -[81] Ex. 19; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 2 Sam. 7:23; 1 Kings 8:53; Amos 3:1, 2. - -[82] Ex. 20:1-17; 34:28, margin; Deut. 5:4-22; 10:4, margin. - -[83] Deut. 5:22. - -[84] He who created the world on the first day of the week, and completed -its organization in six days, rested on the seventh day, and was -refreshed. Gen. 1; 2; Ex. 31:17. - -[85] To this, however, it is objected that in consequence of the -revolution of the earth on its axis, the day begins earlier in the East -than with us; and hence that there is no definite seventh day to the -world of mankind. To suit such objectors, the earth ought not to revolve. -But in that case, so far from removing the difficulty, there would be no -seventh day at all; for one side of the globe would have perpetual day -and the other side perpetual night. The truth is, everything depends upon -the revolution of the earth. God made the Sabbath for man [Mark 2:27]; he -made man to dwell on all the face of the earth [Acts 17:26]; he caused -the earth to revolve on its axis that it might measure off the days of -the week; causing that the sun should shine on the earth, as it revolves -from west to east, thus causing the day to go round the world from east -to west. Seven of these revolutions constitute a week; the seventh one -brings the Sabbath to all the world. - -[86] Luke 23:54-56; 24:1. - -[87] See also Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1, 2. - -[88] Neh. 9:13, 14. - -[89] This expression is strikingly illustrated in the statement of Eze. -20:5, where God is said to have made himself known unto Israel in Egypt. -This language cannot mean that the people were ignorant of the true God, -however wicked some of them might be, for they had been God’s peculiar -people from the days of Abraham. Ex. 2:23-25; 3:6, 7; 4:31. The language -implies the prior existence both of the Law-giver and of his Sabbath, -when it is said that they were “made known” to his people. - -[90] It should never be forgotten that the term Sabbath day signifies -rest-day; that the Sabbath of the Lord is the rest-day of the Lord; and -hence that the expression, “Thy holy Sabbath,” refers the mind to the -Creator’s rest-day, and to his act of blessing and hallowing it. - -[91] Ex. 20-24. - -[92] Ex. 23:12. - -[93] See also Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14; Isa. 56. - -[94] Ex. 12:43-48. - -[95] Ex. 24:3-8; Heb. 9:18-20. - -[96] Dr. Clarke has the following note on this verse: “It is very likely -that Moses went up into the mount on the first day of the week; and -having with Joshua remained in the region of the cloud during six days, -on the seventh, which was the Sabbath, God spake to him.”—_Commentary -on Ex._ 24:16. The marking off of a week from the forty days in this -remarkable manner goes far toward establishing the view of Dr. C. And if -this be correct, it would strongly indicate that the ten commandments -were given upon the Sabbath; for there seems to be good evidence that -they were given the day before Moses went up to receive the tables of -stone. For the interview in which chapters 21-23 were given would require -but a brief space, and certainly followed immediately upon the giving of -the ten commandments. Ex. 20:18-21. When the interview closed, Moses came -down to the people and wrote all the words of the Lord. In the morning he -rose up early, and, having ratified the covenant, went up to receive the -law which God had written. Ex. 24:3-13. - -[97] Ex. 24:12-18. - -[98] Ex. 25-31. - -[99] Ex. 31:12-18. - -[100] Eze. 20:11, 12, 19, 20. - -[101] See third chapter of this work. - -[102] “To sanctify, _kadash_, signifies to consecrate, separate, and set -apart a thing or person from all secular purposes to some religious use.” -_Clarke’s Commentary on Ex._ 13:2. The same writer says, on Ex. 19:23, -“Here the word _kadash_ is taken in its proper, literal sense, signifying -the separating of a thing, person, or place, from all profane or common -uses, and devoting it to sacred purposes.” - -[103] Gen. 17:7, 8; 26:24; 28:13; Ex. 3:6, 13-16, 18; 5:3; Isa. 45:3. - -[104] Lev. 11:45. - -[105] See chapter third. - -[106] As a sign it did not thereby become a shadow and a ceremony, for -the Lord of the Sabbath was himself a sign. “Behold, I and the children -whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the -Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in Mount Zion.” Isa. 8:18. In Heb. 2:13, -this language is referred to Christ. “And Simeon blessed them, and said -unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising -again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against.” -Luke 2:34. That the Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel throughout -their generations, that is, for the time that they were his peculiar -people, no more proves that it is now abolished than the fact that Jesus -is now a sign that is spoken against proves that he will cease to exist -when he shall no longer be such a sign. Nor does this language argue that -the Sabbath was made for them, or that its obligation ceased when they -ceased to be the people of God. For the prohibition against eating blood -was a perpetual statute for their generations; yet it was given to Noah -when God first permitted the use of animal food, and was still obligatory -upon the Gentiles when the apostles turned to them. Lev. 3:17; Gen. -9:1-4; Acts 15. - -The penalty of death at the hand of the civil magistrate is affixed to -the violation of the Sabbath. The same penalty is affixed to most of -the precepts of the moral law. Lev. 20:9, 10; 24:15-17; Deut. 13:6-18; -17:2-7. It should be remembered that the moral law embracing the Sabbath -formed a part of the civil code of the Hebrew nation. As such, the great -Law-giver annexed penalties to be inflicted by the magistrate, thus -doubtless shadowing forth the final retribution of the ungodly. Such -penalties were suspended by that remarkable decision of the Saviour that -those who were without sin should cast the first stone. But such a Being -will arise to punish men, when the hailstones of his wrath shall desolate -the earth. Our Lord did not, however, set aside the real penalty of the -law, the wages of sin, nor did he weaken that precept which had been -violated. John 8:1-9; Job 38:22, 23; Isa. 28:17; Rev. 16:17-21; Rom. 6:23. - -[107] This fact will shed light upon those texts which introduce the -agency of angels in the giving of the law. Acts 7:38, 53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. -2:2. - -[108] Ex. 32; 33. - -[109] Ex. 34; Deut. 9. - -[110] Ex. 34:21. - -[111] The idea has been suggested by some from this verse that it was -Moses and not God who wrote the second tables. This view is thought to -be strengthened by the previous verse: “Write thou these words: for -after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and -with Israel.” But it is to be observed that the words upon the tables -of stone were the ten commandments; while the words here referred to -were those which God spoke to Moses during this interview of forty days, -beginning with verse 10 and extending to verse 27. That the pronoun -_he_ in verse 28 might properly enough refer to Moses, if positive -testimony did not forbid such reference, is readily admitted. That it -is necessary to attend to the connection in deciding the antecedents of -pronouns, is strikingly illustrated in 2 Sam. 24:1, where the pronoun -_he_ would naturally refer to the Lord, thus making God the one who -moved David to number Israel. Yet the connection shows that this was -not the case; for the anger of the Lord was kindled by the act; and 1 -Chron. 21:1, positively declares that _he_ who thus moved David was -Satan. For positive testimony that it was God and not Moses who wrote -upon the second tables, see Ex. 34:1; Deut. 10:1-5. These texts carefully -discriminate between the work of Moses and the work of God, assigning the -preparation of the tables, the carrying of them up to the mount and the -bringing of them down from the mount, to Moses, but expressly assigning -the writing on the tables to God himself. - -[112] Ex. 34:1, 28; Deut. 4:12, 13; 5:22. - -[113] Ex. 24:12. - -[114] Deut. 33:2. That angels are sometimes called saints or holy ones, -see Dan. 8:13-16. That angels were present with God at Sinai, see Ps. -68:17. - -[115] Deut. 10:4, 5; Ex. 25:10-22. - -[116] 1 John 3:4, 5. - -[117] Ex. 32; Josh. 24:2, 14, 23; Eze. 20:7, 8, 16, 18, 24. - -[118] Amos 5:25-27; Acts 7:41-43; Josh. 5:2-8. - -[119] Num. 14; Ps. 95; Eze. 20:13. - -[120] Eze. 20:13-24. - -[121] Ex. 32. - -[122] Num. 14. - -[123] Deut. 9:24. - -[124] Num. 14; Heb. 3:16. - -[125] Ex. 16; Josh. 5:12. - -[126] Num. 11; 21. - -[127] A comparison of Ex. 19; 20:18-21; 24:3-8, with chapter 32, will -show the astonishing transitions of the Hebrews from faith and obedience -to rebellion and idolatry. See a general history of these acts in Ps. 78; -106. - -[128] For a notice of this penalty see chapter 5. - -[129] Ex. 35:1-3. - -[130] Lev. 24:5-9; Num. 28:9, 10. - -[131] The Bible abounds with facts which establish this proposition. Thus -the psalmist, in an address to Jerusalem, uses the following language: -“He giveth snow like wool; he scattereth the hoar-frost like ashes. He -casteth forth his ice like morsels; who can stand before his cold? He -sendeth out his word, and melteth them; he causeth his wind to blow, -and the waters flow. He showeth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and -his judgments unto Israel.” Ps. 147:16-19. Dr. Clarke has the following -note on this text: “At particular times the cold in the East is so very -intense as to kill man and beast. _Jacobus de Vitriaco_, one of the -writers in the _Gesta Dei per Francos_, says that in an expedition in -which he was engaged against Mount Tabor, on the 24th of December, the -cold was so intense that many of the poor people, and the beasts of -burthen died by it. And _Albertus Aquensis_, another of these writers, -speaking of the cold in Judea, says that _thirty_ of the people who -attended Baldwin I., in the mountainous districts near the Dead Sea, -were killed by it; and that in that expedition they had to contend with -horrible hail and ice; with unheard of snow and rain. From this we find -that the winters are often very severe in Judea; and that in such cases -as the above we may well call out, Who can stand against his cold!” -See his commentary on Ps. 147. See also Jer. 36:22; John 18:18; Matt. -24:20; Mark 13:18. 1 Maccabees 13:22, mentions a very great snow storm in -Palestine, so that horsemen could not march. - -[132] The testimony of the Bible on this point is very explicit. Thus we -read: “Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt -rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, -and the stranger, may be refreshed.” Ex. 23:12. To be without fire in -the severity of winter would cause the Sabbath to be a curse and not a -refreshment. It would ruin the health of those who should thus expose -themselves, and render the Sabbath anything but a source of refreshment. -The prophet uses the following language: “If thou turn away thy foot from -the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day: and call the Sabbath -a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable,” etc. The Sabbath then was -designed by God to be a source of delight to his people, and not a cause -of suffering. The merciful and beneficent character of the Sabbath is -seen in the following texts: Matt. 12:10-13; Mark 2:27, 28; Luke 14:3-6. -From them we learn that God regards the sufferings of the brute creation, -and would have them alleviated upon the Sabbath; how much more the -distress and the needs of his people, for whose refreshment and delight -the Sabbath was made. - -[133] Ex. 29:9; 31:16; Lev. 3:17; 24:9; Num. 19:21; Deut. 5:31; 6:1; 7. -The number and variety of these allusions will surprise the inquirer. - -[134] Ex. 16:23. - -[135] Ex. 12; Deut. 16. - -[136] The law of the passover certainly contemplated the arrival of the -Hebrews in the promised land before its regular observance. Ex. 12:25. -Indeed, it was only once observed in the wilderness; namely, in the year -following their departure from Egypt; and after that, was omitted until -they entered the land of Canaan. Num. 9; Josh. 5. This is proved, not -merely from the fact that no other instances are recorded, but because -that circumcision was omitted during the whole period of their sojourn in -the wilderness; and without this ordinance the children would have been -excluded from the passover. Ex. 12; Josh. 5. - -[137] Dr. Gill, who considered the seventh-day Sabbath as a Jewish -institution, beginning with Moses, and ending with Christ, and one with -which Gentiles have no concern, has given his judgment concerning this -question of fire on the Sabbath. He certainly had no motive in this case -to answer this popular objection only that of stating the truth. He says:— - -“This law seems to be a temporary one, and not to be continued, nor is it -said to be throughout their generations, as elsewhere, where the law of -the Sabbath is given or repeated; it is to be restrained to the building -of the tabernacle, and while that was about to which it is prefaced; and -it is designed to prevent all public or private working on the Sabbath -day in any thing belonging to that;” etc.—_Commentary on Ex._ 35:3. - -Dr. Bound gives us St. Augustine’s idea of this precept: “He doth not -admonish them of it without cause; for that he speaketh in making -the tabernacle, and all things belonging to it, and showeth that, -notwithstanding that, they must rest upon the Sabbath day, and not -under the color of that (as it is said in the text) so much as kindle a -fire.”—_True Doctrine of the Sabbath_, p. 140. - -[138] Lev. 19:1-3, 30. - -[139] Lev. 23:3. It has been asserted from verse 2, that the Sabbath was -one of the feasts of the Lord. But a comparison of verses 2, 4, shows -that there is a break in the narrative, for the purpose of introducing -the Sabbath as a holy convocation; and that verse 4 begins the theme -anew in the very language of verse 2; and it is to be observed that the -remainder of the chapter sets forth the actual Jewish feasts; viz., -that of unleavened bread, the Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles. -What further clears this point of all obscurity is the fact that -verses 37, 38, carefully discriminate between the feasts of the Lord -and the Sabbaths of the Lord. But Ex. 23:14, settles the point beyond -controversy: “Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year.” -And then verses 15-17 enumerate these feasts as in Lev. 23:4-44. See also -2 Chron. 8:13. - -[140] Lev. 26:1, 2. - -[141] Eze. 20:15, 16. - -[142] Num. 13:14. - -[143] Num. 15:32-36. - -[144] Eze. 20:15, 16 comp. with Num. 14:35. - -[145] Num. 15:30. - -[146] Eze. 20. - -[147] Hengstenberg, a distinguished German Anti-Sabbatarian, thus -candidly treats this text: “A man who had gathered wood on the Sabbath -is brought forth at the command of the Lord, and stoned by the whole -congregation before the camp. Calvin says rightly, ‘The guilty man did -not fall through error, but through gross contempt of the law, so that he -treated it as a light matter to overthrow and destroy all that is holy.’ -It is evident from the manner of its introduction that the account is -not given with any reference to its chronological position; it reads, -‘And while the children of Israel were _in the wilderness_, they found a -man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day.’ It stands simply as an -example of the presumptuous breach of the law, of which the preceding -verses speak. He was one who despised the word of the Lord and broke his -commandments [verse 31]; one who with a high hand sinned and reproached -the Lord. Verse 30.”—_The Lord’s Day_, pp. 31, 32. - -[148] Deut. 5:1-3. - -[149] See the pledges of this people in Ex. 19; 24. - -[150] See the second chapter of this work. - -[151] See chapter third. - -[152] Deut. 5:12-15. - -[153] Compare Ex. 19; 20; Deut. 1. - -[154] Ex. 20:8-11. - -[155] Ex. 12; 13. - -[156] Deut. 24:17, 18. - -[157] Deut. 4:12, 13. - -[158] Ex. 34:1; Deut. 10:2. - -[159] Ex. 34:28; Deut. 10:4. - -[160] Deut. 9:10. - -[161] Deut. 5:22. - -[162] Deut. 5:12-15, compared with Ex. 20:8-11. - -[163] Deut. 5, compared with Ex. 20. - -[164] Ex. 12; 1 Cor. 5:7, 8. - -[165] Lev. 23:10-21; Num. 28:26-31; Deut. 16:9-12; Acts 2:1-18. - -[166] Lev. 23:34-43; Deut. 16:13-15; Neh. 8; Rev. 7:9-14. - -[167] Num. 10:10; 28:11-15; 1 Sam. 20:5, 24, 27; Ps. 81:3. - -[168] Ex. 12:15, 16; Lev. 23:7, 8; Num. 28:17, 18, 25. - -[169] Lev. 23:21; Num. 28:26. - -[170] Lev. 23:24, 25; Num. 29:1-6. - -[171] Lev. 23:27-32; 16:29-31; Num. 29:7. - -[172] Lev. 23:39. - -[173] Ex. 23:10, 11; Lev. 25:2-7. - -[174] Lev. 25:8-54. - -[175] Lev. 26:34, 35, 43; 2 Chron. 36:21. - -[176] Ex. 12:25. - -[177] On this point Mr. Miller uses the following language: “Only one -kind of Sabbath was given to Adam, and one only remains for us. See Hosea -2:11. ‘I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her -new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.’ All the Jewish -sabbaths did cease when Christ nailed them to his cross. Col. 2:14-17. -These were properly called Jewish sabbaths. Hosea says, ‘her sabbaths.’ -But the Sabbath of which we are speaking, God calls ‘my Sabbath.’ Here -is a clear distinction between the creation Sabbath and the ceremonial. -The one is perpetual; the others were merely shadows of good things to -come.”—_Life and Views_, pp. 161, 162. - -[178] Ex. 12:16. - -[179] Ex. 20:10; 31:13; Isa. 58:13; compared with Lev. 23:24, 32, 39; -Lam. 1:7; Hosea 2:11. - -[180] Lev. 23:37, 38. - -[181] Isa. 1:13, 14. - -[182] Isa. 56:1-7; 58:13, 14. - -[183] Hosea 2:11. - -[184] Lam. 1:7; 2:5-7. - -[185] Deut. 16:16; 2 Chron. 7:12; Ps. 122. - -[186] Jer. 17:19-27; Neh. 13:15-18. - -[187] Isa. 56. See the eighth chapter of this work. - -[188] See chapter x. - -[189] 2 Kings 4:23. - -[190] 1 Chron. 9:32. It is true that this text relates to the order of -things after the return from Babylon; yet we learn from verse 22, that -this order was originally ordained by David and Samuel. See verses 1-32. - -[191] Compare these two cases: Ex. 16:23; 1 Chron. 9:32. - -[192] See chapters ii. and iii. - -[193] Josh. 6. - -[194] See Dr. A. Clarke’s commentary on Josh. 6:15. - -[195] Josh. 10:12-14. - -[196] 1 Sam. 21:1-6; Matt. 12:3, 4; Mark 2:25, 26; Luke 6:3, 4. - -[197] Lev. 24:5-9; 1 Chron. 9:32. - -[198] 1 Sam. 21:5, 6; Matt. 12:4. - -[199] See the tenth chapter of this work. - -[200] 1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4; 8:13; 31:3; Neh. 10:31, 33; Eze. -45:17. - -[201] See chapter vii. of this work. - -[202] 1 Chron. 9:32. - -[203] Cotton Mather says: “There is a psalm in the Bible whereof the -title is, ‘A Psalm or Song for the Sabbath day.’ Now ’tis a clause -in that psalm, ‘O Lord, how great are thy works! thy thoughts are -very deep.’ Ps. 92:5. That clause intimates what we should make the -subject of our meditations on the Sabbath day. Our thoughts are to be -on God’s works.”—_Discourse on the Lord’s Day_, p. 30, A. D. 1703. And -Hengstenberg says: “This psalm is according to the heading, ‘A Song for -the Sabbath day.’ The proper positive employment of the Sabbath appears -here to be a thankful contemplation of the works of God, a devotional -absorption in them which could only exist when ordinary occupations are -laid aside.”—_The Lord’s Day_, pp. 36, 37. - -[204] 2 Kings 4:23. - -[205] Isa. 66:23; Eze. 46:1; Amos 8:5. - -[206] Ex. 16:29. - -[207] 2 Kings 11:5-9; 2 Chron. 23:4-8. - -[208] Amos 8:4-6. - -[209] 2 Kings 16:18. - -[210] Isa. 56:1-8. - -[211] For the coming of this salvation see Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 1:9. - -[212] Ex. 12:48, 49; Isa. 14:1; Eph. 2:12. - -[213] See chapter vii. - -[214] Deut. 28:64; Luke 21:24. - -[215] Isa. 58:13, 14. - -[216] Matt. 8:11; Heb. 11:8-16; Rev. 21. - -[217] On this text Dr. A. Clarke comments thus: “From this and the -following verses we find the ruin of the Jews attributed to the breach -of the Sabbath: as this led to a neglect of sacrifice, the ordinances of -religion, and all public worship; so it necessarily brought with it all -immorality. The breach of the Sabbath was that which let in upon them all -the waters of God’s wrath.” - -[218] For an inspired commentary on this language, see Neh. 13:15-18. - -[219] This language strongly implies that the violation of the Sabbath -had ever been general with the Hebrews. See Jer. 7:23-28. - -[220] Jer. 17:20-27. - -[221] Eze. 22:7, 8, 26; 23:38, 39. - -[222] Eze. 20:23, 24; Deut. 32:16-35. - -[223] Eze. 23:38, 39. - -[224] 2 Chron. 36:16-20. - -[225] Eze., chapters 40-48. - -[226] Eze. 43:7-11. - -[227] Eze. 44:24; 45:17; 46:1, 3, 4, 12. - -[228] Eze. 46:1. - -[229] Neh. 9:13, 14. - -[230] Neh. 9:38; 10:1-31. - -[231] Neh. 10:31. - -[232] A few words relative to the time of beginning the Sabbath are -here demanded. 1. The reckoning of the first week of time necessarily -determines that of all succeeding weeks. The first division of the -first day was night; and each day of the first week began with evening; -the evening and the morning, an expression equivalent to the night and -the day, constituted the day of twenty-four hours. Gen. 1. Hence, the -first Sabbath began and ended with evening. 2. That the night is in the -Scriptures reckoned a part of the day of twenty-four hours, is proved -by many texts. Ex. 12:41, 42; 1 Sam. 26:7, 8; Luke 2:8-11; Mark 14:30; -Luke 22:34, and many other testimonies. 3. The 2300 days, symbolizing -2300 years, are each constituted like the days of the first week of time. -Dan. 8:14. The margin, which gives the literal Hebrew, calls each of -these days an “evening morning.” 4. The statute defining the great day of -atonement is absolutely decisive that the day begins with evening, and -that the night is a part of the day. Lev. 23:32. “It shall be unto you -a Sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of -the month at even, from even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath.” -5. That evening is at sunset is abundantly proved by the following -scriptures: Deut. 16:6; Lev. 22:6, 7; Deut. 23:2; 24:13, 15; Josh. 8:29; -10:26, 27; Judges 14:18; 2 Sam. 3:35; 2 Chron. 18:34; Matt. 8:16; Mark -1:32; Luke 4:40. But does not Neh. 13:19, conflict with this testimony, -and indicate that the Sabbath did not begin until after dark? I think -not. The text does not say, “When it began to be dark at Jerusalem before -the Sabbath,” but it says, “When the _gates_ of Jerusalem began to be -dark.” If it be remembered that the gates of Jerusalem were placed under -wide and high walls, it will not be found difficult to harmonize this -text with the many here adduced, which prove that the day begins with -sunset. - -Calmet, in his Bible Dictionary, article, Sabbath, thus states the -ancient Jewish method of beginning the Sabbath: “About half an hour -before the sunset all work is quitted and the Sabbath is supposed to be -begun.” He speaks thus of the close of the Sabbath: “When night comes, -and they can discern in the heaven three stars of moderate magnitude, -then the Sabbath is ended, and they may return to their ordinary -employments.” - -[233] Neh. 13:15-22. - -[234] Speaking of the Babylonish captivity, in his note on Eze. 23:48, -Dr. Clarke says: “From that time to the present day the Jews never -relapsed into idolatry.” - -[235] 1 Mac. 1:41-43. - -[236] 1 Mac. 2:29-38; Josephus’ Antiquities, b. xii. chap. vi. - -[237] 2 Mac. 5:25,26. - -[238] 1 Mac. 2:41. - -[239] 2 Mac. 6:11. - -[240] 2 Mac. 8:23-28. - -[241] 1 Mac. 9:43-49; Josephus’ Antiquities, b. xiii. chap. i.; 2 Mac. 15. - -[242] Antiquities of the Jews, b. xiv. chap. iv. Here we call attention -to one of those historical frauds by which Sunday is shown to be the -Sabbath. Dr. Justin Edwards states this case thus: “Pompey, the Roman -general, knowing this, when besieging Jerusalem, would not attack them on -the Sabbath; but spent the day in constructing his works, and preparing -to attack them on Monday, and in a manner that they could not withstand, -and so he took the city.”—_Sabbath Manual_, p. 216. That is to say, the -next day after the Sabbath was Monday, and of course Sunday was the -Sabbath! Yet Dr. E. well knew that in Pompey’s time, 63 years before -Christ, Saturday was the only weekly Sabbath, and that Sunday and not -Monday was the day of attack. - -[243] Sabbath Manual of the American Tract Society, pp. 214, 215. - -[244] Gal. 4:4, 5; John 1:1-10; 17:5, 24; Heb. 1. - -[245] Dan. 9:25; Mark 1:14, 15. - -[246] Luke 4:14-16. - -[247] Luke 4:30-39; Mark 1:21-31; Matt. 8:5-15. - -[248] See, on this point, the conclusion of chapter viii. - -[249] Mark 1:32-34; Luke 4:40. - -[250] Matt. 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5. - -[251] Mark 2:27, 28. - -[252] Comp. John 1:1-3; Gen. 1:1, 26; 2:1-3. - -[253] See chap. viii. - -[254] Num. 28:9, 10. - -[255] Lev. 24:5-9; 1 Chron. 9:32. - -[256] Hosea 6:6. - -[257] Thus the Greek Testament: Καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· Tὸ σάββατον διὰ τὸν -ἄνθρωπον ἐγένετο, ουχ ὁ ἄνθρωπος διὰ τό σάββατον. - -[258] 1 Cor. 11:9. - -[259] Gen. 2:1-3, 7, 21-23. - -[260] Matt. 19:3-9. - -[261] Ex. 16:23; 23:12; Isa. 58:13, 14. - -[262] See conclusion of chap. ix. - -[263] Matt. 5:17-19; Isa. 42:21. - -[264] Matt. 12:9-14; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 6:6-11. - -[265] Mark 6:1-6. - -[266] John 5:1-18. - -[267] Dr. Bloomfield’s Greek Testament on this text; family Testament of -the American Tract Society on the same; Nevins’ Biblical Antiquities, pp. -62, 63. - -[268] Compare Jer. 17:21-27 with Nehemiah 13:15-20. - -[269] Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Isa. 56; 58:13, 14; Eze. 20. - -[270] Gal. 4:4; Matt. 5:17-19; 7:12; 19:17; Luke 16:17. - -[271] John 5:19. - -[272] John 7:21-23. - -[273] Grotius well says: “If he healed any on the Sabbath he made it -appear, not only from the law, but also from their received opinions, -that such works were not forbidden on the Sabbath.”—_The Truth of the -Christian Religion_, b. v. sect. 7. - -[274] John 9:1-16. - -[275] Luke 13:10-17. - -[276] 1 Pet. 3:6. - -[277] Luke 14:1-6. - -[278] Matt. 23:23. - -[279] Matt. 24:15-21. - -[280] Dan. 9:26, 27. - -[281] Luke 21:20. - -[282] Jewish Wars, b. ii. chap. xix. - -[283] Id. b. ii. chap. xx. - -[284] Eccl. Hist. b. iii. chap. v. - -[285] Jewish Wars, b. ii. chap. xix. - -[286] Deut. 16:16. - -[287] Thus remarks Mr. Crozier in the _Advent Harbinger_ for Dec. 6, -1851: “The reference to the Sabbath in Matt. 24:20, only shows that the -Jews who rejected Christ would be keeping the Sabbath at the destruction -of Jerusalem, and would, in consequence, add to the dangers of the -disciples’ flight by punishing them perhaps with death for fleeing on -that day.” - -And Mr. Marsh, forgetting that Christ forbade his disciples to take -anything with them in their flight, uses the following language: “If -the disciples should attempt to flee from Jerusalem on that day and -carry their things, the Jews would embarrass their flight and perhaps -put them to death. The Jews would be keeping the Sabbath, because they -rejected Christ and his gospel.”—_Advent Harbinger_, Jan. 24, 1852. -These quotations betray the bitterness of their authors. In honorable -distinction from these anti-Sabbatarians, the following is quoted from -Mr. William Miller, himself an observer of the first day of the week:— - -“‘Neither on the Sabbath day.’ Because it was to be kept as a day of -rest, and no servile work was to be done on that day, nor would it be -right for them to travel on that day. Christ has in this place sanctioned -the Sabbath, and clearly shows us our duty to let no trivial circumstance -cause us to break the law of the Sabbath. Yet how many who profess to -believe in Christ, at this present day, make it a point to visit, travel, -and feast, on this day? What a false-hearted profession must that person -make who can thus treat with contempt the moral law of God, and despise -the precepts of the Lord Jesus! We may here learn our obligation to -remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”—_Exposition of Matt._ 24, p. -18. - -[288] Jewish Wars, b. ii. chap. xix. - -[289] Id. b. ii. chap. xix. - -[290] See chap. xvi. - -[291] President Edwards says: “A further argument for the perpetuity of -the Sabbath we have in Matt. 24:20: ‘Pray ye that your flight be not in -the winter, _neither on the Sabbath day_.’ Christ is here speaking of the -flight of the apostles and other Christians out of Jerusalem and Judea, -just before their final destruction, as is manifest by the whole context, -and especially by the 16th verse: ‘Then let them which be in Judea flee -into the mountains.’ But this final destruction of Jerusalem was after -the dissolution of the Jewish constitution, and after the Christian -dispensation was fully set up. Yet it is plainly implied in these words -of our Lord, that even then Christians were bound to a strict observation -of the Sabbath.”—_Works of President Edwards_, vol. iv. pp. 621, 622, New -York, 1849. - -[292] Matt. 27; Isa. 53. - -[293] Dan. 9:24-27. - -[294] Col. 2:14-17. - -[295] For an extended view of these Jewish festivals see chapter vii. - -[296] Deut. 10:4, 5, compared with 31:24-26. Thus Morer contrasts the -phrase “in the ark,” which is used with reference to the two tables, with -the expression “in the side of the ark,” as used respecting the book -of the law, and says of the latter: “In the side of the ark, or more -critically, in the outside of the ark; or in a chest by itself on the -right side of the ark, saith the Targum of Jonathan.”—_Morer’s Dialogues -on the Lord’s Day_, p. 211, London, 1701. - -[297] See chap. vii. - -[298] See chap. ii. - -[299] Mark 2:27. - -[300] Lev. 23:37, 38. - -[301] Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20; Matt. 5:17, 19. - -[302] Isa. 66:22, 23. See also the close of chap. xxvii of this work. - -[303] Luke 23:54-56. - -[304] James 2:8-12; Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:19, 31. - -[305] Heb. 9; 10; Luke 23:46-53; John 19:38-42. - -[306] Luke 23:54-56. - -[307] Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1, 2, 9; Luke 23:56; 24:1; John 20:1, 19. - -[308] Eze. 46:1. - -[309] See the origin of the ancient Sabbath in Gen. 2:1-3. - -[310] Mark 16:14. That this interview was certainly the same with that in -John 20:19, will be seen from a careful examination of Luke 24. - -[311] Matt. 19:26; Titus 1:2. - -[312] Isa. 65:16; Ps. 119:142, 151. - -[313] Rom. 1:25. - -[314] It is just as easy to change the crucifixion-day from that day of -the week on which Christ was crucified, to one of the six days on which -he was not, as to change the rest-day of the Creator from that day of the -week on which he rested, to one of the six days on which he wrought in -the work of creation. - -[315] John 20:26. - -[316] John 21. - -[317] Acts 1:3. Forty days from the day of the resurrection would expire -on Thursday. - -[318] When the resurrection day was “far spent,” the Saviour and two -of the disciples drew near to Emmaus, a village seven and a half miles -from Jerusalem. They constrained him to go in with them to tarry for -the night. While they were eating supper they discovered that it was -Jesus, when he vanished from their sight. Then they arose and returned -to Jerusalem; and after their arrival, the first meeting of Jesus with -the eleven took place. It could not therefore have lacked but little of -sunset, which closed the day, if not actually upon the second day, when -Jesus came into their midst. Luke 24. In the latter case, the expression, -“the same day at evening being the first day of the week,” would find an -exact parallel in meaning, in the expression, “in the ninth day of the -month at even,” which actually signifies the evening with which the tenth -day of the seventh month commences. Lev. 23:32. - -[319] Those who were to come before God from Sabbath to Sabbath to -minister in his temple, were said to come “after seven days.” 1 Chron. -9:25; 2 Kings 11:5. - -[320] “After six days,” instead of being the sixth day, was about eight -days after. Matt. 17:1; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28. - -[321] That sunset marks the close of the day, see the close of chapter -viii. - -[322] Acts 2:1, 2. - -[323] Luke 24:49-53; Acts 1. - -[324] Horatio B. Hacket, D. D., Professor of Biblical Literature, in -Newton Theological Institution, thus remarks: “It is generally supposed -that this Pentecost, signalized by the outpouring of the Spirit, fell on -the Jewish Sabbath, our Saturday.”—_Commentary on the Original Text of -the Acts_, pp. 50, 51. - -[325] In 1633, William Prynne, a prisoner in the tower of London, -composed a work in defense of first-day observance, entitled, -“Dissertation on the Lord’s Day Sabbath.” He thus acknowledges the -futility of the argument under consideration: “No scripture ... prefers -or advanceth the work of redemption ... before the work of creation; -both these works being very great and glorious in themselves; wherefore -I cannot believe the work of redemption, or Christ’s resurrection alone, -to be more excellent and glorious than the work of creation, without -sufficient texts and Scripture grounds to prove it; but may deny it as -a presumptuous fancy or unsound assertion, till satisfactorily proved, -as well as peremptorily averred without proof.”—Page 59. This is the -judgment of a candid advocate of the first day as a Christian festival. -On Acts 20:7, he will be allowed to testify again. - -[326] Luke 21:28; Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1:13, 14; 4:30. - -[327] Eph. 1:7; Gal. 3:13; Rev. 5:9. - -[328] 1 Cor. 11:23-26. - -[329] Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12. - -[330] Ps. 118:22-24. - -[331] Eph. 1:20-23; 2:20, 21; 1 Pet. 2:4-7. - -[332] 1 Thess. 5:16. - -[333] John 8:56. - -[334] See chap. iii. - -[335] Matt. 5:17-19. - -[336] Eph. 2:13-16; Col. 2:14-17. - -[337] Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 16:15. - -[338] Dan. 9:24-27; Acts 9; 10; 11; 26:12-17; Rom. 11:13. - -[339] 1 Cor. 11:25; Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-12; Dan. 9:27; Eph. 2:11-22. - -[340] Matt. 5:17-19; 1 John 3:4, 5; Rom. 4:15. - -[341] Heb. 9:1-7; Ex. 25:1-21; Deut. 10:4, 5; 1 Kings 8:9. - -[342] Heb., chaps. 7-10; Lev. 16. - -[343] Heb. 8:1-5; 9:23, 24. - -[344] Rev. 11:19. - -[345] Ex. 25:21, 22. - -[346] Rom. 3:19-31; 5:8-21; 8:3, 4; 13:8-10; Gal. 3:13, 14; Eph. 6:2, 3; -James 2:8-12; 1 John 3:4, 5. - -[347] Ex. 19; 20; 24:12; 31:18; Deut. 10. - -[348] Lev. 16. - -[349] Rom. 3:19-31; 1 John 3:4, 5. - -[350] Ps. 40:6-8; Heb. 10. - -[351] Heb. 9; 10. - -[352] Jer. 31:33; Rom. 8:3, 4; 2 Cor. 3:3. - -[353] Ps. 19:7; James 1:25; Ps. 40. - -[354] Rom. 5. - -[355] Rom. 3:19. - -[356] Rom. 3:31. - -[357] Rom. 3:20; 1 John 3:4, 5; 2:1, 2. - -[358] Jer. 11:16; Rom. 11:17-24. - -[359] Rom. 4:16-18; Gal. 3:7-9. - -[360] Ex. 19:5, 6; 1 Pet. 2:9, 10. - -[361] Gen. 11:1-9; Acts 2:1-11. - -[362] Rom. 7:12, 13. - -[363] James 2:8-12. - -[364] See chapter x. - -[365] Acts 13:14. - -[366] Verse 27. - -[367] Dr. Bloomfield has the following note on this text: “The words, -εἰς τὸ μεταξὺ σαββ., are by many commentators supposed to mean ‘on some -intermediate week-day.’ But that is refuted by verse 44, and the sense -expressed in our common version is, no doubt, the true one. It is adopted -by the best recent commentators, and confirmed by the ancient versions.” -_Greek Testament with English notes_, vol. i. p. 521. And Prof. Hacket -has a similar note.—_Commentary on Acts_, p. 233. - -[368] Verses 42-44. - -[369] Acts 15. - -[370] Acts 15:10, 28, 29; James 2:8-12. - -[371] Verses 1, 5. - -[372] Verse 29; 21:25. - -[373] Ex. 34:15, 16; Num. 25:2; Lev. 17:13, 14; Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; Gen. -34; Lev. 19:29. - -[374] Acts 15:19-21. - -[375] Acts 16:12-14. - -[376] Paul’s manner is exemplified by the following texts, in all of -which it would appear that the meetings in question were upon the -Sabbath. Acts 13:5; 14:1; 17:10, 17; 18:19; 19:8. - -[377] Acts 17:1-4. - -[378] 1 Thess. 2:14. - -[379] 1 Thess. 1:7, 8. - -[380] Acts 18:3, 4. - -[381] Acts 10:2, 4, 7, 22, 30-35; 13:43; 14:1; 16:13-15; 17:4, 10-12. - -[382] 1 Cor. 16:1, 2. - -[383] Vindication of the True Sabbath, Battle Creek ed., pp. 51, 52. - -[384] Greek Testament with English Notes, vol. ii. p. 173. - -[385] Sabbath Manual of the American Tract Society, p. 116. - -[386] Family Testament of the American Tract Society, p. 286. - -[387] Eze. 46:1. - -[388] Prof. Hacket remarks on the length of this voyage: “The passage on -the apostle’s first journey to Europe occupied two days only; see chapter -16:11. Adverse winds or calms would be liable, at any season of the year, -to occasion this variation.”—_Commentary on Acts_, p. 329. This shows -how little ground there is to claim that Paul broke the Sabbath on this -voyage. There was ample time to reach Troas before the Sabbath when he -started from Philippi, had not providential causes hindered. - -[389] Acts 20:6-13. - -[390] Thus Prof. Whiting renders the phrase: “The disciples being -assembled.” And Sawyer has it: “We being assembled.” - -[391] 1 Cor. 11:23-26. - -[392] Matt. 26. - -[393] Acts 2:42-46. - -[394] This fact has been acknowledged by many first-day commentators. -Thus Prof. Hacket comments upon this text: “The Jews reckoned the day -from evening to morning, and on that principle the evening of the first -day of the week would be our Saturday evening. If Luke reckoned so here, -as many commentators suppose, the apostle then waited for the expiration -of the Jewish Sabbath, and held his last religious service with the -brethren at Troas, at the beginning of the Christian Sabbath, _i. e._, -on Saturday evening, and consequently resumed his journey on Sunday -morning.”—_Commentary on Acts_, pp. 329, 330. But he endeavors to shield -the first-day Sabbath from this fatal admission by suggesting that Luke -probably reckoned time according to the pagan method, rather than by that -which is ordained in the Scriptures! - -Kitto, in noting the fact that this was an evening meeting, speaks thus: -“It has from this last circumstance been inferred that the assembly -commenced after sunset on the Sabbath, at which hour the first day -of the week had commenced, according to the Jewish reckoning [Jahn’s -Bibl. Antiq., sect. 398], which would hardly agree with the idea of a -commemoration of the resurrection.”—_Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature_, -article, Lord’s day. - -And Prynne, whose testimony relative to redemption as an argument for the -change of the Sabbath has been already quoted, thus states this point: -“Because the text saith there were many lights in the upper room where -they were gathered together, and that Paul preached from the time of -their coming together till midnight, ... this meeting of the disciples -at Troas, and Paul’s preaching to them, began at evening. The sole doubt -will be what evening this was.... For my own part I conceive clearly that -it was upon Saturday night, as we falsely call it, and not the coming -Sunday night.... Because St. Luke records that it was upon the first day -of the week when this meeting was ... therefore it must needs be on the -Saturday, not on our Sunday evening, since the Sunday evening in St. -Luke’s and the Scripture account was no part of the first, but of the -second day; the day ever beginning and ending at evening.” - -Prynne notices the objection drawn from the phrase, “ready to depart -on the morrow,” as indicating that this departure was not on the same -day of the week with his night meeting. The substance of his answer is -this: If the fact be kept in mind that the days of the week are reckoned -from evening to evening, the following texts, in which in the night, the -morning is spoken of as the morrow, will show at once that another day of -the week is not necessarily intended by the phrase in question. 1 Sam. -19:11; Esth. 2:14; Zeph. 3:3; Acts 23:31, 32.—_Diss. on Lord’s Day Sab._, -pp. 36-41, 1633. - -[395] See the conclusion of chap. viii. - -[396] Luke 23:56; 24:1. - -[397] Rom. 14:1-6. - -[398] James 2:8-12. - -[399] Rom. 7:12, 13; 1 John 3:4, 5. - -[400] Rom. 3. - -[401] Ex. 20. - -[402] Lev. 23. These are particularly enumerated in Col. 2, as we have -already noticed in chapter vii, and in the concluding part of chapter x. - -[403] Acts 2:1-11; Rom 2:17; 4:1; 7:1. - -[404] Ex. 16:4, 21, 27, 28. - -[405] Cor. 15:27; Ps. 8. - -[406] Rev. 1:10. - -[407] To show that Paul regarded Sabbatic observance as _dangerous_, -Gal. 4:10, is often quoted; notwithstanding the same individuals claim -that Rom. 14 proves that it is a matter of _perfect indifference_; they -not seeing that this is to make Paul contradict himself. But if the -connection be read from verse 8 to verse 11, it will be seen that the -Galatians before their conversion were not Jews, but heathen: and that -these days, months, times, and years, were not those of the Levitical -law, but those which they had regarded with superstitious reverence while -heathen. Observe the stress which Paul lays upon the word “again,” in -verse 9. And how many that profess the religion of Christ at the present -day superstitiously regard certain days as “lucky” or “unlucky days;” -though such notions are derived only from heathen distinctions. - -[408] See chapter x. - -[409] Rev. 1:9-11. - -[410] Dr. Bloomfield, though himself of a different opinion, speaks thus -of the views of others concerning the date of John’s gospel: “It has been -the general sentiment, both of ancient and modern inquirers, that it was -published about _the close of the first century_.”—_Greek Testament with -English Notes_, vol. i. p. 328. - -Morer says that John “penned his gospel two years later than the -Apocalypse, and after his return from Patmos, as St. Augustine, St. -Jerome, and Eusebius, affirm.”—_Dialogues on the Lord’s Day_, pp. 53, 54. - -The Paragraph Bible of the London Religious Tract Society, in its preface -to the book of John, speaks thus: “According to the general testimony of -ancient writers, John wrote his gospel at Ephesus, about the year 97.” - -In support of the same view, see also Religious Encyclopedia, Barnes’ -Notes (gospels), Bible Dictionary, Cottage Bible, Domestic Bible, Mine -Explored, Union Bible Dictionary, Comprehensive Bible, Dr. Hales, Horne, -Nevins, Olshausen, &c. - -[411] The Encyclopedia Britannica, in its article concerning the Sabbath, -undertakes to prove that the “religious observation of the first day of -the week is of apostolical appointment.” After citing and commenting upon -all the passages that could be urged in proof of the point, it makes the -following candid acknowledgment: “Still, however, it must be owned that -these passages are not sufficient to prove the apostolical institution of -the Lord’s day, or even the actual observation of it.” - -The absence of all scriptural testimony relative to the change of the -Sabbath, is accounted for by certain advocates of that theory, not by the -frank admission that it never was changed by the Lord, but by quoting -John 21:25, assuming the change of the Sabbath as an undoubted truth, -but that it was left out of the Bible lest it should make that book -too large! They think, therefore, that we should go to Ecclesiastical -history to learn this part of our duty; not seeing that, as the fourth -commandment still stands in the Bible unrepealed and unchanged, to -acknowledge that that change must be sustained wholly outside of the -Bible, is to acknowledge that first-day observance is a tradition which -makes void the commandment of God. The following chapters will, however, -patiently examine the argument for first-day observance drawn from -ecclesiastical history. - -[412] Gen. 2:3. - -[413] Ex. 16:23. - -[414] Ex. 20:8-11. - -[415] Isa. 58:13, 14. - -[416] Mark 2:27, 28. - -[417] An able opponent of Sabbatic observance thus speaks relative to -the term Lord’s day of Rev. 1:10: “If a current day was intended, the -only day bearing this definition, in either the Old or New Testament, is -Saturday, the seventh day of the week.”—_W. B. Taylor, in the Obligation -of the Sabbath_, p. 296. - -[418] Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xv. - -[419] Acts 20:29, 30. - -[420] 2 Thess. 2:3, 4, 7, 8. - -[421] 2 Tim. 4:2-4; 2 Pet. 2; Jude 4; 1 John 2:18. - -[422] Book ii. chap. i. sect. 1. - -[423] Eccl. Researches, chap. vi. p. 51, ed. 1792. - -[424] The Modern Sabbath Examined, pp. 123, 124. - -[425] Rose’s Neander, p. 184. - -[426] Hist. of the Popes, vol. i. p. 1, Phila. ed., 1817. - -[427] History of Romanism, book ii. chap. i. sects. 3, 4. - -[428] Lectures on Romanism, p. 203. - -[429] Commentary on Prov. 8. - -[430] Autobiography of Adam Clarke, LL. D., p. 134. - -[431] Christianography, part ii. p. 59, London, 1636. - -[432] Translation of the Apologies of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and -others, vol. ii. p. 375. - -[433] John 21:20-23. - -[434] 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. - -[435] Note of the Douay Bible on 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. - -[436] Obligation of the Sabbath, pp. 254, 255. - -[437] Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10. - -[438] A Treatise of Thirty Controversies. - -[439] The writer has prepared a small work entitled, “The Complete -Testimony of the Fathers of the first Three Centuries concerning the -Sabbath and First Day,” in which, with the single exception of Origen, -some of whose works were not at that time accessible, every passage in -the fathers which gives their views of the Sabbath and first-day is -presented. This pamphlet can be had of the publishers of the present work -for fifteen cents. To save space in this History, a general statement of -the doctrine of the fathers is here made with brief quotations of their -words. But in “The Complete Testimony of the Fathers” every passage is -given in their own words, and to this little work the reader is referred. - -[440] Those who dispute these statements are invited to present the words -of the fathers which modify or disprove them. The reader who may not have -access to the writings of the fathers is referred to the pamphlet already -mentioned in which their complete testimony is given. - -[441] See the testimony on page 189 of this work. - -[442] Justin Martyr’s First Apology, chap. lxvii. - -[443] Eusebius’s Eccl. Hist., book iv. chap. xxiii. - -[444] See chap. xviii. of this History. - -[445] See his Ecclesiastical History, book iv. chap. xxvi. - -[446] Sabbath Manual, p. 114. - -[447] See chap. xvi. of this work; and also Testimony of the Fathers, pp. -44-52. - -[448] The Miscellanies of Clement, book v. chap. xiv. - -[449] The Miscellanies of Clement, book vii. chap. xii.; Testimony of the -Fathers, p. 61. - -[450] The Miscellanies, book vii. chap. vii.; Testimony of the Fathers, -p. 62. - -[451] Kitto’s Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, original edition, -article Lord’s Day. - -[452] Tertullian on Prayer, chap. xxiii.; Testimony of the Fathers, p. 67. - -[453] On Idolatry, chap. xiv.; Testimony of the Fathers, p. 66. - -[454] _Ad Nationes_, book i. chap. xiii.; Testimony of the Fathers, p. 70. - -[455] _De Corona_, sects. 3 and 4; Testimony of the Fathers, pp. 68, 69. - -[456] An Answer to the Jews, chap. iv.; Testimony of the Fathers, p. 73. - -[457] Against Celsus, book 8. chap. xxii.; Testimony of the Fathers, p. -87. - -[458] Eusebius’s Eccl. Hist., book v. chap. xxiv. - -[459] Socrates’s Eccl. Hist., book v. chap. xxii. - -[460] Anatolius, Tenth Fragment. - -[461] Socrates’s Eccl. Hist., book v. chap. xxii. - -[462] Sozomen’s Eccl. Hist., book vii. chap. xviii.; see also Mosheim, -book i. cent. 2, part ii. chap iv. sect. 9. - -[463] Socrates’s Eccl. Hist., book v. chap. xxii.; McClintock and -Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. iii. p. 13; Bingham’s Antiquities, p. 1149. - -[464] Maclaine’s Mosheim, cent. 1, part ii. chap. iv. sec. 4. I have -given Maclaine’s translation, not because it is an accurate version of -Mosheim, but because it is so much used in support of the first-day -Sabbath. Maclaine in his preface to Mosheim says: “I have sometimes -taken considerable liberties with my author.” And he tells us what these -liberties were by saying that he had “often added a few sentences, to -render an observation more striking, a fact more clear, a portrait more -finished.” The present quotation is an instance of these liberties. Dr. -Murdock of New Haven who has given “a close, literal version” of Mosheim, -gives the passage thus:— - -“The Christians of this century, assembled for the worship of God, and -for their advancement in piety, on the first day of the week, the day -on which Christ reassumed his life: for that this day was set apart -for religious worship, by the apostles themselves, and that, after the -example of the church of Jerusalem, it was generally observed, we have -unexceptionable testimony.”—_Murdock’s Mosheim_, cent. 1, part ii. chap. -iv. sec. 4. - -[465] Neander’s Church History, translated by H. J. Rose, p. 186. To -break the force of this strong statement of Neander that “the festival -of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, -and it was far from the intentions 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,” two things have -been said:— - -1. That Neander, in a later edition of his work, retracted this -declaration. It is true that in re-writing his work he omitted this -sentence. But he inserted nothing of a contrary character, and the -general tenor of the revised edition is in this place precisely the same -as in that from which this out-spoken statement is taken. - -In proof of this, we cite from the later edition of Neander his statement -in this very place of what constituted Sunday observance in the early -church. He says:— - -“Sunday was distinguished as a day of joy, by being exempted from fasts, -and by the circumstance that prayer was performed on this day in a -standing and not in a kneeling posture, as Christ, by his resurrection, -had raised up fallen man again to Heaven.”—_Torrey’s Neander_, vol. i. p. -295, ed. 1852. - -This is an accurate account of early Sunday observance, as we shall -hereafter show; and that such observance was only a human ordinance, -of which no feature was ever commanded by the apostles, will be very -manifest to every person who attempts to find any precept for any -particular of it in the New Testament. - -2. But the other method of setting aside this testimony of Neander is -to assert that he did not mean to deny that the apostles established -a divine command for Sunday as the Christian Sabbath, but meant to -assert that they did not establish a divine command for Sunday as a -Catholic festival! Those who make this assertion must know that it is -false. Neander expressly denies that the apostles either constituted -or recognized Sunday as a Sabbath, and he represents Sunday as a mere -festival from the very first of its observance, and established only by -human authority. - -[466] See chapters x. and xi., in which the New Testament has been -carefully examined on this point. - -[467] Epistle of Barnabas 13:9, 10; or, as others divide the epistle, -chapter 15. - -[468] Eccl. Hist., cent. 1, part ii. chap. ii. sect. 21. - -[469] Historical Commentaries, cent. 1, sect. 53. - -[470] Rose’s Neander, p. 407. - -[471] Note appended to Gurney’s History, Authority, and Use of the -Sabbath, p. 86. - -[472] Ancient Church, pp. 367, 368. - -[473] Commentary on Acts, p. 251. - -[474] History of the Church, cent. 1, chap. xv. - -[475] Cyc. Bib. Lit., art. Lord’s day, tenth ed. 1858. - -[476] Encyc. of Rel. Knowl., art. Barnabas’ Epistle. - -[477] Eccl. Hist., book iii. chap. xxv. - -[478] The Sabbath, or an Examination of the Six Texts commonly adduced -from the New Testament in proof of a Christian Sabbath, p. 233. - -[479] Ancient Christianity, chap. i. sect. 2. - -[480] Epistle of Barnabas, 9:8. In some editions it is chap. 10. - -[481] Coleman’s Ancient Christianity, pp. 35, 36. - -[482] Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. 26, sect. 2. - -[483] Buck’s Theological Dictionary, art. Christians. - -[484] Tertullian’s Apology, sect. 2. - -[485] Obligation of the Sabbath, p. 300. - -[486] Historical Commentaries, cent. 1, sect. 47. - -[487] 1 Pet. 1:1. See Clarke’s Commentary, preface to the epistles of -Peter. - -[488] Ignatius to the Magnesians, 3:3-5; or, as others divide the -epistle, chap. 9. - -[489] Ancient Church, pp. 413, 414. - -[490] Id. p. 427. - -[491] Future Life, p. 290. - -[492] Examination of the Six Texts, p. 237. - -[493] Ecclesiastical Researches, chap. vi. pp. 50, 51, ed. 1792. - -[494] Ignatius ad Magnesios, sect. 9. - -[495] Cyc. Bib. Lit., art. Lord’s day. - -[496] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, pp. 206, 207. - -[497] A first-day writer, author of the “History, Authority, and Use, of -the Sabbath.” - -[498] Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 250, 251. - -[499] For a more full statement of the case of Ignatius, see the -“Testimony of the Fathers,” pp. 26-30. The quotation from Ignatius -examined in this chapter is there shown, according to the connection, to -relate, not to New-Testament Christians, but to the ancient prophets. - -[500] Sabbath Manual, p. 120. - -[501] See his “History, Authority, and Use, of the Sabbath,” chap. iv. -pp. 87, 88. - -[502] Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 258-261. - -[503] The date in Baronius is A. D. 303. - -[504] Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 263-265. - -[505] Note by Domville. “_Dominicum_ is not, as may at first be supposed, -an adjective, of which _diem_ [day] is the understood substantive. It -is itself a substantive, neuter as appears from the passage, ‘_Quia non -potest intermitti Dominicum_,’ in the narrative respecting Saturninus. -The Latin adjective _Dominicus_, when intended to refer to the Lord’s -day, is never, I believe, used without its substantive _dies_ [day] being -expressed. In all the narratives contained in Ruinart’s _Acta Martyrum_, -I find but two instances of mention being made of the Lord’s day, and in -both these instances the substantive _dies_ [day] is expressed.” - -[506] This testimony is certainly decisive. It is the interpretation of -the compiler of the _Acta Martyrum_, himself, and is given with direct -reference to the particular instance under discussion. An independent -confirmation of Domville’s authorities, may be found in Lucius’s Eccl. -Hist., cent. 4, chap, vi.: “Fit mentio aliquoties locorum istorum in -quibus convenerint Christiani, in historia persecutionis sub Diocletiano -& Maximino. Et apparet, ante Constantinum etiam, locos eos fuisse -mediocriter exstructos atque exornatos: quos seu Templa appellarunt seu -Dominica; ut apud Eusebium (li. 9, c. 10) & Ruffinum (li. 1, c. 3).” - -It is certain that _Dominicum_ is here used as designating a place of -divine worship. Dr. Twisse in his “Morality of the Fourth Commandment,” -p. 122, says: “The ancient fathers, both Greek and Latin, called temples -by the name of dominica and κυρίακα.” - -[507] Domville cites St. Augustine’s Works, vol. v. pp. 116, 117, Antwerp -ed. A. D. 1700. - -[508] Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 267, 268. - -[509] Id. pp. 270, 271. - -[510] Id. pp. 272, 273. - -[511] Historical Commentaries, cent. 1, sect. xxxii. - -[512] The Sabbath, by James Gilfillan, p. vii. - -[513] To break the force of Domville’s statement in which he exposes -the story originally told by Bishop Andrews as coming from the _Acta -Martyrum_, it is said that Domville used Ruinart’s _Acta Martyrum_, and -that Ruinart was not born till thirty-one years after Bishop Andrews’ -death, so that Domville did not go to the same book that was used by -the bishop, and therefore failed to find what he found. Those who raise -this point betray their ignorance or expose their dishonesty. The _Acta -Martyrum_ is a collection of the memoirs of the martyrs, written by -their friends from age to age. Ruinart did not write a new work, but -simply edited “the most valued collection” of these memoirs that has -ever appeared. See McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. i. pp. -56, 57. Domville used Ruinart’s edition, because, as he expresses it, -it is “the most complete collection of the memoirs and legends still -extant, relative to the lives and sufferings of the Christian martyrs.” -Domville’s use of Ruinart was, therefore, in the highest degree just and -right. - -[514] Ibique celebrantes ex more Dominica Sacramenta.—_Baronius_, _Tome -3_, p. 348, A. D. 303, No. xxxvi. Lucæ, A. D. 1738. - -[515] Qui contra edictum Imperatorum, & Cæsarum Collectam Dominicam -celebrassent.—_Baronius_, _Tome 3_, p. 348, A. D. 303, No. xxxix. - -[516] Utrum Collectam fecisset. Qui cum se Christianum, & in Collecta -fuisse profiteretur.—_Id. Ib._ - -[517] Nam & in Collecta fui, & Dominicum cum fratribus celebravi, quia -Christiana sum.—_Id._ No. xliii. p. 344. This was spoken by a female -martyr. - -[518] Dominicum celebravimus. Proconsul ait: Quare? respondit: Quia non -potest intermitti Dominicum.—_Id._ No. xlvi. p. 350. - -[519] In cujus dome Collecta facta fuit.—_Id._ No. xlvii. p. 350. - -[520] Intermitti Dominicum non potest, ait. Lex sic jubet.—_Id._ No. -xlvii. p. 350. - -[521] In tua, inquit proconsul, domo Collectæ factæ sunt, contra -praecepta Imperatorum? Cui Emeritus sancto Spiritu inundatus: In domo -mea, inquit, egimus Dominicum.... Quoniam sine Dominico esse non -possumus.—_Id._ No. xlix. pp. 350, 351. - -[522] Non quaero an Christianus sis sed an Collectam feceris.... Quasi -Christianus sine Dominico esse possit.—_Id._ No. li. p. 351. - -[523] Collectam, inquit, religiosissime celebravimus; ad scripturas -Dominicas legendas in Dominicum convenimus semper.—_Id. Ib._ p. 351. - -[524] Cum fratribus feci Collectam, Dominicum celebravi.—_Id._ No. lii. -p. 351. - -[525] Post quem junior Felix, spem salutemque Christianorum Dominicum -esse proclamans.... Ego, inquit, devota menta celebravi Dominicum; -collectam cum fratribus feci, quia Christianus sum.—_Id._ liii. - -[526] Utrum egeris Dominicum. Cui respondit Saturninus: Egi Dominicum, -quia Salvator est Christus.—_Id. Ib._ p. 352. - -[527] Per Collectam namque, & Collectionem, & Dominicum, intellegit -semper auctor sacrificium Missæ.—_Baronius_, _Tome 3_, A. D. 303, No. -xxxix. p. 348. - -[528] Scilicet lex Christiana de Dominico, nempe sacrificio -celebrando.—_Id._ No. xlvii. p. 350. - -[529] De celebratione Dominici; Quod autem superius in recitatis actis -sit demonstratum, flagrantis persecutionis etiam tempore solicitos fuisse -Christianos celebrare Dominicum, nempe (ut alias pluribus declararimus) -ipsam sacrosanctum sacrificium incruentum.—_Id._ No. lxxxiii. p. 358. - -[530] Quod etsi sciamus eamdem vocem pro Dei templo interdum accipi -solitam; tamen quod ecclesiæ omnes solo æquatæ fuissent; ex aliis -superius recitatis de celebratione Dominici, nonisi sacrificium missæ -posse intelligo, satis est declaratum.—_Id._ lxxxiv. p. 359. - -[531] Collecta, Dominicum, Missa, idem, 303, xxxix. p. 677. - -[532] Missa idem quod Collecta, sive Dominicum, 303, xxxix. p. 702. - -[533] Dominicum celebrare idem quod Missas agere, 303, xxxix.; xlix.; li. -p. 684. - -[534] Vol. xviii. p. 409. - -[535] Verstegan’s Antiquities, p. 10, London, 1628. - -[536] Antiquities, p. 68. - -[537] Jewish Antiquities, book iii. chap. i. See also McClintock and -Strong’s Cyclopedia, 4, 472, article Idolatry; Dr. A. Clarke on Job -31:26; and Dr. Gill on the same; Webster under the word Sabianism, and -Worcester, under Sabian. - -[538] Id. book iii. chap. iii. - -[539] Vol. xviii. p. 409. - -[540] Pp. 61, 62. - -[541] 2 Kings 23:5; Jer. 43:13, margin. - -[542] Dialogues on the Lord’s day, pp. 22, 23. - -[543] Apology, chap. lxvii.; Testimony of the Fathers, pp. 34, 35. - -[544] Apology, sect. 16; Testimony of the Fathers, pp. 64, 65. - -[545] Ad Nationes, book i. chap. xiii.; Testimony of the Fathers, p. 70. - -[546] Eccl. Hist., cent. 1, part ii. chap. iv. note ‡ to sect. 4. - -[547] Eccl. Hist. cent. 2, part. ii. chap. i. sect. 12. - -[548] History of the Sabbath, part ii. chap. i. sect. 12. - -[549] Id. part ii. chap. iii. sect. 4. - -[550] Hist. of the Sabbath, part ii. chap. i. sect. 10. - -[551] Examination of the Six Texts, Supplement, pp. 6, 7. - -[552] Du Pin’s Eccl. Hist. vol. i. p. 50. - -[553] Hist. Church, cent. 2, chap. iii. - -[554] Justin Martyr’s First Apology, translated by Wm. Reeves, p. 127, -sects. 87, 88, 89. - -[555] The Spirit of Popery, pp. 44, 45. - -[556] Ductor Dubitantium, part i. book ii. chap. ii. rule 6, sect. 45. - -[557] Brown’s Translation, pp. 43, 44, 52, 59, 63, 64. - -[558] Sabbath Manual, p. 121. - -[559] Dialogue with Trypho, p. 65. - -[560] Sabbath Manual, p. 114. - -[561] Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 131, 132. - -[562] Id. p. 128. - -[563] Id. p. 130. - -[564] See his full testimony in the Testimony of the Fathers, pp. 44-52. - -[565] Against Heresies, book iv. chap. xvi. sects. 1, 2; Id. book v. -chap. xxviii. sect. 3. - -[566] Id. book iv. chap. xvi. sects. 1, 2. - -[567] Id. book v. chap. xxxiii. sect. 2. - -[568] Against Heresies, book iv. chap. xv. sect. 1; chap. xiii. sect. 4. - -[569] Bower’s History of the Popes, vol. i. pp. 18, 19; Rose’s Neander, -pp. 188-190; Dowling’s History of Romanism, book i. chap. ii. sect. 9. - -[570] History of the Popes, vol. i. p. 18. - -[571] History of Romanism, heading of page 32. - -[572] History of the Popes, vol. i. p. 18. - -[573] Id. pp. 18, 19; Giesler’s Eccl. Hist. vol. i. sect. 57. - -[574] History of the Sabbath, part ii. chap. ii. sects. 4, 5. - -[575] Boyle’s Historical View of the Council of Nice, p. 52, ed. 1842. - -[576] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. ii. sect. 5. - -[577] Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xxvii. - -[578] Id. chap. xxxviii. - -[579] Tertullian’s Apology, sect. 16. - -[580] Tertullian _Ad Nationes_, book i. chap. xiii. - -[581] History of the Sabbath, part 2, chap. ii. sect. 3. - -[582] Sermons on the Sacraments and Sabbath, p. 166. - -[583] Neander, p. 186. - -[584] Ancient Church History, part i. div. 2, A. D. 100-312, sect. 69. - -[585] Enquiry into the Constitution of the Primitive Church, part ii. -chap. vii. sect. 11. See also Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church,” -vol. i. p. 373. - -[586] Epistle of Barnabas, chap. xv. - -[587] Justin Martyr’s First Apology, chap. lxvii. - -[588] Lost Writings of Irenæus, Fragments 7 and 50. - -[589] Book of the Laws of Countries. - -[590] Tertullian’s Apology, sect. 16. - -[591] On Idolatry, chap. xiv. - -[592] Hist. Sab. part 2, chap. viii. sect. 13. - -[593] On Prayer, chap. xxiii. - -[594] De Corona, sect. 3. - -[595] Ad Nationes, book i. chap. xiii. - -[596] Canon 15. - -[597] Ante-Nicene Library, vol. xiv. p. 322. - -[598] Apostolical Constitutions, book ii. sect. 7, par. 59. - -[599] Id. book v. sect. ii. par. 10. - -[600] Id. book v. sect. iii. par. 20. - -[601] Epistle to the Magnesians (longer form), chap. ix. - -[602] Syriac Documents, p. 38. - -[603] Epistle of Barnabas, chap. xv. - -[604] Justin’s First Apology, chap. lxvii. - -[605] Id. Ib. - -[606] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. xxiv. - -[607] Id. chap. xli. - -[608] Clement’s Miscellanies, book v. chap. xiv. - -[609] _De Corona_, sect. 4. - -[610] _Origen’s Opera_, Tome ii. p. 158, Paris, A. D. 1733, “Quod si ex -Divinis Scripturis hoc constat, quod die Dominica Deus pluit manna de -cælo et in Sabbato non pluit, intelligant Judæi jam tunc prælatam esse -Dominicam nostram Judaico Sabbato.” - -[611] Cyprian’s Epistle, No. lviii. sect. 4. - -[612] Peter’s Canons, No. xv. - -[613] Apostolical Constitutions, book vii. sect. ii. par. 23. - -[614] Epistle to the Magnesians, chap. ix. - -[615] Syriac Documents, p. 38. - -[616] Id. Ib. - -[617] Id. Ib. - -[618] Id. Ib. - -[619] Fragment 7. - -[620] Tertullian on Prayer, chap. xxiii. - -[621] _De Corona_, sect. 3. - -[622] Origen against Celsus, book viii. chap. xxii. - -[623] Instructions of Commodianus, sect. 75. - -[624] Apostolical Constitutions, book v. sect. 3, par. 20. - -[625] _De Corona_, sects. 3 and 4. - -[626] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. x. - -[627] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. xi. - -[628] Id. chap. xii. - -[629] Tertullian on Idolatry, chap. xiv. - -[630] Id. Ib. - -[631] Tertullian Against the Jews, chap. iv. - -[632] Epistle of Barnabas, chap. xv. - -[633] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. xii. - -[634] Id. chap. xviii. - -[635] See the third chapter of this History. - -[636] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. xxiii. - -[637] Id. chap. xxix. - -[638] Id. chap. xi. - -[639] Lost Writings of Irenæus, Fragment 7. - -[640] Against Heresies, book iv. chap. viii. sect. 2. - -[641] Id. book iv. chap. xvi. sect. 1. - -[642] Irenæus against Heresies, book v. chap. xxxiii. sect. 2. - -[643] Id. book. v. chap. xxviii. sect. 3. - -[644] Ex. 31:17; Eze. 20:12, 20. - -[645] Isa. 66:22, 23; Dan. 7:18, 27. - -[646] Answer to the Jews, chap. ii. - -[647] Tertullian against Marcion, book iv. chap. xii. - -[648] Compare his works as follows: Answer to the Jews, chaps. ii. iii. -iv. vi.; Against Marcion, book i. chap. xx.; book v. chaps. iv. xix. with -De Anima, chap. xxxvii.; and, On Modesty, chap. v. - -[649] Isa. 1:13, 14. - -[650] Answer to the Jews, chap. iv.; Against Marcion, book iv. chap. xii. - -[651] Isa. 56:2; 58:13. - -[652] Answer to the Jews, chap. iv.; Against Marcion, book iv. chap. xii. - -[653] Against Marcion, book ii. chap. xxi. - -[654] Against Marcion, book iv. chap. xii. - -[655] De Principiis, book iv. chap. i. sect. 17. - -[656] Ex. 16:29; Lev. 23:3. - -[657] Creation of the World, sect. 4. - -[658] Id. sect. 5. - -[659] Id. Ib. - -[660] Creation of the World, sect. 5. - -[661] Irenæus Against Heresies, book iv. chap. xv. sect. 1. - -[662] Jer. 31:33; Rom. 7:21-25; 8:1-7. - -[663] Irenæus Against Heresies, book iv. chap. xvi. sect. 4. - -[664] Matt. chapters 5, 6, 7. - -[665] Theophilus to Autolycus, book ii. chap. xxvii. - -[666] Id. book iii. chap. ix. - -[667] Id. Ib. - -[668] _De Anima_, chap. xxxvii. - -[669] On Modesty, chap. v. - -[670] Recognitions of Clement, book iii. chap. lv. - -[671] Novatian on the Jewish Meats, chap. iii. - -[672] Apostolical Constitutions, book ii. sect. 4, par. 36. - -[673] Id. book vi. sect. 4, par. 19. - -[674] Epistle of Barnabas, chap. xv. - -[675] Irenæus Against Heresies, book v. chap. xxxiii. sect. 2. - -[676] _De Anima_, chap. xxxvii. - -[677] Tertullian Against Marcion, book iv. chap. xii. - -[678] Origen Against Celsus, book vi. chap. lxi. - -[679] Novatian on the Jewish Meats, chap. iii. - -[680] Divine Institutes of Lactantius, book vii. chap. xiv. - -[681] Poem on Genesis, Lines 51-53. - -[682] Apostolical Constitutions, book vii. sect. 2, par. 36. - -[683] Tertullian Against Marcion, book iv. chap. xii. - -[684] Id. Ib. - -[685] Tertullian Against Marcion, book iv, chap. xii. - -[686] Disputation with Manes, sect. 42. - -[687] Dialogue with Trypho, chap. xlvii. - -[688] Id. Ib. - -[689] Clement’s Miscellanies, book vi. chap. xvi. - -[690] Id. Ib. - -[691] Compare Clement of Alexandria, vol. ii. pp. 386-890, Ante-Nicene -library edition, or the Miscellanies of Clement, book vi. chap. xvi. with -Bohn’s edition of Philo, vol. i. pp. 3, 4, 29, 30, 31, 32, 54, 55; vol. -iii. p. 159; vol. iv. p. 452. - -[692] Bohn’s edition of Philo Judæus, vol. i. p. 4. - -[693] Tertullian on Prayer, chap. xxiii. - -[694] _Origen’s Opera_, Tome 2, p. 358, Paris, 1733, “Quæ est autem -festivitas Sabbati nisi illa dequa Apostolus dicit, ‘relinqueretur ergo -Sabbatismus,’ hoc est, Sabbati observatio, ‘populo Dei’? Relinquentes -ergo Judaicas Sabbati observationes, qualis debeat esse Christiano -Sabbati observatio, videamus. Die Sabbati nihil ex omnibus mundi actibus -oportet operari. Si ergo desinas ab omnibus sæcularibus operibus, et -nihil mundanum geras, sed spiritalibus operibus vaces, ad ecclesiam -convenias, lectionibus divinis et tractatibus aurem præbeas, et de -cœlestibus cogites, de futura spe sollicitudinem geras, venturum judicium -præ oculis habeas, non respicias ad præ sentia et visibilia, sed ad -invisibilia et futura, hæc est observatio Sabbati Christiani.”—_Origenis -in Numeras Homilia_ 23. - -[695] Epistle to the Magnesians (longer form) chap. ix. - -[696] Ancient Church, p. 212. - -[697] Historical Commentaries, cent. 1. sect. 51. - -[698] Apostolical Constitutions, book ii. sect. 4, par. 36. - -[699] Id. Ib. - -[700] Id. book vii. sect. 2, par. 23. - -[701] Id. book vii. sect. 2, par. 36. - -[702] Apostolical Constitutions, book ii, sec. 4, par. 36. - -[703] Id. book viii. sect. 4, par. 33. - -[704] Id. book vii. sect. 2, par. 36. - -[705] Victorinus says, “Let the sixth day become a rigorous fast, lest we -should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews.”—_On the Creation of -the World_, sect. 4. And Constantine says, “It becomes us to have nothing -in common with the perfidious Jews.”— _Socrates’ Eccl. Hist._ book v. -chap. xxii. - -[706] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 189. - -[707] Morality of the Fourth Commandment, p. 9, London, 1641. - -[708] 1 Cor. 5:6-8. - -[709] Eccl. Hist. vol. i. chap. ii. sect. 30. - -[710] Eccl. Hist. book i. cent. 1, part ii. chap. iv. sect. 4. Dr. -Murdock’s translation is more accurate than that above by Maclaine. -He gives it thus: “Moreover, those congregations, which either lived -intermingled with Jews, or were composed in great measure of Jews, were -accustomed also to observe the _seventh day_ of the week, as a SACRED -day: for doing which, the other Christians taxed them with no wrong.” - -[711] Id. margin. - -[712] See chap. xiv. of this History. - -[713] Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. xxvi. sect. 2. - -[714] Anc. Christ. Exem. chap. xxvi. sect. 2. - -[715] Id. Ib. - -[716] Id. Ib. - -[717] _Ductor Dubitantium_, part i. book ii. chap. ii. rule 6, sect. 51. - -[718] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 66. - -[719] A Treatise of the Sabbath Day, containing a “Defense of the -Orthodoxal Doctrine of the Church of England against Sabbatarian -Novelty,” p. 8. It was written in 1635 at the command of the king in -reply to Brabourne, a minister of the established church, whose work, -entitled “A Defense of that most Ancient and Sacred Ordinance of God’s, -the Sabbath Day,” was dedicated to the king with a request that he would -restore the Bible Sabbath! See the preface to Dr. White’s Treatise. - -[720] Dec. and Fall, chap. xv. - -[721] See chap. x. - -[722] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 67. - -[723] Treatise of the Sabbath Day, p. 8. - -[724] Antiquities of the Christian Church, book xvi. chap. vi. sect. 2. - -[725] Page 280. Cox here quotes the work, entitled “The Modern Sabbath -Examined.” - -[726] Learned Treatise of the Sabbath, p. 77, Oxford, 1631. - -[727] This edict is the original fountain of first-day authority, and -in many respects answers to the festival of Sunday, what the fourth -commandment is to the Sabbath of the Lord. The original of this edict may -be seen in the library of Harvard College, and is as follows:— - - IMP. CONSTANT. A. ELPIDIO. - - Omnes Judices, urbanæque plebes, et cunctarum artium officia - venerabili die solis quiescant. Ruri tamen positi agrorum - culturæ libere licenterque inserviant: quoniam frequenter - evenit, ut non aptius alio die frumenta sulcis, aut vineæ - scrobibus mandentur, ne occasione momenti pereat commoditas - coelesti provisione concessa. Dat. Nonis Mart. Crispo. 2 & - Constantino 2. Coss. 321. Corpus Juris Civilis Codicis lib. iii - tit. 12. 3. - -[728] Encyc. Brit. art. Sunday, seventh edition, 1842. - -[729] Encyc. Am. art. Sabbath. - -[730] Eccl. Hist. cent. iv. part ii. chap. iv. sect. 5. - -[731] Chap. xiv. - -[732] Duct. Dubitant. part i. book ii. chap. ii. rule 6, sect. 59. - -[733] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 233. - -[734] Examination of the Six Texts, p. 291. - -[735] Cox’s Sabbath Laws, &c. pp. 280, 281. He quotes The Modern Sabbath -Examined. - -[736] Hessey’s Bampton Lectures, p. 60. - -[737] History of Christianity, book iii. chap. i. - -[738] Id. book iii. chap. iv. - -[739] These dates are worthy of marked attention. See Blair’s -Chronological Tables, p. 193, ed. 1856; Rosse’s Index of Dates, p. 830. - -[740] _Imp. Constantinus A. Ad Maximum._ Si quid de Palatio Nostro, aut -ceteris operibus publicis, degustatum fulgore esse constiterit, retento -more veteris observantiae. Quid portendat, ob Haruspicibus requiratur, -et diligentissime scriptura collecta ad Nostram Scientiam referatur. -Ceteris etiam usurpandae huius consuetudinis licentia tribuenda: dummodo -sacrificiis domesticis abstineant, quae specialiter prohibita sunt. Eam -autem denunciationem adque interpretationem, quae de tactu Amphitheatri -scriba est, de qua ad Heraclianum Tribunum, et Magistrum Officiorum -scripseras, ad nos scias esse perlatum. Dat. xvi. Kal. Jan. Serdicae -Acc. viii. Id. Mart. Crispo ii. & Constantino ii. C. C. Coss. 821. Cod. -Theodos. xvi. 10, 1.—_Library of Harvard College._ - -[741] See Jortin’s Eccl. Hist. vol. i. sect. 31; Milman’s Hist. -Christianity, book iii. chap. i. - -[742] See Webster; for an ancient record of the act, see Eze. xxi. 19-22. - -[743] Historical Commentaries, cent. iv. sect. 7. - -[744] Dec. and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xx. - -[745] Marsh’s Eccl. Hist. period iii. chap. v. - -[746] Dec. and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xviii. - -[747] Sunday and the Mosaic Sabbath, p. 4, published by R. Groombridge & -Sons, London. - -[748] See chap. xviii. - -[749] Omnium vero dierum per septimanam appellationes (ut Solis, Lunae, -Martis, etc.), mutasse in ferias: ut Polydorus (li. 6, c. 5) indicat. -Mataphrastes vero, nomina dierum Hebraeis usitata retinuisse eum, -tradit; SOLIUS PRIMI DIEI APPELLATIONE MUTATA, QUEM DOMINICUM DIXIT. -Historia Ecclesiastica per M. Ludovicum Lucium, cent. iv. cap. x. pp. -739, 740, Ed. Basilea, 1624. _Library of Andover Theological Seminary._ -The Ecclesiastical History of Lucius is simply the second edition of the -famous “Magdeburg Centuries,” which was published under his supervision. - -[750] Quoted in Elliott’s Horæ Apocalypticæ, fifth edition, vol. iv. p. -603. - -[751] McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. iv. p. 506. - -[752] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iii. sect. 12. - -[753] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iii. sect. 1. - -[754] Id. Ib. - -[755] Dec. and Fall, chap. xxviii. - -[756] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iii sect. 5. - -[757] Eccl. Hist. book i. chap. iv. - -[758] Eusebius’ Commentary on the Psalms, quoted in Cox’s Sabbath -Literature, vol. i. p. 361; also in Justin Edward’s Sabbath Manual, pp. -125-127. - -[759] Id. Ib. - -[760] Id. Ib. - -[761] Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, 3, 33, quoted in Elliott’s Horæ -Apocalypticæ, vol. i. p. 256. - -[762] Cox’s Sabbath Literature, vol. i. p. 361. - -[763] Appendix to Gurney’s History, &c., of the Sabbath, pp. 115, 116. - -[764] Sermons on the Sacraments and Sabbath, pp. 122, 123. - -[765] Quod non oportet Christianos Judaizere et otiare in Sabbato, sed -operari in eodem die. Preferentes autem in veneratione Dominicum diem -si vacare voluerint, ut Christiani hoc faciat; quod si reperti fuerint -Judaizare Anathema sint a Christo. - -[766] Dissertation on the Lord’s-day Sabbath, pp. 33, 34, 44. 1633. - -[767] Sunday a Sabbath, p. 163. 1640. - -[768] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 188; Hessey’s Bampton Lectures, pp. -72, 304, 305. - -[769] Tertullian’s De Corona, sections 3 and 4. - -[770] Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 138. - -[771] Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 138. - -[772] Cyc. Bib. Lit. art. Lord’s Day; Heylyn’s Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. -ii. sect. 7. - -[773] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iii. sect. 9. - -[774] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 234; Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iii. -sect. 7. - -[775] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, pp. 236, 237. - -[776] Treatise of the Sabbath, p. 219. - -[777] Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 284. - -[778] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iv. sect. 8. - -[779] Sabbath Manual, p. 123. - -[780] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 259. - -[781] Id. p. 260. - -[782] Socrates, book v. chap. xxii. - -[783] Sozomen, book vii. chap. 19; Lardner, vol. iv. chap. lxxxv. p. 217. - -[784] 2 Thess. 2. - -[785] Dan. 7. - -[786] Shimeall’s Bible Chronology, part ii. chap. ix. sect. 5, pp. 175, -176; Croly on the Apocalypse, pp. 167-173. - -[787] Dan. 7:8, 24, 25; Rev. 13:1-5. - -[788] Rev. 12. - -[789] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iv. sect. 1. - -[790] Learned Treatise of the Sabbath, p. 73, ed. 1631. - -[791] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. ii. sect. 12. - -[792] Treatise of the Sabbath Day, p. 202. - -[793] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 13. - -[794] Id. part ii. chap. v. sect. 6. - -[795] Treatise of the Sabbath Day, pp. 217, 218. - -[796] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, pp. 263, 264. - -[797] The Lord’s Day, p. 58. - -[798] Dictionary of Chronology, p. 813, art. Sunday. - -[799] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 265. - -[800] Id. pp. 265, 266; Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. iv. sect. 7. - -[801] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 68. - -[802] Historical and Practical Discourse on the Lord’s Day, p. 174. - -[803] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 282. - -[804] Fleury, Hist. Eccl. Tome viii. Livre xxxvi. sect. 22; Heylyn’s -Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 1. Dr. Twisse, however, asserts that -the pope speaks of two classes. He gives Gregory’s words as follows: -“Relation is made unto me that certain men of a perverse spirit, have -sowed among you some corrupt doctrines contrary to our holy faith; so -as to forbid any work to be done on the Sabbath day: these men we may -well call the preachers of Antichrist.... Another report was brought -unto me; and what was that? That some perverse persons preach among you, -that on the Lord’s day none should be washed. This is clearly another -point maintained by other persons, different from the former.”—_Morality -of the Fourth Commandment_, pp. 19, 20. If Dr. Twisse is right, the -Sabbath-keepers in Rome about the year 600 were not chargeable with the -Sunday observance above mentioned. - -[805] The idea is suggested by the language of an anonymous first-day -writer of the seventeenth century, Irenæus Philalethes, in a work -entitled “_Sabbato-Dominica_,” pref. p. 11, London, 1643. - -[806] Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 267. - -[807] Id. p. 283. - -[808] Dialogues, &c. p. 268. - -[809] Id. pp. 283, 284. - -[810] Id. p. 268. - -[811] Id. p. 284. - -[812] Dialogues, &c. p. 269. - -[813] Id. p. 270. - -[814] Id. p. 271. - -[815] Dialogues, &c. p. 271; Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 7. - -[816] Dialogues, &c. p. 272. - -[817] Dialogue, &c. p. 261. - -[818] Ex. 20:8-11; Deut. 33:2. - -[819] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 7; Morer, p. 272. - -[820] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 7; Morer, p. 272. - -[821] Dialogues, &c. pp. 261, 262. - -[822] Id. pp. 284, 285. - -[823] Dialogues, &c. p. 274. - -[824] Id. p. 285. - -[825] Id. p. 286. - -[826] Id. Ib. - -[827] Id. pp. 286, 287. - -[828] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 2. - -[829] Dialogues, &c. p. 274. - -[830] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 2. - -[831] Dialogues, &c. p. 68. - -[832] Binius, vol. iii. p. 1285, ed. 1606. - -[833] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. v. sect. 13. - -[834] Morer, p. 288; Heylyn, part 2. chap. vii. sect. 6. - -[835] Roger de Hoveden’s Annals, Bohn’s ed. vol. ii. p. 487. - -[836] Id. Ib. - -[837] Hoveden, vol. ii. pp. 526-528. - -[838] See Matthew Paris’s Historia Major, pp. 200, 201, ed. 1640; Binius’ -Councils, ad ann. 1201, vol. iii. pp. 1448, 1449; Wilkins’ Concilia -Magnæ Britaniæ et Hibernæ, vol. i. pp. 510, 511, London, 1737; Sir David -Dalrymple’s Historical Memorials, pp. 7, 8, ed. 1769; Heylyn’s History -of the Sabbath, part ii. chap. vii. sect. 5; Morer’s Lord’s Day, pp. -288-290; Hessey’s Sunday pp. 90, 321; Gilfillan’s Sabbath, p. 399. - -[839] Maclaine’s Mosheim, cent. xiii. part ii. chap. i. sect. 5. - -[840] Murdock’s Mosheim, cent. xiii. part ii. chap. i. sect. 5, note 19. - -[841] Matthew Paris’s Historia Major, p. 201. His words are: “Cum autem -Patriarcha et clerus omnis Terræ sanctæ, hunc epistolæ tenorem diligenter -examinassent; communi omnium deliberatione decretum est, ut epistola -ad judicium Romani Pontificis transmitteretur; quatenus, quicquid ipse -agendum decrevit, placæt universis. Cumque tandem epistola ad domini -Papæ notitiam pervenisset, continuo prædicatores ordinavit; qui per -diversas mundi partes profecti, prædicaverunt ubique epistolæ tenerem; -Domino cooperante et sermonem eorum confirmante, sequentibus signis. -Inter quos Abbos de Flai nomine Eustachius, vir religiosus et literali -scientia eruditis, regnum Angliæ aggressus: multis ibidem miraculis -corruscavit.”—_Library of Harvard College._ - -[842] History of the Popes, vol. ii. p. 535. - -[843] M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. iv. p. 590. - -[844] Id. vol. iv. p. 592. - -[845] See page 274 of this work. - -[846] Hoveden, vol. ii. p. 528. - -[847] Hoveden, vol. ii. p. 528. - -[848] Id. p. 529. - -[849] Hoveden, vol. ii. pp. 529, 530. - -[850] Id. Ib. - -[851] Dialogues, &c. p. 290. - -[852] Gilfillan’s Sabbath, p. 399. - -[853] Binius’s Councils, vol. iii. pp. 1448, 1449; Heylyn, part ii. chap. -vii. sect. 7. - -[854] Heylyn, part ii. chap. vii. sect. 7. - -[855] Dialogues, &c. pp. 290, 291. - -[856] Id. p. 291. - -[857] Id. p. 275. - -[858] Id. Ib. - -[859] Id. pp. 293, 294. - -[860] Id. p. 279. - -[861] Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:9. - -[862] Morer, p. 280. - -[863] Id. pp. 281, 282. - -[864] Mr. Croly says: “With the title of ‘Universal Bishop,’ the power of -the papacy, and the Dark Ages, alike began.”—_Croly on the Apocalypse_, -p. 173. - -[865] M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. iv. p. 591. - -[866] History of the Baptist Denomination, p. 50, ed. 1849. - -[867] Dan. 8:12. - -[868] Ps. 119:142, 151. - -[869] See chap. xx. of this work. - -[870] M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. ii. pp. 600, 601; -D’Aubigné’s History of the Reformation, book xvii. - -[871] M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. ii. p. 601. - -[872] Id. Ib. - -[873] Id. Ib. - -[874] Butler’s Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and principal Saints, -article, St. Columba, A. D. 597. - -[875] The Monks of the West, vol. ii. p. 104. - -[876] Gilfillan’s Sabbath, p. 389. - -[877] Id. pp. 32, 33. - -[878] Waddington’s History of the Church, part iv. chap. xviii. - -[879] Jones’s History of the Church, vol. ii. chap. v. sect. 1. - -[880] Jortin’s Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. sect. 38. - -[881] Edward’s Hist. of Redemption, period iii. part iv. sect. 2. - -[882] Hist. Bapt. Denom. p. 33. - -[883] Id. p. 31. - -[884] Variations of Popery, p. 52. - -[885] Eccl. Hist. of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, p. 167. - -[886] History of the English Baptists, vol. i. pref. p. 35. - -[887] Mr. Jones, in his “Church History,” vol. i. chap. iii., note at the -end of the chapter, explains this charge as follows: “But this calumny -is easily accounted for. The advocates of popery, to support their -usurpations and innovations in the kingdom of Christ, were driven to the -Old Testament for authority, adducing the kingdom of David for their -example. And when their adversaries rebutted the argument, insisting that -the parallel did not hold, for that the kingdom of Christ, which is not -of this world, is a very different state of things from the kingdom of -David, their opponents accused them of giving up the divine authority of -the Old Testament.” - -[888] Eccl. Hist. Ancient Churches of Piedmont, pp. 231, 236, 237. - -[889] Id. pp. 175-177. - -[890] Id. p. 209. - -[891] Hist. Church, chap. v. sect. 1. - -[892] Gen. Hist. Bapt. Denom. vol. ii. p. 413, ed. 1813. - -[893] Ecclesiastical Researches, chap. x. pp. 303, 304. - -[894] Jones’s Hist. Church, vol. ii. chap. v. sect. 1. - -[895] General Hist. Baptist Denom. vol. ii. p. 413. - -[896] Circumcisi forsan illi fuerint, qui aliis Insabbatati, non quod -circumciderentur, inquit Calvinista [Goldastus] sed quod in Sabbato -judaizarent.—_Eccl. Researches_, chap. x. p. 303. - -[897] Thomas’ Dictionary of Biography and Mythology, article Goldast. - -[898] D’Aubigné’s Reformation in the time of Calvin, vol. iii. p. 456. - -[899] Nec quod in Sabbato colendo Judaizarent, ut MULTI PUTABANT, sed a -zapata.—_Eccl. Researches_, chap. x. p. 304; _Usher’s De Christianar. -Eccl. success. et stat._ cap. 7. - -[900] Jones’s Church History, vol. ii. chap. v. sect. 2. - -[901] Reformation in the time of Calvin, vol. iii. p. 249. - -[902] Id. pp. 250, 251. - -[903] Reformation in the time of Calvin, vol. i. p. 349; D’Aubigné cites -as his authority, “_Histoire des Protestants de Picardie_” by L. Rossier, -p. 2. - -[904] Jones’s Church History, vol. ii. chap. v. sect. 4. - -[905] History of the Vaudois by Bresse, p. 126. - -[906] Benedict’s Hist. Bapt. p. 41. - -[907] Hist. Church, chap. iv. sect. 3. - -[908] Eccl. Hist. of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, pp. 168, -169, Boston, Pub. Lib. The author, Rev. Peter Allix, D. D., was a -French Protestant, born in 1641, and was distinguished for piety and -erudition.—_Lempriere’s Universal Biography._ - -[909] Id. p. 170. - -[910] Horæ Apocalypticæ, vol. ii. p. 291. - -[911] Eccl. Researches, chap. x. pp. 305, 306. - -[912] Horæ Apocalypticæ, vol. ii. p. 342. - -[913] Eccl. Hist. cent. xii. part ii. chap. v. sect. 14. - -[914] General Hist. Bapt. Denom. vol. ii. p. 414, ed. 1813. - -[915] Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Diamper, p. 158, London 1694. - -[916] Eccl. Hist. of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, p. 224. - -[917] Id. p. 225. - -[918] Hist. of the Church, chap. iv. sect. 3. - -[919] Treatise of the Sabbath day, p. 8. - -[920] Eccl. Hist. of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, p. 162. - -[921] History of the Sabbath, part ii. chap. v. sect. 1. - -[922] Bower says of Gregory: “He was a man of most extraordinary -parts, of an unbounded ambition, of a haughty and imperious temper, -of resolution and courage incapable of yielding to the greatest -difficulties, _perfectly acquainted with the state of the western -churches_, as well as with the different interests of the Christian -princes.”—_History of the Popes_, vol. ii. p. 378. - -[923] History of the Popes, vol. ii. p. 358. - -[924] Theological Dict. art. Anabaptists. - -[925] Hist. Church, vol. i. pp. 183, 184. - -[926] Treatise of the Sabbath day, p. 132. He cites Hist. Anabapt. lib. -6, p. 153. - -[927] The Rise, Spring, and Foundation of the Anabaptists or Rebaptized -of our Times. By Guy de Brez, A. D. 1565. - -[928] Acts 8:26-40. - -[929] M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia, vol. i. p. 40. - -[930] Dec. and Fall, chap. xlvii. - -[931] Maxson’s Hist. Sab. p. 33, ed. 1844. - -[932] Church Hist. of Ethiopia, p. 31. - -[933] Id. p. 96; Gibbon, chap. xv. note 25; chap. xlvii. note 160. -M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. i. p. 40. - -[934] Church Hist. Ethiopia, pp. 34, 35; Purchas’s Pilgrimage, book ii. -chap. v. - -[935] Ch. Hist. Eth. pp. 87, 88. - -[936] Id. Ib. - -[937] Gibbon, chap. xlvii. - -[938] Ch. Hist. Eth. pp. 311, 312; Gobat’s Abyssinia, pp. 83, 93. - -[939] Gibbon, chap. xlvii. - -[940] Continental India, vol. ii. p. 120. - -[941] Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Diamper, preface. - -[942] Continental India, vol. ii. pp. 116, 117. - -[943] East Indian Church History, pp. 133, 134. - -[944] Id. pp. 139, 140. - -[945] Buchanan’s Christian Researches in Asia, pp. 159, 160. - -[946] Purchas His Pilgrimes, part ii. book viii. chap. vi. sect. 5, p. -1269, London, 1625. The “Encyclopedia Britannica,” vol. viii. p. 695, -eighth ed., speaks of Purchas as “an Englishman admirably skilled in -language and human and divine arts, a very great philosopher, historian, -and theologian.” - -[947] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. vi. sects. 3, 5. - -[948] Cox’s Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 287. - -[949] Id. Ib. - -[950] Cox’s Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 287. - -[951] Id. p. 286. - -[952] Id. Ib. - -[953] Id. p. 289. - -[954] Tyndale’s Answer to More, book i. chap. xxv. - -[955] Hessey, p. 352. - -[956] Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, book ii. chap. viii. -sect. 34, translated by John Allen. - -[957] Quanquam non sine delectu Dominicum quem vocamus diem veteres in -locum Sabbathi subrogarunt. - -[958] Calvin’s Institutes, book ii. chap. viii. sect. 34. - -[959] Calvin’s Harmony of the Evangelists on Matt. 28; Mark 16; Luke 24. - -[960] Calvin’s Commentary on John 20. - -[961] Calvin’s Commentary on Acts 2:1. - -[962] Calvin’s Commentary on Acts 20:7. - -[963] Id. Ib. - -[964] Calvin’s Commentary on Acts 20:7. - -[965] Calvin’s Commentary on 1 Cor. 16:2. - -[966] Id. Ib. - -[967] Calvin’s Institutes, book ii. chap. viii. sect. 34. - -[968] Hessey’s Bampton Lectures on Sunday, p. 201, ed. 1866. In the notes -appended, p. 366, he says: “At Geneva a tradition exists, that when John -Knox visited Calvin on a Sunday, he found his austere coadjutor bowling -on a green.” Dr. Hessey evidently credited this tradition. - -[969] Beza’s Life of Calvin, Sibson’s Translation, p. 55, ed. 1836. - -[970] Id. p. 115. - -[971] Eccl. Researches, chap. x. p. 338. - -[972] Id. p. 339. - -[973] Beza’s Life of Calvin, p. 168. - -[974] M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. i. p. 663. - -[975] Hessey, p. 341, gives a clue to the title of Barclay’s work. It was -Parænesis ad Sectarios hujus temporis, lib. 1, cap. 13, p. 160, Rome, -1617. - -[976] See Heylyn’s Hist. of the Sabbath, part ii. chapter vi. sect. -8; Morer’s Lord’s Day, pp. 216, 217, 228; An Inquiry into the Origin -of Septenary Institutions, p. 55; The Modern Sabbath Examined, p. 26, -Whitaker, Treacher, and Arnot, London, 1832; Cox’s Sabbath Literature, -vol. i. pp. 165, 166; Hessey, pp. 141, 142, 198, 341, and the authors -there cited. - -[977] Morality of the Fourth Commandment, pp. 32, 36, 39, 40. - -[978] In fact, the story told by Twisse that Barclay is not to be -believed in what he says of Calvin because he was treacherous toward -King James I., who for that reason would not promote him at his court, -appears to be wholly unfounded. The Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. iv., p. -439, eighth edition, assigns a very different reason. It says: “In those -days a pension bestowed upon a Scottish papist would have been numbered -among the national grievances.” That is to say, public opinion would -not then tolerate the promotion of a Romanist. But this writer believes -that the king secretly favored Barclay. Thus on page 440 he adds: -“Although it does not appear that he obtained any regular provision from -the king, we may perhaps suppose that he at least received occasional -gratuities.” This writer knew nothing of Barclay as a detected spy at -the king’s court. Of his standing as a man, he says on p. 441: “If there -had been any remarkable blemish in the morals of Barclay, some of his -numerous adversaries would have pointed it out.” M’Clintock and Strong’s -Cyclopedia, vol. 1, p. 663, says that he “would doubtless have succeeded -at court had he not been a Romanist.” See also Knight’s Cyclopedia of -Biography, article Barclay. - -[979] Cox’s Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 123; M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, -vol. v. pp. 137-140. - -[980] Quoted in Hessey’s Bampton Lectures, p. 200. - -[981] Id. p. 201. - -[982] Westminster Review, July, 1858, p. 37. - -[983] Westminster Review, July, 1858, p. 37. - -[984] Hessey, p. 203. - -[985] Dr. Priestly, as quoted in Cox’s “Sabbath Laws,” p. 260. - -[986] Life of Luther by Barnas Sears, D. D., larger ed. pp. 400, 401. - -[987] M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. ii. p. 123. - -[988] Id. Ib. - -[989] D’Aubigné’s Hist. of the Ref. book ix. - -[990] Mosheim’s Church Hist. book iv. cent. xvi. sect. 3, part ii. -paragraph 22, note. - -[991] Life of Luther, p. 401. - -[992] D’Aubigné’s Hist. Ref. book ix. p. 282. I use the excellent -one-volume edition of Porter and Coates. - -[993] Life of Luther, pp. 402, 403. - -[994] Id. pp. 401, 402. - -[995] Mosheim’s Hist. of the Church, book iv. cent. xvi. sect. 3, part -ii. paragraph 22, note. - -[996] Life of Luther, p. 402. - -[997] D’Aubigné’s Hist. of Ref. book x. p. 312. - -[998] Life of Luther, p. 403. - -[999] D’Aubigné’s Hist. Ref. book x. pp. 314, 315. - -[1000] Id. Ib. - -[1001] M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. ii. p. 123. - -[1002] Id. Ib. - -[1003] Life of Luther, p. 400. - -[1004] D’Aubigné’s Hist. Ref. book x. p. 312. - -[1005] Id. book x. p. 315. - -[1006] Hist. Ref. book x. p. 315. - -[1007] Life of Luther, p. 403. - -[1008] Mosheim’s Church Hist. book iv. cent. 16, sect. 3, part ii. -paragraph 22, note. - -[1009] Id. Ib. Very nearly the same statement is made by Du Pin, tome 13, -chap. ii. section 20, p. 103, A. D. 1703. - -[1010] Hist. Ref. book x. p. 315. - -[1011] Treatise of the Sabbath Day, p. 8. - -[1012] Life of Luther, p. 402. - -[1013] Quoted in the Life of Martin Luther in Pictures, p. 147, -Philadelphia, J. W. Moore, 195 Chestnut street. - -[1014] M’Clintock and Strong, vol. ii. p. 123; Dr. A. Clarke’s -Commentary, preface to James. - -[1015] M’Clintock and Strong, vol. iii. p. 679; D’Aubigné’s Hist. Ref. -book xviii. pp. 672, 689, 706, 707; book xx. pp. 765, 766; Fox’s Acts and -Monuments, book viii. pp. 524-527. - -[1016] Frith’s works, p. 69, quoted in Hessey, p. 198. - -[1017] Eccl. Researches, chap. xvi. p. 630. - -[1018] Id. Ib. - -[1019] Id. p. 631. - -[1020] Eccl. Researches, chap. xvi. p. 636. - -[1021] Id. pp. 636, 637. - -[1022] Eccl. Researches, chap. xvi. p. 640. - -[1023] Mosheim’s Hist. Church, book iv. cent. 16, sect. 3, part ii. chap. -iv. par. 23. - -[1024] Lamy’s History of Socinianism, p. 60. - -[1025] “Nunc audimus apud Bohemos exoriri novum Judæorum genus, -Sabbatarios appellant, qui tanta superstitione servant Sabbatum, ut si -quid eo die inciderit in oculum, nolint eximere; quasi non sufficiat -eis pro Sabbato Dies Dominicus, qui Apostolis etiam erat sacer, aut -quasi Christus non satis expresserit quantum tribuen dum sit Sabbato.” -De Amabili Ecclesiæ Concordia; Opera, tome 5, p. 506, Lugd. Bat. 1704; -quoted in Cox’s Sabbath Literature, vol. ii. pp. 201, 202; Hessey, p. 374. - -[1026] Cox, vol. ii. p. 202. - -[1027] Such statements respecting the observers of the seventh day -are very common. Even those who first commenced to keep the Sabbath -in Newport were said to “have left Christ and gone to Moses in the -observation of days, and times, and seasons, and such like.”—_Seventh-day -Baptist Memorial_, vol. i. p. 32. The pastor of the first-day Baptist -church of Newport said to them: “I do judge you have and still do deny -Christ.”—_Id._ p. 37. - -[1028] The Present State of the Greek Church in Russia, Appendix. p. 273, -New York, 1815. - -[1029] Murdock’s Mosheim, book iv. cent. xvii. sect. 2, part i. chap. ii. -note 12. - -[1030] See the twenty-first chapter of this work. - -[1031] Id. Ib. - -[1032] Maxson’s Hist. Sab. p. 41. - -[1033] Manual of the Seventh-day Baptists, p. 16. - -[1034] Martyrology of the Churches of Christ, commonly called Baptists, -during the era of the Reformation. From the Dutch of T. J. Van Braght, -London, 1850, vol. i. pp. 113, 114. - -[1035] Id. p. 113. - -[1036] Manual of the S. D. Baptists, p. 16. - -[1037] Wall’s History of Infant Baptism, vol. ii. p. 379, Oxford, 1835. - -[1038] I know of no exception to this statement. If there be any it must -be found in the cases of those observing both seventh and first days. -Even here, there is certainly no such thing as sprinkling for baptism, -but possibly there may be the baptism of young children. - -[1039] Hist. English Baptists, vol. ii. pref. pp. 43, 44. - -[1040] Maxson’s Hist. Sab. p. 42. - -[1041] Gen. Hist. Bapt. Denom. vol. ii. p. 414, ed. 1813. - -[1042] Hengstenberg’s Lord’s Day, p. 66. - -[1043] Coleman’s Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. xxvi. sect. 2; -Heylyn’s Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. viii. sect. 7; Neal’s Hist. Puritans, -part i. chap. viii. - -[1044] Sabbathum Veteris et Novi Testamenti; or, the True Doctrine of the -Sabbath, by Nicholas Bound, D. D., sec. ed. London, 1606, p. 51. - -[1045] Id. p. 66. - -[1046] True Doc. of the Sab. p. 71. - -[1047] Id. p. 72. - -[1048] Hist. Sab. part ii. chap. viii. sect. 8. - -[1049] Prælectiones Theologicæ, vol. i. part ii. sect. 2, cap. i. p. -194. “Propositio. Præter sacram Scripturam admitti necessario debent -Traditiones divinæ dogmaticæ ab illa prorsus distinctæ.” - -“Non posse praeterea, rejectis ejusmodi traditionibus, plura dogmata, quæ -nobiscum retinuerunt protestantes cum ab Ecclesia catholica recesserunt, -ullo modo adstruis, res est citra omnis dubitationis aleam posita. Etenim -ipsi nobiscum retinuerunt valorem baptismi ab haereticis aut infidelibus -administrati, valorem item paedobaptismi, germanam baptismi formam, -cessationem legis de abstinentia a sanguine et suffocato, de die dominico -Sabbatis suffecto, praeter ea quæ superius commemoravimus aliaque haud -pauca.” - -[1050] Backus’ Hist. of the Baptists in New England, p. 63, ed. 1777. - -[1051] Chambers’ Cyclopedia, article, Sabbath, vol. viii. p. 402, London, -1867. - -[1052] Gilfillan’s Sabbath, p. 60. - -[1053] Observation of the Christian Sabbath, p. 2. - -[1054] See the fifteenth chapter of this work. - -[1055] Gilfillan’s Sabbath, p. 88. - -[1056] Id. Ib. - -[1057] Pagitt’s Heresiography, p. 209, London, 1661. - -[1058] Pagitt’s Heresiography, p. 209. - -[1059] Id. p. 210. - -[1060] Id. p. 164. - -[1061] Pagitt’s Heresiography, pp. 196, 197. - -[1062] Id. p. 161. - -[1063] Manual of the Seventh-day Baptists, pp. 17, 18; Heylyn’s Hist. of -the Sab. part ii. chap. viii. sect. 10; Gilfillan’s Sabbath, pp. 88, 89; -Cox’s Sabbath Literature, vol. i. pp. 152, 153. - -[1064] Manual of the S. D. Baptists, p. 18. - -[1065] Dr. Francis White’s Treatise of the Sabbath Day, quoted in Cox’s -Sab. Lit. vol. i. p. 167. - -[1066] Heylyn’s Cyprianus Anglicus, quoted in Cox, vol. i. p. 173. - -[1067] Treatise of the Sabbath Day, p. 110. - -[1068] Hessey’s Bampton Lectures, pp. 373, 374; Cox’s Sab. Lit. vol. ii. -p. 6; A. H. Lewis’s Sabbath and Sunday, pp. 178-184. This work contains -much valuable information respecting English and American Sabbatarians. - -[1069] Treatise of the Sabbath Day, p. 73. - -[1070] Manual of the S. D. Baptists, pp. 19, 20. - -[1071] Cox, vol. i. p. 268; vol. ii. p. 10. - -[1072] Id. vol. ii. p. 35. - -[1073] Hist. English Baptists, vol. i. pp. 365, 366. - -[1074] Hist. Puritans, part 2. chap. x. - -[1075] Crosby’s Hist. Eng. Baptists, vol. i. pp. 366, 367. - -[1076] Hist. Puritans, part 2, chap. x. - -[1077] Calamy’s Ejected Ministers, vol. ii. pp. 258, 259; Lewis’ Sabbath -and Sunday, pp. 188-193. - -[1078] Wood’s Athenæ Oxonienses, vol. iv. p. 123. - -[1079] Crosby, vol. i. p. 367. - -[1080] Ex. 16:23; Gen. 2:3. - -[1081] Judgment for the Observation of the Jewish or Seventh-day Sabbath, -pp. 6-8, 1672. - -[1082] Calamy, vol. 2, p. 260. - -[1083] Crosby, vol. 2, pp. 165-171. - -[1084] When asked what he had to say why sentence should not be -pronounced, he said he would leave with them these scriptures: Jer. -26:14, 15; Ps. 116:15. - -[1085] Manual, &c. pp. 21-23. - -[1086] Crosby’s Hist. Eng. Bapt. vol. iii. pp. 138, 139. - -[1087] “When the London Seventh-day Baptists, in 1664, sent Stephen -Mumford to America, and in 1675 sent Eld. William Gibson, they did as -much, in proportion to their ability, as had been done by any society for -propagating the gospel in foreign parts.”—_Seventh-day Baptist Memorial_, -vol. i. p. 43. - -[1088] Ch. Hist. of N. England from 1783 to 1796, chap. xi. sect. 10. - -[1089] Hist. of the S. D. Bapt. Gen. Conf. by Jas. Bailey, pp. 237, 238. - -[1090] Seventh-day Baptist Memorial, vol. i. pp. 27, 28, 29. - -[1091] Records of the First Baptist Church in Newport, quoted in the S. -D. Baptist Memorial, vol. i. pp. 28-39. - -[1092] Bailey’s Hist. pp. 9, 10. - -[1093] Id. p. 237. - -[1094] Id. p. 238. - -[1095] Manual of the S. D. Baptists, pp. 39, 40; Backus, chap. xi. sect. -10. - -[1096] Hist. S. D. Baptist Gen. Conf. pp. 15, 238. - -[1097] Id. pp. 46-55. - -[1098] Id. pp. 57, 58, 62, 74, 82. - -[1099] Sabbath and Sunday, p. 232. - -[1100] Much interesting matter pertaining to the Seventh-day Baptists of -America may be found in Utter’s Manual of the S. D. Baptists; Bailey’s -Hist. of the S. D. Bapt. Gen. Conf.; Lewis’s Sabbath and Sunday, and in -the S. D. B. Memorial. - -[1101] Rupp’s History of all Religious Denominations in the United -States, pp. 109-123, second edition; Bailey’s Hist. Gen. Conf. pp. -255-258. - -[1102] New York _Independent_, March 18, 1869. - -[1103] _Semi-Weekly Tribune_, May 4, 1869. - -[1104] This sister was born at Vernon, Vt. Her maiden name was Rachel D. -Harris. At the age of seventeen, she was converted and soon after joined -the Methodist church. After her marriage, she removed with her husband -to central New York. There, at the age of twenty-eight, she became an -observer of the Bible Sabbath. The Methodist minister, her pastor, did -what he could to turn her from the Sabbath, but finally told her she -might keep it if she would not leave them. But she was faithful to her -convictions of duty and united with the first Seventh-day Baptist church -of Verona, Oneida Co., N. Y. Her first husband bore the name of Oaks; her -second, that of Preston. She and her daughter, Delight Oaks, were members -of the first Verona church at the time of their removal to Washington, N. -H. The mother died Feb. 1, 1868; the daughter, several years earlier. - -[1105] Eld. Preble’s article appeared in the _Hope of Israel_ of Feb. -28, 1845, published at Portland, Maine. This article was reprinted in -the _Advent Review_ of Aug. 23, 1870. The article, as rewritten by Eld. -Preble and published in tract form, was also printed in the _Review_ of -Dec. 21, 1869. - -[1106] He fell asleep March 19, 1872, in the eightieth year of his age. - -[1107] For a further knowledge of their views, see their weekly paper, -the _Advent Review and Herald of the Sabbath_, published at Battle Creek, -Michigan, at $2.00 per year, and the list of publications advertised in -its columns. - -[1108] Rev. 12:17; 14:12. - -[1109] Rev. 19:10. - -[1110] Rev. 4:10, 11. - -[1111] 2 Pet. 3; Isa. 65; Rev. 21, 22. Milton thus states this doctrine:— - - “The world shall burn, and from her ashes spring - New heaven and earth, wherein the just shall dwell, - And after all their tribulation long, - See golden days, fruitful of golden deeds, - With joy and love triumphing, and fair truth.” - - —_Paradise Lost_, book iii, lines 334-338. - - “So shall the world go on, - To good malignant, to bad men benign; - Under her own weight, groaning; till the day - Appear of respiration to the just, - And vengeance to the wicked, at return - Of Him so lately promised to thy aid, - The woman’s seed; obscurely then foretold, - Now ampler known thy Saviour and thy Lord: - Last, in the clouds, from heaven to be revealed - In glory of the Father, to dissolve - Satan with his perverted world; then raise - From the conflagrant mass, purged and refined, - New heaven, new earth, ages of endless date, - Founded in righteousness, and peace, and love; - To bring forth fruits, joy, and eternal bliss.” - - —_Id._ book xii, lines 537-551. - -[1112] Dan. 7:9, 10, 13, 14, 17-27; Ps. 2:7-9; 37:9-11, 18-22, 34; Mal. -4:1-3. - -[1113] Isa. 66:22, 23. - -[1114] Heb. 4:9. The margin renders it “a keeping of a Sabbath.” Liddell -and Scott define _Sabbatismos_ “a keeping of the Sabbath.” They give no -other definition, but derive it from the verb _Sabbatizo_, which they -define by these words only, “to keep the Sabbath.” Schrevelius defines -_Sabbatismos_ by this one phrase: “Observance of the Sabbath.” He also -derives it from _Sabbatizo_. _Sabbatismos_ is therefore the noun in Greek -which signifies the _act of Sabbath-keeping_, while _Sabbatizo_, from -which it is derived, is the verb which expresses that act. - -[1115] See the Lexicons of Liddell and Scott, Schrevelius, and Greenfield. - -[1116] Rev. 22:1, 2. - - - - -INDEX OF AUTHORS QUOTED. - - - Abyssinian Ambassador, 425. - - Acta Martyrum, 244, 253. - - _Advent Review_, 502, 507. - - Allix, Dr., 406, 407, 415, 416, 418, 420. - - Anatolius, 227. - - Andrews, Dr., 244, 246, 248. - - Aquensis, 69. - - Archelaus, 316. - - Augsburg Confession, 434. - - Augustine, 71, 247, 365. - - - Bardesanes, 219, 284. - - Barnabas, 218, 231, 232, 235, 242, 284, 289, 299, 300, 301, 312, 313. - - Backus, 478, 494, 496. - - Bailey, James, 494, 496, 497, 499. - - Bampfield, Francis, 489. - - Barclay, 441, 442, 443. - - Baronius, 250, 253-257. - - Barrett, 29. - - Baxter, 38, 362, 363. - - Benedict, 399, 405, 408, 409, 410, 415, 418, 469, 470. - - Beza, 435, 441. - - Beza’s Translation, 177. - - Bible Dictionary of Am. Tract Society, 211, 212. - - Bingham, 228, 340. - - Binius, 384, 388, 394. - - Bliss, Sylvester, 9, 31. - - Bloomfield, 126, 168, 176, 189. - - Boehmer, 237. - - Bound, Nicholas, 19, 71, 472-475. - - Bower, 198, 274, 275, 390, 420, 421. - - Boyle, 275. - - Brabourne, 339, 484. - - Brerewood, 341, 370. - - Bresse, 414. - - Brez, Guy de, 423. - - Bucer, 435. - - Buchanan, 430, 431. - - Buck, 20, 236, 423. - - Butler, Alvan, 402. - - - Calmet, 20, 108. - - Calvin, 10, 74, 239, 436-443. - - Carlstadt, 447-459. - - Chafie, 261, 262. - - Chambers, 479, 480. - - Chrysostom, 363. - - Clarke, Adam, 10, 14, 38, 52, 55, 68, 69, 96, 103, 109, 200, 237, - 260, 458. - - Clement of Alexandria, 219, 220, 221, 222, 290, 299, 318-322. - - Clement of Rome, 311. - - Coleman, Dr., 31. - - Coleman, Lyman, 235, 236, 335-337, 472-474. - - Columba, St., 402. - - Commodianus, 296. - - Constantine, 264, 275, 329, 342, 346, 347. - - Constitutions, Apostolical, 287, 288, 292, 296, 312, 315, 326-329. - - Cox, 340, 344, 357, 359, 362, 363, 365, 368, 434, 435, 442, 444, - 445, 446, 464, 483, 484, 485, 487. - - Cranmer, 435. - - Crozier, 135. - - Croly, 369, 398. - - Crosby, 406, 469, 487-489, 492. - - Cumming, Dr., 199, 200. - - Cyprian, 248, 291. - - - D’Aubigné, 401, 410, 412, 413, 449, 450, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 460. - - Davidis, 461. - - Dictionary of Chronology, 373. - - Dionysius, 214. - - Domville, Sir Wm., 234, 239, 241, 242, 245, 246, 247, 248, 251, 266, - 271, 272, 344. - - Douay Translation, 38, 39, 176, 177, 202. - - Dowling, 196, 199, 274. - - Du Pin, 266, 456. - - - Edgar, Dr., 405. - - Edwards, Justin, 112, 113, 114, 126, 177, 212, 216, 244, 271, 357, - 366. - - Edwards, President, 138, 404, 405. - - Elliot, 351, 357, 416, 417. - - Encyclopedia Americana, 342. - - Encyclopedia Britannica, 190, 342, 432, 442, 443. - - Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 234. - - Eusebius, 133, 214, 216, 227, 234, 355, 357, 359. - - Erasmus, 463, 464. - - - Family Testament, 126. - - Fleury, 374. - - Fox, 460. - - Frith, 459, 460. - - - Geddes, 418, 424, 425, 426, 428. - - Gerendi, John, 463. - - Gesenius, 17. - - Gesner, 248. - - Gibbon, 194, 276, 339, 348, 354, 424, 425, 426. - - Giesler, 275, 334. - - Gilfillan, 250, 388, 394, 402, 403, 480, 481, 483. - - Gill, 10, 70, 71, 260. - - Gobat, 426. - - Goldastus, 410. - - Greenfield, 512. - - Gregory of Nyssa, 361. - - Gregory of Tours, 374. - - Gregory the Great, 374. - - Gregory VII., 420. - - Gretser, 410. - - Grotius, 128, 129. - - Guericke, 326. - - Gurney, 242, 244, 248, 360. - - - Hacket, 150, 168, 178, 181, 233. - - Hales, Dr., 31. - - Hase, Dr., 281. - - Hengstenberg, 74, 100, 372, 471, 472. - - Hessey, 345, 362, 388, 435, 436, 440, 442, 444, 445, 460, 464, 485. - - Heylyn, 265, 266, 275, 276, 280, 285, 352, 353, 354, 363, 364, 366, - 370, 371, 374, 379, 380, 381, 383, 384, 385, 388, 394, 420, - 433, 434, 442, 474, 476, 483, 485. - - Hope of Israel, 502. - - Hoveden, Roger de, 385-388, 391-393. - - Hudson, 239. - - - Ignatius, 211, 231, 237, 238, 240, 241, 242, 288, 292, 293, 324-326. - - Irenæus, 216, 218, 271, 273, 274, 284, 295, 304, 305, 309, 310, 313. - - - James, William, 280, 360. - - Jennings, 260. - - Jerome, 364. - - Jones, 404, 406, 408, 409, 411, 414, 415, 418, 419. - - Jortin, 347, 362, 404. - - Josephus, 27, 34, 110, 112, 133, 136. - - Justin Martyr, 212, 218, 263, 267, 270, 271, 284, 289, 296, 297, 301, - 302, 303, 304, 316, 317, 318. - - - Killen, Dr., 233, 238, 239. - - King, Lord, 281. - - Kitto, 181, 222, 233, 234, 240, 241, 363. - - Knox, 440, 443, 444. - - - Lactantius, 314. - - Lange, 19. - - Lamy, 463. - - Lardner, 367. - - Lempriere, 416. - - Leo, Pope, 366. - - Lewis, A. H., 485, 488, 497, 499. - - Ley, John, 361. - - Liddell and Scott, 512. - - Life of Luther in Pictures, 457. - - Lucius, 247, 350. - - Luther, 17, 434, 447-459. - - - Maclaine, 449, 451, 452, 455, 456. - - Magdeburg Centuriators, 350. - - Marsh, 348. - - Marsh, Joseph, 135. - - Mather, Cotton, 100, 478. - - Massie, 427, 428. - - Maxson, W. B., 424, 467, 469. - - M’Clintock and Strong, 228, 251, 260, 351, 391, 399, 400, 401, 424, - 425, 441, 443, 444, 448, 454, 458, 460. - - Melancthon, 434. - - Melito, 215, 216. - - Memorial, S. D. B., 465, 493-496, 499. - - Metaphrastes, 350. - - Miller, Wm., 45, 87, 135. - - Milman, 346, 347. - - Milner, 233, 266. - - Milton, 511. - - Modern Sabbath Examined, Anonymous, 197, 340, 344, 345, 442. - - Monks of the West, 402. - - Morality of the Fourth Commandment, Anon., 14, 15. - - Morer, 139, 189, 241, 262, 263, 333, 338, 339, 344, 362, 364, 365, - 366, 372, 373, 374, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, - 384, 385, 388, 393-397, 442. - - Mosheim, 227, 229, 231, 232, 233, 235, 237, 242, 249, 264, 265, 326, - 334, 335, 343, 347, 388, 389, 417, 418, 449, 451, 452, 455, - 456, 463, 466. - - Morton, J. W., 176. - - Murdock, 465, 466. - - - Neale, 474, 487, 488. - - Neander, 198, 230, 231, 233, 242, 243, 274, 280. - - New York _Independent_, 500. - - New York _Tribune_, 500. - - Nicephorus, 351. - - Nicetas, 421. - - _North British Review_, 259, 260, 261. - - Novatian, 311, 312, 314. - - - Origen, 225, 291, 295, 307, 313, 314, 323, 324, 325. - - Origin of Septenary Institutions, Anonymous, 442. - - - Pagitt, 200, 201, 480-483. - - Paragraph Bible, 189. - - Paris, Matthew, 388, 389. - - Perrone, 477, 478. - - Peter of Alexandria, 287, 292. - - Philalethes, Irenæus, 375. - - Philo, 27, 320, 321, 322. - - Pinkerton, 465. - - Plato, 219, 290. - - Pliny, 211, 231, 235, 236, 237, 242, 243. - - Poem on Genesis, 315. - - Preble, T. M., 501, 502. - - Priestly, 446. - - Prynne, William, 151, 181, 360, 361. - - Purchas, 10, 425, 431, 432. - - - Records of First Baptist church in Newport, 496. - - Reeves, Wm., 201, 267. - - Robinson, Robert, 197, 239, 240, 408, 409, 410, 411, 417, 441, 460, - 461-463. - - Ruinart, 247-251, 257. - - Rupp, 499. - - - Saccho, Rainer, 403, 404. - - Samaritan Pentateuch, 14. - - Sawyer’s Translation, 177, 180. - - Schaff, 281. - - Schrevelius, 512. - - Sears, 447, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 457. - - Septuagint, 14. - - Shimeall, 9, 369. - - Socrates, 227, 228, 330, 367. - - Sozomen, 227, 367. - - Spirit of Popery, 269. - - Sprint, 480. - - Stebbing, 423. - - Stennet, 495. - - Stockwood, 480. - - Stuart, Prof., 233, 360. - - Sunday and the Mosaic Sabbath, 349. - - Swiss Confession, 434. - - Syriac Documents, 288, 289, 293. - - Syriac Bible, 14. - - Syriac Testament, 177. - - - Taylor, D. T., 9. - - Taylor, Jer., 269, 270, 337, 343. - - Taylor, W. B., 192, 203, 236, 237. - - Tertullian, 222, 223, 224, 236, 263, 264, 276, 277, 278, 279, 285, - 286, 287, 290, 295, 296, 298, 299, 305, 306, 307, 310, 311, - 313, 315, 316, 322, 362. - - Theophilus, 212, 310. - - Thomas, 410. - - Treatise of Thirty Controversies, Anonymous, 203. - - Twisse, 17, 24, 247, 333, 334, 374, 400, 442. - - Tyndale, 435. - - - Usher, 410, 411. - - Utter, G. B., 467, 468, 483, 484, 486, 490, 491, 496, 499. - - - Van Braght, 468. - - Verstegan, 259, 260. - - Victorinus, 307, 308, 329. - - - Waddington, 403, 404. - - Wall, 468. - - Webster, 15, 259, 260, 347. - - West, Francis, 374. - - _Westminster Review_, 444, 445. - - White, Dr. Francis, 339, 340, 365, 371, 372, 419, 423, 456, 457, - 484-486. - - Whiting’s Translation, 180. - - Wilkins, 388. - - Wood, 488. - - Worcester, 15, 259, 260. - - Wycliffe’s Translation, 10. - - - Xavier, 429. - - - Yeates, 429. - - - Zonaras, 287. - - Zwingle, 431, 435, 436. - - - - - -INDEX OF SCRIPTURES. - - - Pages - - GENESIS. - - 1:, 11, 47, 107 - - 1:1, 10 - - 1:1-13, 11 - - 1:14-23, 12 - - 1:1, 26, 22, 119 - - 1:24-31, 13 - - 1:28, 17 - - 2:, 47, 34 - - 2:1-3, 7, 21-23, 122 - - 2:1-3, 14, 15, 19, 25, 36, 41, 119, 126, 140, 144, 191, 299, 489 - - 2:7-9, 13 - - 2:15, 17 - - 2:18-22, 13 - - 3:, 28, 34 - - 3:19, 324 - - 3:20, 13 - - 4:, 34 - - 5:, 34 - - 5:24, 15, 29 - - 6:, 34 - - 6:9, 29 - - 7:, 34 - - 7:4, 10, 31, 40 - - 8:10, 12, 31, 40 - - 9:1-4, 58, 170 - - 9:5, 7, 29 - - 10:25, 34 - - 11:1-9, 36, 166 - - 11:10-16, 34 - - 12:1-3, 35 - - 15:, 36 - - 17:, 42 - - 17:7, 8, 56 - - 17:9-14, 35 - - 18:19, 32, 35 - - 26:5, 29, 32, 36 - - 26:24, 56 - - 28:13, 56 - - 29:27, 28, 31, 40 - - 34: 42, 170 - - 34:14, 35 - - 50:10, 31, 40 - - - EXODUS. - - 1:, 36 - - 2:, 36 - - 2:23-25, 49 - - 3:, 36 - - 3:6, 7, 49 - - 3:6, 13-16, 18, 56 - - 4:, 36, 42 - - 4:31, 49 - - 5:, 36 - - 5:3, 56 - - 7:25, 31, 40 - - 12:, 41, 70, 78, 83 - - 12:15, 16, 84, 88 - - 12:25, 70, 86 - - 12:29-42, 36 - - 12:41, 42, 107 - - 12:43, 44, 42 - - 12:43-48, 52 - - 12:48, 49, 102 - - 13:, 78 - - 13:2, 55 - - 16:, 24, 41, 67 - - 16:4-30, 36-39, 185 - - 16:22, 23, 21, 24, 31, 70, 94, 123, 189, 191 - - 16:22, 35, 40 - - 16:29, 100, 307 - - 18:16, 36 - - 19:, 44, 45, 67, 75, 76, 162 - - 19:3-8, 37 - - 19:5, 6, 166 - - 19:12, 23, 18, 55 - - 20:, 44, 51, 76, 81, 140, 162, 184 - - 20:1-17, 45 - - 20:2, 37 - - 20:8-11, 14, 20, 24, 25, 37, 40, 52, 77, 81, 88, 126, 191, 380 - - 20:18-21, 53, 67 - - 20-24:, 51 - - 23:10, 11, 85 - - 23:12, 51, 69, 123 - - 23:14-17, 72 - - 24:, 75 - - 24:3-8, 37, 52, 67 - - 24:3-13, 53 - - 24:10, 37, 45 - - 24:12, 62, 162 - - 24:16, 52 - - 24:12-18, 53 - - 24:21-23, 53 - - 25-31:, 53 - - 25:1-21, 62, 160 - - 25:21, 22, 161 - - 29:9, 70 - - 31:12-18, 54 - - 31:13, 88 - - 31:16, 70 - - 31:17, 14, 43, 47, 305 - - 31:18, 162 - - 32:, 64, 65, 67 - - 32-34:, 44, 59 - - 34:1, 60, 79 - - 34:10-28, 60 - - 34:15, 16, 170 - - 34:21, 59 - - 34:28, 45, 60, 80 - - 35:1-3, 67, 71 - - - LEVITICUS. - - 3:17, 58, 70, 170 - - 8:30, 15 - - 11:45, 56 - - 16:, 160, 162 - - 16:29-31, 85 - - 17:13, 14, 170 - - 19:1-3, 30, 71 - - 19:29, 170 - - 20:9, 10, 58 - - 22:6, 7, 108 - - 22:32, 33, 36, 45 - - 23:, 72, 185 - - 23:3, 42, 71, 307 - - 23:7, 8, 84 - - 23:10-21, 83, 84 - - 23:24, 25, 85, 88 - - 23:32, 88, 107, 148 - - 23:27-32, 85 - - 23:34-43, 84 - - 23:37, 38, 89, 140 - - 23:39, 85, 88 - - 24:5-9, 68, 70, 97, 120 - - 24:15-17, 58 - - 25:2-7, 85 - - 25:8-54, 86 - - 26:1, 2, 72 - - 26:34, 35, 43, 86 - - - NUMBERS. - - 9:, 70 - - 10:10, 84 - - 11, 21:, 67 - - 13, 14:, 72 - - 14:, 64, 65, 67 - - 14:35, 73 - - 15:41, 36, 45 - - 15:30, 36, 73, 74 - - 19:21, 70 - - 23:9, 35 - - 25:2, 170 - - 28:9, 10, 68, 120 - - 28:11-15, 84 - - 28:17, 18, 25, 84 - - 28:26-31, 83, 84 - - 29:1-7, 85 - - - DEUTERONOMY. - - 1:, 76 - - 4:12, 13, 61, 79 - - 4:20, 36 - - 5:, 81 - - 5:1-3, 75 - - 5:4-22, 45 - - 5:14, 37, 52 - - 5:12-15, 76, 81 - - 5:22, 46, 61, 70, 80 - - 6:1, 70 - - 7:, 70 - - 7:6, 45 - - 9:, 59 - - 9:10, 80 - - 9:24, 67 - - 10:, 162 - - 10:1-5, 45, 60, 62, 79, 80, 139, 160 - - 13:6-18, 58 - - 14:2, 45 - - 16:, 70 - - 16:6, 108 - - 16:9-12, 83 - - 16:13-15, 84 - - 16:16, 90, 135 - - 17:2-7, 58 - - 23:2, 108 - - 24:13, 15, 108 - - 24:17,18, 78 - - 28:64, 102 - - 31:24-26, 139 - - 32:7, 8, 34 - - 32:16-35, 104 - - 33:2, 44, 62, 380 - - 33:27, 28, 35 - - - JOSHUA. - - 5:, 70 - - 5:2-8, 64 - - 6:, 95 - - 5:12, 40, 67 - - 6:15, 96 - - 8:29, 108 - - 10:12-14, 96 - - 10:26, 27, 108 - - 20:7, 17 - - 24:2, 14, 23, 35, 64 - - - JUDGES. - - 5:5, 44 - - 14:18, 108 - - - 1 SAMUEL. - - 15:29, 9 - - 19:11, 181 - - 20:5, 24, 27, 84 - - 21:1-6, 97 - - 26:7, 8, 107 - - - 2 SAMUEL. - - 3:35, 108 - - 7:23, 45 - - 24:1, 60 - - - 1 KINGS. - - 8:2, 65, 30 - - 8:9, 160 - - 8:53, 45 - - - 2 KINGS. - - 4:23, 93, 100 - - 10:20, 21, 18 - - 11:5-9, 100, 148 - - 16:18, 101 - - 23:5, 262 - - - 1 CHRONICLES. - - 9:1-32, 93 - - 9:25, 148 - - 9:32, 94, 97, 99, 120 - - 21:1, 60 - - 23:31, 99 - - - 2 CHRONICLES. - - 2:4, 99 - - 5:3, 30 - - 7:8, 9, 30 - - 7:12, 90 - - 8:13, 72, 99 - - 18:34, 108 - - 20:7, 35 - - 23:4-8, 100 - - 31:3, 99 - - 36:16-20, 105 - - 36:21, 86 - - - EZRA. - - 3:1-6, 30 - - - NEHEMIAH. - - 8:, 84 - - 8:2, 9-12, 14-18, 30 - - 9:6-13, 44 - - 9:7, 8, 35 - - 9:13, 14, 37, 49, 106 - - 9:38, 106 - - 10:1-31, 106 - - 10:31, 33, 99, 107 - - 13:15-22, 91, 103, 108, 126 - - 13:19, 108 - - - ESTHER. - - 2:14, 181 - - - JOB. - - 2:13, 31, 40 - - 14:12, 22 - - 31:26, 260 - - 37:18, 11 - - 38:7, 13 - - 38:22, 23, 58 - - - PSALMS. - - 2:7-9, 511 - - 6:, 292, 293, 325, 326 - - 8:[title], 186 - - 12:[title], 292, 293, 325, 326 - - 19:7, 163 - - 33:9, 26 - - 37:9-11, 18-22, 34, 511 - - 40:, 163 - - 40:6-8, 162 - - 68:17, 44, 62 - - 78:106, 67 - - 81:3, 84 - - 90:2, 9, 36 - - 90:4, 299 - - 92:, 100 - - 95:, 64 - - 105:43-45, 36 - - 116:15, 490 - - 118:22-24, 155 - - 119:91, 12 - - 119:142, 151, 145, 400 - - 122:, 90 - - 136:6, 11 - - 147:, 69 - - 147:16-19, 68 - - 147:19, 20, 45 - - - ISAIAH. - - 1:13, 14, 89, 299, 306 - - 8:18, 57 - - 14:1, 102 - - 28:17, 58 - - 29:13, 397 - - 40:28, 14 - - 41:8, 35 - - 41:17, 45 - - 42:21, 123 - - 45:3, 56 - - 53:, 138 - - 56:, 52, 91, 126 - - 56:2, 306 - - 56:1-8, 89, 101 - - 58:13, 14, 28, 69, 88, 89, 103, 123, 126, 192, 306 - - 57:15, 9 - - 65:, 511 - - 65:16, 145 - - 66:22, 23, 100, 141, 305, 512 - - - JEREMIAH. - - 3:14, 37 - - 7:23-28, 103 - - 10:10-12, 9, 26, 43 - - 11:16, 165 - - 17:19-27, 91, 104, 126 - - 26:14, 15, 490 - - 31:32, 37 - - 31:33, 163, 309 - - 31:31-34, 159 - - 33:25, 12 - - 36:22, 69 - - 43:13, 262 - - - LAMENTATIONS. - - 1:7, 88, 90 - - 2:5-7, 90 - - - EZEKIEL. - - 20:, 54, 64, 74, 126 - - 20:5, 49 - - 20:12, 43 - - 20:13, 64 - - 20:12-24, 65, 72, 73, 104, 305 - - 21:19-22, 347 - - 22:7, 8, 26, 104 - - 23:38, 39, 104, 105 - - 23:48, 109 - - 40-48:, 105 - - 43:7-11, 105 - - 44:24, 105 - - 45:17, 99, 105 - - 46:1, 100, 106, 143, 175 - - 46:1, 3, 4, 12, 105 - - - DANIEL. - - 7:, 369, 511 - - 7:18, 27, 305, 369 - - 7:25, 501 - - 8:12, 400 - - 8:13-16, 62, 107 - - 9:24-27, 115, 132, 138, 159 - - - HOSEA. - - 2:11, 87, 88, 90 - - 6:6, 121 - - - JOEL. - - 1:14, 18 - - 2:15, 18 - - - AMOS. - - 3:1, 2 45 - - 5:25-27, 64 - - 8:4-6, 100, 101 - - - MICAH. - - 5:2, 9 - - - ZEPHANIAH. - - 1:7, 18 - - 3:3, 181 - - - MALACHI. - - 4:1-3, 511 - - - 2 ESDRAS. - - 6:38, 10 - - - ECCLESIASTICUS. - - 49:16, 32 - - - 1 MACCABEES. - - 1:41-43, 110 - - 2:29-38, 110 - - 2:41, 110 - - 9:43-49, 112 - - 13:22, 69 - - - 2 MACCABEES. - - 5:25, 26, 111 - - 6:11, 111 - - 7:28, 10 - - 8:23-28, 112 - - 15:, 112 - - - MATTHEW. - - 5-7:, 310 - - 5:17-19, 123, 126, 140, 141, 159, 160, 315 - - 7:12, 126 - - 8:5-15, 117 - - 8:11, 103 - - 8:16, 108 - - 12:1-8, 118 - - 12:3, 4, 97 - - 12:9-14, 69, 124 - - 15:9, 397 - - 17:1, 148 - - 19:3-9, 122 - - 19:17, 126 - - 19:26, 145 - - 23:23, 131 - - 24:15-21, 69, 132, 135, 138 - - 24:37-39, 34 - - 26:, 180 - - 27:, 138 - - 28:, 438 - - 28:1, 49, 142 - - 28:19, 20, 159 - - - MARK. - - 1:14, 15, 115 - - 1:21, 42 - - 1:21-31, 117 - - 1:32-34, 108, 118 - - 2:23-28, 118 - - 2:25, 26, 97 - - 2:27, 28, 22, 48, 69, 118, 121, 140, 192 - - 3:1-6, 124 - - 6:1-6, 125 - - 13:18, 69 - - 14:30, 107 - - 16:, 438 - - 16:1, 2, 9, 49, 143 - - 16:14, 145 - - 16:15, 159 - - - LUKE. - - 2:8-11, 107 - - 2:34, 57 - - 4:14-16, 42, 116 - - 4:30-39, 117 - - 4:40, 108, 118 - - 6:1-5, 97, 118 - - 6:6-11, 124 - - 9:28, 148 - - 13:10-17, 130 - - 14:1-6, 69, 131 - - 16:17, 126 - - 17:26, 27, 34 - - 21:20, 132 - - 21:24, 102 - - 21:28, 152 - - 22:34, 107 - - 23:46-53, 141 - - 23:54-56, 48, 141, 143, 182 - - 24:, 145, 148 - - 24:1, 48, 143, 182, 438 - - 24:49-53, 150 - - - JOHN. - - 1:1-3, 22, 119 - - 1:1-10, 115 - - 5:1-18, 126 - - 5:19, 127 - - 7:2-14, 37, 30 - - 7:21-23, 42, 127 - - 8:1-9, 58 - - 8:56, 156 - - 9:1-16, 129 - - 17:5, 24, 115 - - 18:18, 69 - - 19:38-42, 141 - - 20:, 438 - - 20:1, 19, 143, 145 - - 20:26, 147 - - 21:, 147 - - 21:20-23, 201 - - 21:25, 190 - - - ACTS. - - 1:, 150 - - 1:3, 147 - - 1:12, 42 - - 2:1, 2, 149, 438 - - 2:1-11, 166, 185 - - 2:1-18, 83 - - 2:42-46, 180 - - 7:38, 53, 59 - - 7:41-43, 64 - - 8:26-40, 424 - - 9-11:, 159 - - 10:28, 35 - - 10:2, 4, 7, 22, 30-35, 175 - - 11:2, 3, 35 - - 13:5, 172 - - 13:14, 27, 167 - - 13:42-44, 168, 175 - - 14:1, 172, 175 - - 14:16, 17, 35 - - 15:, 58, 169, 170 - - 15:10, 28, 29, 170, 171 - - 15:21, 42 - - 16:11, 178 - - 16:13-15, 172, 175 - - 17:1-4, 173 - - 17:4, 10-12, 175 - - 17:10, 17, 172 - - 17: 26, 34, 48 - - 17:29, 30, 35 - - 18:3, 4, 174 - - 18:19, 172 - - 19:8, 172 - - 20:6-13, 151, 178, 179, 203, 438, 439 - - 20:29, 30, 192 - - 21:25, 170 - - 23:31, 32, 181 - - 26:12-17, 159 - - - ROMANS. - - 1:18-32, 26, 35, 146 - - 2-4:, 45 - - 2:17, 185 - - 3:, 184 - - 3:1, 2, 45 - - 3:19, 31, 141, 161, 162, 164, 165 - - 4:1, 185 - - 4:13-17, 35, 160, 165 - - 5:, 163 - - 5:8-12, 28, 161 - - 6:3-5, 154 - - 6:23, 58 - - 7:1, 185 - - 7:12, 13, 167, 184 - - 7:21-25, 309 - - 8:1-7, 309 - - 8:3, 4, 161, 163 - - 8:23, 152 - - 9:4, 5, 45 - - 11:13, 159 - - 11:17-24, 165 - - 13:8-10, 161 - - 14:, 186 - - 14:1-6, 183 - - - 1 CORINTHIANS. - - 5:6-8, 83, 334 - - 10:13, 22 - - 11:9, 122 - - 11:23-26, 153, 159, 180 - - 15:27, 186 - - 16:1, 2, 175, 203, 439 - - - 2 CORINTHIANS. - - 3:3, 163 - - 8:14, 15, 40 - - - GALATIANS. - - 3:7-9, 165 - - 3:13, 14, 152, 161 - - 3:17, 36 - - 3:19, 59 - - 4:4, 5, 115, 126 - - 4:8-11, 186 - - - EPHESIANS. - - 1:7, 152 - - 1:13, 14, 152 - - 1:20-23, 156 - - 2:12, 102 - - 2:11-22, 35, 156, 159 - - 4:30, 152 - - 6:2, 3, 161 - - - COLOSSIANS. - - 1:13-16, 22 - - 2:, 185 - - 2:12, 154 - - 2:14-17, 87, 138, 159 - - - 1 THESSALONIANS. - - 1:7, 8, 174 - - 2:14, 173 - - 5:16, 156 - - - 2 THESSALONIANS. - - 2:3, 4, 7, 8, 195, 369 - - 3:10, 324 - - - 1 TIMOTHY. - - 1:17, 9 - - 6:16, 9 - - - 2 TIMOTHY. - - 3:16, 17, 202 - - 4:2-4, 195 - - - TITUS. - - 1:2, 145 - - - HEBREWS. - - 1:, 11, 115 - - 2:2, 59 - - 2:13, 57 - - 3:4, 26 - - 3:16, 67 - - 4:9, 323, 512 - - 7-10, 141, 160, 162, 163 - - 8:1-5, 160 - - 8:8-12, 159 - - 9:, 163 - - 9:1-7, 160 - - 9:10, 28 - - 9:18-20, 52 - - 9:23, 24, 160 - - 9:27, 22 - - 9:28, 102 - - 11:3, 11, 26 - - 11:4-7, 34 - - 11:8-16, 103 - - - JAMES. - - 1:25, 163 - - 2:8-12, 141, 161, 167, 170, 184 - - 2:23, 35 - - - 1 PETER. - - 1:1, 237 - - 1:9, 102 - - 2:4-7, 156 - - 2:9, 10, 166 - - 3:6, 130 - - 3:20, 34 - - - 2 PETER. - - 2:, 195 - - 2:5, 34 - - 3:, 511 - - 3:5, 6, 11, 34 - - - 1 JOHN. - - 2:1, 2, 165 - - 2:18, 195 - - 3:4, 5, 63, 160, 161, 162, 165, 184 - - - JUDE. - - 4, 195 - - 14, 15 - - - REVELATION. - - 1:10, 186, 187, 192, 203, 206, 439 - - 4:10, 11, 510 - - 5:9, 152 - - 7:9-14, 84 - - 11:19, 160 - - 12:, 370 - - 12:6, 14, 404, 405 - - 13:1-5, 369 - - 16:17-21, 58 - - 21, 22:, 103, 511 - - 22:1, 2, 512 - - - - - -INDEX OF SUBJECTS. - - - Abyssinians, pp. 424-427 - - Adam, his influence upon the patriarchs, 3, 31, 32 - - Adam must have heard the Creator when he set apart the seventh day, - 16-19 - - “After eight days,” John 20, 147-149 - - Anabaptists, 422, 423 - - Analysis of Exodus 16, 39-44 - - Annual sabbaths enumerated, 84, 85 - - Apostasies, the two great patriarchal, 33-35 - - Apostasy in the early church, 193-203 - - Apostasy, progress of, 324, 329-331, 361, 362 - - Ark in the heavenly temple contains the law, 161-163 - - Armenians of the East Indies, 427-432 - - Article, the, in Mark 2:27, 22, 121, 122 - - Atonement, day of, no mention of its observance, 30, 86 - - Atonement, the, relates to the decalogue, 62-64 - - Atonement, the, relates to the fourth commandment, 62-64 - - - Bampfield, Francis, sufferings of, 487, 488 - - Barnabas, epistle of, 231-235 - - Barnabas thought the Sabbath too pure for this wicked world, 299-301 - - Bohemian Sabbath-keepers, 463, 464 - - Bound, Dr., theory of, concerning the Sabbath, 472-475 - - - Calvin caused Servetus to be arrested on Sunday, 440, 441 - - Calvin’s doctrine and practice concerning Sunday, 436-443 - - Calvin’s interpretation of first-day texts, 438-440 - - Calvin’s view of the one-day-in-seven theory, 437 - - Carlstadt’s faults, extent of, 448, 449, 453, 454 - - Carlstadt a Sabbatarian, 456, 457 - - Cathari, 415-417 - - Causes which made the Sunday usurpation a success, 329-331 - - Change of the Sabbath not taught in Ps. 118, 155-157 - - Change of the Sabbath not recorded lest it make the Bible too large, - 190 - - Change of the Sabbath unheard of in the first centuries, 204-206, - 283-293 - - Christian Sabbath, Origen thus calls the seventh day, 323, 324 - - Christ’s teaching with respect to the Sabbath, 115-138 - - Christ in the field of corn, 118-124 - - Christ’s work on the Sabbath like that of the Father, 126, 127 - - Chrysostom and Jerome on Sunday labor, 363, 364 - - Clement’s numbering of the days explained out of Philo, 318-327 - - Clement on the Lord’s day, 219-222 - - Climate of Palestine, 69 - - Col. 2:14-17, exposition of, 138-141 - - Columba probably a Sabbath-keeper, 401-403 - - Constantine’s Sunday law, 343-349, 353 - - Contrast between the origin of the Sabbath and Sunday, 332, 333, 352, - 353 - - Councils of the church, character of, 362, 363 - - Covenant not made with their fathers, 75 - - Creation, six days of, 9-13 - - Creation, nature of, 9, 10 - - Culdees of Great Britain, 400-403 - - - Danish and Norwegian Sabbath-keepers, 505, 509 - - Dark Ages defined, 398, 399 - - Days, names of, 16 - - Days, how many, different ones, 16 - - Decalogue, a complete moral code, 61, 62 - - Decalogue, perpetuity of in the fathers, 309-312 - - Deluge, why sent, 33-35 - - Destruction of Jerusalem caused by Sabbath-breaking, 103-108 - - Dionysius on the Lord’s day, 214, 215 - - _Dominicum_ defined, 246-248, 255-257 - - _Dominicum servasti?_, 244-258 - - Dutch Sabbath-keepers, 467, 468 - - - English Sabbath-keepers, 467, 469, 470, 479-492, 500 - - Entrance of Sunday into the early church, 261-266 - - Error not changed into truth by age, 195, 196 - - Eternity, 9 - - Eusebius author of the doctrine that Christ changed the Sabbath, - 355-359 - - “Every day” may include simply the six working days, 185 - - Every man fully persuaded in his own mind, 183-186 - - - Famous falsehood examined, 243-258 - - Fathers, authority of, 199-201 - - Festivals of the church enumerated, 433, 434 - - Festivals of the Hebrews enumerated, 82, 83 - - Fires on the Sabbath forbidden, nature of the statute, 67-71 - - Firmament defined, 11 - - First-day history and papal history compared, 213, 282, 283 - - First-day observance in the exact words of the fathers, 283-289 - - First mention of the Sabbath after Moses, 99 - - Flight of disciples not to be on the Sabbath day, 132-138 - - Fourth commandment expounded, 46-50 - - Fourth commandment in the New Testament, 141, 142 - - Fraud in the Bible Dict. of the Tract Society, 211, 212 - - Frauds in Justin Edwards, 212, 213, 216, 217, 244, 245 - - Fraudulent testimonials to the Sunday Lord’s day, 211-219 - - French Sabbath-keepers, 468 - - Frith, the martyr, judgment on the Sabbath, 459, 460 - - - Genesis, bearing of upon the Sabbath, 28-30 - - Gentiles admitted into the commonwealth of Israel, 159, 160 - - Gentiles blessed for observing the Sabbath, 101, 102 - - German Sabbath-keepers, 467, 499, 500, 509 - - Gilfillan’s inexcusable fraud, 250-258 - - Globe, our, the Sabbath on, 48 - - Gregory VII., A. D. 1074, condemns Sabbath-keepers, 420 - - - Hallowed identical with sanctified, 17 - - Hebrews, how God favored them, 44, 45 - - Hebrews, why made the depositaries of the truth, 33-37, 46, 55, 56 - - Honors pertaining to the Sabbath law, 61 - - Hungarian Sabbath-keepers, 500 - - Hypsistarii, 339, 340 - - - Ignatius never uses the term Lord’s day, 211 - - Ignatius, epistles of, 237-242 - - Illustration of the alleged sanctification of the seventh day in the - wilderness, 24 - - Irenæus mentions no Lord’s day, 216-218, 271-274 - - Irenæus falsely quoted, 271-274 - - - Jericho, Sabbath not violated at taking of, 95, 96 - - Jews, eminent, on the origin of the Sabbath, 26, 27 - - Jubilee, no record of its observance in the Bible, 30, 86 - - Justin Edwards’ Sunday Sabbath, B. C. 63, 112 - - Justin Martyr on Sunday, 267-270 - - Justin Martyr a no-Sabbath man, 270, 271 - - Justin Martyr mentions no Lord’s day, 212 - - - Knox and the Scotch of the sixteenth century, 443-445 - - - Laodicea, Council of, curses Sabbath-keepers, 360, 361 - - Laying by in store on first-day, 175-178 - - Lord’s day of John, 187, 192 - - Lord’s day first applied to Sunday, 222-224 - - Lord’s Supper the ground of controversy between Luther and Carlstadt, - 451-453 - - Luther and Carlstadt, 446-459 - - Luther might have profited greatly by Carlstadt, 457-459 - - Luther on Gen. 2:3, 17 - - - Man, meaning of, in Mark 2:27, 22, 121, 122 - - Manna, falling of, not the occasion of the Sabbath, 38, 39 - - Martyrdom of John James, 489-491 - - Melito of Sardis, 215, 216 - - Miracles and judgments in support of Sunday, 374, 378, 379, 392, 393 - - Miracles pertaining to the Sabbath in the wilderness, 40 - - Modern historians on Sabbath in the early church, 333-338, 341 - - Moral obligation of the Sabbath, 50 - - Morrow defined, 181 - - Moses rehearses the law, 74-79 - - Moses in the Mount, 51-61 - - Mosheim and Neander, 229, 230, 242, 243 - - Mount Sinai at the giving of the law, 44-46 - - Mystical Lord’s day, 219-222, 224, 226 - - - Nazarenes, 338, 339 - - Nehemiah’s Sabbath reform, 106-109 - - New Covenant has a temple and an ark, 160 - - - Offerings for the dead as ancient as the Sunday-Lord’s day, 223, 224 - - Olive tree, the good, 165, 166 - - Omissions, remarkable, 30 - - Oracles of God preserved by the Hebrews, 158, 159 - - Origen on Lord’s day, 225, 226, 291 - - Other readings of Gen. 2:2, 14 - - - Palæologus, 462, 463 - - Papal usurpation began with reference to Sunday, 274, 275 - - Patriarchal age, its great light, 31-34 - - Passaginians, 415-418 - - Passover festival defined, 83 - - Penalty of the law, 58 - - Pentecost, day of, Acts 2:1, 149-151 - - Petrobrusians, 418-420 - - Pentecost defined, 83 - - Perpetual statute for their generations, a parallel precept, 58 - - Perpetuity and observance of the Sabbath in the fathers, 315-329 - - Pliny, epistle of, 211, 235-237 - - Pope Innocent III. responsible for the roll from heaven, 388-391 - - Precepts given to Israel classified, 51 - - Presbyterians and Episcopalians contend over Sunday, 471-477 - - Presbyterians get Sunday into the fourth commandment, 472-476 - - Priceless value of the Sabbath, 509, 510 - - Prophets taught the people on the Sabbath, 100 - - Protestant Sunday-keeping as viewed by a learned Catholic theologian, - 477, 478 - - - Reasons for Sunday stated in the words of the fathers, 289-294 - - Reasons out of the fathers for rejecting the Sabbath, 299-309 - - Records of ancient Sabbath-keepers destroyed, 399 - - Redemption no argument for change of Sabbath, 151-155 - - Reformation differently viewed by Luther and Carlstadt, 451 - - Reformers all brought something from Rome, 478 - - Reformers, just view of, 445, 446 - - Rest of the Creator, reason for it, 14, 15 - - Restoration of Israel, if they keep the Sabbath, 102 - - Resurrection of Christ did not affect the Sabbath, 142-147 - - Roll from heaven in behalf of Sunday, 385-389 - - Roman church turns the Sabbath into a fast, 280, 281 - - Romanists have corrupted the fathers, 200, 201 - - Rule of faith of the man of God, 202 - - Rule of faith of the Romanist, 202 - - Russian Sabbath-keepers, 464-467 - - - Sabbatarian principles, 480, 483, 487, 489 - - Sabbatarians, ancient bodies of, 338-340, 354 - - Sabbatati or Insabbatati defined, 407-411 - - Sabbath a sign, 43, 44, 53-58 - - “Sabbath between,” 168 - - Sabbath-breaking in the wilderness, effect of, 65-67 - - Sabbath at creation in the early fathers, 312-315 - - Sabbath defined, 20 - - Sabbath during Dark Ages, 398-432 - - Sabbath during the forty years, 64-74 - - Sabbath given, meaning of the term, 42, 43 - - Sabbath-keepers in Constantinople, A. D. 1054, 420-422 - - Sabbath-keepers in Rome, A. D. 600, 374, 375, 400 - - Sabbath in ancient writers means Saturday, 370, 371 - - Sabbath in the book of Acts, 167-182 - - Sabbath in the fourth century, 359-362 - - Sabbath in the fifth century, 367, 368 - - Sabbath in the prophetic Scriptures, 100-106 - - Sabbath in the time of Maccabees, 110-112 - - Sabbath made known, meaning of the term, 49 - - Sabbath may be kept over the earth, 102 - - Sabbath more ancient than circumcision, 128 - - Sabbath not a memorial of deliverance from Egypt, 76-79 - - Sabbath not a shadow of redemption, 27, 28 - - Sabbath not a Jewish feast, 71, 72 - - Sabbath not mentioned from Adam to Moses, 92-95 - - Sabbath not mentioned from Moses to David, 92-95 - - Sabbath, the acts by which it was made, 14-16 - - Sabbaths, weekly and annual, their difference, 86-92 - - Sabbath, when made, 15, 16, 20-25, 46, 47 - - Sabbath, why instituted, 25, 26, 509, 510 - - Sabbath in the new earth, 510-512 - - Sanctified, the word defined, 15, 17-19 - - Sanctification of the seventh day was at the beginning, 23-25 - - Second tables of stone, who wrote them, 60, 61 - - Self-contradiction of Justin Edwards, 177, 178 - - Seventh day, event on the first of time, 13, 14 - - Seventh day of the commandment is the seventh day of the week, 48, 49 - - Seventh-day Baptists of America, 493-499 - - Seven, signification of the number, 14, 15 - - Seventh-day Adventists of America, 500-509 - - Seventh-day Adventists of Switzerland, 509 - - Shew-bread eaten by David, 97, 98 - - Siberian Sabbath-keepers, 500 - - Slander of heretics no sin, 418 - - Sticks, the case of picking them up on the Sabbath, 72-74 - - Sun and moon stand still, 96, 97 - - Sunday a day of relief to souls in purgatory and in hell, 383, 384 - - Sunday an ancient heathen festival, 258-264, 277, 278, 279, 341, 342, - 345-349 - - Sunday arguments of the Dark Ages, what became of them, 470 - - Sunday as the sister of the Sabbath, 361, 362 - - Sunday authoritatively established as Lord’s day, 349-351 - - Sunday at the Council of Nice, 275, 276 - - Sunday during the Dark Ages, 362-398 - - Sunday edicts of kings, emperors, popes and councils, 342-346, 349, - 353, 359-361, 366, 372-398 - - Sunday festival, origin and growth of, 223, 224, 352, 353 - - Sunday festival defined by the reformers, 434-436 - - Sunday, first witnesses for, 228-243 - - Sunday, how mentioned prior to A. D. 194, 218, 219 - - Sunday labor in the early church not sinful, 283-289, 296, 299, - 316-322, 343-345 - - Sunday labor in the fourth and fifth centuries, 363-366 - - Sunday Lord’s day not traceable to the apostles, 204-228 - - Sunday on a level with other festivals in the early church, 264-266, - 295, 296 - - Sunday sustained only by the Romanists’ rule, 202, 203, 223, 224, - 294, 477, 478 - - Sunday, when first called Sabbath, 370, 371 - - Superstition of the Jews concerning the Sabbath, 113, 114 - - - Tabernacles, feast of, defined, 83, 84 - - Ten commandments alone on the tables of stone, 79-81 - - Tertullian’s excuses for Sunday observance, 277, 278 - - Tertullian on Lord’s day, 222-224 - - Tertullian’s self-contradiction, 276, 277, 305-307 - - Theophilus mentions no Lord’s day, 212, 213 - - Time defined, 9 - - Time, great week of, 9 - - Tradition characterized, and exemplified, 198, 201, 227, 228 - - Tradition for the passover more apostolic than for Sunday, 227, 228 - - Transylvanian Sabbath-keepers, 460-463 - - Trask, Mrs., sufferings of, 481-483 - - Troas, Paul at, 178-182 - - True God distinguished from false gods, 25, 26 - - Typical observances no part of the Sabbath law, 98, 99 - - Time to commence the Sabbath, 107, 108 - - - Unfairness of anti-Sabbatarians, 131, 132 - - - Waldenses, 403-415 - - Weeks, how and when made, 16, 30, 31 - - Wilderness of sin, record of, how connecting Gen. 2:1-3, and Ex. - 20:8-11, 46, 47 - - - - - -ERRATA. - - - Page 141, chapter xix., in the notes, should be chapter xxvii. - ” 255, “and,” in the Latin notes, should be “&.” - ” 295, “exaltation.” in line 16, should be “exultation.” - ” 505, for “$70,000,” read $82,000,—Auditor’s later report. - -Transcriber’s Note: The errata have been corrected. - - - - -Catalogue of Publications - - -For sale at the Office of the Review and Herald, Battle Creek, Mich., and -at the Pacific Press, Oakland, California. - - -PERIODICALS. - -THE ADVENT REVIEW AND SABBATH HERALD. A sixteen-page Religious Family -Newspaper, devoted to a discussion of the Prophecies, Signs of the Times, -Second Coming of Christ, Harmony of the Law and the Gospel, What we must -Do to be Saved, and other Bible questions. $2.00 a year. - -GOOD HEALTH. A monthly journal of hygiene, devoted to Physical, Mental, -and Moral Culture. $1.00 a year. - -THE YOUTH’S INSTRUCTOR. A four-page illustrated weekly for the -Sabbath-school and the family. 75 cts. a year. - -THE ADVENT TIDENDE. A Danish semi-monthly, sixteen pages, magazine form, -devoted to expositions of prophecy, the signs of the times, and practical -religion. $1.00 a year. - -ADVENT HAROLDEN. A Swedish monthly, of the same size, and devoted to the -same topics, as the _Advent Tidende_. 75 cts. a year. - -STIMME DER WAHRHEIT. An eight-page German monthly. A religious family -newspaper, frequently illustrated. 50 cts. a year. - -THE COLLEGE RECORD. A four-page educational monthly. 10 cts. a year. - - The above are published in Battle Creek, Mich. Terms always in - advance. - -THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES. A twelve-page weekly Religious Paper, devoted -to the dissemination of light upon the same great themes treated in the -_Advent Review and Sabbath Herald_. Published in Oakland, Cal. $2.00 a -year. - -LES SIGNES DES TEMPS. A religious monthly journal in French. Published in -Bâle, Switzerland. $1.00 a year. - - -BOOKS, PAMPHLETS, AND TRACTS. - -HISTORY OF THE SABBATH AND OF THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. By Elder J. N. -Andrews. This work contains an outline of the history of the Sabbath for -the period of Six Thousand years. Part First is the Biblical history of -the Sabbath and of the first day of the week. Part Second is the secular -history of these two days since the time of the apostles. This volume -has been prepared with most careful and patient study. In all cases of -quotations from secular history, book, chapter, and page are given. And -book, chapter, and verse are given of all quotations from the word of God. - - 528 pp. $1.00 - -THE SANCTUARY AND 2300 DAYS OF DAN. 8:14. By Elder U. Smith. This -question has developed the people known as Seventh-day Adventists, and is -the pivotal doctrine upon which their applications of prophecy largely -depend. It explains the past Advent movement, shows why those who looked -for the Lord in 1844 were disappointed, reveals the fact so essential to -be understood, that no prophetic period reaches to the second coming of -Christ, and shows where we are, and what we are to expect in the future. -A knowledge of this subject is indispensable to a correct application of -the more important prophecies pertaining to the present time. - - 352 pp. $1.00 - -Condensed edition, paper, - - 224 pp. .30 - -THOUGHTS ON DANIEL, CRITICAL AND PRACTICAL. By Elder U. Smith. An -exposition of the book of Daniel verse by verse. - - 400 pp. $1.00 - -THOUGHTS ON REVELATION, CRITICAL AND PRACTICAL. By Elder U. Smith. This -work presents every verse in the book of Revelation with such remarks as -serve to illustrate or explain the meaning of the text. - - 400 pp. $1.00 - -NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN. By Elder U. Smith. This work, as its title -implies, treats upon the constitution of man, his consequent condition -in death, and destiny beyond the resurrection. All the passages in -the Bible which have a bearing upon these questions are taken up and -explained in full, thus giving the most comprehensive view of this whole -question that has yet been presented. - - 356 pp. $1.00 - -LIFE SKETCHES. This work embraces sketches of the parentage, early life, -Christian experience, and extensive labors of Elder James White, and also -of his wife, Mrs. E. G. White. - - 416 pp. $1.00 - -With steel engraving of Elder W., - - 1.25 - -LIFE OF WILLIAM MILLER, with portrait. This work comprises sketches -of the Christian Experience and Public Labors of this remarkable man, -gathered from his Memoir by the late Sylvester Bliss, with Introduction -and Notes by Elder James White. This book sets forth the true principles -and real character of the man who was the leading spirit in the great -American Second-Advent Movement. - - 408 pp. $1.00 - -LIFE OF ELDER JOSEPH BATES, with portrait. This is a reprint of his -Autobiography, with introduction, and closing chapters relative to his -public ministry and last sickness, by Elder James White. The closing -chapters relate to his labors in the ministry and in moral reforms, and -the triumphant close of his long and useful life. This book should be in -every family library. Fine tinted paper, - - 352 pp. $1.00 - -Plain white paper, - - 352 pp. .85 - -THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY; or, the Great Controversy between Christ and -his Angels, and Satan and his Angels, in four volumes. By Mrs. Ellen -G. White. These volumes cover the time from the fall of Satan to the -destruction of sin at the close of the one thousand years of Rev. 20. The -first three of these volumes are in print, and it is expected that the -fourth, the most interesting and important of the series, will soon be -ready. Each, - - 416 pp. $1.00 - -THE BIBLE FROM HEAVEN. By Elder D. M. Canright. This work is what its -name implies, an argument to show that the Bible is not the work of men, -but is in deed and in truth the word of God. It is a candid, forcible, -conclusive argument, sustained by a large array of facts and such -deductions of science as rest upon any tolerable certainty. Just the -work to put into the hands of honest skeptics, and those who are exposed -to infidel influences. Adapted to the use of any and all persons who -believe in the Bible. - - 400 pp. $1.00 - -THE BIBLICAL INSTITUTE. This is the title of a work containing a synopsis -of the lectures given at the Institute held in Oakland, Cal., April 1-17, -1877. These cover all the main points of our faith, giving facts and -dates, and the heads of the arguments. - - 352 pp. $1.00 - -HYMN BOOK. “Hymns and Tunes for those who keep the Commandments of God -and the Faith of Jesus,” is the title of this book. It has 537 hymns and -147 tunes. - - 416 pp. $1.00 - -CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT; or, the Sunday, the Sabbath, the Change, and -the Restitution. A discussion between W. H. Littlejohn and the editor of -the _Christian Statesman_. This work discusses the proposed religious -amendment to the Constitution, especially in its bearing upon the -subject of the Sabbath and the first day of the week. This involves an -examination of the alleged change of the Sabbath. - - 384 pp. $1.00 - -In paper covers, - - 336 pp. .40 - -THE SOUL AND THE RESURRECTION. Showing the harmony of science and the -Bible on the nature of the soul and the doctrine of the resurrection. By -J. H. Kellogg, M. D. - - 224 pp. 75 cts. - -GAME OF LIFE. A scene representing Satan playing with man for his soul. -Three lithograph illustrations. - -In board, - - 50 cts. - -Paper covers, - - 30 cts. - -THE UNITED STATES IN THE LIGHT OF PROPHECY; or, an Exposition of Rev. -13:11-17. By Elder U. Smith. Dealing with our own land and applying to -our time, this is a portion of prophecy which should possess surpassing -interest for every American reader. This work shows by conclusive -arguments the position which the United States government holds in -prophecy, and the important part it is to act in the closing scenes of -time. Issues are even now arising which it is of the greatest importance -that all be prepared to meet. - - 160 pp. 40 cts. - -In paper covers, - - 20 cts. - -THOUGHTS ON BAPTISM. A full treatise, viewing the subject from history -and the Bible. By Elder J. H. Waggoner. - - 189 pp. 35 cts. - -THE SONG ANCHOR. A popular collection of songs for the Sabbath-school and -praise service. - - 164 pp. 35 cts. - -Bound in muslin, - - 50 cts. - -POEM ON THE SABBATH. By Elder U. Smith. - - 30 cts. - -THE SEVEN TRUMPETS. A careful and deeply interesting exposition of Rev. 8 -and 9. - - 10 cts. - -LIFE OF CHRIST, six pamphlets. By Mrs. E. G. White:— - - No. 1. His First Advent and Ministry. 104 pp. 10 cts. - ” 2. His Temptation in the Wilderness. 96 pp. 10 cts. - ” 3. His Teachings and Parables. 126 pp. 15 cts. - ” 4. His Mighty Miracles. 128 pp. 15 cts. - ” 5. His sufferings and Crucifixion. 96 pp. 10 cts. - ” 6. His Resurrection and Ascension. 80 pp. 10 cts. - -LIFE OF THE APOSTLES, two pamphlets:— - - No. 1. The Ministry of Peter. 80 pp. 10 cts. - ” 2. The Teachings of Paul. 80 pp. 10 cts. - -FACTS FOR THE TIMES. A collection of Valuable Extracts from Eminent -Authors. - - 224 pp. 25 cts. - -ELEVEN SERMONS ON THE SABBATH AND LAW. By Elder J. N. Andrews. - - 226 pp. 25 cts. - -HISTORY OF THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. By Elder D. M. Canright. - - 200 pp. 25 cts. - -MODERN SPIRITUALISM. Nature and Tendency of Modern Spiritualism. By Elder -J. H. Waggoner. - - 184 pp. 20 cts. - -REFUTATION OF THE AGE TO COME. By Elder J. H. Waggoner. - - 168 pp. 20 cts. - -THE ATONEMENT. By Elder J. H. Waggoner. An examination of a remedial -system in the light of Nature and Revelation. - - 168 pp. 20 cts. - -THE MINISTRATION OF ANGELS, AND THE ORIGIN, HISTORY, AND DESTINY OF -SATAN. By Elder D. M. Canright. - - 144 pp. 20 cts. - -OUR FAITH AND HOPE. Sermons on the Coming and Kingdom of Christ. By Elder -James White. - - 182 pp. 20 cts. - -MIRACULOUS POWERS. The Scripture Testimony on the Perpetuity of Spiritual -Gifts, with Narratives of Incidents and Sentiments carefully compiled -from the Eminently Pious and Learned of various denominations. - - 128 pp. 15 cts. - -RESURRECTION OF THE UNJUST. A vindication of the doctrine. By Elder J. H. -Waggoner. - - 100 pp. 15 cts. - -THE SPIRIT OF GOD, its Gifts and Manifestations to the end of the -Christian Age. By Elder J. H. Waggoner. - - 144 pp. 15 cts. - -THE THREE MESSAGES OF REVELATION 14:6-12, particularly the Third Angel’s -Message and the Two-Horned Beast. By Elder J. N. Andrews. - - 144 pp. 15 cts. - -THE TWO LAWS, as set forth in the Scriptures of the Old and New -Testaments. By Elder D. M. Canright. - - 104 pp. 15 cts. - -THE MORALITY OF THE SABBATH. By Elder D. M. Canright. - - 96 pp. 15 cts. - -THE COMPLETE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS OF THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES -CONCERNING THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. By Elder J. N. Andrews. - - 112 pp. 15 cts. - -GEMS OF SONG. A collection of familiar hymns for religious meetings. - - 15 cts. - -CHRIST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE SABBATH IN THE NEW. By Elder James -White. - - 56 pp. 10 cts. - -REDEEMER AND REDEEMED. By Elder James White. - - 48 pp. 10 cts. - -THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES FROM THE FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY. By Elder James -White. - - 96 pp. 10 cts. - -THE TRUTH FOUND. A clear and concise argument in behalf of the seventh -day as the Sabbath of the Lord. By Elder J. H. Waggoner. - - 64 pp. 10 cts. - -REVIEW OF GILFILLAN. Thoughts suggested by the perusal of Gilfillan and -other authors on the Sabbath. By Elder Thomas B. Brown. - - 64 pp. 10 cts. - -MORTON’S VINDICATION OF THE SABBATH. An interesting experience of a -Presbyterian minister in embracing the Sabbath. By J. W. Morton. - - 68 pp. 10 cts. - -THE ANCIENT SABBATH—OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. By Elder D. T. Bourdeau. - - 87 pp. 10 cts. - -APPEAL TO THE BAPTISTS. An address to the Baptists in behalf of the -Lord’s Sabbath. By the S. D. B. Gen. Conference. - - 46 pp. 10 cts. - -THE REJECTED ORDINANCE. A careful examination of our Lord’s memorial of -humility found in John 13. By Elder W. H. Littlejohn. - - 64 pp. 10 cts. - -MATTHEW TWENTY-FOUR. A thorough exposition of this important chapter. By -Elder James White. - - 64 pp. 10 cts. - -THE POET MILTON ON THE STATE OF THE DEAD. This work shows that Milton -was a decided believer in, and an able defender of, the doctrine that in -death man is unconscious. - - 32 pp. 5 cts. - -FOUR-CENT TRACTS. Redemption—The Second Advent—The Sufferings of -Christ—The Present Truth—Origin and Progress of S. D. Adventists—The -Celestial Railroad—The Seventh Part of Time—Ten Commandments not -Abolished—The Two Covenants—Address to the Baptists—Milton on State of -the Dead—The Two Thrones—Spiritualism a Satanic Delusion—Samuel and the -Witch of Endor—The Third Message of Rev. 14—Tithes and Offerings. - -THREE-CENT TRACTS.—The Second Message of Rev. 14—Who Changed the -Sabbath?—The Lost-Time Question—The Spirit of Prophecy—Scripture -References—The End of the Wicked—Infidel Cavils Considered—The Pocasset -Tragedy—Sabbaton—Wine and the Bible. - -TWO-CENT TRACTS.—Christ in the Old Testament—The Sabbath in the New -Testament—The Old Moral Code not Revised—The Sanctuary of the Bible—The -Judgment—Much in Little—The Millennium—The Two Laws—Seven Reasons—The -Definite Seventh Day—Departing and Being with Christ—The Rich Man and -Lazarus—Elihu on the Sabbath—First Message of Rev. 14—The Law and the -Gospel—Alcoholic Medication—Pork. - -ONE-CENT TRACTS.—The Coming of the Lord—Perfection of the Ten -Commandments—Without Excuse—Thoughts for the Candid—A Sign of the Day -of God—Brief Thoughts on Immortality—Which Day?—Can we Know, or Can -the Prophecies Be Understood?—Is the End Near?—Is Man Immortal?—The -Sleep of the Dead—The Sinner’s Fate—The Law of God—What the Gospel -Abrogated—One Hundred Bible Facts about the Sabbath—Sunday not the -Sabbath—“The Christian Sabbath”—Why not Found Out Before—Causes and Cure -of Intemperance—Moral and Social Effects of Intemperance—Tobacco-Using a -Cause of Disease—Tobacco Poisoning: Nicotiana Tabacum—Evil Effects of Tea -and Coffee—Ten Arguments on Tea and Coffee. - - -WORKS IN OTHER LANGUAGES. - -The S. D. A. Publishing Association issues many of the foregoing -publications in Danish, Swedish, German, French, and Italian. - -It has a full supply of English Bibles, of all sizes and prices. Also -Maps and Charts for Sabbath-school use, and a very carefully prepared -library of excellent reading for the young. - - -HEALTH AND TEMPERANCE PUBLICATIONS. - -This Association publishes, and keeps on hand for sale, a long list of -books, pamphlets, and tracts treating upon the great question of Health -and Temperance. The various subjects coming under the above head are all -treated in a very clear and earnest manner, and are especially adapted -for use by those who set forth the gospel of health. - -☞ Full Catalogues of ALL our publications, giving sizes, styles, and -prices, are sent free on application. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF THE SABBATH AND -FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |