{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_55818/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_55818","id":"gutenberg_55818","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55818","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Sabbath","Seventh-Day Adventists","Sunday"],"text":"CATALOGUE\n\nOf Books, Pamphlets, Tracts, &c., Issued by the Seventh-Day Adventist\nPublishing Association.\n\n\nTHE ADVENT REVIEW & HERALD OF THE SABBATH, weekly. Terms, $2.00 a year,\nin advance.\n\nTHE YOUTH'S INSTRUCTOR, monthly, devoted to moral and religious\ninstruction. Terms, 50 cts. a year, in advance.\n\nTHE HEALTH REFORMER, monthly, devoted to an exposition of the laws of\nlife, etc. Terms, $1.00 a year, in advance.\n\nTHE ADVENT TIDENDE, a religious monthly in the Danish language. Terms,\n$1.00 a year, in advance.\n\nTHE SVENSK ADVENT H\u00c0ROLD, a religious monthly in the Swedish tongue.\nTerms, $1.00 a year, in advance.\n\nHYMN AND TUNE BOOK.--536 hymns--147 tunes. $1.00.\n\nTHE HISTORY OF THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. By J. N. Andrews.\n528 pp., $1.25.\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN LIFE AND PUBLIC LABORS OF WM. MILLER, the noted Lecturer\nand Writer upon the Prophecies. $1.00.\n\nTHOUGHTS ON THE BOOK OF DANIEL, critical and practical. By U. Smith.\nBound, $1.00; condensed edition, paper, 35 cts.\n\nTHOUGHTS ON THE REVELATION, critical and practical. By U. Smith. 328\npp., $1.00.\n\nTHE NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN. By U. Smith. 384 pp., bound, $1.00,\npaper, 40 cts.\n\nTHE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: or a Discussion between W. H. Littlejohn\nand the editor of the _Christian Statesman_ on the Sabbath question.\n$1.00.\n\nTHE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY. By Mrs. E. G. White. $1.00.\n\nLIFE OF ELDER JOSEPH BATES. $1.25.\n\nTHE GAME OF LIFE, with notes. Three illustrations, 5\u00d76 inches each,\nrepresenting Satan playing with man for his soul. In board, 50 cts., in\npaper, 30 cts.\n\n(POEM.) A WORD FOR THE SABBATH: or False Theories Exposed. By U. Smith.\n3d ed. revised and enlarged. 40 cts.\n\nTHE UNITED STATES IN PROPHECY. By U. Smith. Bound, 50 cts.; paper, 25\ncts.\n\n  PROGRESSIVE BIBLE LESSONS for Youth,   in boards, 50 cts.\n       \"        \"       \"       Children,     \"     35 cts.\n\n  (See third page of cover.)\n\n\n\n\n  THE COMPLETE\n\n  TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS\n\n  OF THE\n\n  _First Three Centuries_\n\n  CONCERNING\n\n  The Sabbath and First Day\n\n  BY ELD. J. N. ANDREWS\n\n  SECOND EDITION.\n\n  STEAM PRESS\n  OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION\n  BATTLE CREEK, MICH.:\n\n  1876.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe testimony for first-day sacredness is very meager in the\nScriptures, as even its own advocates must admit. But they have been\nwont to supply the deficiency by a plentiful array of testimonies from\nthe early fathers of the church. Here, in time past, they have had\nthe field all to themselves, and they have allowed their zeal for the\nchange of the Sabbath to get the better of their honesty and their\ntruthfulness. The first-day Sabbath was absolutely unknown before the\ntime of Constantine. Nearly one hundred years elapsed after John was in\nvision on Patmos before the term \"Lord's day\" was applied to the first\nday. During this time, it was called \"the day of the sun,\" \"the first\nday of the week,\" and \"the eighth day.\" The first writers who gave\nit the name of \"Lord's day,\" state the remarkable fact that in their\njudgement the true Lord's day consists of every day of a Christian's\nlife, a very convincing proof that they did not give this title to\nSunday because John had so named it on Patmos. In fact, no one of those\nwho give this title to Sunday ever assigned as a reason for so doing\nthat it was thus called by John. Nor is there any intimation in one\nof the fathers that first-day observance was an act of obedience to\nthe fourth commandment, nor one clear statement that ordinary labor on\nthat day was sinful. In order to show these facts, I have undertaken to\ngive every testimony of every one of the fathers, prior to A. D. 325,\nwho mentions either the Sabbath or the first day. Though some of these\nquotations are comparatively unimportant, others are of very great\nvalue. I have given them all, in order that the reader may actually\npossess their entire testimony. I have principally followed the\ntranslation of the \"Ante-Nicene Christian Library,\" and have in every\ncase made use of first-day translations. The work has been one of great\nlabor to me, and I trust will be found of much profit to the candid\nreader.\n\n                                                          J. N. ANDREWS.\n\n    _Lancaster, Mass., Jan. 1, 1873._\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.\n\nIn this edition every quotation has been carefully compared with the\nworks of the fathers from which they were taken. A few minor errors\nhave been detected, but none of importance. The work is commended to\nthe attention of candid inquirers with the prayer that God will make it\ninstrumental in opening the eyes of many to the truth concerning his\nholy day.\n\n                                                                J. N. A.\n\n    _Neuch\u00e1tel, Switzerland, April 7, 1876._\n\n\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nINTRODUCTORY STATEMENT.\n\n\nWith respect to the Sabbath, the religious world may be divided into\nthree classes:--\n\n1. Those who retain the ancient seventh-day Sabbath.\n\n2. Those who observe the first-day Sabbath.\n\n3. Those who deny the existence of any Sabbath.[A]\n\nIt is inevitable that controversy should exist between these parties.\nTheir first appeal is to the Bible, and this should decide the case;\nfor it reveals man's whole duty. But there is an appeal by the second\nparty, and sometimes by the third, to another authority, the early\nfathers of the church, for the decision of the question.\n\nThe controversy stands thus: The second and third parties agree with\nthe first that God did anciently require the observance of the seventh\nday; but both deny the doctrine of the first, that he still requires\nmen to hallow that day; the second asserting that he has changed the\nSabbath to the first day of the week; and the third declaring that he\nhas totally abolished the institution itself.\n\nThe first class plant themselves upon the plain letter of the law\nof God, and adduce those scriptures which teach the perpetuity and\nimmutability of the moral law, and which show that the new covenant\ndoes not abrogate that law, but puts it into the heart of every\nChristian.\n\nThe second class attempt to prove the change of the Sabbath by quoting\nthose texts which mention the first day of the week, and also those\nwhich are said to refer to it. The first day is, on such authority,\ncalled by this party the Christian Sabbath, and the fourth commandment\nis used by them to enforce this new Sabbath.\n\nThe third class adduce those texts which assert the dissolution of the\nold covenant; and those which teach the abolition of the ceremonial\nlaw with all its distinction of days, as new moons, feast days, and\nannual sabbaths; and also those texts which declare that men cannot be\njustified by that law which condemns sin; and from all these contend\nthat the law and the Sabbath are both abolished.\n\nBut the first class answer to the second that the texts which they\nbring forward do not meet the case, inasmuch as they say nothing\nrespecting the change of the Sabbath; and that it is not honest to use\nthe fourth commandment to enforce the observance of a day not therein\ncommanded. And the third class assent to this answer as truthful and\njust.\n\nTo the position of the third class, the first make this answer: That\nthe old covenant was made between God and his people _concerning_ his\nlaw;[B] that it ceased because the people failed in its conditions, the\nkeeping of the commandments; that the new covenant does not abrogate\nthe law of God, but secures obedience to it by putting it into the\nheart of every Christian; that there are two systems of law, one being\nmade up of typical and ceremonial precepts, and the other consisting of\nmoral principles only; that those texts which speak of the abrogation\nof the handwriting of ordinances and of the distinction in meats,\ndrinks, and days, pertain alone to this shadowy system, and never to\nthe moral law which contains the Sabbath of the Lord; and that it is\nnot the fault of the law, but of sinners, that they are condemned by\nit; and that justification being attained only by the sacrifice of\nChrist as a sin offering, is in itself a most powerful attestation to\nthe perpetuity, immutability, and perfection, of that law which reveals\nsin. And to this answer the second class heartily assent.\n\nBut the second class have something further to say. The Bible, indeed,\nfails to assert the change of the Sabbath, but these persons have\nsomething else to offer, in their estimation, equally as good as the\nScriptures. The early fathers of the church, who conversed with the\napostles, or who conversed with some who had conversed with them, and\nthose who followed for several generations, are by this class presented\nas authority, and their testimony is used to establish the so-called\nChristian Sabbath on a firm basis. And this is what they assert\nrespecting the fathers: That they distinctly teach the change of the\nSabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, and that the\nfirst day is by divine authority the Christian Sabbath.\n\nBut the third class squarely deny this statement, and affirm that the\nfathers held the Sabbath as an institution made for the Jews when they\ncame out of Egypt, and that Christ abolished it at his death. They\nalso assert that the fathers held the first day, not as a Sabbath in\nwhich men must not labor lest they break a divine precept, but as an\necclesiastical institution, which they called the Lord's day, and\nwhich was the proper day for religious assemblies because custom and\ntradition thus concurred. And so the third class answer the second by\nan explicit denial of its alleged facts. They also aim a blow at the\nfirst by the assertion that the early fathers taught the no-Sabbath\ndoctrine, which must therefore be acknowledged as the real doctrine of\nthe New Testament.\n\nAnd now the first class respond to these conflicting statements of the\nsecond and the third. And here is their response:--\n\n1. That our duty respecting the Sabbath, and respecting every other\nthing, can be learned only from the Scriptures.\n\n2. That the first three hundred years after the apostles nearly\naccomplished the complete development of the great apostasy, which had\ncommenced even in Paul's time; and this age of apostatizing cannot be\ngood authority for making changes in the law of God.\n\n3. That only a small proportion of the ministers and teachers of\nthis period have transmitted any writings to our time; and these are\ngenerally fragments of the original works, and they have come down to\nus mainly through the hands of the Romanists, who have never scrupled\nto destroy or to corrupt that which witnesses against themselves,\nwhenever it has been in their power to do it.\n\n4. But inasmuch as these two classes, viz., those who maintain the\nfirst-day Sabbath, and those who deny the existence of any Sabbath,\nboth appeal to these fathers for testimony with which to sustain\nthemselves, and to put down the first class, viz., those who hallow\nthe ancient Sabbath, it becomes necessary that the exact truth\nrespecting the writings of that age, which now exist, should be shown.\nThere is but one method of doing this which will effectually end the\ncontroversy. This is to give every one of their testimonies concerning\nthe Sabbath and first-day in their own words. In doing this the\nfollowing facts will appear:--\n\n1. That in some important particulars there is a marked disagreement\non this subject among them. For while some teach that the Sabbath\noriginated at creation and should be hallowed even now, others assert\nthat it began with the fall of the manna, and ended with the death\nof Christ. And while one class represent Christ as a violator of the\nSabbath, another class represent him as sacredly hallowing it, and\na third class declare that he certainly did violate it, and that\nhe certainly never did, but always observed it! Some of them also\naffirm that the Sabbath was abolished, and in other places positively\naffirm that it is perpetuated and made more sacred than it formerly\nwas. Moreover, some assert that the ten commandments are absolutely\nabolished, whilst others declare that they are perpetuated, and are\nthe tests of Christian character in this dispensation. Some call the\nday of Christ's resurrection the first day of the week; others call\nit the day of the sun, and the eighth day; and a larger number call\nit the Lord's day, but there are no examples of this application till\nthe close of the second century. Some enjoin the observance of both\nthe Sabbath and the first day, while others treat the seventh day as\ndespicable.\n\n2. But in several things of great importance there is perfect unity of\nsentiment. They always distinguish between the Sabbath and the first\nday of the week. The change of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the\nfirst is never mentioned in a single instance. They never term the\nfirst day the Christian Sabbath, nor do they treat it as a Sabbath of\nany kind. Nor is there a single declaration in any of them that labor\non the first day of the week is sinful; the utmost that can be found\nbeing one or two vague expressions which do not necessarily have any\nsuch sense.\n\n3. Many of the fathers call the first day of the week the Lord's day.\nBut none of them claim for it any scriptural authority, and some\nexpressly state that it has none whatever, but rests solely upon custom\nand tradition.\n\n4. But the writings of the fathers furnish positive proof that the\nSabbath was observed in the Christian church down to the time when they\nwrote, and by no inconsiderable part of that body. For some of them\nexpressly enjoined its observance, and even some of those who held that\nit was abolished speak of Christians who observed it, whom they would\nconsent to fellowship if they would not make it a test.\n\n5. And now mark the work of apostasy: This work never begins by\nthrusting out God's institutions, but always by bringing in those of\nmen and at first only asking that they may be tolerated, while yet\nthe ones ordained of God are sacredly observed. This, in time, being\neffected, the next effort is to make them equal with the divine. When\nthis has been accomplished, the third stage of the process is to honor\nthem above those divinely commanded; and this is speedily succeeded\nby the fourth, in which the divine institution is thrust out with\ncontempt, and the whole ground given to its human rival.\n\n6. Before the first three centuries had expired, apostasy concerning\nthe Sabbath had, with many of the fathers, advanced to the third stage,\nand with a considerable number had already entered upon the fourth. For\nthose fathers who hallow the Sabbath do generally associate with it the\nfestival called by them the Lord's day. And though they speak of the\nSabbath as a divine institution, and never speak thus of the so-called\nLord's day, they do, nevertheless, give the greater honor to this human\nfestival. So far had the apostasy progressed before the end of the\nthird century, that only one thing more was needed to accomplish the\nwork as far as the Sabbath was concerned, and this was to discard it,\nand to honor the Sunday festival alone. Some of the fathers had already\ngone thus far; and the work became general within five centuries after\nChrist.\n\n7. The modern church historians make very conflicting statements\nrespecting the Sabbath during the first centuries. Some pass over it\nalmost in silence, or indicate that it was, at most, observed only by\nJewish Christians. Others, however, testify to its general observance\nby the Gentile Christians; yet some of these assert that the Sabbath\nwas observed as a matter of expediency and not of moral obligation,\nbecause those who kept it did not believe the commandments were\nbinding. (This is a great error, as will appear in due time.) What is\nsaid, however, by these modern historians is comparatively unimportant\ninasmuch as their sources of information were of necessity the very\nwritings which are about to be quoted.\n\n8. In the following pages will be found, in their own words, every\nstatement[C] which the fathers of the first three centuries make by\nway of defining their views of the Sabbath and first-day. And even\nwhen they merely allude to either day in giving their views of other\nsubjects, the nature of the allusion is stated, and, where practicable,\nthe sentence or phrase containing it is quoted. The different writings\nare cited in the order in which they purport to have been written. A\nconsiderable number were not written by the persons to whom they were\nascribed, but at a later date. As these have been largely quoted by\nfirst-day writers, they are here given in full. And even these writings\npossess a certain historical value. For though not written by the ones\nwhose names they bear, they are known to have been in existence since\nthe second or third century, and they give some idea of the views which\nthen prevailed.\n\nFirst of all let us hear the so-called \"Apostolical Constitutions.\"\nThese were not the work of the apostles, but they were in existence\nas early as the third century, and were then very generally believed\nto express the doctrine of the apostles. They do therefore furnish\nimportant historical testimony to the practice of the church at that\ntime. Mosheim in his Historical Commentaries, Cent. 1, sect. 51, speaks\nthus of these \"Constitutions\":--\n\n    \"The matter of this work is unquestionably ancient; since the\n    manners and discipline of which it exhibits a view are those which\n    prevailed amongst the Christians of the second and third centuries,\n    especially those resident in Greece and the oriental regions.\"\n\nOf the \"Apostolical Constitutions,\" Guericke's Church History speaks\nthus:--\n\n    \"This is a collection of ecclesiastical statutes purporting to be\n    the work of the apostolic age, but in reality formed gradually\n    in the second, third, and fourth centuries, and is of much value\n    in reference to the history of polity, and Christian arch\u00e6ology\n    generally.\"--_Ancient Church_, p. 212.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS.\n\n\n    \"Have before thine eyes the fear of God, and always remember the\n    ten commandments of God,--to love the one and only Lord God with\n    all thy strength; to give no heed to idols, or any other beings,\n    as being lifeless gods, or irrational beings or d\u00e6mons. Consider\n    the manifold workmanship of God, which received its beginning\n    through Christ. Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him\n    who ceased from his work of creation, but ceased not from his work\n    of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for\n    idleness of the hands.\" Book ii., sect. 4, par. 36.\n\nThis is sound Sabbatarian doctrine. But apostasy had begun its work in\nthe establishment of the so-called Lord's day, which was destined in\ntime to drive out the Sabbath. The next mention of the Sabbath also\nintroduces the festival called Lord's day, but the reader will remember\nthat this was written, not in the first century, but the third:--\n\n    \"Let your judicatures be held on the second day of the week, that\n    if any controversy arise about your sentence, having an interval\n    till the Sabbath, you may be able to set the controversy right, and\n    to reduce those to peace who have the contests one with another\n    against the Lord's day.\" Book ii., sect. 6, par. 47.\n\nBy the term Lord's day the first day of the week is here intended. But\nthe writer does not call the first day the Sabbath, that term being\napplied to the seventh day.\n\n    In section 7, paragraph 59, Christians are commanded to assemble\n    for worship \"every day, morning and evening, singing psalms and\n    praying in the Lord's house: in the morning saying the sixty-second\n    psalm, and in the evening the hundred and fortieth, but principally\n    on the Sabbath day. And on the day of our Lord's resurrection,\n    which is the Lord's day, meet more diligently, sending praise to\n    God that made the universe by Jesus and sent him to us.\" \"Otherwise\n    what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day\n    to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection, on which we\n    pray thrice standing, in memory of him who arose in three days, in\n    which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of\n    the gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy\n    food.\"\n\nThe writer of these \"Constitutions\" this time gives the first day great\nprominence, though still honoring the Sabbath, and by no means giving\nthat title to Sunday. But in book v., section 2, paragraph 10, we have\na singular testimony to the manner in which Sunday was spent. Thus the\nwriter says:--\n\n    \"Now we exhort you, brethren and fellow-servants, to avoid\n    vain talk and obscene discourses, and jestings, drunkenness,\n    lasciviousness, luxury, unbounded passions, with foolish\n    discourses, since we do not permit you so much as on the Lord's\n    days, which are days of joy, to speak or act anything unseemly.\"\n\nFrom this it appears that the so-called Lord's day was a day of greater\nmirth than the other days of the week. In book v., section 3, paragraph\n14, it is said:--\n\n    \"But when the first day of the week dawned he arose from the dead,\n    and fulfilled those things which before his passion he foretold to\n    us, saying: 'The Son of man must continue in the heart of the earth\n    three days and three nights.'\"\n\nIn book v., section 3, paragraph 15, the writer names the days on which\nChristians should fast:--\n\n    \"But he commanded us to fast on the fourth and sixth days of the\n    week; the former on account of his being betrayed, and the latter\n    on account of his passion. But he appointed us to break our fast\n    on the seventh day at the cock-crowing, but to fast on the Sabbath\n    day. Not that the Sabbath day is a day of fasting, being the rest\n    from the creation, but because we ought to fast on this one Sabbath\n    only, while on this day the Creator was under the earth.\"\n\nIn paragraph 17, Christians are forbidden to \"celebrate the day of the\nresurrection of our Lord on any other day than a Sunday.\" In paragraph\n18, they are again charged to fast on that one Sabbath which comes\nin connection with the anniversary of our Lord's death. In paragraph\n19, the first day of the week is four times called the Lord's day.\nThe period of 40 days from his resurrection to his ascension is to be\nobserved. The anniversary of Christ's resurrection is to be celebrated\nby the supper.\n\n    \"And let this be an everlasting ordinance till the consummation of\n    the world, until the Lord come. For to Jews the Lord is still dead,\n    but to Christians he is risen: to the former, by their unbelief; to\n    the latter, by their full assurance of faith. For the hope in him\n    is immortal and eternal life. After eight days let there be another\n    feast observed with honor, the eighth day itself, on which he gave\n    me, Thomas, who was hard of belief, full assurance, by showing\n    me the print of the nails, and the wound made in his side by the\n    spear. And again, from the first Lord's day count forty days, from\n    the Lord's day till the fifth day of the week, and celebrate the\n    feast of the ascension of the Lord, whereon he finished all his\n    dispensation and constitution,\" etc.\n\nThe things here commanded can come only once in a year. These are the\nanniversary of Christ's resurrection, and of that day on which he\nappeared to Thomas, and these were to be celebrated by the supper.\nThe people were also to observe the day of the ascension on the fifth\nday of the week, forty days from his resurrection, on which day he\nfinished his work. In paragraph 20, they are commanded to celebrate the\nanniversary of the Pentecost.\n\n    \"But after ten days from the ascension, which from the first Lord's\n    day is the fiftieth day, do ye keep a great festival; for on that\n    day, at the third hour, the Lord Jesus sent on us the gift of the\n    Holy Ghost.\"\n\nThis was not a weekly but a yearly festival. Fasting is also set forth\nin this paragraph, but every Sabbath except the one Christ lay in the\ntomb is exempted from this fast, and every so-called Lord's day:--\n\n    \"We enjoin you to fast every fourth day of the week, and every day\n    of the preparation [the sixth day], and the surplusage of your fast\n    bestow upon the needy; every Sabbath day excepting one, and every\n    Lord's day, hold your solemn assemblies, and rejoice; for he will\n    be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord's day, being the day of the\n    resurrection, or during the time of Pentecost, or, in general,\n    who is sad on a festival day to the Lord. For on them we ought to\n    rejoice, and not to mourn.\"\n\nThis writer asserts that it is a sin to fast or mourn on Sunday, but\nnever intimates that it is a sin to labor on that day when not engaged\nin worship. We shall next learn that the decalogue is in agreement with\nthe law of nature, and that it is of perpetual obligation:--\n\n    In book vi., section 4, paragraph 19, it is said: \"He gave a\n    plain law to assist the law of nature, such an one as is pure,\n    saving, and holy, in which his own name was inscribed, perfect,\n    which is never to fail, being complete in ten commands, unspotted,\n    converting souls.\"\n\n    In paragraph 20 it is said: \"Now the law is the decalogue, which\n    the Lord promulgated to them with an audible voice.\"\n\n    In paragraph 22 he says: \"You therefore are blessed who are\n    delivered from the curse. For Christ, the Son of God, by his\n    coming has confirmed and completed the law, but has taken away the\n    additional precepts, although not all of them, yet at least the\n    more grievous ones; having confirmed the former, and abolished the\n    latter.\" And he further testifies as follows: \"And besides, before\n    his coming he refused the sacrifices of the people, while they\n    frequently offered them, when they sinned against him, and thought\n    he was to be appeased by sacrifices, but not by repentance.\"\n\nFor this reason the writer truthfully testifies that God refused to\naccept their burnt-offerings and sacrifices, their new moons and their\nSabbaths.\n\n    In book vi., section 23, he says: \"He who had commanded to honor\n    our parents, was himself subject to them. He who had commanded to\n    keep the Sabbath, by resting thereon for the sake of meditating on\n    the laws, has now commanded us to consider of the law of creation,\n    and of providence every day, and to return thanks to God.\"\n\nThis savors somewhat of the doctrine that all days are alike. Yet this\ncannot be the meaning; for in book vii., section 2, paragraph 23, he\nenjoins the observance of the Sabbath, and also of the Lord's-day\nfestival, but specifies one Sabbath in the year in which men should\nfast. Thus he says:--\n\n    \"But keep the Sabbath, and the Lord's-day festival; because the\n    former is the memorial of the creation, and the latter, of the\n    resurrection. But there is one only Sabbath to be observed by you\n    in the whole year, which is that of our Lord's burial, on which\n    men ought to keep a fast, but not a festival. For inasmuch as\n    the Creator was then under the earth, the sorrow for him is more\n    forcible than the joy for the creation; for the Creator is more\n    honorable by nature and dignity than his own creatures.\"\n\n    In book vii., section 2, paragraph 30, he says: \"On the day of\n    the resurrection of the Lord, that is, the Lord's day, assemble\n    yourselves together, without fail, giving thanks to God,\" etc.\n\n    In paragraph 36, the writer brings in the Sabbath again: \"O Lord\n    Almighty, thou hast created the world by Christ, and hast appointed\n    the Sabbath in memory thereof, because that on _that day_ thou hast\n    made us _rest from our works_, for the meditation upon thy laws.\"\n\nIn the same paragraph, in speaking of the resurrection of Christ, the\nwriter says:--\n\n    \"On which account we solemnly assemble to celebrate the feast of\n    the resurrection on the Lord's day,\" etc. In the same paragraph\n    he speaks again of the Sabbath: \"Thou didst give them the law or\n    decalogue, which was pronounced by thy voice and written with\n    thy hand. Thou didst enjoin the observation of the Sabbath, not\n    affording them an occasion of idleness, but an opportunity of\n    piety, for their knowledge of thy power, and the prohibition of\n    evils; having limited them as within an holy circuit for the sake\n    of doctrine, for the rejoicing upon the seventh period.\"\n\nIn this paragraph he also states his views of the Sabbath, and of\nthe day which he calls the Lord's day, giving the precedence to the\nlatter:--\n\n    \"On this account he permitted men every Sabbath to rest, that\n    so no one might be willing to send one word out of his mouth in\n    anger on the day of the Sabbath. For the Sabbath is the ceasing\n    of the creation, the completion of the world, the inquiry after\n    laws, and the grateful praise to God for the blessings he has\n    bestowed upon men. All which the Lord's day excels, and shows the\n    Mediator himself, the Provider, the Law-giver, the Cause of the\n    resurrection, the First-born of the whole creation,\" etc. And he\n    adds: \"So that the Lord's day commands us to offer unto thee, O\n    Lord, thanksgiving for all. For this is the grace afforded by thee,\n    which on account of its greatness has obscured all other blessings.\"\n\nIt is certainly noteworthy that the so-called Lord's day, for which\nno divine warrant is produced, is here exalted above the Sabbath\nof the Lord notwithstanding the Sabbath is acknowledged to be the\ndivine memorial of the creation, and to be expressly enjoined in the\ndecalogue, which the writer declares to be of perpetual obligation.\nTested by his own principles, he had far advanced in apostasy; for he\nheld a human festival more honorable than one which he acknowledged to\nbe ordained of God; and only a single step remained; viz., to set aside\nthe commandment of God for the ordinance of man.\n\nIn book viii., section 2, paragraph 4, it is said, when a bishop has\nbeen chosen and is to be ordained,--\n\n    \"Let the people assemble, with the presbytery and bishops that are\n    present, on the Lord's day, and let them give their consent.\"\n\nIn book viii., section 4, paragraph 33, occurs the final mention of\nthese two days in the so-called \"Apostolical Constitutions.\"\n\n    \"Let the slaves work five days; but on the Sabbath day and the\n    Lord's day let them have leisure to go to church for instruction in\n    piety. We have said that the Sabbath is on account of the creation,\n    and the Lord's day, of the resurrection.\"\n\nTo this may be added the 64th Canon of the Apostles, which is appended\nto the \"Constitutions\":--\n\n    \"If any one of the clergy be found to fast on the Lord's day, or on\n    the Sabbath day, excepting one only, let him be deprived; but if he\n    be one of the laity, let him be suspended.\"\n\nEvery mention of the Sabbath and first-day in that ancient book called\n\"Apostolical Constitutions\" is now before the reader. This book comes\ndown to us from the third century, and contains what was at that time\nvery generally believed to be the doctrine of the apostles. It is\ntherefore valuable to us, not as authority respecting the teaching of\nthe apostles, but as giving us a knowledge of the views and practices\nwhich prevailed in the third century. At the time these \"Constitutions\"\nwere put in writing, the ten commandments were revered as the immutable\nrule of right, and the Sabbath of the Lord was by many observed as an\nact of obedience to the fourth commandment, and as the divine memorial\nof the creation. But the first-day festival had already attained such\nstrength and influence as to clearly indicate that ere long it would\nclaim the entire ground. But observe that the Sabbath and the so-called\nLord's day are treated as distinct institutions, and that no hint of\nthe change of the Sabbath to the first day of the week is ever once\ngiven. The \"Apostolical Constitutions\" are cited first, not because\nwritten by the apostles, but because of their title. For the same\nreason the so-called Epistle of Barnabas is quoted next, not because\nwritten by that apostle, for the proof is ample that it was not, but\nbecause it is often quoted by first-day writers as the words of the\napostle Barnabas. It was in existence, however, as early as the middle\nof the second century, and, like the \"Apostolical Constitutions,\" is of\nvalue to us in that it gives some clue to the opinions which prevailed\nin the region where the writer lived, or at least which were held by\nhis party.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nBarnabas--Pliny--Ignatius--The Church at Smyrna--The Epistle to\nDiognetus--Recognitions of Clement--Syriac Documents concerning\nEdessa.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS.\n\nIn his second chapter this writer speaks thus:--\n\n    \"For he hath revealed to us by all the prophets that he needs\n    neither sacrifices, nor burnt-offerings, nor oblations, saying\n    thus, 'What is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me, saith\n    the Lord? I am full of burnt-offerings, and desire not the fat of\n    lambs, and the blood of bulls and goats, not when ye come to appear\n    before me: for who hath required these things at your hands? Tread\n    no more my courts, not though ye bring with you fine flour. Incense\n    is a vain abomination unto me, and your new moons and Sabbaths I\n    cannot endure.' He has therefore abolished these things, that the\n    new law of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is without the yoke of\n    necessity, might have a human oblation.\"\n\nThe writer may have intended to assert the abolition of the sacrifices\nonly, as this was his special theme in this place. But he presently\nasserts the abolition of the Sabbath of the Lord. Here is his fifteenth\nchapter entire:--\n\n    \"Further, also, it is written concerning the Sabbath in the\n    decalogue which [the Lord] spoke, face to face, to Moses on Mount\n    Sinai, 'And sanctify ye the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands\n    and a pure heart.' And he says in another place, 'If my sons keep\n    the Sabbath, then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them.' The\n    Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: 'And\n    God made in six days the works of his hands, and made an end on\n    the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it.' Attend, my\n    children, to the meaning of this expression, 'He finished in six\n    days.' This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six\n    thousand years, for a day is with him a thousand years. And he\n    himself testifieth, saying, 'Behold to-day will be as a thousand\n    years.' Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six\n    thousand years, all things will be finished. 'And he rested on the\n    seventh day.' This meaneth: when his Son, coming [again], shall\n    destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and\n    change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall he truly\n    rest on the seventh day. Moreover, he says, 'Thou shalt sanctify it\n    with pure hands and a pure heart.' If, therefore, any one can now\n    sanctify the day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in\n    heart in all things, we are deceived. Behold, therefore: certainly\n    then one properly resting sanctifies it, when we ourselves,\n    having received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and\n    all things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to\n    work righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having\n    been first sanctified ourselves. Further, he says to them, 'Your\n    new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot endure.' Ye perceive how he\n    speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but that is\n    which I have made [namely this], when, giving rest to all things,\n    I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning\n    of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with\n    joyfulness, the day, also, on which Jesus rose again from the dead.\n    And when he had manifested himself, he ascended into the heavens.\"\n\nHere are some very strange specimens of reasoning. The substance of\nwhat he says relative to the present observance of the Sabbath appears\nto be this: No one \"can now sanctify the day which God hath sanctified\nexcept he is pure in heart in all things.\" But this cannot be the case\nuntil the present world shall pass away, \"when we ourselves, having\nreceived the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and _all things\nhaving been made new_ by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness.\nThen we shall be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified\nourselves.\" Men cannot therefore keep the Sabbath while this wicked\nworld lasts. And so he says, \"Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable\nto me.\" That is to say, the keeping of the day which God has sanctified\nis not possible in such a wicked world. But though the seventh day\ncannot now be kept, the eighth day can be, and ought to be, because\nwhen the seventh thousand years are past there will be at the beginning\nof the eighth thousand the new creation. So the persons represented\nby this writer, do not attempt to keep the seventh day which God\nsanctified, for that is too pure to keep in this world, and can only\nbe kept after the Saviour comes at the commencement of the seventh\nthousand years; but they \"keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day\nalso on which Jesus rose again from the dead.\" Sunday, which God never\nsanctified, is exactly suitable for observance in the world as it now\nis. But the sanctified seventh day \"we shall be able to sanctify\" when\nall things have been made new. If our first-day friends think these\nwords of some unknown writer of the second century more honorable to\nthe first day of the week than to the seventh, they are welcome to\nthem. Had the writer said, \"It is easier to keep Sunday than the\nSabbath while the world is so wicked,\" he would have stated the truth.\nBut when in substance he says, \"It is more acceptable to God to keep a\ncommon than a sanctified day while men are so sinful,\" he excuses his\ndisobedience by uttering a falsehood. Several things however should be\nnoted:--\n\n1. In this quotation we have the reasons of a no-Sabbath man for\nkeeping the festival of Sunday. It is not God's commandment, for there\nwas none for that festival; but the day God hallowed being too pure to\nkeep while the world is so wicked, Sunday is therefore kept till the\nreturn of the Lord, and then the seventh day shall be truly sanctified\nby those who now regard it not.\n\n2. But this writer, though saying what he is able in behalf of the\nfirst day of the week, applies to it no sacred name. He does not call\nit Christian Sabbath, nor Lord's day, but simply \"the eighth day,\" and\nthis because it succeeds the seventh day of the week.\n\n3. It is also to be noticed that he expressly dates the Sabbath from\nthe creation.\n\n4. The change of the Sabbath was unknown to this writer. He kept the\nSunday festival, not because it was purer than the sanctified seventh\nday, but because the seventh day was too pure to keep while the world\nis so wicked.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE EPISTLE OF PLINY.\n\nPliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in the years 103 and 104.\nHe wrote a letter to the emperor Trajan, in which he states what he\nhad learned of the Christians as the result of examining them at his\ntribunal:--\n\n    \"They affirmed that the whole of their guilt or error was, that\n    they met on a certain stated day [_stato die_], before it was\n    light, and addressed themselves in a form of prayer to Christ,\n    as to some God, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the\n    purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud,\n    theft, or adultery; never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust\n    when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it\n    was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to eat in common\n    a harmless meal.\"--_Coleman's Ancient Christianity_, chap. i. sect.\n    1.\n\nThe letter of Pliny is often referred to as though it testified that\nthe Christians of Bithynia celebrated the first day of the week. Yet\nsuch is by no means the case, as the reader can plainly see. Coleman\nsays of it (page 528):--\n\n    \"This statement is evidence that these Christians kept a day as\n    holy time, but whether it was the last, or the first day of the\n    week, does not appear.\"\n\nSuch is the judgment of an able, candid, first-day church historian of\ngood repute as a scholar. An anti-Sabbatarian writer of some repute\nspeaks thus:--\n\n    \"As the Sabbath day appears to have been quite as commonly observed\n    at this date as the Sun's day (if not even more so), it is just\n    as probable that this 'stated day' referred to by Pliny was the\n    _seventh_ day, as that it was the _first_ day; though the latter is\n    generally taken for granted.\"--_Obligation of the Sabbath_, p. 300.\n\nEvery candid person must acknowledge that it is unjust to represent\nthe letter of Pliny as testifying in behalf of the so-called Christian\nSabbath. Next in order of time come the reputed epistles of Ignatius.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS.\n\nOf the fifteen epistles ascribed to Ignatius, eight are, by universal\nconsent, accounted spurious; and eminent scholars have questioned the\ngenuineness of the remaining seven. There are, however, two forms to\nthese seven, a longer and a shorter, and while some doubt exists as\nto the shorter form, the longer form is by common consent ascribed to\na later age than that of Ignatius. But the epistle to the Magnesians,\nwhich exists both in the longer and in the shorter form, is the one\nfrom which first-day writers obtain Ignatius' testimony in behalf of\nSunday, and they quote for this both these forms. We therefore give\nboth. Here is the shorter:--\n\n    \"For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. On this\n    account also they were persecuted, being inspired by his grace\n    to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has\n    manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal\n    Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things\n    pleased him that sent him. If, therefore, those who were brought up\n    in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new\n    hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance\n    of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung again by him\n    and by his death--whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained\n    faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of\n    Jesus Christ, our only master--how shall we be able to live apart\n    from him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did\n    wait for him as their teacher? And therefore he whom they rightly\n    waited for, being come, raised them from the dead.\" Chaps. viii.\n    and ix.\n\nThis paragraph is the one out of which a part of a sentence is quoted\nto show that Ignatius testifies in behalf of the Lord's-day festival,\nor Christian Sabbath. But the so-called Lord's day is only brought in\nby means of a false translation. This is the decisive sentence:\n#m\u00eaketi sabbatizontes, alla kata kyriak\u00ean z\u00f4\u00ean z\u00f4ntes#; literally: \"no\nlonger sabbatizing, but living according to Lord's life.\"\n\nEminent first-day scholars have called attention to this fact, and have\ntestified explicitly that the term Lord's day has no right to appear\nin the translation; for the original is not #kyriak\u00ean h\u00eameran#,\nLord's day, but #kyriak\u00ean z\u00f4\u00ean#, Lord's life. This is absolutely\ndecisive, and shows that something akin to fraud has to be used in\norder to find a reference in this place to the so-called Christian\nSabbath.\n\nBut there is another fact quite as much to the point. The writer was\nnot speaking of those then alive, but of the ancient prophets. This is\nproved by the opening and closing words of the above quotation, which\nfirst-day writers always omit. The so-called Lord's day is inserted\nby a fraudulent translation; and now see what absurdity comes of it.\nThe writer is speaking of the ancient prophets. If, therefore, the\nSunday festival be inserted in this quotation from Ignatius he is\nmade to declare that \"the divinest prophets,\" who \"were brought up in\nthe ancient order of things,\" kept the first day and did not keep the\nSabbath! Whereas, the truth is just the reverse of this. They certainly\ndid keep the Sabbath, and did not keep the first day of the week. The\nwriter speaks of the point when these men came \"to the newness of\nhope,\" which must be their individual conversion to God. They certainly\ndid observe and enforce the Sabbath after this act of conversion. See\nIsa., chaps. 56, 58; Jer. 17; Eze., chaps. 20, 22, 23. But they did\nalso, as this writer truly affirms, live according to the Lord's life.\nThe sense of the writer respecting the prophets must therefore be\nthis: \"No longer [after their conversion to God] observing the Sabbath\n[merely, as natural men] but living according to the Lord's life,\" or\n\"according to Christ Jesus.\"\n\nSo much for the shorter form of the epistle to the Magnesians. Though\nthe longer form is by almost universal consent of scholars and critics\npronounced the work of some centuries after the time of Ignatius,\nyet as a portion of this also is often given by first-day writers to\nsupport Sunday, and given too as the words of Ignatius, we here present\nin full its reference to the first day of the week, and also to the\nSabbath, which they generally omit. Here are its statements:--\n\n    \"Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish\n    manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for 'he that does not\n    work, let him not eat.' For, say the [holy] oracles, 'In the sweat\n    of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.' But let every one of you\n    keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation\n    on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship\n    of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using\n    lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding\n    delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And\n    after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ\n    keep the Lord's day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen\n    and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this,\n    the prophet declared, 'To the end, for the eighth day,' on which\n    our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was\n    obtained in Christ,\" etc. Chapter ix.\n\nThis epistle, though the work of a later hand than that of Ignatius,\nis valuable for the light which it sheds upon the state of things\nwhen it was written. It gives us a correct idea of the progress of\napostasy with respect to the Sabbath in the time of the writer. He\nspeaks against Jewish superstition in the observance of the Sabbath,\nand condemns days of idleness as contrary to the declaration, \"In the\nsweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.\" But by days of idleness\nhe cannot refer to the Sabbath, for this would be to make the fourth\ncommandment clash with this text, whereas they must harmonize, inasmuch\nas they existed together during the former dispensation. Moreover,\nthe Sabbath, though a day of abstinence from labor, is not a day of\nidleness, but of active participation in religious duties. He enjoins\nits observance after a spiritual manner. And after the Sabbath has\nbeen thus observed, \"let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's day\n_as a festival_, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the\ndays.\" The divine institution of the Sabbath was not yet done away,\nbut the human institution of Sunday had become its equal, and was even\ncommended above it. Not long after this, it took the whole ground, and\nthe observance of the Sabbath was denounced as heretical and pernicious.\n\nThe reputed epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians in its shorter form\ndoes not allude to this subject. In its longer form, which is admitted\nto be the work of a later age than that of Ignatius, these expressions\nare found:--\n\n    \"During the Sabbath, he continued under the earth;\" \"at the dawning\n    of the Lord's day he arose from the dead;\" \"the Sabbath embraces\n    the burial; the Lord's day contains the resurrection.\" Chap. ix.\n\nIn the epistle to the Philippians, which is universally acknowledged\nto be the work of a later person than Ignatius, it is said:--\n\n    \"If any one fasts on the Lord's day or on the Sabbath, except on\n    the paschal Sabbath only, he is a murderer of Christ.\" Chap. xiii.\n\nWe have now given every allusion to the Sabbath and first-day that\ncan be found in any writing attributed to Ignatius. We have seen\nthat the term \"Lord's day\" is not found in any sentence written by\nhim. The first day is never called the Christian Sabbath, not even\nin the writings falsely attributed to him; nor is there in any of\nthem a hint of the modern doctrine of the change of the Sabbath.\nThough falsely ascribed to Ignatius, and actually written in a later\nage, they are valuable in that they mark the progress of apostasy\nin the establishment of the Sunday festival. Moreover, they furnish\nconclusive evidence that the ancient Sabbath was retained for centuries\nin the so-called Catholic church, and that the Sunday festival was\nan institution entirely distinct from the Sabbath of the fourth\ncommandment.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH AT SMYRNA.\n\nThe epistle of Polycarp makes no reference to the Sabbath nor to the\nfirst day of the week. But \"the encyclical epistle of the church at\nSmyrna concerning the martyrdom of the holy Polycarp,\" informs us that\n\"the blessed Polycarp suffered martyrdom\" \"on the great Sabbath at the\neighth hour.\" Chapter xxi. The margin says: \"The great Sabbath is that\nbefore the passover.\" This day, thus mentioned, is not Sunday, but is\nthe ancient Sabbath of the Lord.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS.\n\nThis was written by an unknown author, and Diognetus himself is known\nonly by name, no facts concerning him having come down to us. It dates\nfrom the first part of the second century. The writer speaks of \"the\nsuperstition as respects the Sabbaths\" which the Jews manifested, and\nhe adds these words: \"To speak falsely of God, as if he forbade us to\ndo what is good on the Sabbath days--how is not this impious?\" But\nthere is nothing in this to which a commandment-keeper would object, or\nwhich he might not freely utter.\n\nThe \"Recognitions of Clement\" is a kind of philosophical and\ntheological romance. It purports to have been written by Clement of\nRome, in the time of the apostle Peter, but was actually written\n\"somewhere in the first half of the third century.\"\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE RECOGNITIONS OF CLEMENT.\n\nIn book i., chapter xxxv., he speaks of the giving of the law thus:--\n\n    \"Meantime they came to Mount Sinai, and thence the law was given to\n    them with voices and sights from heaven, written in ten precepts,\n    of which the first and greatest was that they should worship God\n    himself alone,\" etc. In book iii., chapter lv., he speaks of these\n    precepts as tests: \"On account of those, therefore, who by neglect\n    of their own salvation please the evil one, and those who by study\n    of their own profit seek to please the good One, ten things have\n    been prescribed as a test to this present age, according to the\n    number of the ten plagues which were brought upon Egypt.\" In book\n    ix., chapter xxviii., he says of the Hebrews, \"that no child born\n    among them is ever exposed, and that on every seventh day they all\n    rest,\" etc. In book x., chap. lxxii., is given the conversion of\n    one Faustinianus by St. Peter. And it is said, \"He proclaimed a\n    fast to all the people, and on the next Lord's day he baptized him.\"\n\nThis is all that I find in this work relating to the Sabbath and the\nso-called Lord's day. The writer held the ten commandments to be tests\nof character in the present dispensation. There is no reason to believe\nthat he, or any other person in that age, held the Sunday festival as\nsomething to be observed in obedience to the fourth commandment.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE SYRIAC DOCUMENTS CONCERNING EDESSA.\n\nOn pages 35-55 of this work is given what purports to be \"The Teaching\nof the Apostles.\" On page 36, the ascension of the Lord is said to have\nbeen upon the \"first day of the week, and the end of the Pentecost.\"\nTwo manifest falsehoods are here uttered; for the ascension was upon\nThursday, and the Pentecost came ten days after the ascension. It is\nalso said that the disciples came from Nazareth of Galilee to the mount\nof Olives on that selfsame day before the ascension, and yet that the\nascension was \"at the time of the early dawn.\" But Nazareth was distant\nfrom the mount of Olives at least sixty miles!\n\nOn page 38, a commandment from the apostles is given: \"On the first\n[day] of the week, let there be service, and the reading of the holy\nScriptures, and the oblation,\" because Christ arose on that day, was\nborn on that day, ascended on that day, and will come again on that\nday. But here is one truth, one falsehood, and two mere assertions. The\napostles are represented, on page 39, as commanding a fast of forty\ndays, and they add: \"Then celebrate the day of the passion [Friday],\nand the day of the resurrection,\" Sunday. But this would be only an\nannual celebration of these days.\n\nAnd on pages 38 and 39 they are also represented as commanding service\nto be held on the fourth and sixth days of the week. The Sabbath is\nnot mentioned in these \"Documents,\" which were written about the\ncommencement of the fourth century, when, in many parts of the world,\nthat day had ceased to be hallowed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTESTIMONY OF JUSTIN MARTYR.\n\n\nJustin's \"Apology\" was written at Rome about the year 140. His\n\"Dialogue with Trypho the Jew\" was written some years later. In\nsearching his works, we shall see how much greater progress apostasy\nhad made at Rome than in the countries where those lived whose writings\nwe have been examining. And yet nearly all these writings were composed\nat least a century later than those of Justin, though we have quoted\nthem before quoting his, because of their asserted apostolic origin,\nor of their asserted origin within a few years of the times of the\napostles.\n\nIt does not appear that Justin, and those at Rome who held with him in\ndoctrine, paid the slightest regard to the ancient Sabbath. He speaks\nof it as abolished, and treats it with contempt. Unlike some whose\nwritings have been examined, he denies that it originated at creation,\nand asserts that it was made in the days of Moses. He also differs with\nsome already quoted in that he denies the perpetuity of the law of ten\ncommandments. In his estimation, the Sabbath was a Jewish institution,\nabsolutely unknown to good men before the time of Moses, and of no\nauthority whatever since the death of Christ. The idea of the change\nof the Sabbath from the seventh day of the week to the first, is not\nonly never found in his writings, but is absolutely irreconcilable with\nsuch statements as the foregoing, which abound therein. And yet Justin\nMartyr is prominently and constantly cited in behalf of the so-called\nChristian Sabbath.\n\nThe Roman people observed a festival on the first day of the week\nin honor of the sun. And so Justin in his Apology, addressed to the\nemperor of Rome, tells that monarch that the Christians met on \"the\nday of the sun,\" for worship. He gives the day no sacred title, and\ndoes not even intimate that it was a day of abstinence from labor, only\nas they spent a portion of it in worship. Here are the words of his\nApology on the Sunday festival:--\n\n    \"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the\n    country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the\n    apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time\n    permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally\n    instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.\n    Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when\n    our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and\n    the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings,\n    according to his ability, and the people assent, saying, Amen;\n    and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that\n    over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent\n    a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do,\n    and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is\n    deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows,\n    and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want,\n    and those who are in bonds, and the strangers sojourning among us,\n    and, in a word, takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is\n    the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the\n    first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and\n    matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same\n    day rose from the dead. For he was crucified on the day before that\n    of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is\n    the day of the sun, having appeared to his apostles and disciples,\n    he taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also\n    for your consideration.\" Chap. lxvii.\n\nNot one word of this indicates that Justin considered the Sunday\nfestival as a continuation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. On\nthe contrary, he shows clearly that no such idea was cherished by him.\nFor though the fourth commandment enjoins the observance of the seventh\nday because _God rested on that day_ from the work of creation, Justin\nurged in behalf of the Sunday festival that it is _the day on which\nhe began his work_. The honor paid to that festival was not therefore\nin Justin's estimation in any sense an act of obedience to the fourth\ncommandment. He mentions as his other reason for the celebration by\nChristians of \"the day of the sun,\" that the Saviour arose that day.\nBut he claims no divine or apostolic precept for this celebration; the\nthings which he says Christ taught his apostles being the doctrines\nwhich he had embodied in this Apology for the information of the\nemperor. And it is worthy of notice that though first-day writers\nassert that \"Lord's day\" was the familiar title of the first day of\nthe week in the time of the Apocalypse, yet Justin, who is the first\nperson after the sacred writers that mentions the first day, and this\nat a distance of only 44 years from the date of John's vision upon\nPatmos, does not call it by that title, but by the name which it bore\nas a heathen festival! If it be said that the term was omitted because\nhe was addressing a heathen emperor, there still remains the fact that\nhe mentions the day quite a number of times in his \"Dialogue with\nTrypho,\" and yet never calls it \"Lord's day,\" nor indeed does he call\nit by any name implying sacredness.\n\nNow we present the statements concerning the Sabbath and first-day\nfound in his \"Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.\" The impropriety, not to\nsay dishonesty, of quoting Justin in behalf of the modern doctrine\nof the change of the Sabbath, will be obvious to all. He was a most\ndecided no-law, no-Sabbath writer, who used the day commonly honored as\na festival by the Romans, as the most suitable, or most convenient, day\nfor public worship, a position identical with that of modern no-Sabbath\nmen. Justin may be called a law man in this sense, however, that while\nhe abolishes the ten commandments, he calls the gospel \"the new law.\"\nHe is therefore really one who believes in the gospel and denies the\nlaw. But let us hear his own words. Trypho, having in chapter viii.\nadvised Justin to observe the Sabbath, and \"do all things which have\nbeen written in the law,\" in chapter x. says to him, \"You observe no\nfestivals or Sabbaths.\"\n\nThis was exactly adapted to bring out from Justin the answer that\nthough he did not observe the seventh day as the Sabbath, he did thus\nrest on the first day, if it were true that that day was with him a\nday of abstinence from labor. And now observe Justin's answer given in\nchapter twelve:--\n\n    \"The new law requires you to keep perpetual Sabbath, and you,\n    because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not\n    discerning why this has been commanded you; and if you eat\n    unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The\n    Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if there\n    is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be\n    so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet\n    and true Sabbaths of God.\"\n\nThis language plainly implies that Justin held all days to be alike,\nand did not observe any one day as a day of abstinence from labor. But\nin chapter xviii., Justin asserts that the Sabbaths--and he doubtless\nincludes the weekly with the annual--were enjoined upon the Jews for\ntheir wickedness:--\n\n    \"For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the\n    Sabbaths, and in short, all the feasts, if we did not know for\n    what reason they were enjoined you--namely, on account of your\n    transgressions and the hardness of your hearts. For if we patiently\n    endure all things contrived against us by wicked men and demons, so\n    that amid cruelties unutterable, death and torments, we pray for\n    mercy to those who inflict such things upon us, and do not wish\n    to give the least retort to any one, even as the new Law-giver\n    commanded us: how is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those\n    rites which do not harm us--I speak of fleshly circumcision, and\n    Sabbaths, and feasts?\"\n\nNot only does he declare that the Jews were commanded to keep the\nSabbath because of their wickedness, but in chapter xix. he denies that\nany Sabbath existed before Moses. Thus, after naming Adam, Abel, Enoch,\nLot, and Melchizedek, he says:--\n\n    \"Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned, though they\n    kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God.\"\n\nBut though he thus denies the Sabbatic institution before the time of\nMoses, he presently makes this statement concerning the Jews:--\n\n    \"And you were commanded to keep Sabbaths, that you might retain\n    the memorial of God. For his word makes this announcement, saying,\n    'That ye may know that I am God who redeemed you.'\" [Eze. 20:12.]\n\nThe Sabbath is indeed the memorial of the God that made the heavens and\nthe earth. And what an absurdity to deny that that memorial was set up\nwhen the creative work was done, and to affirm that twenty-five hundred\nyears intervened between the work and the memorial!\n\nIn chapter xxi. Justin asserts \"that God enjoined you [the Jews] to\nkeep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I\nhave already said, on account of your unrighteousness, and that of your\nfathers,\" &c., and quotes Ezekiel 20 to prove it. Yet that chapter\ndeclares that it was in order that they might know who was that being\nwho sanctified them, _i. e._, that they might know that their God was\nthe Creator, that the Sabbath was made to them a sign.\n\nIn chapter xxiii., he again asserts that \"in the times of Enoch\" no one\n\"observed Sabbaths.\" He then protests against Sabbatic observance as\nfollows:--\n\n    \"Do you see that the elements are not idle, and keep no Sabbaths?\n    Remain as you were born. For if there was no need of circumcision\n    before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts and\n    sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there of them now, after\n    that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the Son of God\n    has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of\n    Abraham.\"\n\nThat is to say, there was no Sabbatic institution before Moses,\nand neither is there any since Christ. But in chapter xxiv., Justin\nundertakes to bring in an argument for Sunday, not as a Sabbath, but\nas having greater mystery in it, and as being more honorable than the\nseventh day. Thus, alluding to circumcision on the eighth day of a\nchild's life as an argument for the first-day festival, he says:--\n\n    \"It is possible for us to show how the eighth day possessed a\n    certain mysterious import, which the seventh day did not possess,\n    and which was promulgated by God through these rites.\"\n\nThat is to say, because God commanded the Hebrews to circumcise their\nchildren when they were eight days old, therefore all men should now\nesteem the first day of the week more honorable than the seventh day,\nwhich he commanded in the moral law, and which Justin himself, in\nchapter xix., terms \"the memorial of God.\" In chapter xxvi., Justin\nsays to Trypho that--\n\n    \"The Gentiles, who have believed on him, and have repented of the\n    sins which they have committed, they shall receive the inheritance\n    along with the patriarchs and the prophets, and the just men who\n    are descended from Jacob, even although they neither keep the\n    Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts.\"\n\nAnd in proof of this, he quotes from Isa. 42, and 62, and 63,\nrespecting the call of the Gentiles. Upon this (chapter xxvii.), Trypho\nthe Jew very pertinently asks:--\n\n    \"Why do you select and quote whatever you wish from the prophetic\n    writings, but do not refer to those which expressly command the\n    Sabbath to be observed? For Isaiah thus speaks [chap. 58:13, 14],\n    'If thou shalt turn away thy foot from the Sabbath,'\" etc.\n\nTo which Justin makes this uncandid answer:--\n\n    \"I have passed them by, my friends, not because such prophecies\n    were contrary to me, but because you have understood, and do\n    understand, that although God commands you by all the prophets\n    to do the same things which he also commanded by Moses, it was\n    on account of the hardness of your hearts, and your ingratitude\n    towards him, that he continually proclaims them, in order that,\n    even in this way, if you repented, you might please him, and\n    neither sacrifice your children to demons, nor be partakers\n    with thieves,\" etc. And he adds: \"So that, as in the beginning,\n    these things were enjoined you because of your wickedness, in\n    like manner, because of your steadfastness in it, or rather your\n    increased proneness to it, by means of the same precepts, he calls\n    you [by the prophets] to a remembrance or knowledge of it.\"\n\nThese are bitter words from a Gentile who had been a pagan philosopher,\nand they are in no sense a just answer unless it can be shown that the\nlaw was given to the Jews because they were so wicked, and was withheld\nfrom the Gentiles because they were so righteous. The truth is just\nthe reverse of this. Eph. 2. But to say something against the Sabbath,\nJustin asks:--\n\n    \"Did God wish the priests to sin when they offer the sacrifices\n    on the Sabbaths? or those to sin, who are circumcised and do\n    circumcise on the Sabbaths; since he commands that on the eighth\n    day--even though it happen to be a Sabbath--those who are born\n    shall be always circumcised?\" And he asks if the rite could not be\n    one day earlier or later, and why those \"who lived before Moses\"\n    \"observed no Sabbaths?\"\n\nWhat Justin says concerning circumcision and sacrifices is absolutely\nwithout weight as an objection to the Sabbath, inasmuch as the\ncommandment forbids, not the performance of religious duties, but our\nown work. Ex. 20:8-11. And his often repeated declaration that good men\nbefore the time of Moses did not keep the Sabbath, is mere assertion,\ninasmuch as God appointed it to a holy use in the time of Adam, and we\ndo know of some in the patriarchal age who kept God's commandments, and\nwere perfect before him.\n\nIn chapter xxix., Justin sneers at Sabbatic observance by saying,\n\"Think it not strange that we drink hot water on the Sabbaths.\" And as\narguments against the Sabbath he says that God \"directs the government\nof the universe on this day equally as on all others,\" as though this\nwere inconsistent with the present sacredness of the Sabbath, when\nit was also true that God thus governed the world in the period when\nJustin acknowledges the Sabbath to have been obligatory. And he again\nrefers to the sacrifices and to those who lived in the patriarchal age.\n\nIn chapter xli., Justin again brings forward his argument for Sunday\nfrom circumcision:--\n\n    \"The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always\n    circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true\n    circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity\n    through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the\n    Sabbath [namely, through], our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day\n    after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called,\n    however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the\n    cycle, and [yet] remains the first.\"\n\nSunday-keeping must be closely related to infant baptism, inasmuch as\none of the chief arguments in modern times for the baptism of infants\nis drawn from the fact that God commanded the Hebrews to circumcise\ntheir male children; and Justin found his scriptural authority for\nfirst-day observance in the fact that this rite was to be performed\nwhen the child was eight days old! Yet this eighth day did not come\non one day of the week, only, but on every day, and when it came on\nthe seventh day it furnished Justin with an argument against the\nsacredness of the Sabbath! But let it come on what day of the week it\nmight (and it came on all alike), it was an argument for Sunday! O\nwonderful _eighth_ day, that can thrive on that which is positively\nfatal to the seventh, and that can come every week on the first day\nthereof, though there be only seven days in each week!\n\nIn chapters xliii., and xlvi., and xcii., Justin reiterates the\nassertion that those who lived in the patriarchal age did not hallow\nthe Sabbath. But as he adds no new thought to what has been already\nquoted from him, these need not be copied.\n\nBut in chapter xlvii., we have something of interest. Trypho asks\nJustin whether those who believe in Christ, and obey him, but who wish\nto \"observe these [institutions] will be saved?\" Justin answers: \"In\nmy opinion, Trypho, such an one will be saved, if he does not strive\nin every way to persuade other men ... to observe the same things as\nhimself, telling them that they will not be saved unless they do so.\"\nTrypho replied, \"Why then have you said, 'In my opinion, such an one\nwill be saved,' unless there are some who affirm that such will not be\nsaved?\"\n\nIn reply, Justin tells Trypho that there were those who would have no\nintercourse with, nor even extend hospitality to, such Christians as\nobserved the law. And for himself he says:--\n\n    \"But if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such\n    institutions as were given by Moses (from which they expect some\n    virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reason of the\n    hardness of the people's hearts), along with their hope in this\n    Christ, and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural acts of\n    righteousness and piety, yet choose to live with the Christians and\n    the faithful, as I said before, not inducing them either to be\n    circumcised like themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to observe\n    any other such ceremonies, then I hold that we ought to join\n    ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as kinsmen\n    and brethren.\"\n\nJustin's language shows that there were Sabbath-keeping Christians in\nhis time. Such of them as were of Jewish descent no doubt generally\nretained circumcision. But it is very unjust in him to represent the\nGentile Sabbath-keepers as observing this rite. That there were many\nof these is evident from the so-called \"Apostolical Constitutions,\"\nand even from the Ignatian Epistles. One good thing, however, Justin\ndoes say. The keeping of the commandments he terms the performance of\n\"the eternal and natural acts of righteousness.\" He would consent to\nfellowship those who do these things provided they made them no test\nfor others. He well knew in such case that the Sabbath would die out in\na little time. Himself and the more popular party at Rome honored as\ntheir festival the day observed by the heathen Romans, as he reminds\nthe emperor in his Apology, and he was willing to fellowship the\nSabbath-keepers if they would not test him by the commandments,\n_i. e._, if they would fellowship him in violating them.\n\nThat Justin held to the abrogation of the ten commandments is also\nmanifest. Trypho, in the tenth chapter of the Dialogue, having said\nto Justin, \"You do not obey his commandments,\" and again, \"You do not\nobserve the law,\" Justin answers in chapter xi. as follows:--\n\n    \"But we do not trust through Moses, or through the law; for then\n    we would do the same as yourselves. But now--for I have read that\n    there shall be a final law, and a covenant, the chiefest of all,\n    which it is now incumbent on all men to observe, as many as are\n    seeking after the inheritance of God. For the law promulgated on\n    Horeb is now old, and belongs to yourselves alone; but this is for\n    all universally. Now, law placed against law has abrogated that\n    which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner\n    has put an end to the previous one.\"\n\nWe must, therefore, pronounce Justin a man who held to the abrogation\nof the ten commandments, and that the Sabbath was a Jewish institution\nwhich was unknown before Moses, and of no authority since Christ. He\nheld Sunday to be the most suitable day for public worship, but not\nupon the ground that the Sabbath had been changed to it, for he cuts up\nthe Sabbatic institution by the roots; and so far is he from calling\nthis day the Christian Sabbath that he gives to it the name which it\nbore as a heathen festival.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nIren\u00e6us--Dionysius--Melito--Bardesanes.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF IREN\u00c6US.\n\nThis father was born \"somewhere between A. D. 120 and A. D. 140.\" He\nwas \"bishop of Lyons in France during the latter quarter of the second\ncentury,\" being ordained to that office \"probably about A. D. 177.\" His\nwork _Against Heresies_ was written \"between A. D. 182 and A. D. 188.\"\nFirst-day writers assert that Iren\u00e6us \"says that the Lord's day was the\nChristian Sabbath.\" They profess to quote from him these words: \"On the\nLord's day every one of us Christians keeps the Sabbath, meditating on\nthe law and rejoicing in the works of God.\"\n\nNo such language is found in any of the writings of this father. We\nwill quote his entire testimony respecting the Sabbath and first-day,\nand the reader can judge. He speaks of Christ's observance of the\nSabbath, and shows that he did not violate the day. Thus he says:--\n\n    \"It is clear, therefore, that he loosed and vivified those who\n    believe in him as Abraham did, doing nothing contrary to the law\n    when he healed upon the Sabbath day. For the law did not prohibit\n    men from being healed upon the Sabbaths; [on the contrary] it\n    even circumcised them upon that day, and gave command that the\n    offices should be performed by the priests for the people; yea,\n    it did not disallow the healing even of dumb animals. Both at\n    Siloam and on frequent subsequent occasions, did he perform cures\n    upon the Sabbath; and for this reason many used to resort to\n    him on the Sabbath days. For the law commanded them to abstain\n    from every servile work, that is, from all grasping after wealth\n    which is procured by trading and by other worldly business; but\n    it exhorted them to attend to the exercises of the soul, which\n    consist in reflection, and to addresses of a beneficial kind for\n    their neighbor's benefit. And therefore the Lord reproved those who\n    unjustly blamed him for having healed upon the Sabbath days. For he\n    did not make void, but fulfilled the law, by performing the offices\n    of the high priest, propitiating God for men, and cleansing the\n    lepers, healing the sick, and himself suffering death, that exiled\n    man might go forth from condemnation, and might return without fear\n    to his own inheritance. And again, the law did not forbid those\n    who were hungry on the Sabbath days to take food lying ready at\n    hand: it did, however, forbid them to reap and to gather into the\n    barn.\"--_Against Heresies_, b. iv. chap. viii. sects. 2, 3.\n\nThe case of the priests on the Sabbath he thus presents:--\n\n    \"And the priests in the temple profaned the Sabbath, and were\n    blameless. Wherefore, then, were they blameless? Because when in\n    the temple they were not engaged in secular affairs, but in the\n    service of the Lord, fulfilling the law, but not going beyond it,\n    as that man did, who of his own accord carried dry wood into the\n    camp of God, and was justly stoned to death.\" Book iv. chap. viii.\n    sect. 3.\n\nOf the necessity of keeping the ten commandments, he speaks thus:--\n\n    \"Now, that the law did beforehand teach mankind the necessity of\n    following Christ, he does himself make manifest, when he replied\n    as follows to him who asked him what he should do that he might\n    inherit eternal life: 'If thou wilt enter into life, keep the\n    commandments.' But upon the other asking, 'which?' again the Lord\n    replied: 'Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do\n    not bear false witness, honor father and mother, and thou shalt\n    love thy neighbor as thyself,'--setting as an ascending series\n    before those who wished to follow him, the precepts of the law, as\n    the entrance into life; and what he then said to one, he said to\n    all. But when the former said, 'All these have I done' (and most\n    likely he had not kept them, for in that case the Lord would not\n    have said to him, 'Keep the commandments'), the Lord, exposing his\n    covetousness, said to him, 'If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all\n    that thou hast, and distribute to the poor; and come follow me,'\n    promising to those who would act thus, the portion belonging to the\n    apostles.... But he taught that they should obey the commandments\n    which God enjoined from the beginning, and do away with their\n    former covetousness by good works, and follow after Christ.\" Book\n    iv. chap. xii. sect. 5.\n\nIren\u00e6us certainly teaches a very different doctrine from that of Justin\nMartyr concerning the commandments. He believed that men must keep the\ncommandments, in order to enter eternal life. He says further:--\n\n    \"And [we must] not only abstain from evil deeds, but even from the\n    desires after them. Now he did not teach us these things as being\n    opposed to the law, but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us\n    the varied righteousness of the law. That would have been contrary\n    to the law, if he had commanded his disciples to do anything which\n    the law had prohibited.\" Book iv. chap. xiii. sect. 1.\n\nHe also makes the observance of the decalogue the test of true piety.\nThus he says:--\n\n    \"They (the Jews) had therefore a law, a course of discipline, and\n    a prophecy of future things. For God at the first, indeed, warning\n    them by means of natural precepts, which from the beginning he had\n    implanted in mankind, that is, by means of the decalogue (which,\n    if any one does not observe, he has no salvation), did then demand\n    nothing more of them.\" Book iv. chap. xv. sect. 1.\n\nThe precepts of the decalogue he rightly terms \"natural precepts,\" that\nis, precepts which constitute \"the work of the law\" written by nature\nin the hearts of all men, but marred by the presence of the carnal mind\nor law of sin in the members. That this law of God pertains alike to\nJews and to Gentiles, he thus affirms:--\n\n    \"Inasmuch, then, as all natural precepts are common to us and\n    to them (the Jews), they had in them, indeed, the beginning and\n    origin; but in us they have received growth and completion.\" Book\n    iv. chap. xiii. sect. 4.\n\nIt is certain that Iren\u00e6us held the decalogue to be now binding on all\nmen; for he says of it in the quotation above, \"Which if any one does\nnot observe, he has no salvation.\" But, though not consistent with his\nstatement respecting the decalogue as the law of nature, he classes\nthe Sabbath with circumcision, when speaking of it as a sign between\nGod and Israel, and says, \"The Sabbaths taught that we should continue\nday by day in God's service.\" \"Moreover the Sabbath of God, that is,\nthe kingdom, was, as it were, indicated by created things; in which\n[kingdom], the man who shall have persevered in serving God shall, in a\nstate of rest, partake of God's table.\" He says also of Abraham that he\nwas \"without observance of Sabbaths.\" Book iv. chap. xvi. sects. 1, 2.\nBut in the same chapter he again asserts the perpetuity and authority\nof the decalogue in these words:--\n\n    \"Preparing man for this life, the Lord himself did speak in his\n    own person to all alike the words of the decalogue; and therefore,\n    in like manner, do they remain permanently with us, receiving, by\n    means of his advent in the flesh, extension and increase, but not\n    abrogation.\" Section 4.\n\nThis statement establishes the authority of each of the ten\ncommandments in the gospel dispensation. Yet Iren\u00e6us seems to have\nregarded the fourth commandment as only a typical precept, and not of\nperpetual obligation like the others.\n\nIren\u00e6us regarded the Sabbath as something which pointed forward to the\nkingdom of God. Yet in stating this doctrine he actually indicates the\norigin of the Sabbath at creation, though, as we have seen, elsewhere\nasserting that it was not kept by Abraham. Thus, in speaking of the\nreward to be given the righteous, he says:--\n\n    \"These are [to take place] in the times of the kingdom, that is,\n    upon the seventh day, which has been sanctified, in which God\n    rested from all the works which he created, which is the true\n    Sabbath of the righteous, in which they shall not be engaged in\n    any earthly occupation; but shall have a table at hand prepared\n    for them by God, supplying them with all sorts of dishes.\" Book\n    v. chap. xxxiii. sect. 2. And he elsewhere says: \"In as many\n    days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it\n    be concluded.... For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years:\n    and in six days created things were completed: it is evident,\n    therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand\n    year.\" Book v. chap. xxviii. sect. 3.\n\nThough Iren\u00e6us is made by first-day writers to bear a very explicit\ntestimony that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, the following, which\nconstitutes the seventh fragment of what is called the \"Lost Writings\nof Iren\u00e6us,\" is the only instance which I have found in a careful\nsearch through all his works in which he even mentions the first day.\nHere is the entire first-day testimony of this father:--\n\n    \"This [custom], of not bending the knee upon Sunday, is a symbol of\n    the resurrection, through which we have been set free, by the grace\n    of Christ, from sins, and from death, which has been put to death\n    under him. Now this custom took its rise from apostolic times, as\n    the blessed Iren\u00e6us, the martyr and bishop of Lyons, declares in\n    his treatise _On Easter_, in which he makes mention of Pentecost\n    also; upon which [feast] we do not bend the knee, because it is\n    of equal significance with the Lord's day, for the reason already\n    alleged concerning it.\"\n\nThis is something very remarkable. It is not what Iren\u00e6us said, after\nall, but is what an unknown writer, in a work entitled _Qu\u00e6s. et Resp.\nad Othod._, says of him. And all that this writer says of Iren\u00e6us is\nthat he declares the custom of not kneeling upon Sunday \"took its rise\nfrom apostolic times\"! It does not even appear that Iren\u00e6us even used\nthe term Lord's day as a title for the first day of the week. Its\nuse in the present quotation is by the unknown writer to whom we are\nindebted for the statement here given respecting Iren\u00e6us. And this\nwriter, whoever he be, is of the opinion that the Pentecost is of equal\nconsequence with the so-called Lord's day! And well he may so judge,\ninasmuch as both of these Catholic festivals are only established by\nthe authority of the church. The testimony of Iren\u00e6us in behalf of\nSunday does therefore amount simply to this: That the resurrection is\nto be commemorated by \"not bending the knee upon Sunday\"!\n\nThe fiftieth fragment of the \"Lost Writings of Iren\u00e6us\" is derived from\nthe Nitrian Collection of Syriac MSS. It relates to the resurrection of\nthe dead. In a note appended to it the Syriac editor says of Iren\u00e6us\nthat he \"wrote to an Alexandrian to the effect that it is right, with\nrespect to the feast of the resurrection, that we should celebrate it\nupon the first day of the week.\" No extant writing of Iren\u00e6us contains\nthis statement, but it is likely that the Syriac editor possessed some\nportion of his works now lost. And here again it is worthy of notice\nthat we have from Iren\u00e6us only the plain name of \"first day of the\nweek.\" As to the manner of celebrating it, the only thing which he sets\nforth is \"not bending the knee upon Sunday.\"\n\nIn the thirty-eighth fragment of his \"Lost Writings\" he quotes Col.\n2:16, but whether with reference to the seventh day, or merely\nrespecting the ceremonial sabbaths, his comments do not determine.\nWe have now given every statement of Iren\u00e6us which bears upon the\nSabbath and the Sunday. It is manifest that the advocates of first-day\nsacredness have made Iren\u00e6us testify in its behalf to suit themselves.\nHe alludes to the first day of the week once or twice, but never uses\nfor it the title of Lord's day or Christian Sabbath, and the _only_\nthing which he mentions as entering into the celebration of the\nfestival was that Christians should not kneel in prayer on that day!\nBy first-day writers, Iren\u00e6us is made to bear an explicit testimony\nthat Sunday is the Lord's day and the Christian Sabbath! And to give\ngreat weight to this alleged fact, they say that he was the disciple\nof Polycarp, who was the disciple of John: and whereas John speaks of\nthe Lord's day, Iren\u00e6us, who must have known what he meant by the term,\nsays that the Lord's day is the first day of the week! But Polycarp,\nin his epistle, does not even mention the first day of the week, and\nIren\u00e6us, in his extended writings, mentions it only twice, and that in\n\"lost fragments,\" preserved at secondhand, and in neither instance does\nhe call it any thing but plain \"first day of the week\"! And the only\nhonor which he mentions as due this day is that the knee should not be\nbent upon it! And even this was not spoken of every Sunday in the year,\nbut only of \"Easter Sunday,\" the anniversary of Christ's resurrection!\n\nHere we might dismiss the case of Iren\u00e6us. But our first-day friends\nare determined at least to connect him with the use of Lord's day as\na name for Sunday. They therefore bring forward Eusebius, who wrote\n150 years later, to prove that Iren\u00e6us did call Sunday by that name.\nEusebius alludes to the controversy in the time of Iren\u00e6us, respecting\nthe _annual_ celebration of Christ's resurrection in what was called\nthe festival of the passover. He says (Eccl. Hist., b. v. chap. xxiii.)\nthat the bishops of different countries, and Iren\u00e6us was of the\nnumber, decreed \"that the mystery of our Lord's resurrection should be\ncelebrated on no other day than the Lord's day; and that on this day\nalone we should observe the close of the paschal fasts,\" and not on\nthe fourteenth of the first month as practiced by the other party. And\nin the next chapter, Eusebius represents Iren\u00e6us as writing a letter\nto this effect to the Bishop of Rome. But observe, Eusebius does\nnot quote the words of any of these bishops, but simply gives their\ndecisions in his own language. There is therefore no proof that they\nused the term Lord's day instead of first day of the week. But we have\nevidence that in the decision of this case which Iren\u00e6us sent forth,\nhe used the term \"first day of the week.\" For the introduction to the\nfiftieth fragment of his \"Lost Writings,\" already quoted, gives an\nancient statement of his words in this decision, as plain \"first day of\nthe week.\" It is Eusebius who gives us the term Lord's day in recording\nwhat was said by these bishops concerning the first day of the week.\nIn his time, A. D. 324, Lord's day had become a common designation of\nSunday. But it was not such in the time of Iren\u00e6us, A. D. 178. We have\nfound no writer who flourished before him who applies it to Sunday; it\nis not so applied by Iren\u00e6us; and we shall find no decisive instance of\nsuch use till the close of the second century.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF DIONYSIUS, BISHOP OF CORINTH.\n\nThis father, about A. D. 170, wrote a letter to the Roman church, in\nwhich are found these words:--\n\n    \"We passed this holy Lord's day, in which we read your letter, from\n    the constant reading of which we shall be able to draw admonition,\n    even as from the reading of the former one you sent us written\n    through Clement.\"\n\nThis is the earliest use of the term Lord's day to be found in the\nfathers. But it cannot be called a decisive testimony that Sunday\nwas thus known at this date, inasmuch as every writer who precedes\nDionysius calls it \"first day of the week,\" \"eighth day,\" or \"Sunday,\"\nbut never once by this title; and Dionysius says nothing to indicate\nthat Sunday was intended, or to show that he did not refer to that day\nwhich alone has the right to be called the Lord's \"holy day.\" Isa.\n58:13. We have found several express testimonies to the sacredness of\nthe Sabbath in the writers already examined.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF MELITO, BISHOP OF SARDIS.\n\nThis father wrote about A. D. 177. We know little of this writer except\nthe titles of his books, which Eusebius has preserved to us. One of\nthese titles is this: \"On the Lord's Day.\" But it should be remembered\nthat down to this date no writer has called Sunday the Lord's day;\nand that every one who certainly spoke of that day called it by some\nother name than Lord's day. To say, therefore, as do first-day writers,\nthat Melito wrote of Sunday, is to speak without just warrant. He uses\n#Greek: t\u00eas kyriak\u00eas#, \"the Lord's,\" but\ndoes not join with it #h\u00eamera#, a \"day,\" as\ndoes John. He wrote of something pertaining to the Lord, but it is not\ncertain that it was the Lord's day. Moreover, Clement, who next uses\nthis term, uses it in a mystical sense.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE HERETIC BARDESANES.\n\nBardesanes, the Syrian, flourished about A. D. 180. He belonged to the\nGnostic sect of Valentinians, and abandoning them, \"devised errors of\nhis own.\" In his \"Book of the Laws of Countries,\" he replies to the\nviews of astrologers who assert that the stars govern men's actions. He\nshows the folly of this by enumerating the peculiarities of different\nraces and sects. In doing this, he speaks of the strictness with which\nthe Jews kept the Sabbath. Of the new sect called Christians, which\n\"Christ at his advent planted in every country,\" he says:--\n\n    \"On one day, the first of the week, we assemble ourselves\n    together, and on the days of the readings we abstain from [taking]\n    sustenance.\"\n\nThis shows that the Gnostics used Sunday as the day for religious\nassemblies. Whether he recognized others besides Gnostics, as\nChristians, we cannot say. We find no allusion, however, to Sunday as\na day of abstinence from labor, except so far as necessary for their\nmeetings. What their days of fasting, which are here alluded to, were,\ncannot now be determined. It is also worthy of notice that this writer,\nwho certainly speaks of Sunday, and this as late as A. D. 180, does not\ncall it Lord's day, nor give it any sacred title whatever, but speaks\nof it as \"first day of the week.\" No writer down to A. D. 180, who is\nknown to speak of Sunday, calls it the Lord's day.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTheophilus--Clement of Alexandria.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH.\n\nThis father became Bishop of Antioch in A. D. 168, and died A. D.\n181. First-day writers represent him as saying, \"Both _custom_ and\n_reason_ challenge from us that we should honor the Lord's day, seeing\non that day it was that our Lord Jesus completed his resurrection\nfrom the dead.\" These writers, however, give no reference to the\nparticular place in the works of Theophilus where this is to be found.\nI have carefully examined every paragraph of all the extant writings\nof this father, and that several times over, without discovering any\nsuch statement. I am constrained, therefore, to state that nothing of\nthe kind above quoted is to be found in Theophilus! And further than\nthis, the term Lord's day does not occur in this writer, nor does he\neven refer to the first day of the week except in quoting Genesis 1,\nin a _single instance_! But though he makes no mention of the Sunday\nfestival, he makes the following reference to the Sabbath in his\nremarks concerning the creation of the world:--\n\n    \"Moreover [they spoke], concerning the seventh day, which all men\n    acknowledge; but the most know not that what among the Hebrews\n    is called the 'Sabbath,' is translated into Greek the 'seventh'\n    (#hebdomas#), a name which is\n    adopted by every nation, although they know not the reason of the\n    appellation.\" _Theophilus to Autolycus_, b. ii. chap. xii.\n\nThough Theophilus is in error in saying that the Hebrew word _Sabbath_\nis translated into Greek _seventh_, his statement indicates that he\nheld the origin of the Sabbath to be when God sanctified the seventh\nday. These are the words of Scripture, as given by him, on which he\nwrote the above:--\n\n    \"And on the sixth day God finished his works which he made, and\n    rested on the seventh day from all his works which he made. And God\n    blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because in it he rested\n    from all his works which God began to create.\" Book ii. chap. xi.\n\nIn the fifteenth chapter of this book, he compares those who \"keep the\nlaw and commandments of God\" to the fixed stars, while the \"wandering\nstars\" are \"a type of the men who have wandered from God, abandoning\nhis law and commandments.\" Of the law itself, he speaks thus:--\n\n    \"We have learned a holy law; but we have as law-giver him who is\n    really God, who teaches us to act righteously, and to be pious,\n    and to do good.\" After quoting all but the third and fourth\n    commandments, he says: \"Of this great and wonderful law which tends\n    to all righteousness, the TEN HEADS are such as we have already\n    rehearsed.\" Book iii. chap. ix.\n\nHe makes the keeping of the law and commandments the condition of a\npart in the resurrection to eternal life:--\n\n    \"For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one\n    who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can\n    inherit incorruption.\" Book ii. chap. xxvii.\n\nAnd yet this man who bears such a noble testimony to the commandments\nand the law, and who says not one word concerning the festival of\nSunday, is made to speak explicitly in behalf of this so-called\nChristian Sabbath!\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, A. D. 194.\n\nThis father was born about A. D. 160, and died about A. D. 220. He\nwrote about A. D. 194, and is the first of the fathers who uses the\nterm Lord's day in such a manner as possibly to signify by it the first\nday of the week. And yet he expressly speaks of the Sabbath as a day of\nrest, and of the first day of the week as a day for labor! The change\nof the Sabbath and the institution of the so-called Christian Sabbath\nwere alike unknown to him. Of the ten commandments, he speaks thus:--\n\n    \"We have the decalogue given by Moses, which, indicating by\n    an elementary principle, simple and of one kind, defines the\n    designation of sins in a way conducive to salvation,\" etc.--_The\n    Instructor_, b. iii. chap. xii.\n\nHe thus alludes to the Sabbath:--\n\n    \"Thus the Lord did not hinder from doing good while keeping the\n    Sabbath; but allowed us to communicate of those divine mysteries,\n    and of that holy light, to those who are able to receive\n    them.\"--_The Miscellanies_, b. i. chap. i.\n\n    \"To restrain one's self from doing good is the work of vice; but to\n    keep from wrong is the beginning of salvation. So the Sabbath, by\n    abstinence from evils, seems to indicate self-restraint.\" Book iv.\n    chap. iii.\n\nHe calls love the Lord of the Sabbath:--\n\n    \"He convicted the man, who boasted that he had fulfilled the\n    injunctions of the law, of not loving his neighbor; and it is by\n    beneficence that the love which, according to the Gnostic ascending\n    scale, is Lord of the Sabbath, proclaims itself.\" Book iv. chap. vi.\n\nReferring to the case of the priests in Eze. 43:27, he says:--\n\n    \"And they purify themselves seven days, the period in which\n    creation was consummated. For on the seventh day the rest is\n    celebrated; and on the eighth, he brings a propitiation, as it is\n    written in Ezekiel, according to which propitiation the promise is\n    to be received.\" Book iv. chap. xxv.\n\nWe come now to the first instance in the fathers in which the term\nLord's day is perhaps applied to Sunday. Clement is the father who does\nthis, and he very properly substantiates it with evidence. He does not\nsay that Saint John thus applied this name, but he finds authority for\nthis in the writings of the heathen philosopher Plato, who, he thinks,\nspoke of it prophetically!\n\n    \"And the Lord's day Plato prophetically speaks of in the tenth book\n    of the _Republic_, in these words: 'And when seven days have passed\n    to each of them in the meadow, on the eighth day they are to set\n    out and arrive in four days.' By the meadow is to be understood the\n    fixed sphere, as being a mild and genial spot, and the locality of\n    the pious; and by the seven days each motion of the seven planets,\n    and the whole practical art which speeds to the end of the rest.\n    But after the wandering orbs the journey leads to Heaven, that\n    is, to the eighth motion and day. And he says that souls are gone\n    on the fourth day, pointing out the passage through the four\n    elements.\" Book v. chap. xiv.\n\nBy the eighth day to which Clement here applies the name of Lord's day\nthe first day is possibly intended, though he appears to speak solely\nof mystical days. But having said thus much in behalf of the eighth\nday, he in the very next sentence commences to establish from the Greek\nwriters the sacredness of that seventh day which the Hebrews hallowed.\nThis shows that whatever regard he might have for the eighth day, he\ncertainly cherished the seventh day as sacred. Thus he continues:--\n\n    \"But the seventh day is recognized as sacred, not by the Hebrews\n    only, but also by the Greeks; according to which the whole world of\n    all animals and plants revolves. Hesiod says of it:--\n\n    \"'The first, and fourth, and seventh days were held sacred.'\n\n    \"And again: 'And on the seventh the sun's resplendent orb.'\n\n    \"And Homer: 'And on the seventh then came the sacred day.'\n\n    \"And: 'The seventh was sacred.'\n\n    \"And again: 'It was the seventh day, and all things were\n    accomplished.'\n\n    \"And again: 'And on the seventh morn we leave the stream of\n    Acheron.'\n\n    \"Callimachus the poet also writes: 'It was the seventh morn, and\n    they had all things done.'\n\n    \"And again: 'Among good days is the seventh day, and the seventh\n    race.'\n\n    \"And: 'The seventh is among the prime, and the seventh is perfect.'\n\n    \"And:\n\n       'Now all the seven were made in starry heaven,\n       In circles shining as the years appear.'\n\n    \"The Elegies of Solon, too, intensely deify the seventh day.\" Book\n    v. chap. xiv.\n\n\nSome of these quotations are not now found in the writings which\nClement cites. And whether or not he rightly applies them to\nthe seventh-day Sabbath, the fact that he does so apply them is\nincontestible proof that he honored that day as sacred, whatever might\nalso be his regard for that day which he distinguishes as the eighth.\n\nIn book vi., chapter v., he alludes to the celebration of some of the\nannual sabbaths. And in chapter xvi., he thus speaks of the fourth\ncommandment:--\n\n    \"And the fourth word is that which intimates that the world\n    was created by God, and that _he gave us the seventh day as a\n    rest_, on account of the trouble that there is in life. For God\n    is incapable of weariness, and suffering, and want. _But we who\n    bear flesh need rest. The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a\n    rest_--abstraction from ills--preparing for the primal day, our\n    true rest; which, in truth, is the first creation of light, in\n    which all things are viewed and possessed. From this day the first\n    wisdom and knowledge illuminate us.\"\n\nThis certainly teaches that the Sabbath was made for man, and that\nhe now needs it as a day of rest. It also indicates that Clement\nrecognized the authority of the fourth commandment, for he treats of\nthe ten commandments in order, and comments on what each enjoins or\nforbids. In the next paragraph, however, he makes some remarkable\nsuggestions. Thus he says:--\n\n    \"Having reached this point, we must mention these things by the\n    way; since the discourse has turned on the seventh and the eighth.\n    For the eighth may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh,\n    and the seventh, manifestly the sixth, and the latter,[D] properly\n    the Sabbath, and the seventh, a day of work. For the creation of\n    the world was concluded in six days.\" Book vi. chap. xvi.\n\nClement thinks it possible that the eighth day (Sunday), may really\nbe the seventh day, and that the seventh day (Saturday) may in fact\nbe the true sixth day. But let not our Sunday friends exult at this,\nfor Clement by no means helps their case. Having said that Sunday may\nbe properly the seventh day, and Saturday manifestly the sixth day,\nhe calls \"the LATTER properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of\nwork\"! By \"the latter,\" of necessity must be understood the day last\nmentioned, which he says should be called not the seventh, but the\nsixth; and by \"the seventh,\" must certainly be intended that day which\nhe says is not the eighth, but the seventh, that is to say, Sunday.\nIt follows therefore in the estimation of Clement that Sunday was\na day of ordinary labor, and Saturday, the day of rest. He had an\nexcellent opportunity to say that the eighth day or Sunday was not\nonly the seventh day, but also the true Sabbath, but instead of doing\nthis he gives this honor to the day which he says is not the seventh\nbut the sixth, and declares that the real seventh day or Sunday is \"a\nday of work.\" And he proceeds at length to show the sacredness and\nimportance of the number six. His opinion of the numbering of the days\nis unimportant; but the fact that this father who is the first writer\nthat connects the term Lord's day with the eighth day or Sunday, does\nexpressly represent that day as one of ordinary labor, and does also\ngive to the previous day the honors of the Sabbath is something that\nshould shut the mouths of those who claim him as a believer in the\nso-called Christian Sabbath.\n\nIn the same chapter, this writer alludes to the Sabbath vaguely,\napparently understanding it to prefigure the rest that remains to the\npeople of God:--\n\n    \"Rightly, then, they reckon the number seven motherless and\n    childless, interpreting the Sabbath, and figuratively expressing\n    the nature of the rest, in which 'they neither marry nor are given\n    in marriage any more.'\"\n\nThe following quotation completes the testimony of Clement. He speaks\nof the precept concerning fasting, that it is fulfilled by abstinence\nfrom sinful pleasure. And thus he says:--\n\n    \"He fasts, then, according to the law, abstaining from bad deeds,\n    and, according to the perfection of the gospel, from evil thoughts.\n    Temptations are applied to him, not for his purification, but, as\n    we have said, for the good of his neighbors, if, making trial of\n    toils and pains, he has despised and passed them by. The same holds\n    of pleasure. For it is the highest achievement for one who has had\n    trial of it, afterwards to abstain. For what great thing is it, if\n    a man restrains himself in what he knows not? He, in fulfillment of\n    the precept, according to the gospel, keeps the Lord's day, when\n    he abandons an evil disposition, and assumes that of the Gnostic,\n    glorifying the Lord's resurrection in himself.\" Book vii. chap. xii.\n\nClement asserts that one fasts according to the law when he abstains\nfrom evil deeds, and, according to the gospel, when he abstains\nfrom evil thoughts. He shows how the precept respecting fasting is\nfulfilled when he speaks of one who \"in fulfillment of the precept,\naccording to the gospel, keeps the Lord's day when he abandons an evil\ndisposition.\" This abandonment of an evil disposition, according to\nClement, keeps the Lord's day, and glorifies the Lord's resurrection.\nBut this duty pertains to no one day of the week, but to all alike, so\nthat he seems evidently to inculcate a perpetual Lord's day, even as\nJustin Martyr enjoins the observance of a \"perpetual Sabbath,\" to be\nacceptably sanctified by those who maintain true repentance. Though\nthese writers are not always consistent with themselves, yet two\nfacts go to show that Clement in this book means just what his words\nliterally import, viz., that the keeping of the Lord's day and the\nglorifying of the resurrection is not the observance of a certain day\nof the week, but the performance of a work which embraces every day of\none's whole life.\n\n1. The first of these facts is his express statement of this doctrine\nin the first paragraph of the seventh chapter of this book. Thus he\nsays:--\n\n    \"Now, we are commanded to reverence and to honor the same one,\n    being persuaded that he is Word, Saviour, and Leader, and by him,\n    the Father, NOT ON SPECIAL DAYS, AS SOME OTHERS, but _doing this\n    continually in our whole life_, and in every way. Certainly the\n    elect race, justified by the precept, says, 'Seven times a day have\n    I praised thee.' Whence _not_ in a specified place, or selected\n    temple, or at _certain festivals_, and on _appointed days_, but\n    _during his whole life_, the Gnostic in every place, even if he\n    be alone by himself, and wherever he has any of those who have\n    exercised the like faith, honors God; that is, acknowledges his\n    gratitude for the knowledge of the way to live.\" Book vii. chap.\n    vii.\n\n2. The second of these facts is that in book vi., chapter xvi., as\nalready quoted, he expressly represents Sunday as \"a day of work.\"\n\nCertainly Clement of Alexandria should not be cited as teaching the\nchange of the Sabbath, or advocating the so-called Christian Sabbath.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTESTIMONY OF TERTULLIAN, A. D. 200.\n\n\nThis writer contradicts himself in the most extraordinary manner\nconcerning the Sabbath and the law of God. He asserts that the Sabbath\nwas abolished by Christ, and elsewhere emphatically declares that he\ndid not abolish it. He says that Joshua violated the Sabbath, and then\nexpressly declares that he did not violate it. He says that Christ\nbroke the Sabbath, and then shows that he never did this. He represents\nthe eighth day as more honorable than the seventh, and elsewhere states\njust the reverse. He asserts that the law is abolished, and in other\nplaces affirms its perpetual obligation. He speaks of the Lord's day\nas the eighth day, and is the second of the early writers who makes\nan application of this term to Sunday, if we allow Clement to have\nreally spoken of it. But though he thus uses the term like Clement he\nalso like him teaches a perpetual Lord's day, or, like Justin Martyr,\na perpetual Sabbath in the observance of every day. And with the\nobservance of Sunday as the Lord's day he brings in \"offerings for the\ndead\" and the perpetual use of the sign of the cross. But he expressly\naffirms that these things rest, not upon the authority of the\nScriptures, but wholly upon that of tradition and custom. And though he\nspeaks of the Sabbath as abrogated by Christ, he expressly contradicts\nthis by asserting that Christ \"did not at all rescind the Sabbath,\"\nand that he imparted an additional sanctity to that day which from the\nbeginning had been consecrated by the benediction of the Father. This\nstrange mingling of light and darkness plainly indicates the age in\nwhich this author lived. He was not so far removed from the time of the\napostles but that many clear rays of divine truth shone upon him; and\nhe was far enough advanced in the age of apostasy to have its dense\ndarkness materially affect him. He stood on the line between expiring\nday and advancing night. Sometimes the law of God was unspeakably\nsacred; at other times tradition was of higher authority than the law.\nSometimes divine institutions were alone precious in his estimation; at\nothers he was better satisfied with those which were sustained only by\ncustom and tradition.\n\nTertullian's first reference to Sunday is found in that part of\nhis Apology in which he excuses his brethren from the charge of\nsun-worship. Thus he says:--\n\n    \"Others, again, certainly with more information and greater\n    verisimilitude, believe that the sun is our God. We shall be\n    counted Persians, perhaps, though we do not worship the orb of day\n    painted on a piece of linen cloth, having himself everywhere in\n    his own disk. The idea, no doubt, has originated from our being\n    known to turn to the east in prayer. But you, many of you, also,\n    under pretense sometimes of worshiping the heavenly bodies, move\n    your lips in the direction of the sunrise. In the same way, if\n    we devote Sunday to rejoicing, from a far different reason than\n    sun-worship, we have some resemblance to those of you who devote\n    the day of Saturn to ease and luxury, though they, too, go far away\n    from Jewish ways, of which indeed they are ignorant.\"--_Thelwell's\n    Translation_, sect. 16.\n\nSeveral important facts are presented in this quotation.\n\n1. Sunday was an ancient heathen festival in honor of the sun.\n\n2. Those Christians who observed the festival of Sunday were claimed by\nthe heathen as sun-worshipers.\n\n3. The entrance of the Sunday festival into the church in an age\nof apostasy when men very generally honored it, was not merely not\ndifficult to be effected, it was actually difficult to be prevented.\n\nIt would seem from the closing sentence that some of the heathen\nused the seventh day as a day of ease and luxury. But Mr. Reeve's\nTranslation gives a very different sense. He renders Tertullian thus:--\n\n    \"We solemnize the day after Saturday in contradistinction to those\n    who call this day their Sabbath, and devote it to ease and eating,\n    deviating from the old Jewish customs, which they are now very\n    ignorant of.\"\n\nThe persons here mentioned so contemptuously could not be heathens,\nfor they do not call any day \"their Sabbath.\" Nor could they be Jews,\nas is plain from the form of expression used. If we accept Mr. Reeve's\nTranslation, these persons were Christians who observe the seventh day.\nTertullian does not say that the Sunday festival was observed by divine\nauthority, but that they might distinguish themselves from those who\ncall the seventh day the Sabbath.\n\nTertullian again declares that his brethren did not observe the days\nheld sacred by the Jews.\n\n    \"We neither accord with the Jews in their peculiarities in regard\n    to food, nor in their sacred days.\"--_Apology_, sect. 21.\n\nBut those Christians who would not keep the Sabbath because the\nfestival of Sunday was in their estimation more worthy of honor, or\nmore convenient to observe, were greatly given to the observance of\nother days, in common with the heathen, besides Sunday. Thus Tertullian\ncharges home upon them this sin:--\n\n    \"The Holy Spirit upbraids the Jews with their holy days. 'Your\n    sabbaths, and new moons, and ceremonies,' says he, 'my soul\n    hateth.' By us (to whom Sabbaths are strange, and the new\n    moons, and festivals formerly beloved by God) the Saturnalia\n    and New Year's and mid-winter's festivals and Matronalia are\n    frequented--presents come and go--New Year's gifts--games join\n    their noise--banquets join their din! Oh! better fidelity of\n    the nations to their own sect, which claims no solemnity of the\n    Christians for itself! Not the Lord's day, not Pentecost, even\n    if they had known them, would they have shared with us; for they\n    would fear lest they should seem to be Christians. _We_ are not\n    apprehensive lest we seem to be _heathens_! If any indulgence is\n    to be granted to the flesh, you have it. I will not say your own\n    days, but more too; for to the _heathens_ each festive day occurs\n    but once annually; _you_ have a festive day every eighth day.\"--_On\n    Idolatry_, chap. xiv.\n\nThese Sunday-festival Christians, \"to whom Sabbaths\" were \"strange,\"\ncould not have kept Sunday as a Sabbath. They had never heard that by\ndivine authority the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first\nday of the week, and that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath. Let any\ncandid man read the above words from Tertullian, and then deny, if he\ncan, that these strangers to the Sabbath, and observers of heathen\nfestivals, were not a body of apostatizing Christians!\n\nHereafter Tertullian will give an excellent commentary on his quotation\nfrom Isaiah. It seems from him that the so-called Lord's day came once\nin eight days. Were these words to be taken in their most obvious\nsense, then it would come one day later each week than it did the\npreceding week, and thus it would come successively on all the days of\nthe week in order, at intervals of eight days. He might in such case\nwell say:--\n\n    \"However, _every_ day is the Lord's; every hour, every time, is apt\n    for baptism; if there is a difference in the _solemnity_, in the\n    _grace_, distinction there is none.\"--_On Baptism_, chap. xix.\n\nBut it seems that Tertullian by the eighth day intended Sunday. And\nhere is something from him relative to the manner of keeping it. Thus\nhe says:--\n\n    \"In the matter of _kneeling_ also, prayer is subject to diversity\n    of observance, through the act of some few who abstain from\n    kneeling on the Sabbath; and since this dissension is particularly\n    on its trial before the churches, the Lord will give his grace that\n    the dissentients may either yield, or else indulge their opinion\n    without offense to others. We, however (just as we have received),\n    only on the day of the Lord's resurrection ought to guard not only\n    against kneeling, but every posture and office of solicitude;\n    deferring even our businesses, lest we give any place to the\n    devil. Similarly, too, in the period of Pentecost; which period\n    we distinguish by the same solemnity of exultation. But who would\n    hesitate _every_ day to prostrate himself before God, at least\n    in the first prayer with which we enter on the daylight.\"--_On\n    Prayer_, chap. xxiii.\n\nA more literal translation of this passage would expressly connect the\nterm Lord's day with the day of Christ's resurrection, the original\nbeing \"die Dominico resurrexionis.\" The special weekly honor which\nTertullian would have men confer solely upon Sunday was to pray on that\nday in a _standing_ posture. And somewhat to his annoyance, \"some few\"\nwould thus act with reference to the Sabbath. There is, however, some\nreference to the deferral of business on Sunday. And this is worthy of\nnotice, for it is the first sentence we have discovered that looks like\nabstinence from labor on Sunday, and we shall not find another before\nthe time of Constantine's famous Sunday law, A. D. 321.\n\nBut this passage is far from asserting that labor on Sunday was sinful.\nIt speaks of \"deferring even our businesses;\" but this does not\nnecessarily imply anything beyond its postponement during the hours\ndevoted to religious services. And we shall find nothing in Tertullian,\nnor in his cotemporaries, that will go beyond this, while we shall find\nmuch to restrict us to the interpretation of his words here given.\nTertullian could not say that Sabbaths were strange to him and his\nbrethren if they religiously refrained from labor on each Sunday. But\nlet us hear him again concerning the observance of Sunday and kindred\npractices:--\n\n    \"We take also, in meetings before daybreak, and from the hand of\n    none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the\n    Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be\n    taken by all [alike]. As often as the anniversary comes round, we\n    make offerings for the dead as birth-day honors. We count fasting\n    or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful. We rejoice\n    in the same privilege also from Easter to Whit-sunday. We feel\n    pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon\n    the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in\n    and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when\n    we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all\n    the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the\n    sign [of the cross].\n\n    \"If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having\n    positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will\n    be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom, as their\n    strengthener, and faith, as their observer. That reason will\n    support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself\n    perceive, or learn from some one who has.\"--_De Corona_, sects. 3\n    and 4.\n\nThe things which he counted unlawful on Sunday he expressly names.\nThese are fasting and kneeling on that day. But ordinary labor does\nnot come into his list of things unlawful on that day. And now observe\nwhat progress apostasy and superstition had made in other things also.\n\"Offerings for the dead\" were regularly made, and the sign of the cross\nwas repeated as often as God would have men rehearse his commandments.\nSee Deut. 6:6-9. And now if you wish to know Tertullian's authority\nfor the Sunday festival, offerings for the dead, and the sign of the\ncross, he frankly tells you what it is. He had no authority from the\nScriptures. Custom and tradition were all that he could offer. Modern\ndivines can find plenty of authority, from the Scriptures, as they\nassert, for maintaining the so-called Lord's day. Tertullian knew of\nnone. He took the Sunday festival, offerings for the dead, and the sign\nof the cross, on the authority of custom and tradition; if you take the\nfirst on such authority, why do you not, also, the other two?\n\nBut Tertullian finds it necessary to write a second defense of his\nbrethren from the charge of being sun-worshipers, a charge directly\nconnected with their observance of the festival of Sunday. Here are his\nwords:--\n\n    \"Others, with greater regard to good manners, it must be confessed,\n    suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, because it is a\n    well-known fact that we pray towards the east, or because we make\n    Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you do less than this? Do\n    not many among you, with an affectation of sometimes worshiping\n    the heavenly bodies likewise, move your lips in the direction of\n    the sunrise? It is you, at all events, who have even admitted the\n    sun into the calendar of the week; and you have selected its day\n    [Sunday], in preference to the preceding day, as the most suitable\n    in the week for either an entire abstinence from the bath, or for\n    its postponement until the evening, or for taking rest, and for\n    banqueting. By resorting to these customs, you deliberately deviate\n    from your own religious rites to those of strangers. For the Jewish\n    feasts are the Sabbath and 'the Purification,' and Jewish also are\n    the ceremonies of the lamps, and the fasts of unleavened bread, and\n    the 'littoral prayers,' all which institutions and practices are of\n    course foreign from your gods. Wherefore, that I may return from\n    this digression, you who reproach us with the sun and Sunday should\n    consider your proximity to us. We are not far off from your Saturn\n    and your days of rest.\"--_Ad Nationes_, b. i. chap. xiii.\n\nTertullian in this discourse addresses himself to the nations still in\nidolatry. The heathen festival of Sunday, which was with some nations\nmore ancient, had been established among the Romans at a comparatively\nrecent date, though earlier than the time of Justin Martyr, the\nfirst Christian writer in whom an authentic mention of the day is\nfound. The heathen reproached the early Sunday Christians with being\nsun-worshipers, \"because,\" says Tertullian, \"we pray towards the east,\nor because we make Sunday a day of festivity.\" And how does Tertullian\nanswer this grave charge? He could not say, We do it by command of God\nto honor the first day of the week, for he expressly states in a former\nquotation that no such precept exists. So he retorts thus: \"What then?\nDo you [heathen] do less than this?\" And he adds: \"You have selected\nits day [Sunday] in preference to the preceding day\" (Saturday), etc.\nThat is to say, Tertullian wishes to know why, if the heathen could\nchoose Sunday in preference to Saturday, the Christians could not have\nthe same privilege! Could there be a stronger incidental evidence that\nSunday was cherished by the early apostatizing Christians, not because\ncommanded of God, but because it was generally observed by their\nheathen neighbors, and therefore more convenient to them?\n\nBut Tertullian next avows his faith in the ten commandments as \"the\nrules of our regenerate life,\" that is to say, the rules which govern\nChristian men; and he gives the preference to the seventh day over the\neighth:--\n\n    \"I must also say something about the period of the soul's birth,\n    that I may omit nothing incidental in the whole process. A\n    mature and regular birth takes place, as a general rule, at the\n    commencement of the tenth month. They who theorize respecting\n    numbers, honor the number ten as the parent of all the others,\n    and as imparting perfection to the human nativity. For my own\n    part, I prefer viewing this measure of time in reference to God,\n    as if implying that the ten months rather initiated man into the\n    ten commandments; so that the numerical estimate of the time\n    needed to consummate our natural birth should correspond to the\n    numerical classification of _the rules of our regenerate life_.\n    But inasmuch as birth is also completed with the seventh month, I\n    more readily recognize in this number than in the eighth the honor\n    of a numerical agreement with the Sabbatical period; so that the\n    month in which God's image is sometimes produced in a human birth,\n    shall in its number tally with the day on which God's creation was\n    completed and hallowed.\"--_De Anima_, chap. xxxvii.\n\nThis kind of reasoning is of course destitute of any force. But in\nadducing such an argument Tertullian avows his faith in the ten\ncommandments as the rule of the Christian's life, gives the preference\nto the seventh day as the Sabbath, and deduces the origin of the\nSabbath from God's act of hallowing the seventh day at creation.\n\nThough Tertullian elsewhere, as we shall see, speaks lightly of the\nlaw of God, and represents it as abolished, his next testimony most\nsacredly honors that law, and while acknowledging the Sabbath as one of\nits precepts, he recognizes the authority of the whole code. Thus he\nsays:--\n\n    \"Of how deep guilt, then, adultery--which is likewise a matter\n    of fornication, in accordance with its criminal function--is to\n    be accounted, the law of God first comes to hand to show us; if\n    it is true [as it is], that after interdicting the superstitious\n    service of alien gods, and the making of idols themselves, after\n    commending [to religious observance] the veneration of the Sabbath,\n    after commanding a religious regard toward parents, second [only\n    to that] toward God, [that law] laid, as the next substratum in\n    strengthening and fortifying such counts, no other precept than\n    'Thou shalt not commit adultery.'\"--_On Modesty_, chap. v.\n\nAnd of this precept Tertullian presently tells us that it stands \"in\nthe very forefront of _the most holy law_, among the primary counts of\n_the celestial edict_.\"\n\nIn his treatise \"On Fasting,\" chapter xiv., he terms \"the Sabbath--a\nday never to be kept as a fast except at the passover season, according\nto a reason elsewhere given.\" And in chapter xv., he excepts from the\ntwo weeks in which meat was not eaten \"the Sabbaths\" and \"the Lord's\ndays.\"\n\nBut in his \"Answer to the Jews,\" chapter ii., he represents the law as\nvariously modified from Adam to Christ; he denies \"that the Sabbath\nis still to be observed;\" classes it with circumcision; declares\nthat Adam was \"inobservant of the Sabbath,\" affirms the same of Abel,\nNoah, Enoch, and Melchizedek, and asserts that Lot \"was freed from\nthe conflagration of the Sodomites\" \"for the merits of righteousness,\nwithout observance of the law.\" And in the beginning of chapter iii.,\nhe again classes the Sabbath with circumcision, and asserts that\nAbraham did not \"observe the Sabbath.\"\n\nIn chapter iv., he declares that \"the observance of the Sabbath\" was\n\"temporary.\" And he continues thus:--\n\n    \"For the Jews say, that from the beginning God sanctified the\n    seventh day, by resting on it from all his works which he made;\n    and that thence it was, likewise, that Moses said to the people:\n    'Remember the day of the Sabbaths,'\" etc.\n\nNow see how Tertullian and his brethren disposed of this commandment\nrespecting the seventh day:--\n\n    \"Whence we [Christians] understand that _we_ still more ought to\n    observe a Sabbath from all 'servile work' always, and not only\n    every seventh day, but through all time.\"\n\nThat is to say in plain language, they would, under pretense of keeping\nevery day as a Sabbath, not only work on the seventh day of the\nweek, but on all the days of the week. But this plainly proves that\nTertullian did not think the seventh day was superseded by the first.\nAnd thus he proceeds:--\n\n    \"And through this arises the question for us, _what_ Sabbath God\n    willed us to keep.\"\n\nOur first-day friends quote Tertullian in behalf of what they call\nthe Christian Sabbath. Had he believed in such an institution he\nwould certainly have named it in answer to this question. But mark his\nanswer:--\n\n    \"For the Scriptures point to a Sabbath eternal and a Sabbath\n    temporal. For Isaiah the prophet says, '_Your_ Sabbaths my soul\n    hateth.' And in another place he says, 'My Sabbaths ye have\n    profaned.' Whence we discern that the temporal Sabbath is human,\n    and the eternal Sabbath is accounted divine.\"\n\nThis temporal Sabbath is the seventh day; this eternal Sabbath is the\nkeeping of all days alike, as Tertullian affirms that he and those with\nhim did.\n\nHe next declares that Isaiah's prediction respecting the Sabbath in the\nnew earth (Isa. 66: 22, 23), was \"fulfilled in the times of Christ,\nwhen all flesh--that is, every nation--came to adore in Jerusalem\nGod the Father.\" And he adds: \"Thus, therefore, before this temporal\nSabbath [the seventh day], there was withal an eternal Sabbath\nforeshown and foretold,\" _i. e._, the keeping of all days alike. And\nthis he fortifies by the assertion that the holy men before Moses did\nnot observe the seventh day. And in proof that the Sabbath was one day\nto cease, he cites the compassing of Jericho for seven days, one of\nwhich must have been the Sabbath. And to this he adds the case of the\nMaccabees who fought certain battles on the Sabbath. In due time we\nshall see how admirably he answers such objections as these of his own\nraising.\n\nIn chapter vi., he repeats his theory of the \"Sabbath temporal\" [the\nseventh day], and the \"Sabbath eternal\" or the \"Spiritual Sabbath,\"\nwhich is \"to observe a Sabbath from all 'servile works' always, and\nnot only every seventh day, but through all time.\" He says that the\nancient law has ceased, and that \"the new law\" and the \"Spiritual\nSabbath\" have come.\n\nIn the twentieth chapter of his first book against Marcion, Tertullian\ncites Hosea 2:11, and Isa. 1:13, 14, to prove that the Sabbath is\nnow abrogated. And in his fifth book against Marcion, chapter iv.,\nhe quotes Gal. 4:10; John 19:31; Isa. 1:13, 14; Amos 5:21, and Hosea\n2:11, to prove that \"the Creator abolished his own laws,\" and that he\n\"destroyed the institutions which he set up himself.\" These quotations\nare apparently designed to prove that the Sabbath is abolished, but he\ndoes not enter into argument from them. But in the nineteenth chapter\nof this book he quotes Col. 2:16, 17, and simply says of the law:\n\"The apostle here teaches clearly how it has been abolished, even by\npassing from shadow to substance--that is, from figurative types to the\nreality, which is Christ.\" This remark is truthful and would justly\nexclude the moral law from this abolition.\n\nBut in chapter xxi. of his second book against Marcion, he answers\nthe very objection against the Sabbath which himself has elsewhere\nurged, as we have noticed, drawn from the case of Jericho. He says to\nMarcion:--\n\n    \"You do not, however, consider the law of the Sabbath: they are\n    human works, not divine, which it prohibits. For it says, 'Six days\n    shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the\n    Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work.'\n    What work? Of course your own. The conclusion is, that from the\n    Sabbath day he removes those works which he had before enjoined for\n    the six days, that is, your own works; in other words, human works\n    of daily life. Now, the carrying around of the ark is evidently\n    not an ordinary daily duty, nor yet a human one; but a rare and\n    a sacred work, and, as being then ordered by the direct precept\n    of God, a divine one.... Thus, in the present instance, there is\n    a clear distinction respecting the Sabbath's prohibition of human\n    labors, not divine ones. Accordingly, the man who went and gathered\n    sticks on the Sabbath day was punished with death. For it was his\n    own work which he did; and this the law forbade. They, however, who\n    on the Sabbath carried the ark round Jericho, did it with impunity.\n    For it was not their own work, but God's, which they executed, and\n    that, too, from his express commandment.\"\n\nIn the following chapter he again cites Isa. 1:11-14, as proof that the\nSabbath is abolished. He will, however, presently explain this text\nwhich he has so many times used against the Sabbath, and show that it\nactually has no such bearing. In the meantime he will again declare\nthat Joshua did not break the Sabbath, and having done this he will\nfind it in order again to assert that \"the Sabbath was actually then\nbroken by Joshua.\" In his fourth book against Marcion, chapter xii., he\ndiscusses the question whether Christ as Lord of the Sabbath had the\nright to annul the Sabbath, and whether in his life he did actually\nviolate it. To do this he again cites the case of Jericho, and actually\naffirms that the Sabbath was broken on that occasion, and at the same\ntime denies it. Thus he says:--\n\n    \"If Christ interfered with the Sabbath, he simply acted after the\n    Creator's example; inasmuch as in the siege of the city of Jericho\n    the carrying around the walls of the ark of the covenant for eight\n    days running, and therefore on a Sabbath day, actually annulled\n    the Sabbath, by the Creator's command--according to the opinion of\n    those who think this of Christ [Luke 6:1-5] in their ignorance that\n    neither Christ nor the Creator violated the Sabbath, as we shall\n    by-and-by show. And yet the Sabbath was actually then broken by\n    Joshua, so that the present charge might be alleged also against\n    Christ.\"\n\nThe Sabbath was not violated in the case of Jericho, and yet it\ncertainly was there violated! Tertullian adds that if Christ hated the\nSabbath he was in this like the Creator himself, who declares [Isa.\n1:14] that he hates it. He forgets that the Creator has expressly\ndeclared his great regard for the Sabbath by this very prophet\n[chap. 58:13, 14], and overlooks the fact that what God hates is the\nhypocritical conduct of the people as set forth in Isaiah 1. In his\nfourth book against Marcion, chapter xvi., Christ is mentioned as\nthe Lord of the Sabbath, but nothing is said bearing upon Sabbatic\nobligation. In chapter xxx., of this same book, he alludes to the cure\nwrought by Christ upon the Sabbath day, mentioned in Luke 13:11-16,\nand says, \"When, therefore, he did a work according to the condition\nprescribed by the law, he affirmed, instead of breaking, the law,\" etc.\n\nIn the twelfth chapter of this book, however, he asserts many things\nrelative to Christ. He says that the disciples in rubbing out the ears\nof corn on the Sabbath \"had violated the holy day. Christ excuses them\nand became their accomplice in breaking the Sabbath.\" He argues that\nas the Sabbath from the beginning, which he here places at the fall\nof the manna though elsewhere dating it from the creation, had never\nbeen designed as a day of fasting, the Saviour did right in justifying\nthe act of the disciples in the cornfield. And he terms the example of\nDavid a \"colorable precedent\" to justify the eating of the corn. But\nthough he represents the Saviour as \"annulling the Sabbath\" at this\ntime, he also asserts that in this very case \"he maintains the honor of\nthe Sabbath as a day which is to be free from gloom rather than from\nwork.\" He justifies the Saviour in his acts of healing on the Sabbath,\ndeclaring that in this he was doing that which the Sabbath law did not\nforbid. Tertullian next affirms precisely the reverse of many things\nwhich he has advanced against the Sabbath, and even answers his own\nobjections against it. Thus he says:--\n\n    \"In order that he might, whilst allowing that amount of work\n    which he was about to perform for a soul, remind them what works\n    the law of the Sabbath forbade--even human works; and what it\n    enjoined--even divine works, which might be done for the benefit of\n    any soul, he was called 'Lord of the Sabbath' because he maintained\n    the Sabbath as his own institution. Now, even if he had annulled\n    the Sabbath, he would have had the right to do so, as being its\n    Lord, [and] still more as he who instituted it. But lie did not\n    utterly destroy it, although its Lord, in order that it might\n    henceforth be plain that the Sabbath was not broken by the Creator,\n    even at the time when the ark was carried around Jericho. For that\n    was really God's work, which he commanded himself, and which he had\n    ordered for the sake of the lives of his servants when exposed to\n    the perils of war.\" Book iv. chap. xii.\n\nIn this paragraph Tertullian explains the law of God in the clearest\nmanner. He shows beyond all dispute that neither Joshua nor Christ ever\nviolated it. He also declares that Christ did not abolish the Sabbath.\nIn the next sentence he goes on to answer most admirably his own\nrepeated perversion of Isaiah 1:13, 14, and to contradict some of his\nown serious errors. Listen to him:--\n\n    \"Now, although he has in a certain place expressed an aversion of\n    Sabbaths, by calling them '_your Sabbaths_,' reckoning them as\n    men's Sabbaths, not his own, because they were celebrated without\n    the fear of God by a people full of iniquities, and loving God\n    'with the lip, not the heart,' he has yet put his own Sabbaths\n    (those, that is, which were kept according to his prescription) in\n    a different position; for by the same prophet, in a later passage,\n    he declares them to be 'true, delightful, and inviolable.' [Isa\n    58:13; 56:2.] Thus _Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath_: he\n    kept the law thereof, and both in the former case did a work which\n    was beneficial to the life of his disciples (for he indulged them\n    with the relief of food when they were hungry), and in the present\n    instance cured the withered hand; in each case intimating by facts,\n    'I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it,' although\n    Marcion has gagged his mouth by this word.\"\n\nHere Tertullian shows that God did not hate his own Sabbath, but only\nthe hypocrisy of those who professed to keep it. He also expressly\ndeclares that the Saviour \"did not at all rescind the Sabbath.\" And now\nthat he has his hand in, he will not cease till he has testified to a\nnoble Sabbatarian confession of faith, placing its origin at creation,\nand perpetuating the institution with divine safeguards and additional\nsanctity. Moreover he asserts that Christ's adversary [Satan] would\nhave had him do this to some other days, a heavy blow as it happens\nupon those who in modern times so stoutly maintain that he consecrated\nthe first day of the week to take the place of the Creator's rest-day.\nListen again to Tertullian, who continues as follows:--\n\n    \"For even in the case before us he fulfilled the law, while\n    interpreting its condition; [moreover,] he exhibits in a clear\n    light the different kinds of work, while doing what the law excepts\n    from the sacredness of the Sabbath, [and] while imparting to the\n    Sabbath day itself, which _from the beginning_ had been consecrated\n    by the benediction of the Father, an additional sanctity by\n    his own beneficent action. For he furnished to this day divine\n    safeguards,--a course which his adversary would have pursued for\n    some other days, to avoid honoring the Creator's Sabbath, and\n    restoring to the Sabbath the works which were proper for it.\n    Since, in like manner, the prophet Elisha on this day restored to\n    life the dead son of the Shunammite woman, you see, O Pharisee,\n    and you too, O Marcion, how that it was [proper employment] for\n    the Creator's Sabbaths of old to do good, to save life, not to\n    destroy it; how that Christ introduced nothing new, which was not\n    after the example, the gentleness, the mercy, and the prediction\n    also of the Creator. For in this very example he fulfills the\n    prophetic announcement of a specific healing: 'The weak hands are\n    strengthened,' as were also 'the feeble knees' in the sick of the\n    palsy.\"--_Tertullian against Marcion_, b. iv. chap. xii.\n\nTertullian mistakes in his reference to the Shunammite woman. It was\nnot the Sabbath day on which she went to the prophet. 2 Kings 4:23. But\nin the last three paragraphs quoted from him, which in his work form\none continuous statement, he affirms many important truths which are\nworthy of careful enumeration. They are as follows:--\n\n1. Christ, in determining what should, and what should not, be done on\nthe Sabbath, \"was called 'Lord of the Sabbath,' because he maintained\nthe Sabbath as his own institution.\"\n\n2. \"The Sabbath was not broken by the Creator, even at the time when\nthe ark was carried around Jericho.\"\n\n3. The reason why God expressed his aversion to \"your Sabbaths,\" as\nthough they were \"men's Sabbaths, not his own,\" was \"because they were\ncelebrated without the fear of God, by a people full of iniquities.\"\nSee Isa. 1:13, 14.\n\n4. \"By the same prophet [Isa. 58:13; 56:2], he declares them [the\nSabbaths] to be 'true and delightful and inviolable.'\"\n\n5. \"Thus Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath.\"\n\n6. \"He kept the law thereof.\"\n\n7. \"The Sabbath day itself, which from the beginning had been\nconsecrated by the benediction of the Father.\" This language expressly\nassigns the origin of the Sabbath to the act of the Creator at the\nclose of the first week of time.\n\n8. Christ imparted to the Sabbath \"an additional sanctity by his own\nbeneficent action.\"\n\n9. \"He furnished to this day divine safeguards,--a course which his\nadversary would have pursued for some other days, to avoid honoring the\nCreator's Sabbath, and restoring to the Sabbath the works which were\nproper for it.\"\n\nThis last statement is indeed very remarkable. Christ furnished \"the\nCreator's Sabbath,\" the seventh day, with \"divine safeguards.\" His\nadversary (THE adversary of Christ is the devil) would have had this\ncourse \"pursued for some other days.\" That is to say, the devil would\nhave been pleased had Christ consecrated some other day, instead of\nadding to the sanctity of his Father's Sabbath. What Tertullian says\nthat the devil would have been pleased to have Christ do, that our\nfirst-day friends now assert that he did do in the establishment of\nwhat they call the Christian Sabbath! Such an institution, however,\nwas never heard of in the days of the so-called Christian fathers.\nNotwithstanding Tertullian's many erroneous statements concerning the\nSabbath and the law, he has here borne a noble testimony to the truth,\nand this completes his words.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nFabian--Origen--Hippolytus--Novatian.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE EPISTLES AND DECREES OF POPE FABIAN.\n\nThis man was bishop of Rome from A. D. 236 to A. D. 250. The letters\nascribed to Fabian were probably written at a considerably later date.\nWe quote them, however, at the very point of time wherein they claim\nto have been written. Their testimony is of little importance, but\nthey breathe the self-important spirit of a Roman bishop. We quote as\nfollows:--\n\n    \"You ought to know what is being done in things sacred in the\n    church of Rome, in order that, by following her example, ye may\n    be found to be true children of her who is called your mother.\n    Accordingly, as we have received the institution from our fathers,\n    we maintain seven deacons in the city of Rome, distributed over\n    seven districts of the state, who attend to the services enjoined\n    on them week by week, and on the Lord's days, and the solemn\n    festivals,\" etc.--_Epistle First._\n\nThis pope is said to have made the following decree, which contains the\nonly other reference to the so-called Lord's day to be found in the\nwritings attributed to him:--\n\n    \"We decree that on each Lord's day the oblation of the altar should\n    be made by all men and women in bread and wine, in order that by\n    means of these sacrifices they may be released from the burden of\n    their sins.\"--_Decrees of Fabian_, b. v. chap. vii.\n\nIn these quotations we see that the Roman church is made the mother\nof all churches, and also that the Roman bishop thinks himself the\nrightful ruler over all Christian people. And it is in fit keeping with\nthese features of the great apostasy that the pope, instead of pointing\nsinful men to the sacrifice made on Calvary, should \"decree that on\neach Lord's day\" every person should offer an \"oblation\" of \"bread and\nwine\" on the altar, \"that by means of THESE SACRIFICES they may be\nreleased from the burden of their sins\"!\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF ORIGEN.\n\nOrigen was born about A. D. 185, probably at Alexandria in Egypt.\nHe was a man of immense learning, but unfortunately adopted a\nspiritualizing system in the interpretation of the Scriptures that was\nthe means of flooding the church with many errors. He wrote during the\nfirst half of the third century. I have carefully examined all the\nwritings of every Christian writer preceding the council of Nice with\nthe single exception of Origen. Some of his works, as yet, I have not\nbeen able to obtain. While, therefore, I give the entire testimony of\nevery other father on the subject of inquiry, in his case I am unable\nto do this. But I can give it with sufficient fullness to present him\nin a just light. His first reference to the Sabbath is a denial that it\nshould be literally understood. Thus he says:--\n\n    \"There are countless multitudes of believers who, although unable\n    to unfold methodically and clearly the results of their spiritual\n    understanding, are nevertheless most firmly persuaded that neither\n    ought circumcision to be understood literally, nor the rest of the\n    Sabbath, nor the pouring out of the blood of an animal, nor that\n    answers were given by God to Moses on these points. And this method\n    of apprehension is undoubtedly suggested to the minds of all by the\n    power of the Holy Spirit.\"--_De Principiis_, b. ii. chap. vii.\n\nOrigen asserts that the spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures\nwhereby their literal meaning is set aside is something divinely\ninspired! But when this is accepted as the truth who can tell what they\nmean by what they say?\n\nIn the next chapter he quotes Isa. 1:13, 14, but with reference to\nthe subject of the soul and not to that of the Sabbath. In chapter\nxi., alluding again to the hidden meaning of the things commanded in\nthe Scriptures, he asserts that when the Christian has \"returned to\nChrist\" he will, amongst other things enumerated, \"see also the reasons\nfor the festival days, and holy days, and for all the sacrifices and\npurifications.\" So it seems that Origen thought the spiritual meaning\nof the Sabbath, which he asserted in the place of the literal, was to\nbe known only in the future state!\n\nIn book iv. chapter i., he quotes Col. 2:16, but gives no exposition of\nits meaning. But having asserted that the things commanded in the law\nwere not to be understood literally, and having intimated that their\nhidden meaning cannot be known until the saints are with Christ, he\nproceeds in section 17 of this chapter to prove that the literal sense\nof the law is impossible. One of the arguments by which he proves the\npoint is, that men were commanded not to go out of their houses on the\nSabbath. He thus quotes and comments on Ex. 16:29:--\n\n    \"'Ye shall sit, every one in your dwellings; no one shall move\n    from his place on the Sabbath day,' which precept it is impossible\n    to observe literally; for no man can sit a whole day so as not to\n    move from the place where he sat down.\" Origen quotes a certain\n    Samaritan who declares that one must not change his posture on the\n    Sabbath, and he adds, \"Moreover the injunction which runs, 'Bear no\n    burden on the Sabbath day,' seems to me an impossibility.\"\n\nThis argument is framed for the purpose of proving that the Scriptures\ncannot be taken in their literal sense. But had he quoted the text\ncorrectly there would be no force at all to his argument. They must not\ngo out to gather manna, but were expressly commanded to use the Sabbath\nfor holy convocations, that is, for religious assemblies. Lev. 23:3.\nAnd as to the burdens mentioned in Jer. 17:21-27, they are sufficiently\nexplained by Neh. 13:15-22. Such reasons as these for denying the\nobvious, simple signification of what God has commanded, are worthy of\nno confidence. In his letter to Africanus, Origen thus alludes to the\nSabbath, but without further remarking upon it:--\n\n    \"You will find the law about not bearing a burden on the Sabbath\n    day in Jeremiah as well as in Moses.\"\n\nThough these allusions of Origen to the Sabbath are not in themselves\nof much importance, we give them all, that his testimony may be\npresented as fully as possible. His next mention of the Sabbath seems\nfrom the connection to relate to Paul:--\n\n    \"Was it impious to abstain from corporeal circumcision, and from a\n    literal Sabbath, and literal festivals, and literal new moons, and\n    from clean and unclean meats, and to turn the mind to the good and\n    true and spiritual law of God,\" etc.--_Origen against Celsus_, b.\n    ii. chap. vii.\n\nWe shall soon get his idea of the true Sabbath as distinguished from\nthe \"literal\" one. He gives the following reason for the \"literal\nSabbath\" among the Hebrews:--\n\n    \"In order that there might be leisure to listen to their sacred\n    laws, the days termed 'Sabbath,' and the other festivals which\n    existed among them, were instituted.\" Book iv. chap. xxxi.\n\nWhat Origen mentions as the reason for the institution of the Sabbath\nis in fact only one of its incidental benefits. The real reason for\nits institution, viz., that the creation of the heavens and the earth\nshould be remembered, he seems to have overlooked because so literally\nexpressed in the commandment. Of God's rest-day he thus speaks:--\n\n    \"With respect, however, to the creation of the world, and the 'rest\n    [_Sabbatismou_] which is reserved after it for the people of God,'\n    the subject is extensive, and mystical, and profound, and difficult\n    of explanation.\" Book v. chap. lix.\n\nOrigen's next mention of the Sabbath not only places the institution of\nthe Sabbath at the creation, but gives us some idea of his \"mystical\"\nSabbath as distinguished from \"a literal\" one. Speaking of the\nCreator's rest from the six days' work he thus alludes to Celsus:--\n\n    \"For he [Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest\n    of God, _which follows the completion of the world's creation_,\n    and _which lasts during the duration of the world_, and in which\n    all those will keep festival with God who have done all _their_\n    works in _their_ six days, and who, because they have omitted none\n    of their duties, will ascend to the contemplation [of celestial\n    things], and to the assembly of righteous and blessed beings.\" Book\n    vi. chap. lxi.\n\nHere we get an insight into Origen's mystical Sabbath. It began at\ncreation, and will continue while the world endures. To those who\nfollow the letter it is indeed only a weekly rest, but to those who\nknow the truth it is a perpetual Sabbath, enjoyed by God during all\nthe days of time, and entered by believers either at conversion or at\ndeath. And this last thought perhaps explains why he said before that\nthe reasons for days observed by the Hebrews would be understood after\nthis life.\n\nBut last of all we come to a mention of the so-called Lord's day by\nOrigen. As he has a mystical or perpetual Sabbath like some of the\nearlier fathers, in which, under pretense of keeping every day as a\nSabbath, they actually labor on every one, so has he also, like what\nwe have found in some of them, a Lord's day which is not merely one\ndefinite day of the week, but which embraces every day, and covers all\ntime. Here are his words:--\n\n    \"For 'to keep a feast,' as one of the wise men of Greece has well\n    said, 'is nothing else than to do one's duty;' and that man truly\n    celebrates a feast who does his duty and prays always, offering up\n    continually bloodless sacrifices in prayer to God. That therefore\n    seems to me a most noble saying of Paul, 'Ye observe days, and\n    months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have\n    bestowed upon you labor in vain.'\n\n    \"If it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are\n    accustomed to observe certain days, as, for example, the Lord's\n    day, the Preparation, the Passover, or Pentecost, I have to answer,\n    that to the perfect Christian, who is ever in his thoughts, words,\n    and deeds, serving his natural Lord, God the Word, _all his days\n    are the Lord's_, and _he is always keeping the Lord's day_.\" Book\n    viii., close of chapter xxi. and beginning of chapter xxii.\n\nWith respect to what he calls the Lord's day, Origen divides his\nbrethren into two classes, as he had before divided the people of\nGod into two classes with respect to the Sabbath. One class are the\nimperfect Christians, who content themselves with the literal day; the\nother are the perfect Christians, whose Lord's day embraces all the\ndays of their life. Undoubtedly Origen reckoned himself one of the\nperfect Christians. His observance of the Lord's day did not consist\nin the elevation of one day above another, for he counted them all\nalike as constituting one perpetual Lord's day, the very doctrine\nwhich we found in Clement of Alexandria, who was Origen's teacher in\nhis early life. The keeping of the Lord's day with Origen as with\nClement embraced all the days of his life, and consisted according to\nOrigen in serving God in thought, word, and deed, continually; or as\nexpressed by Clement, one \"keeps the Lord's day when he abandons an\nevil disposition, and assumes that of the Gnostic.\"\n\nThese things prove that Origen did not count Sunday as the Lord's\nday to be honored above the other days as a divine memorial of the\nresurrection, for he kept the Lord's day during every day in the\nweek. Nor did he hold Sunday as the Lord's day to be kept as a day of\nabstinence from labor, while all the other days were days of business,\nfor whatever was necessary to keeping Lord's day he did on every day of\nthe week.\n\nAs to the imperfect Christians who honored a literal day as the Lord's\nday, Origen shows what rank it stood in by associating it with the\nPreparation, the Passover, and the Pentecost, all of which in this\ndispensation are mere church institutions, and none of them days of\nabstinence from labor. The change of the Sabbath from the seventh day\nto the first, or the existence of the so-called Christian Sabbath was\nin Origen's time absolutely unknown.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF HIPPOLYTUS, BISHOP OF PORTUS.\n\nHippolytus, who was bishop of Portus, near Rome, wrote about A. D.\n230. It is evident from his testimony that he believed the Sabbath was\nmade by God's act of sanctifying the seventh day at the beginning. He\nheld that day to be the type of the seventh period of a thousand years.\nThus he says:--\n\n    \"And 6000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the\n    Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day on which God rested from\n    all his works. For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future\n    kingdom of the saints, when they shall reign with Christ, when\n    he comes from Heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for a day\n    with the Lord is as a thousand years. Since, then, in six days\n    God made all things, it follows that six thousand years must be\n    fulfilled.\"--_Commentaries on Various Books of Scripture._ Sect. 4,\n    on Daniel.\n\nThe churches of Ethiopia have a series of Canons, or church rules,\nwhich they attribute to this father. Number thirty-three reads thus:--\n\n    \"That commemoration should be made of the faithful dead every day,\n    with the exception of the Lord's day.\"\n\nThe church of Alexandria have also a series which they ascribe to him.\nThe thirty-third is thus given:--\n\n    \"Of the _Atalmsas_ (the oblation), which they shall present for\n    those who are dead, that it be not done on the Lord's day.\"\n\nThe thirty-eighth one has these words:--\n\n    \"Of the night on which our Lord Jesus Christ rose. That no one\n    shall sleep on that night, and wash himself with water.\"\n\nThese are the only things in Hippolytus that can be referred to the\nSunday festival. Prayers and offerings for the dead, which we find\nsome fifty years earlier in Tertullian, are, according to Hippolytus,\nlawful on every day but the so-called Lord's day. They grew up with\nthe Sunday festival, and are of equal authority with it. Tertullian, as\nwe have already observed, tells us frankly that there is no scriptural\nauthority for the one or the other, and that they rest on custom and\ntradition alone.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF NOVATIAN, A ROMAN PRESBYTER.\n\nNovatian, who wrote about A. D. 250, is accounted the founder of the\nsect called _Cathari_, or _Puritans_. He tried to resist some of the\ngross corruptions of the church of Rome. He wrote a treatise on the\nSabbath, which is not extant. There is no reference to Sunday in any of\nhis writings. In his treatise \"On the Jewish Meats,\" he speaks of the\nSabbath thus:--\n\n    \"But how perverse are the Jews, and remote from the understanding\n    of their law, I have fully shown, as I believe, in two former\n    letters, wherein it was absolutely proved that they are ignorant of\n    what is the true circumcision, and what the true Sabbath.\" Chapter\n    i.\n\nIf we contrast the doctrine of the Pharisees concerning the Sabbath\nwith the teaching of the Saviour, or with that of Isaiah in his\nfifty-eighth chapter, we shall not think Novatian far from the truth\nin his views of the Jewish people. In his treatise \"Concerning the\nTrinity\" is the following allusion to the Sabbath:--\n\n    \"For in the manner that as man he is of Abraham, so also as God he\n    is before Abraham himself. And in the same manner as he is as man\n    the 'Son of David,' so as God he is proclaimed David's Lord. And in\n    the same manner as he was made as man 'under the law,' so as God he\n    is declared to be 'Lord of the Sabbath.'\" Chapter xi.\n\nThese are the only references to the Sabbath in what remains of\nthe writings of Novatian. He makes the following striking remarks\nconcerning the moral law:--\n\n    \"The law was given to the children of Israel for this purpose, that\n    they might profit by it, and RETURN _to those virtuous manners_,\n    which, although _they have received them from their fathers_,\n    they had corrupted in Egypt by reason of their intercourse with a\n    barbarous people. Finally, also, those _ten commandments_ on the\n    tables _teach nothing new_, but _remind_ them of _what had been\n    obliterated_--that righteousness in them, which had been put to\n    sleep, might revive again as it were by the afflatus of the law,\n    after the manner of a fire [nearly extinguished].\"--_On the Jewish\n    Meats_, chap. iii.\n\nIt is therefore certain that in the judgment of Novatian, the ten\ncommandments enjoined nothing that was not sacredly regarded by\nthe patriarchs before that Jacob went down into Egypt. It follows,\ntherefore, that in his opinion the Sabbath was made, not at the fall of\nthe manna, but when God sanctified the seventh day, and that holy men\nfrom the earliest ages observed it. The Sunday festival with its varied\nnames and titles he never mentions.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nCyprian--Dionysius of Alexandria--Anatolius--Commodianus--Archelaus.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF CYPRIAN, BISHOP OF CARTHAGE.\n\nCyprian wrote about A. D. 255. I find only two references to Sunday in\nhis works. The first is in his thirty-second epistle (the thirty-eighth\nof the Oxford edition), in which he says of one Aurelius that \"he reads\non the Lord's day\" for him. But in the second instance he defines the\nmeaning of the term, and gives evidence in support of his application\nof it to the first day of the week. He is arguing in behalf of infant\nbaptism, or rather in controverting the opinion that baptism should\nbe deferred till the child is eight days old. Though the command to\ncircumcise infants when eight days of age is one of the chief grounds\nof authority for infant baptism, yet the time in that precept according\nto Cyprian does not indicate the age of the child to be baptized, but\nprefigures the fact that the eighth day is the Lord's day. Thus he\nsays:--\n\n    \"For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the Jewish\n    circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given beforehand in\n    shadow and in usage; but when Christ came, it was fulfilled in\n    truth. For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after\n    the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again,\n    and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the Spirit,\n    the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the\n    Lord's day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when\n    by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to\n    us.\"--_Epistle_ lviii. sect. 4; in the Oxford edition, _Epistle_\n    lxiv.\n\nCircumcision is made to prove twin errors of the great apostasy,\n_infant baptism_ and that _the eighth day is the Lord's day_. But the\neighth day in the case of circumcision was not the day succeeding the\nseventh, that is, the first day of the week, but the eighth day of the\nlife of each infant, and therefore it fell on one day of the week as\noften as upon another. Such is the only argument addressed by Cyprian\nfor first-day sacredness, and this one seems to have been borrowed from\nJustin Martyr, who, as we have seen, used it about one hundred years\nbefore him. It is however quite as weighty as the argument of Clement\nof Alexandria, who adduced in its support what he calls a prophecy of\nthe eighth day out of the writings of the heathen philosopher Plato!\nAnd both are in the same rank with that of Tertullian, who confessed\nthat they had not the authority of Scripture, but accepted in its stead\nthat of custom and tradition!\n\nIn his \"Exhortation to Martyrdom,\" section 11, Cyprian quotes the\nlarger part of Matt. 24, and in that quotation at verse 20, the Sabbath\nis mentioned, but he says nothing concerning that institution. In his\n\"Testimonies against the Jews,\" book i., sections 9 and 10, he says\n\"that the former law which was given by Moses, was about to cease,\"\nand that \"a new law was to be given;\" and in the conclusion of his\n\"Treatise against the Jews,\" section 119, he says \"that the yoke of the\nlaw was heavy which is cast off by us,\" but it is not certain that he\nmeant to include in these statements the precepts of the moral law.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF DIONYSIUS, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA.\n\nThis father, who was one of Origen's disciples, wrote about A. D. 260.\nIn the first canon of his \"Epistle to Bishop Basilides\" he treats\nof \"the proper hour for bringing the fast to a close on the day of\nPentecost.\" He has occasion to quote what the four evangelists say\nof the Sabbath and first-day in connection with the resurrection of\nChrist. But in doing this he adds not one word expressive of first-day\nsacredness, nor does he give it any other title than that of plain\n\"first day of the week.\" The seventh day is simply called \"the\nSabbath.\" He also speaks of \"the preparation and the Sabbath\" as the\n\"last two days\" of a six days' fast, at the anniversary of the week of\nChrist's death.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF ANATOLIUS, BISHOP OF LAODICEA.\n\nThis father wrote about A. D. 270. He participated in the discussion\nof the question whether the festival of Easter, or passover, should be\ncelebrated on the fourteenth day of the first month, the same day on\nwhich the Jews observed the passover, or whether it should be observed\non the so-called Lord's day next following. In this discussion he\nuses the term Lord's day, in his first canon once, quoting it from\nOrigen; in his seventh, twice; in his tenth, twice; in his eleventh,\nfour times; in his twelfth, once; in his sixteenth, twice. These are\nall the instances in which he uses the term. We quote such of them as\nshed any light upon the meaning of it as used by him. In his seventh\ncanon he says: \"The obligation of the Lord's resurrection binds to\nkeep the paschal festival on the Lord's day.\" In his tenth canon he\nuses this language: \"The solemn festival of the resurrection of the\nLord can be celebrated only on the Lord's day.\" And also \"that it\nshould not be lawful to celebrate the Lord's mystery of the passover\nat any other time but on the Lord's day, on which the resurrection\nof the Lord from death took place, and on which rose also for us the\ncause of everlasting joy.\" In his eleventh canon he says: \"On the\nLord's day was it that light was shown to us in the beginning, and now\nalso in the end, the comforts of all present and the tokens of all\nfuture blessings.\" In his sixteenth canon he says: \"Our regard for the\nLord's resurrection which took place on the Lord's day will lead us to\ncelebrate it on the same principle.\"\n\nThe reader may be curious to know why a controversy should have arisen\nrespecting the proper day for the celebration of the passover in the\nChristian church when no such celebration had ever been commanded.\nThe explanation is this: The festival was celebrated solely on the\nauthority of tradition, and there were in this case two directly\nconflicting traditions, as is fully shown in the tenth canon of this\nfather. One party had their tradition from John the apostle, and held\nthat the paschal feast should be celebrated every year \"whenever the\nfourteenth day of the moon had come, and the lamb was sacrificed by\nthe Jews.\" But the other party had their tradition from the apostles\nPeter and Paul that this festival should not be celebrated on that\nday, but upon the so-called Lord's day next following. And so a fierce\ncontroversy arose which was decided in A. D. 325, by the council of\nNice, in favor of Saint Peter, who had on his side his pretended\nsuccessor, the powerful and crafty bishop of Rome.\n\nThe term Lord's day is never applied to Sunday till the closing years\nof the second century. And Clement, who is the first to make such an\napplication, represents the true Lord's day as made up of every day of\nthe Christian's life. And this opinion is avowed by others after him.\n\nBut after we enter the third century the name Lord's day is quite\nfrequently applied to Sunday. Tertullian, who lived at the epoch where\nwe first find this application, frankly declares that the festival of\nSunday, to which he gives the name of Lord's day, had no Scriptural\nauthority, but that it was founded upon tradition. But should not the\ntraditions of the third century be esteemed sufficient authority for\ncalling Sunday the Lord's day? The very men of that century who speak\nthus of Sunday strenuously urge the observance of the feast of the\npassover. Shall we accept this festival which they offer to us on the\nauthority of their apostolic tradition? As if to teach us the folly\nof adding tradition to the Bible as a part of our rule of faith, it\nhappens that there are, even from the early part of the second century,\ntwo directly conflicting traditions as to what day should be kept for\nthe passover. And one party had theirs from Saint John, the other had\ntheirs from Saint Peter and Saint Paul! And it is very remarkable that\nalthough each of these parties claimed to know from one or the other\nof these apostles that they had the right day for the passover and the\nother had the wrong one, there is never a claim by one of these fathers\nthat Sunday is the Lord's day because John on the isle of Patmos\ncalled it such! If men in the second and third centuries were totally\nmistaken in their traditions respecting the passover, as they certainly\nwere, shall we consider the traditions of the third century sufficient\nauthority for asserting that the title of Lord's day belongs to Sunday\nby apostolic authority?\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF COMMODIANUS.\n\nThis person was a native of Africa, and does not appear to have ever\nheld any office in the Christian church. He wrote about A. D. 270. The\nonly allusions made by him to the Sabbath are in the following words\naddressed to the Jews:--\n\n    \"There is not an unbelieving people such as yours. O evil men! in\n    so many places, and so often rebuked by the law of those who cry\n    aloud. And the Lofty One despises your Sabbaths, and altogether\n    rejects your universal monthly feasts according to law, that ye\n    should not make to him the commanded sacrifices; who told you\n    to throw a stone for your offense.\"--_Instructions in Favor of\n    Christian Discipline_, sect. 40.\n\nThis statement is very obscure, and there is nothing in the connection\nthat sheds any light upon it. His language may have reference to the\nceremonial sabbaths, or it may include also the Sabbath of the Lord. If\nit includes the Sabbath made for man it may be intended, like the words\nof Isa. 1:13, 14, to rebuke the hypocrisy of those who profess to keep\nit rather than to condemn the institution itself.\n\nHe makes only one use of the term Lord's day, and that is as obscure as\nis his reference to the subject of the Sabbath. Here it is:--\n\n    \"Neither dost thou fear the Lord, who cries aloud with such an\n    utterance; even he who commands us to give food even to our\n    enemies. Look forward to thy meals from that Tobias who always on\n    _every day_ shared them entirely with the poor man. Thou seekest to\n    feed him, O fool, who feedeth thee again. Dost thou wish that he\n    should prepare for me, who is setting before him his burial? The\n    brother oppressed with want, nearly languishing away, cries out at\n    the splendidly fed, and with distended belly. What sayest thou of\n    the Lord's day? If he have not placed himself before, call forth a\n    poor man from the crowd whom thou mayest take to thy dinner. In the\n    tablets is your hope from a Christ refreshed.\" Section 61.\n\nWhether Commodianus meant to charge his brethren to relieve the hungry\non one day only of the week, or whether he held to such a Lord's day\nas that of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others (namely, one that\nincludes every day of the life of him who refrains from sin), and so\nwould have his brethren imitate Tobias, who fed the hungry _every\nday_, must be left undetermined. He could not have believed that Sunday\nwas the Lord's day by divine appointment, for he refers to the passover\nfestival (which rests solely upon the traditions and commandments of\nmen) as coming \"once in the year\" and he designates it as \"Easter that\nday of ours _most blessed_.\" Section 75. The day of the passover was\ntherefore in his estimation the most sacred day in the Christian church.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF ARCHELAUS, BISHOP OF CASCAR.\n\nThis person wrote about A. D. 277, or according to other authorities\nhe wrote not far from A. D. 300. He flourished in Mesopotamia. What\nremains of his writings is simply the record of his \"Disputation with\nManes,\" the heretic. I do not find that he ever uses the term \"Lord's\nday.\" He introduces the Sabbath and states his views of it thus:--\n\n    \"Moses, that illustrious servant of God, committed to those who\n    wished to have the right vision, an emblematic law, and also a real\n    law. Thus, to take an example, after God had made the world, and\n    all things that are in it, in the space of six days, he rested on\n    the seventh day from all his works; by which statement I do not\n    mean to affirm that he rested because he was fatigued, but that he\n    did so as having brought to its perfection every creature which he\n    had resolved to introduce. And yet in the sequel it (the new law)\n    says: 'My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.' Does that mean,\n    then, that he is still making heaven, or sun, or man, or animals,\n    or trees, or any such thing? Nay; but the meaning is, that when\n    these visible objects were perfectly finished, he rested from that\n    kind of work; while, however, he still continues to work at objects\n    invisible with an inward mode of action, and saves men. In like\n    manner, then, the legislator desires also that every individual\n    among us should be devoted unceasingly to this kind of work,\n    even as God himself is; and he enjoins us consequently to rest\n    continuously from secular things, and to engage in no worldly sort\n    of work whatsoever; and this is called our Sabbath. This he also\n    added in the law, that nothing senseless should be done, but that\n    we should be careful and direct our life in accordance with what is\n    just and righteous.\" Section 31.\n\nThese words appear to teach that he held to a perpetual Sabbath,\nlike Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others. Yet this does not seem\npossible, inasmuch as, unlike Justin, who despises what he calls days\nof \"idleness,\" this writer says that we are \"to engage in no worldly\nsort of work whatsoever and this is that our Sabbath.\" It is hardly\npossible that he could hold it a wicked thing to labor on one or all of\nthe six working days. Yet he either means to assert that it is sinful\nto work on a single one of the days, or else he asserts the perpetual\nobligation of that Sabbath which it is manifest he believed originated\nwhen God set apart the seventh day, and which he acknowledges on the\nauthority of what \"he also added in the law.\" We shall shortly come to\nhis final statement, which seems clearly to show that the second of\nthese views was the one held by this writer.\n\nAfter showing in this same section that the death penalty at the hand\nof the magistrate for the violation of the Sabbath is no longer in\nforce because of forgiveness through the Saviour, and after answering\nthe objection of Manes in sections 40, 41, 42, that Christ in healing\non the Sabbath directly contradicted what Moses did to those who in his\ntime violated the Sabbath, he states his views of the perpetuity of the\nancient Sabbath in very clear language. Thus he says:--\n\n    \"Again, as to the assertion that the Sabbath has been abolished,\n    we deny that he has abolished it plainly (_plane_); for he was\n    himself also Lord of the Sabbath. And this (the law's relation\n    to the Sabbath) was like the servant who has charge of the\n    bridegroom's couch, and who prepares the same with all carefulness,\n    and does not suffer it to be disturbed or touched by any stranger,\n    but keeps it intact against the time of the bridegroom's arrival;\n    so that when he is come, the bed may be used as it pleases himself,\n    or as it is granted to those to use it whom he has bidden enter\n    along with him.\" Section 42.\n\nThree things are plainly taught. 1. The law sacredly guarded the\nSabbath till the coming of Christ. 2. When Christ came, he did not\nabolish the Sabbath, for he was its Lord. 3. And the whole tenor of\nthis writer's language shows that he had no knowledge of the change of\nthe Sabbath in honor of Christ's resurrection, nor does he even once\nallude to the first day of the week.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nVictorinus--Peter--Methodius--Lactantius--Poem on Genesis--Conclusion.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF VICTORINUS, BISHOP OF PETAU.\n\nThis person wrote about A. D. 300. His bishopric was in Germany. Of his\nwork on the \"Creation of the World,\" only a fragment is now preserved.\nIn the first section he speaks thus of the sanctification of the\nseventh day:--\n\n    \"God produced that entire mass for the adornment of his majesty in\n    six days; on the seventh to which he consecrated it [some words\n    are here lost out of the text] with a blessing. For this reason,\n    therefore, because in the septenary number of days both heavenly\n    and earthly things are ordered, in place of the beginning. I will\n    consider of this seventh day after the principle of all matters\n    pertaining to the number seven.\"\n\nVictorinus, like some other of the fathers, held that the \"true and\njust Sabbath should be observed in the seventh millenary.\" He believed\nthat the Sabbath was abolished by the Saviour. He was in sympathy with\nthe act of the church of Rome in turning the Sabbath into a fast. He\nheld to a two days' weekly fast, as his words necessarily imply. He\nwould have men fast on the sixth day to commemorate Christ's death,\nand on the seventh, lest they should seem to keep the Sabbath with the\nJews, but on the so-called Lord's day they were to go forth to their\nbread with giving of thanks. Thus he reasons:--\n\n    \"On this day [the sixth] also, on account of the passion of the\n    Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God, or a fast. On\n    the seventh day he rested from all his works, and blessed it, and\n    sanctified it. On the former day [the sixth] we are accustomed to\n    fast rigorously, that on the Lord's day we may go forth to our\n    bread with giving of thanks. And let the _parasceve_ [the sixth\n    day] become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe\n    any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ himself, the Lord of the\n    Sabbath, says by his prophet that 'his soul hateth;' which Sabbath\n    he in his body abolished, although, however, he had formerly\n    himself commanded Moses that circumcision should not pass over the\n    eighth day, which day very frequently happens on the Sabbath, as we\n    read written in the gospel. Moses, foreseeing the hardness of that\n    people, on the Sabbath raised up his hands, therefore, and thus\n    fastened himself to a cross. And in the battle they were sought\n    for by the foreigners on the Sabbath day, that they might be taken\n    captive, and, as if by the very strictness of the law, might be\n    fashioned to the avoidance of its teachings.\" Section 4.\n\nThese statements are in general of little consequence, but some of\nthem deserve notice. First, we have one of the grand elements which\ncontributed to the abandonment of the Sabbath of the Lord, viz., hatred\ntoward the Jews for their conduct toward Christ. Those who acted\nthus forgot that Christ himself was the Lord of the Sabbath, and that\nit was his institution and not that of the Jews to which they were\ndoing despite. Secondly, it was the church of Rome that turned the\nSabbath into a fast one hundred years before this, in order to suppress\nits observance, and Victorinus was acting under its instructions.\nThirdly, we have a reference to the so-called Lord's day, as a day of\nthanksgiving, but no connection between it and the Sabbath is indicated\nfor in his time the change of the Sabbath had not been thought of. He\nhas other reasons for neglecting the seventh day which here follow:--\n\n    \"And thus in the sixth psalm for the eighth day, David asks the\n    Lord that he would not rebuke him in his anger, nor judge him\n    in his fury; for this is indeed the eighth day of that future\n    judgment, which will pass beyond the order of the sevenfold\n    arrangement. Jesus also, the son of Nave, the successor of\n    Moses, himself broke the Sabbath day; for on the Sabbath day he\n    commanded the children of Israel to go round the walls of the city\n    of Jericho with trumpets, and declare war against the aliens.\n    Matthias also, prince of Judah, broke the Sabbath; for he slew the\n    prefect of Antiochus the king of Syria on the Sabbath, and subdued\n    the foreigners by pursuing them. And in Matthew we read, that it\n    is written Isaiah also and the rest of his colleagues broke the\n    Sabbath--that that true and just Sabbath should be observed in the\n    seventh millenary of years. Wherefore to those seven days the Lord\n    attributed to each a thousand years; for thus went the warning: 'In\n    mine eyes, 0 Lord, a thousand years are as one day.' Therefore in\n    the eyes of the Lord each thousand of years is ordained, for I find\n    that the Lord's eyes are seven. Wherefore, as I have narrated, that\n    true Sabbath will be in the seventh millenary of years, when Christ\n    with his elect shall reign.\" Section 5.\n\nThis completes the testimony of Victorinus. He evidently held that\nthe Sabbath originated at the sanctification of the seventh day, but\nfor the reasons here given, the most of which are trivial, and all of\nwhich are false, he held that it was abolished by Christ. His argument\nfrom the sixth psalm, and from Isaiah's violation of the Sabbath, is\nsomething extraordinary. He had an excellent opportunity to say that\nthough the seventh-day Sabbath was abolished, yet we have the Christian\nSabbath, or the Lord's day, to take its place. But he shows positively\nthat he knew of no such institution; for he says, \"That true and just\nSabbath\" will be \"in the seventh millenary of years.\"\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF PETER, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA.\n\nThis father wrote about A. D. 306. In his \"Canon 15\" he thus sets forth\nthe celebration of the fourth, the sixth, and the first days of the\nweek:--\n\n    \"No one shall find fault with us for observing the fourth day of\n    the week, and the preparation [the sixth day], on which it is\n    reasonably enjoined us to fast according to the tradition. On the\n    fourth day, indeed, because on it the Jews took counsel for the\n    betrayal of the Lord; and on the sixth, because on it he himself\n    suffered for us. But the Lord's day we celebrate as a day of joy,\n    because on it he rose again, on which day we have received it for a\n    custom not even to bow the knee.\"\n\nOn this Balsamon, an ancient writer whose commentary is appended\nto this canon, remarks that this canon is in harmony with the 64th\napostolical canon, which declares \"that we are not to fast on the\nSabbath, with one exception, the great Sabbath [the one connected with\nthe passover], and to the 69th canon, which severely punishes those\nwho do not fast in the Holy Lent, and on every fourth day of the week\nand day of preparation.\" So it appears that they were commanded by the\ncanons to fast on the fourth and sixth days of the week, and forbidden\nto do this on the Sabbath and first-day.\n\nZonaras, another ancient commentator upon the canons of Peter, gives us\nthe authority upon which these observances rest. No one of these three\ndays is honored by God's commandment. Zonaras mentions the fasts on the\nfourth and sixth days, and says no one will find fault with these. But\nhe deems it proper to mark Peter's reason for the Lord's-day festival,\nand the nature of that festival. Thus he says:--\n\n    \"But on the Lord's day we ought not to fast, for it is a day of\n    joy for the resurrection of the Lord, and on it, says he, we\n    have received that we ought not even to bow the knee. This word,\n    therefore, is to be carefully observed, 'we have received' and 'it\n    is enjoined upon us according to the tradition.' For from hence\n    it is evident that long-established custom was taken for law.\n    Moreover, the great Basil annexes also the causes for which it was\n    forbidden to bend the knee on the Lord's day, and from the passover\n    to Pentecost.\"\n\nThe honors which were conferred upon this so-called Lord's day are\nspecified. They are two in number. 1. It was \"a day of joy,\" and\ntherefore not a day of fasting. 2. On it they \"ought not even to bow\nthe knee.\" This last honor however applied to the entire period of\nfifty days between the passover and the Pentecost as well as to each\nSunday in the year. So that the first honor was the only one which\nbelonged to Sunday exclusively. That honor excluded fasting, but it is\nnever said to exclude labor, or to render it sinful. And the authority\nfor these two first-day honors is frankly given. It is not the words\nof holy Scripture nor the commandment of God, but \"it is enjoined\nupon us according to the tradition. For from hence it is evident that\nlong-established custom was taken for law.\" Such is the testimony of\nmen who knew the facts. In our days men dare not thus acknowledge them,\nand therefore they assert that the fourth commandment has been changed\nby divine authority, and that it is sinful to labor upon the first day\nof the week.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF METHODIUS, BISHOP OF TYRE.\n\nThis father wrote about A. D. 308, and suffered martyrdom in A. D. 312.\nA considerable portion of his writings have come down to our time,\nbut in them all I find not one mention of the first day of the week.\nHe held to the perpetuity of the ten commandments, for he says of the\nbeast with ten horns:--\n\n    \"Moreover, the ten horns and stings which he is said to have upon\n    his heads are the ten opposites, O virgins, to the decalogue, by\n    which he was accustomed to gore and cast down the souls of many,\n    imagining and contriving things in opposition to the law, 'Thou\n    shalt love the Lord thy God,' and to the other precepts which\n    follow.\"--_Banquet of the Ten Virgins_, Discourse viii. chap. xiii.\n\nIn commenting on the feast of tabernacles (Lev. 23:39-43) he says:--\n\n    \"These things being like air and phantom shadows, foretell the\n    resurrection and the putting up of our tabernacle that had fallen\n    upon the earth, which at length, in the seventh thousand of years,\n    resuming again immortal, we shall celebrate the great feast of true\n    tabernacles in the new and indissoluble creation, the fruits of\n    the earth having been gathered in, and men no longer begetting and\n    begotten, but God resting from the works of creation.\" Discourse\n    ix. chap. i.\n\nMethodius understood the six days of creation, and the seventh day\nsanctified by the Creator, to teach that at the end of 6000 years the\ngreat day of joy shall come to the saints of God:--\n\n    \"For since in six days God made the heaven and the earth, and\n    finished the whole world, and rested on the seventh day from all\n    his works which he had made, and blessed the seventh day and\n    sanctified it, so by a figure in the seventh month, when the fruits\n    of the earth have been gathered in, we are commanded to keep the\n    feast to the Lord, which signifies that, when this world shall\n    be terminated at the seventh thousand years, when God shall have\n    completed the world, he shall rejoice in us.\" Discourse ix. chap.\n    i. sect. 4.\n\nIn the fifth chapter of this discourse he speaks of the day of Judgment\nas \"the millennium of rest, which is called the seventh day, even the\ntrue Sabbath.\" He believed that each day of the first seven represented\none thousand years, and so the true Sabbath of the Lord sets forth the\nfinal triumph of the saints in the seventh period of a thousand years.\nAnd in his work \"On Things Created,\" section 9, he refers to this\nrepresentation of one day as a thousand years, and quotes in proof of\nit Ps. 90:2, 4. Then he says:--\n\n    \"For when a thousand years are reckoned as one day in the sight of\n    God, and from the creation of the world to his rest is six days, so\n    also to our time, six days are defined, as those say who are clever\n    arithmeticians. Therefore, they say that an age of six thousand\n    years extends from Adam to our time. For they say that the Judgment\n    will come on the seventh day, that is, in the seventh thousand\n    years.\"\n\nThe only weekly Sabbath known to Methodius was the ancient seventh\nday sanctified by God in Eden. He does not intimate that this\ndivine institution has been abolished; and what he says of the ten\ncommandments implies the reverse of that, and he certainly makes no\nallusion to the festival of Sunday, which on the authority of \"custom\"\nand \"tradition\" had been by so many elevated above the Sabbath of the\nLord.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF LACTANTIUS.\n\nLactantius was born in the latter half of the third century, was\nconverted about A. D. 315, and died at Treves about A. D. 325. He\nwas very eminent as a teacher of rhetoric, and was intrusted with\nthe education of Crispus, the son of Constantine. The writings of\nLactantius are quite extensive; they contain, however, no reference to\nthe first day of the week. Of the Sabbath he speaks twice. In the first\ninstance he says that one reason alleged by the Jews for rejecting\nChrist was,\n\n    \"That he destroyed the obligation of the law given by Moses; that\n    is, that he did not rest on the Sabbath, but labored for the good\n    of men,\" etc.--_Divine Institutes_, b. iv. chap. xvii.\n\nIt is not clear whether Lactantius believed that Christ violated the\nSabbath, nor whether he did away with the moral law while teaching\nthe abrogation of the ceremonial code. But he bears a most decisive\ntestimony to the origin of the Sabbath at creation:--\n\n    \"God completed the world and this admirable work of nature in\n    the space of six days (as is contained in the secrets of holy\n    Scripture), and CONSECRATED the seventh day, on which he had rested\n    from his works. But this is the Sabbath day, which in the language\n    of the Hebrews received its name from the number, whence the\n    seventh is the legitimate and complete number.\" Book vii. chap. xiv.\n\nIt is certain that Lactantius did not regard the Sabbath as the\nmemorial of the flight out of Egypt, but as that of the creation of the\nheavens and the earth. He also believed that the seven days prefigured\nthe seven thousand years of our earth's history:--\n\n    \"Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days,\n    the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that\n    is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a\n    circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, 'In thy\n    sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day.' And as God labored\n    during those six days in creating such great works, so his religion\n    and truth must labor during these six thousand years, while\n    wickedness prevails and bears rule. And again, since God, having\n    finished his works, rested the seventh day and blessed it, at the\n    end of the six thousandth year all wickedness must be abolished\n    from the earth, and righteousness reign for a thousand years and\n    there must be tranquility and rest from the labors which the world\n    now has long endured.\" Book vii. chap. xiv.\n\nThus much for Lactantius. He could not have believed in first-day\nsacredness, and there is no clear evidence that he held to the\nabrogation of the Sabbath. Finally we come to a poem on Genesis by an\nunknown author, but variously attributed to Cyprian, to Victorinus, to\nTertullian, and to later writers.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE POEM ON GENESIS.\n\n  \"The seventh came, when God\n  At his works' end did rest, DECREEING IT\n  SACRED UNTO THE COMING AGES' JOYS.\"\n\n                              Lines 51-53.\n\nHere again we have an explicit testimony to the divine appointment of\nthe seventh day to a holy use while man was yet in Eden, the garden of\nGod. And this completes the testimony of the fathers to the time of\nConstantine and the Council of Nice.\n\nOne thing is everywhere open to the reader's eye as he passes through\nthese testimonies from the fathers: they lived in what may with\npropriety be called the age of apostatizing. The apostasy was not\ncomplete, but it was steadily developing itself. Some of the fathers\nhad the Sabbath in the dust, and honored as their weekly festival the\nday of the sun, though claiming for it no divine authority. Others\nrecognize the Sabbath as a divine institution which should be honored\nby all mankind in memory of the creation, and yet at the same time\nthey exalt above it the festival of Sunday, which they acknowledge\nhad nothing but custom and tradition for its support. The end may be\nforeseen: in due time the Sunday festival obtained the whole ground for\nitself, and the Sabbath was driven out. Several things conspired to\naccomplish this result:--\n\n1. The Jews, who retained the ancient Sabbath, had slain Christ. It was\neasy for men to forget that Christ as Lord of the Sabbath had claimed\nit as his institution, and to call the Sabbath a Jewish institution\nwhich Christians should not regard.\n\n2. The church of Rome as the chief in the work of apostasy took the\nlead in the earliest effort to suppress the Sabbath by turning it into\na fast.\n\n3. In the Christian church almost from the beginning men voluntarily\nhonored the fourth, the sixth, and the first days of the week to\ncommemorate the betrayal, the death, and the resurrection of Christ,\nacts of respect in themselves innocent enough.\n\n4. But the first day of the week corresponded to the widely observed\nheathen festival of the sun, and it was therefore easy to unite\nthe honor of Christ with the convenience and worldly advantage of\nhis people, and to justify the neglect of the ancient Sabbath by\nstigmatizing it as a Jewish institution with which Christians should\nhave no concern.\n\nThe _progressive_ character of the work of apostasy with respect to the\nSabbath is incidentally illustrated by what Giesler, the distinguished\nhistorian of the church, says of the Sabbath and first-day in his\nrecord of the first, the second, and the third century. Of the first\ncentury he says:--\n\n    \"Whilst the Christians of Palestine, who kept the whole Jewish law,\n    celebrated of course all the Jewish festivals, the heathen converts\n    observed only the Sabbath, and, in remembrance of the closing\n    scenes of our Saviour's life, the passover (1 Cor. 5:6-8), though\n    without the Jewish superstitions, Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:16. Besides\n    these the Sunday as the day of our Saviour's resurrection (Acts\n    20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10), #h\u00ea kyriak\u00ea h\u00eamera#, was\n    devoted to religious worship.\"--_Giesler's Ecclesiastical History_,\n    vol. i. sect. 29, edition 1836.\n\nSunday having obtained a foothold, see how the case stands in the\nsecond century. Here are the words of Giesler again:--\n\n    \"Both Sunday and the Sabbath were observed as festivals; the\n    latter however without the Jewish superstitions therewith\n    connected.\"--_Id._ vol. i. sect. 52.\n\nThis time, as Giesler presents the case, Sunday has begun to get the\nprecedence. But when he gives the events of the third century he drops\nthe Sabbath from his record and gives the whole ground to the Sunday\nand the yearly festivals of the church. Thus he says:--\n\n    \"In Origen's time the Christians had no general festivals,\n    excepting the Sunday, the Parasceve (or preparation), the passover,\n    and the feast of Pentecost. Soon after, however, the Christians in\n    Egypt began to observe the festival of the Epiphany, on the sixth\n    of January.\"--_Id._ vol. i. sect. 70.\n\nThese three statements of Giesler, relating as they do to the first,\nsecond, and third centuries, are peculiarly calculated to mark the\nprogress of the work of apostasy. Coleman tersely states this work in\nthese words:--\n\n    \"The observance of the Lord's day was ordered while the Sabbath\n    of the Jews was continued; nor was the latter superseded until\n    the former had acquired the same solemnity and importance, which\n    belonged, at first, to that great day which God originally\n    ordained and blessed.... But in time, after the Lord's day\n    was fully established, the observance of the Sabbath of the\n    Jews was gradually discontinued, and was finally denounced as\n    heretical.\"--_Ancient Christianity Exemplified_, chap. xxvi. sect.\n    2.\n\nWe have traced the work of apostasy in the church of Christ, and have\nnoted the combination of circumstances which contributed to suppress\nthe Sabbath, and to elevate the first day of the week. And now we\nconclude this series of testimonies out of the fathers by stating the\nwell-known but remarkable fact, that at the very point to which we\nare brought by these testimonies, the emperor Constantine while yet,\naccording to Mosheim, a heathen, put forth the following edict, A. D.\n321, concerning the ancient Sunday festival:--\n\n    \"Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all\n    trades, rest on the venerable day of the sun: but let those who are\n    situated in the country, freely and at full liberty, attend to the\n    business of agriculture; because it often happens that no other day\n    is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines; lest, the critical\n    moment being let slip, men should lose the commodities granted by\n    Heaven.\"\n\nBy the act of a wicked man the heathen festival of Sunday has now\nascended the throne of the Roman Empire. We cannot here follow its\nhistory through the long ages of papal darkness and apostasy. But as we\nclose, we cite the words of Mosheim respecting this law as a positive\nproof that up to this time, as shown from the fathers, Sunday had been\na day of ordinary labor when men were not engaged in worship. He says\nof it:--\n\n    \"The first day of the week, which was the ordinary and stated time\n    for the public assemblies of the Christians, _was, in consequence\n    of a peculiar law enacted by Constantine, observed with greater\n    solemnity than it had formerly been_.\"--Mosheim, century 4, part\n    ii. chap. iv. sect. 5.\n\nThis law restrained merchants and mechanics, but did not hinder the\nfarmer in his work. Yet it caused the day to be observed with greater\nsolemnity than formerly it had been. These words are spoken with\nreference to Christians, and prove that in Mosheim's judgment, as a\nhistorian, Sunday was a day on which ordinary labor was customary and\nlawful with them prior to A. D. 321, as the record of the fathers\nindicates, and as many historians testify.\n\nBut even after this the Sabbath once more rallied, and became strong\neven in the so-called Catholic church, until the Council of Laodicea A.\nD. 364 prohibited its observance under a grievous curse. Thenceforward\nits history is principally to be traced in the records of those bodies\nwhich the Catholic church has anathematized as heretics.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[A] Those who compose this class are unanimous in the view that the\nSunday festival was established by the church; and they all agree in\nmaking it their day of worship, but not for the same reason; for, while\none part of them devoutly accept the institution as the Lord's day\non the authority of the church, the other part make it their day for\nworship simply because it is the most convenient day.\n\n[B] Such is the exact nature of the covenant mentioned in Ex. 24:8;\nand Paul, in Heb. 9:18-20, quotes this passage, calling the covenant\ntherein mentioned \"the first testament,\" or covenant.\n\n[C] The case of Origen is a partial exception. Not all his works\nhave been accessible to the writer, but sufficient of them have been\nexamined to lay before the reader a just representation of his doctrine.\n\n[D] We notice that one first-day writer is so determined that Clement\nshall testify in behalf of Sunday, that he deliberately changes his\nwords. Instead of giving his words as they are, thus: \"the _latter_,\nproperly the Sabbath,\" in which case, as the connection shows, Saturday\nis the day intended, he gives them thus: \"The _eighth_, properly\nthe Sabbath,\" thereby making him call Sunday the Sabbath. This is a\nremarkable fraud, but it shows that the words as written by Clement\ncould not be made to uphold Sunday. See \"The Lord's Day,\" by Rev. G. H.\nJenks, p. 50.\n\n\n\n\nTRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:\n\n  Text in italics is surrounded by underscores: _italics_.\n\n  Greek transliterations are surrounded by pound signs: #hebdomas#.\n\n  Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.","title":"The Complete Testimony of the Fathers of the First Three Centuries Concerning the Sabbath and First Day","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":34071}